Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps your political viewpoints are fairly mild compared to mainstream conservative discourse? It's difficult to have civil discourse with someone who says your identify (or the identify of those you love) should be outlawed or otherwise severely restricted by the state. That's been a core tenet of conservative politics and policy for several years now and I do not have the intellectual tools nor the emotional strength to find common ground with people who view the world that way.

View on HN

I think a large bit of conservative viewpoint today is that the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage.

I don't at all care what you do with your life, and really I'd like it if you gave me the same courtesy.

But, if you believe that because I consider myself more conservative than not, I must then hate your lifestyle, how can we ever come to a happy coexistence?

I don't think you hate anyone. I know that millions of voters reliably vote for candidates who are outspoken about oppressing specific groups of people, and who introduce legislation and vote in support of legislation that targets specific groups of people.

I'm glad you don't care what I do with my life. If you vote for candidates that legislate in ways that do restrict my life, I ask that you please stop.

I replied below to another comment, but that reply fits here as well.

> This assumes that everyday conservatives believe in the republican representatives that end up in power. I didn't even vote in the last election as I felt un-represented. For me there was no 'greater evil' candidate. Prior I voted libertarian, but what good does that do?

> Does having voted a certain way for a candidate make your beliefs ultimately responsible for the way the representative governs? In America we essentially get `choose red or blue`.

> How can the subjects as complicated as everyday topics are ever be reduced to two colors!?

> The problem _is_ our tyrannical democratic system.

You could not have more completely proven his point.

Well I am conservative and don't believe that so maybe you should consider talking to more conservatives.

Well, but do you vote for conservative candidate that may believe it?

So maybe a person is believes in X, but if they continue to vote for candidates or parties actively promoting "not X", you can understand why this advice rings hollow.

The liberal viewpoint is vastly different from the conservative viewpoint, but only if we find a way to communicate and find common ground will we ever hope to move forward together as a nation. Seeing your political opponent as irredeemable is the first step towards sectarianism, which can easily lead to war.

I lean to the right, and yet regularly talk to and see the humanity in liberals on a pretty regular basis. We are all people, even if we see things differently.

If a major political party prioritizes limiting the rights and freedoms of entire groups, how can we expect to find common ground with them? If you are asking people who are directly impacted by these laws to find the humanity in their oppressors, you are asking for the impossible.

The fundamental purpose of law is to place limitations on the allowed behavior of other people. The lines between what behavior is right and wrong varies from people to people and group to group, hence why we have democracy to try to form a consensus.

There is a stark, obvious and undeniable difference between "other people" and narrowly defined groups of people, such as Jews, gay people, black people, immigrants or women. Many people view targeted restrictions on specific groups of people as some of our most atrocious and indefensible errors throughout history. I am one of those people.

Yes, but reality is muddy and people affect each other. Look at the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide, and see how well they correlate with the liberalization of American culture since 2012. Look at the declining rates of sex in our youth, the number of school shootings, the rise of populist politicians... If a generic goal of diversity and avoiding hurt feelings was what our country truly needed then our country would be better than ever, but its not.

You are obviously right when you look at the far right. Complete oppression is a bad thing. But swinging to the other extreme and saying that no ways of life are better than others causes social instability too.

Whether it should be government's job to do that is another matter.. I'd much prefer that our society handles such social pressures itself, though such social feedback systems seem to have broken down.

> The fundamental purpose of law is to place limitations on the allowed behavior of other people.

Maybe the problem is just a majority forcing a minority into their beliefs?

I'm anti-government in general, so that _is_ my standpoint.

Excellent job not understanding what the opposite side believes and why.

I know what legislation they pass. "Believing" sounds nice and fun, but legislating directly impacts the actual lives of people.

This assumes that everyday conservatives believe in the republican representatives that end up in power.

I didn't even vote in the last election as I felt un-represented. For me there was no 'greater evil' candidate. Prior I voted libertarian, but what good does that do?

Does having voted a certain way for a candidate make your beliefs ultimately responsible for the way the representative governs? In America we essentially get `choose red or blue`.

How can the subjects as complicated as everyday topics are ever be reduced to two colors!?

The problem _is_ our tyrannical democratic system.

>It's difficult to have civil discourse with someone who says your identify (or the identify of those you love) should be outlawed or otherwise severely restricted by the state. That's been a core tenet of conservative politics and policy for several years now

On the far right yes, but not in mainstream conservatism. For example, a recent poll shows that 55% of Republicans support gay marriage (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of...). And that is even putting aside the question of whether wishing for gay marriage to be illegal really constitutes a severe restriction of someone's identity or the identity of those they love.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com