this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
1745 points (98.4% liked)
Fediverse
32697 readers
429 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
serious question but how do/could you formalize your rejection of right-wingers? what is it exactly that you take issue with?
i'm asking because i talk to a lot of people (also some who identify as "right-wingers") and i'd like to know what exactly are the issues that bother people, so i can forward it to them. it would help me bring up better arguments if i know what other people are thinking.
so, i've collected the following list of things to take issue with so far:
tell me if i forgot something.
The basic problem is thinking that conquering somebody is natural, inevitable, or good.
oh yes i forgot about canada and greenland somehow, sorry
actually i meant in general, like apart from the current situation with trump.
I mean
It's been happening for the 99.9% of human existence
We also didn't have modern medicine for 99.9% of human existence. Want to return to that?
Who said that?
Basic history told me that?
Here, check under modern - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine
Okay, you are being purposely obtuse, thanks for clarifying
proof?
i'm asking because i suspect that might be a fallacy; i remember reading somewhere that 10k years ago the first wars happened, before then war practically didn't exist because war requires a minimum amount of organization and that just wasn't there before.
There was organized violence deployed by groups of humans against other groups of humans long, long before anything we would recognize as warfare. Particularly brutal violence too, because the objective was not to conquer other people (something which only makes sense once agriculture is the dominant mode of sustinence), but to either drive off or exterminate a rival group so you can use their territory for yourself.
And we don't even need to talk about people here: we have records of chimpanzees fighting small scale wars of harassment and extermination against neighboring groups.
Pre-modern, pre-civilization, pre-aggriculture, pre-you-name-it human life was far more violent than what we deal with today.
We aren't chimpanzees. As persistence hunters, our kinds of territorial disputes would have been very different and early humans were likely very nomadic rather than settling into territories that fight. In times of scarcity we'd just move on to different lands.
Which, notably, is why humans spread over the entire planet. We aren't really built to be fighters.
Nomadic people don't just wander around aimlessly, and there are big differences in how desirable different territory is for nomadic hunter-gatherer humans. The principle is the same as with nomadic pastoralists: your group has a territory which can sustain them when hunted on/gathered from/grazed/etc over the course of the year, and your group will wander within that space in a deliberate pattern. If some other group decides to "just move on to" your group's territory, hunting the animals and foraging the plants that your group knows they are going to need to survive the year, that's an existential threat to you. And you can't "just move on" yourself without wandering into the territory of yet more groups whose territory borders yours, and who will react violently to your presence for the same reasons.
Given the choice between fleeing to who knows where and fighting who knows who for the privilege of moving, or staying right where you are and fighting for the land you know your group can survive on, you stay and fight.
Humans spread out across the earth as the losers of these conflicts (those who survived, anyway) fled until they stumbled on new-to-humans territory, often displacing or eradicating groups of more "primitive" hominids they found there. This process continues until just about everywhere which humans can reach and which can support human life has humans in it. But expanding populations, the occasional natural disaster, and normal human frustration that their territory sucks while their neighbors have it great (which was often true; again, not all land is the same to a nomadic hunter/gatherer) meant that these conflicts were constantly reignited.
No one is saying we are chimps, but we share lots of mammalian behavior
For example, did you know chimpanzees engage on guerrilla wars, torture and , weirdly enough, prisoner exchanges?
But that's besides the point, I think they were just pointing out how standardized is that behavior in the animal kingdom, not excusing it
But it's not "standardized" behavior, that's just the behavior of a single animal.
We have more in common with other migratory herd animals because we move so much. Elephants, for example.
i remember reading somewhere we're closer to bonobos than chimpanzees (behavior-wise); we're the nice apes
Literally this
Doesn't make it right. This is a civilized age and we must forever push for progress.
No one said it was
Fair enough
You can't say fairer than that, oh drat!
Same with smallpox.
And we're capable of better now.
In America, right wingers support the republicans who have a verified track record of taking rights away, cheating elections and straight up lying. By refusing the see any other point of view, they reject open mindedness. They are unyielding in their beliefs and that is dangerous. It's whats led to the current affairs of the USA. Theyve been swindled for years. The thing I hate most of all is there core principle is hate. They hate minorities, immigrants, foreigners and gays. They always have some justification for it. "Gays are cross dressing and confusing my children. Gays are indecent. Minorities are abusing social programs. Jewish people are running criminal cabals. (Etc. etc.)
You'll have the "oh well I don't support THAT part of my political party but shrug nothing we can do 🙂" publicans but don't do anything or even CRITICIZE it. And those that try to refute these points either outright deny that its true or use whataboutism.
I will end this by saying I have right winger friends who are radicalizing away from me and I'm trying my hardest to show them that core beliefs of comraderie and compassion is far superior to the kool aid they're being forced fed by all major social media companies.
actually let me think about it again:
IMO that somebody's always hateful is typically a sign of enormous psychological/emotional stress. so that tells me these people have a lot of problems, and probably don't know how to deal with the world. i wonder what education would do to them.
The thing is, hate has varying degrees. There is: slight disregard up to boiling rage. But the root is the same. They hate those that are different and the higher ups need a Boogeyman to point their capitalistism caused depression to.
The main thing is the bigotry and making marginalized people feel unwelcome and unsafe. Having trans people and Nazis existing in the same space isn't really tenable, in practice, most marginalized people would rather be in a space where their existence and basic rights aren't up for debate and where they won't receive slurs and threats of violence. So the question is, who would you rather have in your community, oppressor or oppressed?
Of course, this person applies this standard blindly by including "tankies" as "right-wingers." She's just abusing a valid argument by using it to dismiss any perspective she doesn't like, left or right, bigoted or accepting, bad faith or good faith, as "right-wing."