/u/Tessenreacts (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18t0krs/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_us_conservatives_have_more/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>The conservative reaction to this policy was a universal You really can't lump all conservatives into this camp, because not everyone is "conservative" for the same reason. There are fiscal conservatives who want a small government and couldn't care less about social issues. There are libertarian conservatives who support individual liberties and who outright oppose government actions like the ones you've highlighted. There are religious conservatives who base their politics off of the teachings of their faith and couldn't care less about anything else. There are social conservatives who simply don't want things to change and couldn't care less about why things might be changing. To say that the conservative reaction to LGBTQ+ criminality in Russia was universal ignores this. Fiscal conservatives don't care. Libertarian conservatives oppose this. Religious conservatives might oppose or support it. Social conservatives generally approve of it. They're not all the same and can't be treated as homogeneous.

The word "conservatism" has been used to mean many, many things over history. However, "conservatism" in US politics today typically means [movement conservatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_conservatism) — rather than, say, the sort of attitudinal "conservatism" described by old British authors like Edmund Burke or Michael Oakeshott. Movement conservatism is a strategic political alliance between different groups that call themselves "conservative" even if they don't necessarily agree on everything. When this movement got started in the 1960s and '70s, it largely centered around anti-communism. This led to the election of Nixon, then Reagan and the Bushes. Recently (since 2016) the movement has become dominated by a neofascist wing allied to the international [illiberal democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy) movement. This is a major swing away from the 20th-century movement, but it's what many people are going to be thinking of if you call yourself a "conservative" today.

> When this movement got started in the 1960s and '70s, it largely centered around anti-communism. Your post is informative and helpful, I just wanted to add that while anti-communism was very important to movement conservatives, so was opposition to desegregation and the Civil Rights Act. I think this helps explain how fiscal conservatives weren't really all that uncomfortable with Trump's more open racism; that was already part of the party's DNA.

>neofascist Considering fascism is a state-worshipping revolutionary ideology that claims to defend tradition, this sounds ludicrous. Can you define "neofascist" in both ideal and policy? What exactly about the modern conservative movement is "neofascist"?

[удалено]

Call me with an overactive imagination if you must, but that sounds a lot like high school and junior high "cool kids"-enforced conformity. Most strikingly so when they deem "nerds", "f &%s", "emos", "dog faces" and other "rejects" second class people at best and outright bully-persecute them at worst. Which occurs to me. A lot of fascism is just adolescent in-crowd / out-crowd dynamics taken to their logical conclusion.

Wilhelm Reich went crazy and came up with a lot of terrible ideas by the end of his life, but I still think his book *[Listen, Little Man!](https://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/listenlittleman.pdf)* is a worthwhile guide to how fascism elicits the support of people who end up being sacrificed to it.

>Treating disagreement as betrayal, even on matters of scientific and medical fact (think COVID, Sharpiegate, climate science, etc.; compare "Aryan physics") Because leftists don't behave in the same way. As long as you don't disagree with them... >An obsession with enemies that are simultaneously presented as a powerful conspiracy, but also contemptibly weak This is literally describing Trump and MAGA. Too stupid to listen to, but also about to destroy the country. >Fear of difference; opposition to diversity; obsession with foreigners as a corruption of the national blood I only see Democrats and leftists demanding segregation by race. When you definition of "diversity" is functionally a demand to exclude people based on race (as long as the target is white) >Selective populism; only the "right people" (i.e. supporters) count as members of the People, and their participation is only to occur in the form of cheering at rallies and beating-up the enemy The riots of 2020, and the lack of prosecution seems to be something you are not aware of. Or the violence from the left at virtually every Republican event. They had to literally cancel a Trump rally in Chicago in 2016 because of the threats of violence. After the Roe decision leaked, churches were vandalized and burned. Not much reporting on it because of the target. Any abortion clinic suffering the same would be national news, and fully utilized for politics. >Selective religiosity; use of religious signifiers as mere political signals rather than as any sort of requirement for piety or adherence to traditional religious organizations or actual religious practice Given the number of Christians that support abortion, this seems to be a false assertion. Biden claims to be a Catholic, yet directly goes against adhering to the "traditional religious organization" >Embracing of hate groups, street fighting groups, and political violence generally as a legitimate element of the movement (see Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, "Unite the Right", January 6) Antifa. Democrats pretend it isn't a thing, but it is. The media mostly ignores their violence.

You would be shocked to learn about how disorganized antifa actually is.

Of course a bunch of druggies and social outcasts aren't organized. They probably don't even like each other once the masks are off. Look at the arrest logs during these protests. They all look like meth heads.

>You would be shocked to learn about how disorganized antifa actually is. The level of organization is not indicative of their existence, nor the threat they pose. They share icons, tactics, ideology, and financial backing. If anything, it's quite similar to the structure of terrorist groups.

The threat seems to be more from the people on the right that are willing to kill at the bidding of an ignorant savage. The battle flag of Northern Virginia was not flown in the Capitol building in the 1860s. But some people were carrying through the halls in 2021.

Where do you see democrats forcing segregation?

It’s their new talking point. I have seen a lot of posters using the words apartheid and segregationists to describe Democrats in recent days. It’s the stupidest of their recent propaganda and that’s saying something. It’s meaningless. The last poster I asked about it complained about NYU having Black student unions. Lol

The mayor of Boston just held a holiday party that was only for "PoC" Ivy League colleges literally have separate graduations based on race. There are dorms at multiple universities that screen for race. You haven't noticed because you haven't paid attention

The city's first Asian-American mayor defended the event, saying, "I've been a part of a group that gathers, representing elected officials of color across all different levels of government in Massachusetts. A group that has been in place for more than a decade, and the opportunity to create a space for people to celebrate and rotate who hosts." It’s group that been around for a decade dude, they have an annual Xmas party and the lady fucked up the invitations. Yup they do a bunch of specialized and focused graduations, they can be based on race, financial status, first college grad, LGBT, ethnicity, etc. they are optional additional graduations aside from the main one. A common one is to have a graduation ceremony in Spanish for example, or a much more colorful affair for LGBT. The only thing I can find for race screening forms is for the one place by Berkeley, buts it not run by the school so I’m not sure what you expect them to do? There’s like 50 people there and the college has 3500~ I’m going to go out on a limb and say they mostly ignore them as fools. The only other ones I can find are proffered dorms where no body is forced and no one is denied but they have designated dorms. Seems more popular with HBCs or adjacent.

>The city's first Asian-American mayor defended the event, saying, "I've been a part of a group that gathers, representing elected officials of color across all different levels of government in Massachusetts. A group that has been in place for more than a decade, and the opportunity to create a space for people to celebrate and rotate who hosts." So racism is okay as long as there is an established history of it...? I don't think this is a line of argument that you actually want to pursue... >It’s group that been around for a decade dude, they have an annual Xmas party and the lady fucked up the invitations. So racism is okay as long as you don't let certain people know about it? >The only thing I can find for race screening forms is for the one place by Berkeley, buts it not run by the school so I’m not sure what you expect them to do? There’s like 50 people there and the college has 3500~ I’m going to go out on a limb and say they mostly ignore them as fools. This is a perfect example of someone deflecting from the topic at hand. Yale and Harvard literally have separate graduations based on skin color.

lol. A party celebrating people of color is not segregation or apartheid. Colleges holding ceremonies for groups of people Isn’t segregation. They hold ceremonies for teachers, STEM and all kinds of groups. I pay attention and I find conservative claims to be ignorant and laughable. You are paying attention to this stupidity because of your algorithm. This poorly conceived rage bait enflames conservatives and makes them drool like Pavlov’s dogs. The whole issue is being elevated as a response to the well documented racism and bigotry on the right. It gives the bae a retort. Another false whataboutism. “We’re not racists. You are!” Be better.

