this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
-18 points (20.0% liked)

Conservative

384 readers
37 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Oh, do conservatives care about racism now?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey, how about we not use phrases that can also be in support of genocide in some contexts? It kind of sounds like, what’s that phrase y’all like so much? Oh yeah, a DOG WHISTLE.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Any word can be used as a dog whistle. Are you suggesting nobody ever say anything?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does that go the other way? The things you declare to be dog whistles can be dismissed?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Well of course we can dismiss everything out of hand. We wouldn't want to think now would we?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

You usually provide a pretty good example

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally aljazeera, and you were complaining about me using breitbart a few days ago. Pot, meet kettle.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I linked aljazeera because they're on the pro-palestine side, making them a far better source to describe what is meant with this particular pro palestian chant.

Fox News is just doing a strawman.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're owned by the state of Qatar, and they're biased in favor of them. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Qatar funds Hamas. Here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

Here's a reuters article about it if you don't trust wikipedia. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-cash-to-crypto-global-finance-maze-israels-sights-2023-10-16/

If you don't like Reuters, here's a 2015 NPR article. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/18/414693807/why-israel-lets-qatar-give-millions-to-hamas

So yeah, the state media of Qatar favors Hamas.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is some woosh material right here. I am aware they are biased.

"The reds are saying "XYZ" How awful!!!" - Blue

"UVW" - Link to Reds website

My guy, I am aware. The point of linking to aljazeera is to show that they aren't actually saying "XYZ", they're saying "UVW". I'm pointing out that fox News is doing a strawman and supported my point by linking to a pro Palestinian biased source. But evidently that sailed right over your head.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would a pro-Palestinian biased source be a more trustable source of explanation on what the slogan means?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Because they're the ones using it.

Instead of using strawman yall could be doing iron men.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats not how that works. Qatar is not hamas, they support hamas but ultimately they put themselves first.

When they have an awful plan, theyre going to downplay it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's a strawman. I don't know how else to tell you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The republican party that shouted Jews will not replace us? And the president that said there were very fine people?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-charlottesville-led-to-the-capitol-attack/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

“Very fine people” is the most out of context quote that is easily dismissed if you actually cared to research the full context. If you care so much about truth, and if reality had such a liberal bias, surely you’d want to be correct about this?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we can't make our own posts to add context, then whataboutism is all that's left.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't we already talk about this?

If that didn't work, how about "Banning lefty posts is the only thing keeping this sub from just being like every other political sub on lemmy. Not banning them would defeat the purpose of the sub."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'll point it out as many times as is needed.

To quote another user in a different thread:

If I say the Chinese government is committing crimes against humanity no one thinks I’m a racist. If I say Donald Trump is a moron, no one thinks I hate all Americans. If I say the Israeli government shouldn’t be responding to Hamas’ attack the way they are? Oh man, now I’m an antisemite and hate all Jews!

The fuck is wrong with this world?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

*want

Not needed, you didn't need to repeat yourself. You wanted to repeat yourself.