Elanapoeia t1_j6eh9go wrote

Right wing politics is more about enforcing social hierarchies and capitalism, which teeechnically conservatism doesn't have to be about. Of course modern western conservatism is largely regressive which directly means it's trying to re-enforce older harmful social hierarchies. Hence why stuff like liberalism still ends up on a right-wing spectrum, as it's a big defender of capitalism and social hierarchy in practice, even if liberals often think of themselfes as being socially progressive in theory.

Abrahamic religions of course are largely inherently right wing in execution. It's hard to find any western religion that doesn't believe in and preaches the value of social hierarchies and worships some form of capitalism.

Right wing politics and conservatism are more homeostatic rather than intrinsically the same, so to say.

Just additional info on exact definitions, not disagreeing with you.


Elanapoeia t1_j5u97tx wrote

finally. The conduct Musk has explicitly condoned on twitter has always seemed like it breaks several hatespeech laws we have over here

the dude purposefully unbanned SEVERAL out and about prominent nazis and white supremacists and frequently interacts with anti-semites

no wonder he's not removing any of it, and not just cause he basically removed 100% of the moderation team, the dude WANTS that stuff to be on twitter and his new "for you" page has been promoting a suspicious amount of hate speech (not jsut anti-semitic) by rather prominent right wing talking heads


Elanapoeia t1_j4tysk6 wrote

Man, people are really bending themselves over backwards to find reasons to say being anti-discrimination based on sexuality or disability is bad

"Wow so you're now you have to let blind people drive busses?!"
"Wow so pedophilia and bestiality is legal now?!"

Everyone here, including yourselves, knows you're being dishonest. You're just virtue-signalling to bigots that you hate gay and disabled people and everyone can tell.


Elanapoeia t1_j4cmh6c wrote

We have identified a rule that benefits women a bit more than men (kind of but not really) so in the name of equality we won't allow men a dresscode as free as that of women, but instead take away the right of women to have a more lax dresscode. I will also propose this rule while very clearly not actually believing in it, since I am currently making (and in the past consistently have made) use of the lax dresscode. Really, I just wanna own the libs™ so I am willing to take my own rights away.


Elanapoeia t1_iycvjnv wrote

Gay people have long been a target for being otherized and blamed for societies ills (also black people and jews...anyone non white and non-cishet, really). For a while, homosexuality was on a pretty good upwards trend in social acceptance and most open forms of hatred thrown towards them was viewed as very negatively in the westernmainstream, and even anti-gay hategroups tried to keep a low profile and not be too public about their homophobia.

Because of that, Trans people became the new target for the socially conservative, being talked about in the exact same manner gay people used to be talked about. Society wasn't ready for any form of larger trans acceptance and false narratives demonizing trans people took very strong hold in american society recently. The hatred of trans people allowed the same groups who always hated gay people, but now pretended to only be against trans people, to sublty expand their open hatespeech towards gay people again as the LGBTQ label includes both homosexuality and transness. Suddenly, being anything sexually or gender non-normative is receiving strong vocal demonization in the mainstream again, leading to increased hatred and eventually....action. And as we see with the person talked about in the OP, this demonization can affect even gay people themselves, as these narratives can lead to intense self-hatred. And if you're also generally mentally unwell and on drugs already, that's a bad combination.

Ultimately, the reason for LGBTQ hatred is just the fact that there needs to be an outgroup that can be blamed for whatever fits a narrative, so that the general masses can be distracted from actual issues. If your audience is too occupied hating LGBTQ people, they're too distracted to notice that you are actually a fraud and won't rise up against you etc etc. This applies to politicians as much as it does to social commentators who make money off of selling narratives. Trans people acted as a very potent outgroup to rally people up against, and with the success against trans people, now we are seeing attempts to expand the outgroup so it includes gays and lesbians as well, because if your audience is already convinced that one group part of a progressive movement/label like LGBTQ is fundamentally bad, it's easy to expand that impression towards any group within the movement/label.


Elanapoeia t1_iwbc0al wrote

Honestly not surprised seeing people be so anti-snopes in here. For being a science sub, a large part of the userbase really seem to be very politically motivated to only believe science that confirm their right wing beliefs and are frequently upset with topics that go against primarily conservative ideas.

You see this a lot whenever research confirms progressive ideas, not just in social sciences but more "hard" sciences as well, the userbase bends itself backwards to nitpick the most innane things to try and discredit the research. The way people are discussing snopes in like half the comments here feels like an encapsulation of that.