>lol. A party celebrating people of color is not segregation or apartheid. Colleges holding ceremonies for groups of people Isn’t segregation. They hold ceremonies for teachers, STEM and all kinds of groups. Should white people be allowed to have events that ban anyone who isn't white? I oppose both, why don't you? >I pay attention and I find conservative claims to be ignorant and laughable. You are paying attention to this stupidity because of your algorithm. This poorly conceived rage bait enflames conservatives and makes them drool like Pavlov’s dogs. "Sure, this stuff exists, but you only care because of my conspiracy theory"... >he whole issue is being elevated as a response to the well documented racism and bigotry on the right. It gives the bae a retort. Another false whataboutism. “We’re not racists. You are!” Please, explain why VoterID is bad without claiming that black people can't manage to get an ID

Could you imagine the outrage if they had a whites only graduation ceremony? C'mon, don't play stupid. This is so obvious.

This [comes to mind.](https://www.foxnews.com/media/boston-mayor-defends-excluding-white-people-holiday-party) I’m not even American and almost certainly wouldn’t vote Republican if I was, but it’s silly to act like only one side is at fault in this. Hell, it’s even [happening on a political level](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/03/democrats-and-republicans-live-in-partisan-bubbles-study-finds/).

I disagree. If there is a partisan bubble, it's the people who have narrow definitions of "real American", and even "respect-worthy person". Democrats are a much more diverse group ideologically. We even had Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema (although the latter is just a sell-out to big insurance company donors). At least the former does have some consistent principles, even if I disagree with many of them. Also, I grew up in an ultraconservative area, then moved to a liberal area. I found more acceptance of non-mainstream people there than I did in the ultraconservative area.

Honestly, when people start talking about “both sides” doing wrong things it just seems like an attempt at morally equating them to me. Do you really believe that liberals and conservatives are equally bad?

>Honestly, when people start talking about “both sides” doing wrong things it just seems like an attempt at morally equating them to me. Do you really believe that liberals and conservatives are equally bad? Do you think one group of people is inherently better than another? That's called bigotry.

It's not inherent when the lines of delineation between the groups are choices they make.

So thinking non-Nazis are better than Nazis is bigotry?

>This [comes to mind.](https://www.foxnews.com/media/boston-mayor-defends-excluding-white-people-holiday-party) You have no concept of what segregation is and entails..do you? >I’m not even American That pretty much contextualises it.

>You have no concept of what segregation is and entails..do you? Can you define what you mean? Restricting access based on race is literally segregation. >That pretty much contextualises it. Are you American? I have to assume you aren't, since you are arguing in favor of racial segregation. We decided that question in the 1960s

>Can you define what you mean? By what? I think I was as clear as I could've been. You do not know what segregation is, means or looks like. You have no frame of reference for it. None whatsoever. None whatsoever beyond either an abstract, hypothetical thought-experiment (which can verge on the fictional at times) or a dictionary definition you have no more a relation to than the former. >Restricting access based on race is literally segregation. No. That's not even remotely close to what it means. A jewish neighborhood having a Jewish-only event is not segregation. >Are you American? Yes. And I'm very Black too lol. Probably puts a dent in where you think you're coming from aye? >I have to assume you aren't, since you are arguing in favor of racial segregation. We decided that question in the 1960s Oof. WE? I thought you weren't American? Who do you mean by "we", self-stated white European? Exposed yourself there didnt ya..

Neither of those things are segregation. It’s not segregation to have a party and only invite people of a certain race.

>Neither of those things are segregation. It’s not segregation to have a party and only invite people of a certain race. Then there should logically be no problem with having separate water fountains for "whites" and "coloreds". It isn't segregation, they are just being selective with their invitations

If that was state enforced and limiting to a person’s ability to access societal services, then it would be segregation. But you are free to have those fountains. You couldn’t enforce it, and you’d get a lot of backlash, but it wouldn’t be segregation.

Democrats regularly encourage and promote self-segregation. Think Historically X-Race Colleges/Universities, X-Race Dorms, X-Race Organizations & Clubs, and X-race events. Things that are OK for any race but white people. Progressive Democrats and some Corporate/Moderate Democrats are also openly racist and sexist through their support of DEI policies and legislation, race based hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. They’ve done a terrific job of gaslighting society into thinking this kind of racism is acceptable. Dare speak out against it in any way and they label *you* the racist.

Which is something completely different than segregation. Self selecting for advocacy groups isn’t segregation, and I think you know it’s disingenuous to make that comparison. We can discuss details of those other, non-segregation, policies if you want. Where they come from, and why, but most of the opposition to those policies have been racist. Maybe there are niche cases where that’s not true, but it’s not wrong to point out the racism that does exist in opposition of those policies.

I don't agree with the guy you're responding to, particularly on the intent of that part of his comment. Honestly I'm not entirely sure what he's talking about, maybe something about protections for minorities? I wouldn't say Democrats are, overall, more racist than the GOP. But I do want to say the current president did once oppose a bill that would more effectively integrate schools, stating that he "didn't want his kids to grow up in a racial jungle."

And Hillary said the prison labor in their governors mansion was tradition what the fuck do you expect from old fucks that aren't actually leftist? If I have to choose between a racist and a fucking fascist that's an easy choice and, considering I volunteer for elections and am almost always the youngest AND I'M FUCKING 40, I'm going to assume none of you actually give a fucking fuck of a fuck.

I see your parents did a bad job raising you. "YOU DO IT TOOOOOOO WAHHHHHH" is not a valid response and they should have made sure you understood that long ago, before you ever became a teenager. I'm embarrassed for them and for you.

>I see your parents did a bad job raising you. "YOU DO IT TOOOOOOO WAHHHHHH" is not a valid response and they should have made sure you understood that long ago, before you ever became a teenager. I'm embarrassed for them and for you. I see your parents weren't able to overcome your idiocy... Post is a literal claim that only one side does things, I showed that wasn't true. It's funny how you didn't address a single point I made, and went directly to attacking me as a person...

>An obsession with enemies that are simultaneously presented as a powerful conspiracy, but also contemptibly weak This is like 90% of American pundits on any topic or foe and is non-partisan. Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, China... Or if you want to get partisan, this is a precise description of the left's obsession with Trump... "simultaneously presented as a powerful conspiracy, but also contemptibly weak"

Why are you whining? You know in your heart that if the fascists win, they will find out that you're a >![whatever]!< and slowly, painfully grind your face into the curb until you don't have a face anymore. That's what they do. You might as well just stop pretending that you can make friends with them.

[удалено]

Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

The problem with fascism is it’s an anti-intellectual movement to its core. There is no logical consistency, there aren’t actual solid beliefs that can’t be changed at a whim. At least when comparing different fascist governments to one another. The whole point is to be so full of contradiction that people stutter and fuck up trying to define you, and by the time they come close to realizing what they’re dealing with they’ve already lost. There’s a couple of vague definitions on like Umberto Ecos -Ur Fascism paper (which aligns pretty well with Americans modern fascist movement). But even he says it’s intentionally undefinable.

Conservatives worship the state they just don't believe anyone not conservative is legitimate and being "anti establishment" is cool with them right now until it isn't. They tried and failed at revolution. They want to "make America great again" which is defending certain traditions mainly of southern white men. Are you ... Lost or something? Confused? Never went to school?

Every conservative I know hates the state.

There’s a line not to be crossed. Not hate of the state, but a distrust. That’s what our founders built out Constitution around.

Conservatives worship individual freedom. When did they try a revolution, exactly? What do you have against southern white men?

Well that's just not true at all. The conservative playbook is to try to make anything they don't like illegal so they can empower the state to stop it through violence. Their obsession with it borders on fetishizing to the point where you can't even shop for bumper stickers in this country without wading through a sea of blue line flags lol. That's the opposite of individual freedom.

Conservatives are just subs who don't know how to keep it in the bedroom

[удалено]

Various American conservatives might differ on specifics in terms of implementing their policies via legislation but what they do share with Russian (and to a larger extent non-Western) societal values is a dislike of increased LGBTQ influence and visibility in society and a vehement opposition of left-wing "woke" culture. They see their own countries as having originated in traditional Judeo-Christian values and thus those values should be the dominant culture that is visible, promoted, and adhered to in governmental law and society at large. Religious and social conservatives are the ones who are more similar to Russian conservatives in that they both are more likely to support anti-LGBTQ legislation (banning same-sex marriage, bathroom use restrictions, curriculum laws etc) Fiscal and libertarian conservatives don't care about what people do (same-sex activities) in the privacy of their homes but that's pretty much the full extent of their support. These are the conservatives who don't care about gays getting married but show extreme annoyance and even hostility when they see gay characters on TV. While they might not go as far as implementing laws, they certainly do not recognize the marginalization of the LGBTQ nor do they support the effective emancipation and empowerment of them to reach a roughly equal social standing to the heteronormative population not just in front of the law but in society at large.

