4 ms·
As an outsider, I've always understood it like this. The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. For example, they are again
by djeiasbsbo 6y ago
As an outsider, I've always understood it like this. The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. For example, they are against something like mandatory healthcare, because they might be perfectly healthy yet would have to pay to carry those who are not. Democrats and left leaning people on the other hand value a more general sense of freedom and health. They want to carry the weakest people because they believe that they could at some point be in the same situation, where they would have to rely on others. (Bare with me, English isn't my first language)
So, when you say "Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?", in my opinion that already goes against what conservatives and right leaning people value. An individual having to compromise for "the greater good" goes against their core values.
Now, I do think that life is more complex than simply choosing one side. Because life isn't necessarily copatible with "human rationality". Sometimes there are situations where it is more rational to be hypocritical or sometimes it is more rational to let conflicting opinions exist.
I think it comes down to what humans learn at a young age and in school. If we were able to focus more on ethics and helping people find a purpose to live at a young age already, it would make a big difference.
- nicky0 6y agoThe left champions the weak and downtrodden even if it means chaos. The right values order and stability even if at the expense of those at the bottom. I don't think either side is against compromise but first each side has to see where each other is coming from and that there is some value in the opposite view. Demonizing and miscaracterizing the opposite view, and failing to actually see why they think how they do, is a big problem right now.
- lovelearning 6y ago> The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. As another outsider, I get the impression US conservatives are selective about the groups they consider worthy of those rights and freedoms. They oppose women's choice to abort. They oppose rights and freedoms for immigrants. They came out in support of cops who had violated rights of their own african-american citizens.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoIf I can play devil's advocate for a moment: 1) "Pro-life" conservatives believe that fetuses are human lives (persons) worthy of protection and prioritize that over the right of the mother to control her own body. That might sound bad, but there is a logic to it. "Pro-choice" advocates would argue that the fetus is not a person and that ultimately the mother should have full rights to her own body. Leaving aside the argument about the definition of personhood, outside of cases of rape (even among pro-lifers opinions differ on whether or not that changes anything), the mother had engaged in activity fully cognizant that creating a human life was a possible outcome. By engaging in the activity anyway she can be said to have accepted the risk and that acceptance further diminishes her right to avoid the consequences. Pro-lifers would argue the right to life of the person (fetus) outweighs the mother's right to control her own body in this circumstance. There are of course many other arguments to be had either way because this issue is an enormous one and is ultimately about many fundamental philosophical issues. 2) Anti-immigrant conservatives would argue that immigrants (specifically illegal immigrants, mind you) are not citizens of the United States and therefore do not have many of the same rights as citizens of the United States. The argument is largely over which rights are inalienable human rights and which are rights exclusive to US Citizens. They would further argue that illegal immigrants are actually criminals by virtue of being here illegally and restricting the rights of criminals is not exactly unprecedented or unreasonable. 3) Conservatives would argue that many[0] of those cases are not being reported factually, and that the officers involved were not actually violating the rights of those citizens unduly. What I'm trying to say is, the selection is not arbitrary. [0] Floyd is not among these. At least I can't find anyone who makes a good-faith argument why that wasn't basically straight-up murder.