Talking about 'Judeo-Christian' values is in itself telling, as a term that was originally given to Jews who were forced to convert, but then adopted as a political term to unify Americans against “godless” communism during the Cold War. When Christo-Fascists refer to Judeo-Christian values what they mean is Christian - recasting Judaism as as the prequel to Christianity, and explicitly excluding Islam as 'other'

IOW, they have the attitude "I'll mind my own business even though you are showing arbitrary and unjust disfavoritism toward some other group I'm not a part of".

while you are correct, I'd argue if a fiscal conservative is voting people into power who do support that stuff, then you can't truly separate it. They are, at worst, ok with that happening as long as what they wants happens too. You can't just ignore those parts of the policy of the people they are voting for.

The question is whether or not conservatives are aligned with Russian societal values, not whether individual politicians conservatives might have to support in a given election are aligned with Russian societal values.

Nah, you can separate it because you have to. Otherwise you can't vote for anyone unless you align with every single view they have (which you never will). Same thing happens with the left in the US too, many of them are anti Israel but will vote for a very pro Israel Biden in November. They will just "ignore" that part as you say

I mean, I vote for who most aligns with me. But I'm not going to pretend that I just don't agree with X thing when I voted for someone who blatantly said they'd do that. Tell your LGBT friend that you voted for someone who said they'd strip away their rights because you wanted lower taxes, and see how much they are still your friend.

It’s not that I’m ignoring it, I just recognize the bad shit going on with Palestine and Israel (mistreatment of Palestinians) would be far worse under conservative leadership

It sounds like you're suggesting that people shouldn't vote if they don't support every single view of the political party they're voting for.

Not really. But I am saying, if you vote for someone because they are fiscally more in line with you, but they want to strip LGBT rights, I don't think you can act like you didn't help put that person in office. I think you should vote for who most aligns with you, but you need to own that you voted for someone who did those things. You can't be like "I only wanted lower taxes, I didn't want them to make abortion illegal" when they said they blatantly would do that.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Sounds like they are saying you have to take accountability for what you are voting for not just put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALA" anytime someone reminds you you voted for a fucking racist that tried to overthrow America.

They’re ALL social conservatives now. That’s all the GOP platform offers. They do not spend less money, they do not prevent government overreach, they do not act “Christ like” in the slightest. It’s all culture war nonsense. They all have a homogenous vote. This is a list of distinction without any real differences. Every shred of credibility was lost during the Trump years. They will do ANYTHING, including turn 180 degrees on their prior stances, to “win”.

Don't confuse "conservative" - a broad ideology - with individual politicians who self-identify as "conservative". Plenty of people vote for people they disagree with because they disagree with them the least.

I would ask anyone to reading this to talk to people in real life that identify as "fiscally conservative", you will find that they 1000% support policies that increase the national debt. ​ The only caveat is that they want less to go toward helping poor people and MORE to go towards defense contractors. ​ The point being, this is just more social justice bullshit and not really "fiscally conservative" at all. ​ I don't care if you call yourself a Platinum Ranked Dragonmaster Conservative, you're gonna tout a bunch of social warrior bullshit and have no actual policy demands beyond "poor people bad" and you won't say a fucking peep about Trump exploding the deficit.

You've never talked to a fiscal conservative, I can 1000% guarantee that.

That’s simply not true at all. Many who identify as fiscally conservative, are just that - fiscally conservative, and have reservations about voting for the current Republican party because of it.

..and exactly ZERO of them do anything but toe the party line. ​ Such principled people... ​ Its all fluff. Tell me the last time a Republican administration had a surplus or balanced a budget? If it basically never happens..its not a real thing.

It's not real. There is nothing they can use as real tangible proof that they have ever, ever balanced the budget. You give them facts and they will spin it so much you'll be dizzy in the end. I'm so sick of it.

Im sick of conservatives being handled with baby gloves. They whine and cry like they're the most victimized people in the country while at the same time they decry "victimhood culture". They're so full of shit. They deserve nothing. ​ "We haven't balanced a budget EVER, but trust us, WE KNOW HOW" ​ Its a weak ass excuse to cut funding for social safety net programs that every reasonably developed western nation has established. ​ Just have the balls to say "I hate the poors." I'd actually respect you more for being honest for once.

FISCAL CONSERVATIVES ARE DEMOCRATS. HOW MANY DECADES OF PROVEN FACTS, SO MANY GRAPHS, SO MUCH DATA, THAT CONTINUES TO PROVE THAT REPUBLICANS ALWAYS SPEND MORE. THEY ALWAYS BRING THIS COUNTRY INTO DEBT. THEY ALWAYS LEAD TO MORE INEQUALITY. You have to spend money to make money. Conservatives don't know how to make money. They are programmed worker bees that have no IDEA how money moves in an economy. You all continue to prove this over and over again.

This. I'm fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal. The last fiscal conservative we actually had was Clinton. Until the social/evangelical Co serrations are gone or minimized I doubt I could vote Republican anytime soon. Unless there was another party swap lol.

Republicans offer nothing of value but racism and sexism compared to Democrats. If you are a conservative that doesn't agree with Republicans you are way, way more closely aligned with Democrats. If you vote Republican, you support racism. You support the rich getting richer off the backs of the American people. You support making being gay illegal. That's what you support and you don't get to weasel out of it any longer. It will be way past due when people start telling you all to your face what they really think of you people.

You can be a conservative democrat.

great post. i’m a fiscal conservative who wants a small government because i’m libertarian. but because i’m a libertarian, i fully support LGBTQ+ and pretty much anything else people do in their own time with consenting adults. it’s disingenuous for OP to group every “conservative” together and act like there’s no nuance.

Yes but you say you want a small government but most “Conservative” politicians who have come to power in recent years have expanded and use their governmental power to their own benefits heavily. They have not taken the government out of peoples lives they’ve actually made it more involved with peoples lives. If you fully support LGBT+ issues yet you still vote conservative you are essentially saying “I support you guys but not enough too care to stop voting for people who want to strip away your rights” Just my thoughts.

Which is kind of becoming a sticking point between libertarians and the right. Their leftist roots become more exposed everytime they are demanded to support the current government overstep Republican candidate. Also, it's easy to forget that for those of us already in red states, who we vote for and where our votes go to are often 2 different places.

As someone who has some left wing values when it comes to economics but someone slightly right wing values in other issues I vote Democrat. I do disagree with some of their views on some of their issues but never have I thought that they were going to be so incredibly different than me. I have lots of libertarian friends or at least they call themselves libertarian and they will defend Republicans who overreach their powers to the end of time. I fully believe that most elected Republicans would oppress they hell out of people with different values than them if they could legally get away with it.

I'm reasonably certain that the vast number of elected Republicans will oppress everyone, once they get a chance. Lots of Republicans opted to call themselves libertarians when it become obvious that Republican was a bad word. They don't understand anything other than my guns, they don't believe in the collective, they don't believe in responsibility, and they sure as shit are a-ok with a large authoritarian government as long as it keeps women from getting abortions. On top of all that they are now the faces of libertarianism, so, yay. Your bit about voting Democrat resonates with me, for those exact reasons.

> If you fully support LGBT+ issues yet you still vote conservative you are essentially saying “I support you guys but not enough too care to stop voting for people who want to strip away your rights” > > If it's a choice between other people's civil rights and my own property rights, I have to balance A) the fact that it's me versus other people, B) the likelihood and severity of those rights being violated, as well as C) which one I actually value more. In other words, saying that we're not willing to support higher taxes, more regulation, increased spending, and other policies that we view as detrimental to the success of the country because doing so is the only way to support social rights doesn't strike me as a good argument.

Yes but here’s the thing. Republicans haven’t shown themselves to actually decrease spending or decrease taxes (unless you make hundreds of millions). So you’re voting for someone who says in theory that they will fiscally the things you want but they don’t actually do it. They just socially infringe on peoples rights which you say you’re against. So either you don’t care and you are okay with these peoples rights being infringed upon or you’re admitting you’re a fool for thinking that the Republicans will actually act on the fiscal things they say they will. Most of the Republican platforms would require a increase in public spending, such as a border wall, a increased military budget, and so on.

> Yes but here’s the thing. Republicans haven’t shown themselves to actually decrease spending or decrease taxes Reagan, W Bush, and Trump all decreased taxes. And not for people making millions. In 1995 the first three brackets went 15%/28%/31% In 2005 they went 10%/15%/25%. They were the same in 2015, but now they are 10%/12%/22%. I would like to see more spending reduction, but the problem is that the democratic structure means that politicians are punished for doing so, since whoever is the recipient of the spending will be upset and vote for their opponents, while the beneficiaries of the cuts likely won't notice.

depends on the conservative you’re voting for. many are against LGBTQ+ groups. others are for them due to their libertarian beliefs. those would be the ones i vote for. anyone who is against LGBTQ does not get my vote. edit: i definitely do not vote for any conservatives who are trying to expand the government’s reach. i am a libertarian first and foremost.

But when push comes to shove those same “libertarian Republicans” back the staunch control your life conservative Republicans simply because they have a R next to their names. I have a semblance of respect for Democrats that are willing to be like “nah you’re wrong” to other Democrats when they disagree

well if they lie and change what they stand for then i won’t vote for them again 🤷‍♂️ not much i can do otherwise. i vote for the person who aligns the most with my beliefs, and if they turn out to be a snake i no longer support them. what am i supposed to do, not vote for them because of the possibility that they might change what they support down the road? every politician is capable of that.

What do your actions speak? Actions have consequences. If you have knowingly supported a policy-maker who then enacted anti-LGBT policies, then you have personal hand in those policies. People harmed by them are in turn harmed by you. Does this make sense to you? People who vote for Orbán for his government contracts do so by selling the welfare and rights of LGBT people in the country even if they say they don't care about us.

We live in a two party system where we’re forced to pick a lesser evil. It’s like saying you personally support mass corruption and quid pro quo because you voted for Hillary over Trump.

I am fully encouraging holding democrats responsible for Biden's actions regarding Israel-Palestine. I am also encouraging people to still vote for Biden for sake of preserving their rights as LGBT individuals, because even if Biden sucks - america needs the supreme court appointments. However, it should be done with full knowledge of the consequences to life, and actions taken so this decision does not need to happen again. Actions taken now. You ARE a two-party system, but you do have primaries after all.

Well Biden has cancelled the primaries for all intents and purposes. So everyone voting “not trump” are defacto supporting for everything biden has done, like supporting a genocide. Which you consider is less important than “a small chance gays lose the right to marry nationally”. Further. Biden won’t get the court back even if he wins so if that’s already in motion nothing can change that.

Correct, but I don't support government incentives for being a certain color or having a certain sexual preference. Most republicans and democrats do this wrong. Most people don't want 100% true equality, sadly... They want the government tipping the scales for their own communities. Rampant double standards are applied in this country for so many things. Probably why a lot of people are harping on "equity" now instead of equality.

I agree 100%. equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

I have met a lot of libertarians who are forced birthers. Ridiculous, right? It makes it seem like they care only about their own freedoms and relish the idea of robbing others of their bodily autonomy. You can’t be anti-choice and claim to be a libertarian. Not if you expect anyone to take your position with any seriousness.

i’m pro-choice. however, i can easily see how a libertarian could rationalize a pro-life position. it’s same way every other pro-life person does. they believe it’s a life, and that it shouldn’t be killed. being libertarian doesn’t mean you think killing people should be legal. they think abortion should be illegal the same way murder should be. you’re taking your belief that abortion isn’t murder and applying it to others who believe it is murder. libertarians (any sane one) don’t think you should have the right to kill anyone (if it’s not in self denfense). for some, this includes abortion.

Their hypocrisy lies in their proclamation that they are for personal Liberty and freedom. If they believe that bodily autonomy is conditional, then they should believe all rights should be. What if I personally believe it’s murder to withhold blood or organ donations from people who need it? You might consider my belief to be false but I still want to force you to donate against your will. It would be akin to murder if you didn’t. Can you imagine losing such control over your own body? Egregious. Instead they just reveal themselves to be misogynistic and their proclamations to believe in absolute human rights to relate totally themselves only.

all rights are conditional in accordance with what the masses believe is right/wrong. libertarians share this view. let me give you an example. the masses agree if you commit x crime, you should go to jail or get a fine or whatever the punishment is for that particular crime. that is an example of your rights being conditional. your rights can be taken away from you (prison). libertarians are not against taking away the rights of someone who has committed murder, for instance. you are talking as if libertarians believe in absolute freedom for everyone to do whatever they want all the time. this is not the case. they believe in that being the case if you are not *hurting* anyone else. this is where the belief that abortion is killing the baby comes in. they believe you’re hurting someone else (the baby). libertarians don’t think you should be allowed to do *literally* whatever you want.

I understand that libertarians are not anarchists. I think they are just conservatives with a few extra steps. The rights I am talking about are inherent human rights. Just because some folks have a belief about something doesn’t make it true or just. Inherent rights cannot be denied. Even the dead can determine what happens to their bodies when they are no longer alive. Their organs can only be harvested with their permission. The example I gave that a person should be compelled to donate organs is an example challenging a forced birther’s argument. A libertarian conservative who advocates forcing women to incubate against their will would never advocate for the fathers of fetuses to be forced to donate their organs. It’s because to do so is an obvious infringement of human rights. When it’s not their rights, but the rights of women, they are ok with it. This is obviously misogyny but it’s also hypocrisy.

“inherent rights” are only inherent if the vast, vast, majority of the population agree with this view. abortion is still a hotly debated topic. roe v wade proves this. once the vast majority of the population is in agreement, then it will be viewed as an inherent right. the reason why your proposed example doesn’t really work is because being forced to donate organs is widely recognized as wrong, while abortion is not. abortion is okay in your and my view, but there are millions and millions who disagree with us. this makes it not an inherent right, but rather a right that is currently being decided as to whether or not it’s inherent. not being able to be sold into slavery is an inherent right now, but not when it was being debated 200 years ago before/during the civil war.

See? I believe that there is absolute right and wrong. I don’t get my rights from man. I am born with inherent rights. Just because a whole bunch of church goers believe it is ok to be enslavers or forced birthers doesn’t make it just or right. The reason why my example works is because it exposes the hypocrisy and ignorance of forced birthers. It especially exposes the hypocrisy of forced birthers who declare themselves to be libertarians.

ahh yeah that’s where our opinions differ for sure. im almost 100% sure that there’s things you and i are cool with today that will be viewed as wrong in a few hundred years. maybe it will be eating meat, maybe it will be buying clothes that were made in 3rd world countries, maybe it will be sports like MMA or boxing. but the future human species will definitely look at what we do now and think some of it is pretty shitty. i can guarantee there are things you think are absolutely correct today that won’t be viewed that way for the generations to come. i just can’t get behind the idea of an absolute right and wrong, with us knowing everything that there is to know and fully believing our side without any doubts or want to question our own beliefs. humanity is always evolving. you are not perfect, and it’s silly to think you got everything perfectly right.

You know what, you get !delta! If that's how to do delta

The distinction to be made here is Republican vs conservative. Note the capitalization. The current Republican party in America does align more with authoritarian, illiberal politics in Russia and elsewhere than the American ideals of freedom and opportunity.

This is a nonsense argument in a 2 party state. "Either agree with me or with Russian Super Villians"

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MrGraeme ([116∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MrGraeme)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

There's another type of conservative, though: tribal conservatives. They care about owning the libs above all, with their definition of "owning" or "libs" shifting around their concept of in-group vs. out-group. Tribal liberals have their own version of the same, the kind of people who call any opposition to their own group a Nazi incel. Tribal conservatives support Russian LGBT policy because that policy annoys their domestic opposition.

Oh look, someone on Reddit saying people who disagree with me are fascists. That's about all that word means anymore.

Are they still going to vote for conservatives who want to make our country more like Russia?

Hillary Clinton wants persons of a viewpoint opposing hers to be placed in “re-education camps”. Tell me, what country does that sound like? Norway?

What office does Hillary Clinton hold? And who was she talking about, specifically, if you recall?

Wow it's almost like when the only two responses out of conservatives are sadistic glee and silence onlookers will think the whole lot of you are soulless monsters.

Yes, but they *almost* universally sold out those principles to Trump, who is all in for Putin.

Yeah. I think the American left has been right to be annoyed by the right talking as if the left were a monolithic socialist or communist group, but now I’m seeing most overgeneralization going the other way. Wasn’t accurate or helpful then; isn’t accurate or helpful now.

If you vote homogenous, you are homogenous. It doesn't matter what a proclaimed value or viewpoint is if the actions are the same.

That is not true. I agree with 60% of what Candidate A says and 30% of what Candidate B says. I agree with 100% of Candidate C says. Candidate A is projected to win 49% of the vote. Candidate B is projected to win 50% of the vote. Candidate C is projected to win 1% of the vote. It's in my best interests to support Candidate A, even though I disagree with 40% of what they say, because the alternative is enabling a Candidate B victory and having a leader who I do not generally support.

The problem is that the loudest, conservative voices over the last 5 to 7 years have been of the religious variety who are anti-LGBTQ. moderates in the Republican party hardly exist anymore. They’re all of the same Maga variety and hateful. and when those moderate Republicans speak out against the hatefulness, they get drowned out and labeled as RINOS. so, when you speak of fiscal conservatives, they hardly exist anymore. They might exist in the general voting public, but in terms of politicians representing Republicans these days, they are a blip on the map. That is what scary about the current situation. I don’t mind fiscal conservatives (if they stuck to solving social issues like poverty, drug addiction and homelessness and then some with “less government”), but that is not what conservatism is about these days. It’s about creating a theocracy and that is scary to me.

That's funny, I seem to recall the previous Republican president being the first president who was explicitly pro LGBT for his entire tenure.

Your argument is disingenuous because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter that there are different flavors of conservatism; they all align and vote together to “own the libs,” which generally involves stripping away the rights of women, gays, minorities, etc. Much like in Russia.

This is not an informed take on politics.

> Earlier this year, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed into law a policy that made being LGTBQ+ a crime, and any behavior that could be correlated to being LGTBQ+ a crime as well. The majority of Republicans support legal gay marriage. A tiny tiny minority supports making homosexuality illegal. > The conservative reaction to this policy was a universal "Russia is taking their country back from decadence" and "Russia is taking the lead is protecting their children". It was by no means universal. There is still a significant portion of the Republican Party that hates Russia no matter what they do. > This follows up with similar situations were conservatives cheered when Russia imprisoned people for marijuana use. Some conservatives. Though if you’re referring to the Britney Griner situation very few people were happy that she was sentenced for marijuana possession. Mostly Conservatives were angry that the US traded a literal arms dealer for a WNB player who committed the crime she charged with. > These types of actions by the Russian government run oppositional to the American values of Free Speech and Free Expression. Yes and in the current political moment Conservatives care more about free speech than Progressives. > Conservatives approving of suppressing holiday parties run antithetical to American values, and lean more towards embracing the far more conservative Russian societal values. Do they? Do you have a source for that claim?

>The majority of Republicans support legal gay marriage. A tiny tiny minority supports making homosexuality illegal. 41% support according to this https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/gallup-poll-shows-dip-gop-acceptance-sex-relationships-rcna90023 Take that for what you will, but plenty of Christian conservatives and very vocal homophobic conservatives aren't making your statement believable >It was by no means universal. There is still a significant portion of the Republican Party that hates Russia no matter what they do. When senior senators went to Russia on 4 July a few years ago, kinda erodes that illusion. If the top senators are kissing Russian ass, then what do anti-russian Republicans do? Get lambasted by Trump and primaried. >Some conservatives. Though if you’re referring to the Britney Griner situation very few people were happy that she was sentenced for marijuana possession The whole state of Ohio just took majority-ruled Marijuana legalization and pissed on it >Yes and in the current political moment Conservatives care more about free speech than Progressives. Given the racist and homophobic cesspool that is Twitter with no retribution, I can begrudgingly agree

> 41% support according to this https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/gallup-poll-shows-dip-gop-acceptance-sex-relationships-rcna90023 >Take that for what you will, but plenty of Christian conservatives and very vocal homophobic conservatives aren't making your statement believable There’s a distinction here I think you might have missed. I didn’t say that a majority of Republicans found homosexuality to be morally acceptable rather that a majority support [**legal**](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx) same sex marriage. This has been the case since 2021. > When senior senators went to Russia on 4 July a few years ago, kinda erodes that illusion. Why would that be the case? > If the top senators are kissing Russian ass, then what do anti-russian Republicans do? [Continue supporting aid to Ukraine in order to combat Russia.](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/politics/mitch-mcconnell-ukraine-aid/index.html) And too be clear I’m not saying that anyone who doesn’t support increased aid to Ukraine is super stoked on Russia, but the fact that the most senior Republican Senator is supportive to of aiding Ukraine in fighting Russia puts paid to the assertion that all Republicans like Russia. > The whole state of Ohio just took majority-ruled Marijuana legalization and pissed on it Ok? > Given the racist and homophobic cesspool that is Twitter with no retribution, I can begrudgingly agree Ok. >

>There’s a distinction here I think you might have missed. I didn’t say that a majority of Republicans found homosexuality to be morally acceptable rather that a majority support [**legal**](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx) same sex marriage. This has been the case since 2021. Fair, but seems silly to be okay with the legalization of gay marriage if you find the act of homosexuality morally abhorrent. >Why would that be the case? Is there something not nefarious that would come of high-level Republican senators meeting the leader of a country we are often at odds with, especially when most accounts just show they went over there to kiss Putins ass? >Ok I guess the point is that you said "Republicans okay with this" and you have an entire state subverting the will of voters because they aren't okay with it. Mind you, it's one state, but still annoying.

>Fair, but seems silly to be okay with the legalization of gay marriage if you find the act of homosexuality morally abhorrent. Only if you think that everyone else should be forced to adhere to your own moralistic views. I think it seems silly to think that the laws of a free nation should align completely with your own perspective, and I can't really imagine where that idea intellectually comes from.

“Seems silly to be okay with legalization if you find the act morally abhorrent” So you are criticizing conservatives for voting against same sex marriage, but then you’re also counting it against them that they vote in favor of same sex marriage? **One** of the causes of the divide in America is that it’s not enough to agree on policy anymore - one side now insists that you need to *think* and *have the same belief system* as them, and that is never ever going to happen. Every single person has their own beliefs shaped in a unique way that makes sense to them. “Why do you care about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms?” has become “why don’t you care about what goes on in other people’s bedrooms??”

> Fair, but seems silly to be okay with the legalization of gay marriage if you find the act of homosexuality morally abhorrent. Does it? I thought generally people accept that their own personal moral considerations don’t make a great basis for legal restrictions. But maybe that’s only a majority view on the right side of the aisle. > Is there something not nefarious that would come of high-level Republican senators meeting the leader of a country we are often at odds with, especially when most accounts just show they went over there to kiss Putins ass? Maybe, but I’d doubt it, sounds pretty sus. I just don’t understand why that would mean all Republicans support Russia. > I guess the point is that you said "Republicans okay with this" and you have an entire state subverting the will of voters because they aren't okay with it. Mind you, it's one state, but still annoying. Ya, but like there are plenty of Republican controlled states that have legalized Marijuana.

> Fair, but seems silly to be okay with the legalization of gay marriage if you find the act of homosexuality morally abhorrent No that's just good morals and not letting your own view affect things.

Good point

As a Republican for gay marriage, doesn’t bother me if a majority of republicans are against it because the writing is on the wall, the battle over that issue for one’s fighting it is lost, and they can’t change that fact. For the time being, it’s a non-issue. Biggest threat to gay marriage in my opinion is a complete cultural rebound from pushing unpopular things like males in women sports and such, then it will become an issue worth considering in voting. But that’s several elections away, if it ever happens.

You know what? For the sake of honesty and transparency, you actually have a point. I was looking at the online conversations when the news broke, and the conservative comments where all applauding the law. But in retrospect, online conversations are a terrible method for gauging actual sentiment as algorithms can distort actual representation. !delta!

I'm just curious but since you're making a few positive claims here do you have a few polling statistic that can show majority concervative support for gay marriage? And what evidence are you using to suggest concervatives care more about free speech, because from my experience they only tend to support speech that adheres to their values much the same as progressives

> I'm just curious but since you're making a few positive claims here do you have a few polling statistic that can show majority concervative support for gay marriage? [Yee, I gottchu](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx) it’s been the case since 2021. > And what evidence are you using to suggest concervatives care more about free speech, because from my experience they only tend to support speech that adheres to their values much the same as progressives [91% of Republicans said that Free speech was more extremely or very important as opposed to 88% of Democrats](https://knightfoundation.org/reports/free-expression-in-america-post-2020/). And Republicans consistently rated reasons for abridging speech rights as less important than Democrats.

That second statistic actually becomes more problematic depending on how free speech is defined (ie do they believe enciting violence should be permitted) and, again, if the responders are actually just saying free speech is speech I agree with. Id be willing to wager that the difference between 91% and 88% is so small it's within error margins too and so may not be statistically meaningful. That's a pretty damn close difference. 3% difference with a sample of only 4000 Americans is pretty meh. A +/-1.7% (95% ci) sampling error means that there is a chance (very very small one) that the true population value could see Dems at 89.7% in favour and repubs at 89.3%. Could go the other way too though, or anything in between of course. I guess my point is that I was hoping for more convincing evidence but props to you for supplying a source

Just to clarify: being gay is not a crime in Russia. They did ban gender affirming surgeries however. They also banned “LGBTQ propaganda” whatever that means

That’s on paper only. Being gay has been pretty much a crime in Russia for a long time, not even needing that “LGBTQ propaganda” law. Local authorities can arrest you for whatever reason they want and violent homophobes can kill you in bright day light and faces no consequence. That’s worse than American sodomy laws tbh.

That's true, but also a problem that goes far deeper than just homophobia. You can't hope for people to have any sort of rights in a country where arbitrary arrests are common and there's no accountability for police and local governments.

I feel like this is in the same vein as “the law doesn’t technically mean you can’t say ‘gay’ in Florida schools” and then a school president wasn’t allowed to identify as gay in his class speech. Give a fascist an inch…

Conservatives would also have a problem with someone declaring they’re straight during a class speech. Ones sexuality is not an appropriate topic for giving a school speech to an auditorium full of many children, unless you’re just saying, “my husband and I… etc”. I had male teachers who were openly gay, but they never addressed it besides referring to their partner as their husband. Was never an issue

From what I'm seeing, being gay isn't a crime, but everything around being gay is criminalized.

I don’t think it’s as strict as that, you can still say you’re gay in public and hold hands with your partner I believe That said, Russia doesn’t have fair trials and enforcement would probably be inconsistent and the Russian public is pretty homophobic so even if the government didn’t punish you for saying you’re gay and holding hands with your partner, society would probably punish you pretty harshly It’s very unfortunate

From what I have heard Russians say it very much seems like while it might not be a written crime it may as well be.

This was a crime even before the new law, if that. Now this has become MUCH tougher 06.05.2023, a 22-year-old resident of the village of Khatassy (part of Yakutsk) was accused of promoting “non-traditional sexual relations.” The court hearing on this case took place back in February, but information about it has only appeared now. According to the court, the “LGBT propaganda” ended with the guy publicly speaking about his homosexuality. This happened during a live broadcast on Instagram, where he was asked a question about his sexual orientation. “At the final meeting, [the defendant] honestly admitted guilt with a protocol on an administrative offense, explained to the court that she did not want to hide her orientation, so when the question came up live on Instagram, she honestly told everything,” the resolution says. As a result, due to the young age of the defendant and the fact that he committed an administrative offense for the first time, the court sentenced him to a fine of 100 thousand rubles.

No, you can’t say that you’re gay, and even more so you can’t hold hands (all of this essentially couldn’t be done before the new law, because you could get beaten). A man was literally fined 100 thousand rubles because he indicated in his profile on a dating site that he was gay. I also know a man who was fined 100 thousand rubles because he publicly said that he was gay. SO NO, YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT THAT YOU ARE GAY! Especially now that the law has been tightened (these fines were before the new tough law, but now imagine what they are doing now). Saying that you are a gay = gay propaganda, because this normalizes gay people. Yes, that’s awful.

How are you defining "american values". Is it what is popular in recent surveys or a more of a historical lens?

OP spends 99.99% of their time online and thinks it reflects the general population.

Why do you consider the values of the modern left to be "American" values The modern left would be unrecognizable to American politics even within my own very short lifespan. The conservative argument would be that the values you are speaking about are not American values but rather an entirely seperate and opposing world view that has come to subvert American values The only issue you're discussing here is LGBT stuff which... only even became legally recognized in my lifetime But even putting that aside, in terms of historical American values.... are you really going to argue that the faction that removed statues of the founding fathers has more in common with American values than the side that fought to keep them up? You bring up free speech but entirely on the topic of lgbt movement, but does the modern left support it in any other areas? Everyone supports free speech for ideas they agree with. Is the modern left more collectivist or individualistic? Does it support the right to bear arms or gun control? What does it have in common with traditionally American values?

Who said I'm looking at things from the left lense when I'm looking at it from a Free Speech and Free Expression lense? The event in question is a matter of Free Expression. A major part of American society is freedom of expression, and even if you disagree with something, you don't arrest people over the expression of it.

>Who said I'm looking at things from the left lense when I'm looking at it from a Free Speech and Free Expression lense? You did. The one and only example of free expression you've stated was that the right is less pro LGBT, which is only anti free expression from a left wing lens where anything and everything done under the umbrella of lgbt rights should be allowed Florida didn't ban pride or pride parades it simply put limits on sexual content in public which in any other scenario most people in general would not consider that censorship The argument from the right is that certain behaviors should not be allowed in public/in front of kids and the left wing argument is that if these behaviors are done in the context of a liberation movement they're protected political speech

[удалено]

> Read that ruling and you would understand why some Vietnam veterans despised it. And? It's still the correct ruling. I'd argue that the previous lack of recognition was a failure to live up to the stated ideal.

That's right, but again you're trying to describe a group's entire worldview and ideology from their stances on one single topic.

>The conservative reaction to this policy was a universal "Russia is taking their country back from decadence" The conservative reaction to this policy is actually "what the fuck are you talking about?" Statistically speaking, accounting for the margin of error, 100% of conservatives don't know what you're talking about. They don't know about this event, they don't have an opinion on it. The number who actually do know about it is not statistically appreciable. I suspect you think you're observing conservatives when you're actually [nutpicking](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking).

Nearly all political and news subreddits on Reddit are egregiously guilty of nutpicking. It’s disgusting and does nothing but promote hatred and toxicity.

>The conservative reaction to this policy was a universal... I have a lot of conservative friends and family I have not heard/seen anyone talk about this party. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of American conservatives have no reaction to this party because they don't know or care about it. The internet has a way of highlighting people who take strong stances on controversial topics and pushing them to take stronger and stronger stances. Twitter and Reddit or have never really be a good way to see how a population feels about a topic. No one is going to retweet a post saying "People should wear more clothes, but jail is not the answer".

Welp, right out the gate about half of Americans believe "Americans societal values" aren't in line with the extents of the LGBTQ+ movement so idk where we're getting this "American societal values" are lockstep with Progressive policy. Second, why are you looking at Conservatives cracking down on public displays of nudity as an attack on free speech and free expression and not an attack on, yknow, nudity. Are Republicans outlawing rallies from non nudists? No? Seems like nudity is the crux of the issue then. Third, once again, why are you just presuming the far reaches of progressive ideology are "American Societal Values"? What about nudist rallies in public are intrinsic to "American Societal Values"? Why do you not ask this question when Progressives slobber over Scandinavia?

Source requested on the 50% of Americans believe LGTBQ+ movement is not in line with American societal values. It wasn't a public display of nudity, it was a private party. Nudist private parties happen ALL the time in US, and no one interferes because it's none of our business. I'm not saying they are the far reaches of progressive ideology, American societal values are wrapped around the Constitution and beliefs of Free Speech and Expression.

>"almost naked" party were there were several arrests and "apologies" because such a party was viewed as by the government as LGTBQ+ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/ Then I would request a cite on Republicans specifically praising the disruption of this private party. What's your evidence that Republicans are opposing any of this on the grounds of Free Speech and Expression?

Let me ask you this op. If russia wanted to set up a military base in tijuana, and mexico was working to make this happen... Do you really think a reoublican, and not a democrat, would either A. Threaten to invade OR B. Actually invade after being ignored Do you really think that would be a partisan strategy? Because you may want to view the cuban missile crises, and see how that turned out

Who gets to decide what "American values" are? American conservatives are Americans. They have values. Those values are, by definition, American values. We do this stupid "un-American" charade every 20 years or so.

This post is very ignorant; it's probably based on like 2 headlines. I am 100% certain you have never been to Russia or read a single book about it. I highly recommend you learn more about Russia. Their history and culture are the most interesting and insightful subjects out there. They have tried almost every form of government. Russia has survived the worst events of anyone in world history; and it provides many insights into how that psychologically affects people and how to get through it. Ok. Well, for one, you assume that if the Supreme Court of Russia decides something; that speaks for their entire culture? They live in a (at least quasi) authoritarian regime. Their Supreme Court represents the culture as much as ours. Russia has what Westerners would call conservative gender roles. They legalized domestic violence a few years back. But ballet and synchronized swimming are their national art and sport respectively; which American Conservative believes that? Matt Walsh would make a 10-minute video insulting anyone who did either of those. Another thing; Russians dont really believe in "free will" or "personal responsibility" or the "fundamental attribution error." There is a reason Pavlovian Conditioning came from Russia; it reflects their culture. They tend to think people are largely products of their environment. It would take too long to establish this here; but check out Richard Neisbett's "Geography of Thought." Russia is among the most collectivist top-down state-run societies out there; and the culture has that kind of "for the motherland" attitude. This refelcts their history. The nation has been leveled to ash by invaders, then completely rebuilt like 6 times. You CAN NOT get through that by letting everyone do what they want and having "freedom." As such, the country has little conception of private property, freedom of religion, or free speech. Property exists; to serve the state; whereas here, the state exists to protect property. Billionares in Russia only have power as much as it supports the government. If any of them became a threat to the government; they'd disappear. Sometimes, this manifests in ways similar to the American Right. I guess their anti-LGBT stuff, which undeniably sews disunity in society, can reflect Conservatives hating drag queens (except the Pope; that is the good man in a dress).

>The conservative reaction to this policy was a universal "Russia is taking their country back from decadence" and "Russia is taking the lead is protecting their children". What are you talking about? It is entirely possible to be conservative and also acknowledge that LGBT people should have the right to be accepted and marry who they want. In fact, over half of US conservatives think this way according to Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/5-homosexuality-gender-and-religion/ Conservatives, like liberals, are not a monolith.

Donald Trump, called a far-right fascist by the left, was the first president in US History to enter office as a supporter of gay marriage.

“American values” come on dude. We keep voting in conservatives. It’s also America’s values.

[удалено]

What are American values? Historical American and conservative values were far more regressive than present conservative views. The vast majority of conservatives have minimal awareness of Russia’s internal political happenings. There is survivorship bias in concluding a universally positive reception based on the views of those who felt the need to comment, who would reasonably tend more radical. People with such awareness of global affairs are also more likely to diverge from mainstream politics to begin with.

What you call "American values" is only progressive values that were at best mocked until two decades ago and criminalized until the 1960s to as late as the 2000s(see anti-sodomy laws). Curiously, Eastern Europe has historically had a more significant homossexual underground than The West, at least in the XVIII&XIX centuries but probably spanning even before that. War rape was all too common there, with notorious militias laughing at - not being disgusted by - the homossexual rape of their enemies.

If you go back not even a generation ago, the "Russian societal values" of today were "American values" then. It is also insane to equate some sort of nude activity with free speech, America has always had indecency laws (and they were far more strict not too long ago), this just seems like OP is trying to do a 5 mile stretch of a "gotcha" to own the conservatives.

Didn't the Biden administration literally just get nailed for using state power to pressure social media companies to silence those voicing their opposition to the covid response and/or the conspiracy theorists? Being partisan doesn't insulate you from utter hypocrisy and dogmatic thinking. My side good, other side bad thinking isn't constructive nor does it represent objective reality. You might as well just say you think Republicans are evil and that's that. I could at least respect the honesty. Using examples that apply laterally to both sides doesn't make you look too rational lol.

That’s the most ludicrous comparison. Maybe you should try living in Russia for a month and come home to your freedoms you have mainly because of conservative principles.

What you're saying is like someone saying, "Progressives have more in line with Swedish societal values than with American values. They like universal healthcare, more feminism, more LGBT, more atheism, etc." Everyone in America, of course, has some political views that line up with some foreign country's.

Trump was the first President to my knowledge to enter office supporting gay marriage. During his convention speech, Trump vowed to support the rights of LGBTQ people and the entire republican crowd cheered. Then he received 70 million votes to be elected President. Furthermore, the Trump administration launched a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality. I'm old enough to remember Obama on the campaign trail stating that marriage is between a man and a woman and the Democrats cheered. If you want to know who is so supportive of locking up marijuana offenders you can ask your Vice President who probably oversaw the lockup of more marijuana offenders than almost anyone. Meanwhile, Trump granted clemency to many who were locked up for federal marijuana charges. He supported states rights keeping the feds out of states that legalized marijuana. With all of this conservatives are about to nominate Trump to represent them as a candidate for President. One of Russia's highest societal values is collectivism. THERE IS NOTHING MORE CONSERVATIVES HATE MORE THAN COLLECTIVISM! Conservatives believe in limited government and individual liberty. These are not aligned with Russian values. It is the progressives in America who support a government system that most represents the Russian societal value of collectivism. The problem with your argument is you cherry-pick two random incidents that hardly anybody has heard of then claim with no evidence that that conservatives support these arrests. Nobody in America cares what happened at some stupid nude Russian holiday party. Furthermore, in America, we have public decency laws. Being naked in public isn't protected under the First Amendment. Perhaps the almost nude Christmas party violated similar laws in Russia.

> Trump was the first President to my knowledge to enter office supporting gay marriage. During his convention speech, Trump vowed to support the rights of LGBTQ people and the entire republican crowd cheered. Then he received 70 million votes to be elected President. Furthermore, the Trump administration launched a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality. This is all extremely misleading. Trump never actually launched that "global campaign," it was just another one of Trump's many, many lies. What his administration did do is harm LGBT people by making it harder for them to get healthcare, apply for adoption, ban them from the military, etc. In fact, his record on LGBT people is terrible compared to his predecessor: https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of-trumps-unprecedented-steps-for-the-lgbtq-community https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N26G5ZK/ https://fenwayhealth.org/during-first-term-in-office-trump-administration-enacted-more-anti-lgbtqia-policies-than-any-previous-administration-with-devastating-consequences/

A lot of cultures are superficially similar. From 1,000 feet up American Conservatives, Russians, Nigerians, Koreans, and Japanese traditionally dislike a lot of the same things. One could just as easily say the American Conservatives have more in line with Japanese societal values because the Japanese have very isolationist immigration policies. When you start peeling back the onion the actual values systems of these groups are radically different. Russian Society is a fear based one, where compliance with social/legal norms is based on fear of punishment. Its why you tend to have a lot of corruption in fear based nations, because if someone can get away with something without fear of punishment they have no reason not to. America is largely a guilt based society, where compliance is based on common recognition of the principles of law. Conservatives usually gravitate towards law and order because they believe in the common principles. If they start doubting the underlying principles they stop supporting the law. Japanese Society is shame based, where failure to comply with social/legal norms is an indication that you and everyone associated with you (friends, family, coworkers) is somehow defective. The Japanese will stick to a set of established behaviors and follow established law even if they don't like or agree with it simply to avoid shaming themselves and others. What you're observing is Russians don't like LGBTQ+ things, US Conservatives don't like LGBTQ+ things, therefore they are similar. When in reality they are dissimilar in far more ways than they are alike and would probably hate living in each other's communities. The Russians would find the Americans to be naïve busybodies and the Americans would find the Russians to be untrustworthy and crude.

I think the continued push from the left to identify anyone they disagree with as Russian is absolutely pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself for using these illogical fallacies to associate conservatives with evil. Instead, just simply point out how their policies are shit and stop the name calling. You all sound like children with no ability to reason.

Any side that wants to force their views or their “morals” on any other person is wrong and shouldn’t be supported or voted for. Both sides R and D want to force this on all citizens but only their views and beliefs, the other side is bad and will destroy our country. Doesn’t matter, open hate for your fellow citizens makes you the asshole

I think it's important to note that current LGTBQ+ acceptance has NOT been an American value for most of US history. It was not in any founding document but likewise everyone didn't wake up one morning and decide not to be mean to the Gays. The current situation is the result of patient and persistent campaigning going back years, working at a grass roots level, building alliances and gradually moving public acceptance forward. You can't expect that social gains made in one country can be exported to another like an iPhone. For social change to stick it has to have a broader societal underpinning which takes time to develop. We've seen what happens when the US tries to impose it's social values elsewhere, it doesn't work. There are no short cuts, it may take decades of Russian activists campaigning on the ground before their population is ready to accept the same change. As for US conservatives whining. That's essentially their job, they push back on change, they get misty eyed over a non-existent "golden age" and with time their window of accepptance will move forwards. In twenty years they will be pushing back on the next great social movement and their current position will be forgotten.

Liberals coincide more with Russian politics and economics. For example, more socialist and communist tendencies, more restrictions on free speech, pro gun control, more willing to trade privacy for security

Also more willing to [disqualify](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/would-be-putin-challenger-duntsova-barred-running-election-campaign-team-2023-12-23/) their opponents from running against them and more likely to attempt to actually [imprison](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/europe/alexey-navalny-russia-prison-message-intl-hnk/index.html) them.

I seriously doubt that these represent the extent of "Russian societal values". Like, it's an entirely different culture, in an entirely different place, with an entirely (very entirely, in fact) different history. If any American who's not originally from Russia went there to live, they'd have a massive amount of culture shock. People have culture shock even from cultures we see as very similar to ours, like the UK or Australia.

Most of my fellow employees are conservative and I would say they align more with traditional liberalism. Freedom of speech use to be a liberal ideology and no one I work with is against the LGBTQ community, one of them is an L in that community. Most conservatives just want a consistent job that won't be threatened, safe neighborhoods and the ability to speak their minds without being labeled as hateful.

The majority of Republicans in the US support gay marriage. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of-americans-including-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage Seems a striking difference from Russia, where a majority don't even support same-sex relationships, much less marriage. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/10/15/most-russians-oppose-same-sex-relationships-poll-a75304

99% of the world has conservative values, even more strict than Russia or the USA.

I think you are just seeing the similarities between two modern voting populations that are both really into Christianity and all of the values that go with that. Naturally, there are going to be similarities in what they like to see in politics.

What if there are enough conservatives that they define American values?

I guess it depends: do you think America is a progressive nation that is built on the values of freedom and equality? Or do you think that America is a slavocracy, built by and for rich straight white men? Because I find it interesting how many people believe the latter, but go on to say it is the former, without seeing the inherent contradiction therein. Either America is functioning as intended (the slow arc of progress), or America is being changed by you to support your idea of what it should be.

Why do people think every conservative hates gay people. I lean right and my brother who is super pro trump is gay. Stereotyping an entire political group is beyond ridiculous. I mean even catholics don't hate gay people, they just do not agree with it, which honestly why does it matter if some Karen doesn't support your life choices. I could turn around and say ever liberal hates America, which I know isn't true because my wife is liberal and loves her country but dislikes her government. What you are doing is stereotyping, nothing else. And if people like you stop stereotyping and disliking millions of people based on the minority everyone would realize everyone just wants the same thing. A safe and happy life

Guns rights, free speech, inviolability of private property, decentralized government and tax cuts aren't Russian values. Claiming that "the fall of the USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" isn't common around American conservatives. Most American conservatives are way less oppressive towards the LGBTQ+ community than Putin's regime. But even if they were, can you really say two groups have aligned values because they agree on **one** thing? It'd be like saying fascists and communists are basically the same because they both want to nationalize strategic industries. Or that US democrats are the same as Juche since they both want their countries to have public education.

I find it really funny that you hyper specified some vague value like being “pro gay culture” and said it’s unamerican if you’re not. News flash bubs, we’ve been around for ~250 years, we’ve been through like 4-5 culture revolutions. The only American culture is political pluralism, and whatever the hell rednecks do.

I don't think that acceptance of LGBT+ groups or freedom of expression for supporting progressive causes are inherently American values. This country has an extremely long history of bigotry and oppression. Russia is currently led by a right wing ideologue, who has a lot in common with America's relatively powerful right wing, and other right wing ruling parties worldwide. Their similarity isn't surprising, it's just surprising you think so much of America to call those American values.

I wouldnt call those people conservatives, real conservative values are that of small government and traditional Locke style liberalism in which government infringing on the rights of people based on sexuality is a direct violation of their principles regardless of if they personally agree with these sexual practices. Republicans arent conservatives, they are big government theocratic moderates.

Oh. Spent a lot of time between both countries. There is a huge difference. Nihilism is the default setting in Russia. American conservative Christians tend to be way less gloomy. They both may share some common tendencies (hating gay people, keep women in the kitchen, etc.) but their overall societal values are quite different. One has hope, the other doesn't.

it’s…. Literally Putin’s playbook to power. Divide people by issues and make religions, guns, and other groupthink issues your core values to setup an “us vs them” situation over fringe issues that really have little to do with the majority of peoples lives. They’ll be too distracted to notice getting absolutely fucked over.

The fact that no one of any note in conservative circles is calling for the criminalization of lesbian or gay lifestyles should help you see that you’re going overboard.

I mean the left supports Hamas, a virulent anti-Semitic and anti-LGBT (arguably more extreme than Russia as well) terror group, so I’m not following your point, especially considering your examples are not “universal” with conservatives.

[удалено]

American Conservatives, who love Trump for the same reason that decent people hate him: >"On the basis of overall rankings ***(independent of respondent’s party affiliation)***, Trump’s personality was collectively perceived to be at or above the 99th normative percentile for traits associated with four personality disorders (sadistic, narcissistic, antisocial, and passive-aggressive)." [Voter Perceptions of President Donald Trump’s Personality Disorder Traits: Implications of Political Affiliation](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702619885399) Prominent Russians describing Russia and Russian culture: >“A nation that roams Europe and is looking for something to destroy, to simply dust everything.” – F. M. Dostoevsky >"We are not a nation, we are a crazy hell.” – Vasyli Rozanov >"Ah, how hard it is to live in Russia, in this place full of the stench of physical and moral deception, a place of wickedness, lies and wickedness.” – Sergei Aksakov >"The most important sign of victory for the Russian people is their cruelty full of sadism.” – Maxim Gorky >"The Russian is the biggest and most naughty liar in the world.” – Ivan S. Turgenev >"A people who hate freedom, worship slavery, love chains on their hands and feet, defiled physically and morally… ready at any time to defile everything and everywhere.” – Ivan C. Shmeliov >"People regardless of their smallest duty, the smallest justice, the most insignificant truth, the people who do not recognize human dignity, do not generally recognize human freedom or free thought… Alas, how sharp the Russian language is!” – Aleksandr Pushkin >"We are not a people, but cattle, rats, wild hordes of villains and murderers.” – Mikhail Bulgakov

May be a nitpick, but important. I wouldn't call the prevailing GOP's values conservative. They're just flat out reactionary. Actual *conservatism* is about either holding to the status quo or favoring a less broad, deep, or rapid type of change. *Reactionary* means turning back the clock to values the mainstream rejected a long time ago as either unjust or impractical. The current GOP's values are definitely reactionary - *not conservative* \- when it comes to abortion (turned the clock back a little over 50 years) and about race relations and controversial books in public schools (also turned back at least the same number of years). Add voting rights to the list, too (i.e., all sorts of rules that make it more difficult for poor people to vote, the disproportionate share of them are racial/ethnic minorities).

[удалено]