this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
7 points (64.0% liked)

conservative

920 readers
1 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm just curious what y'all think about that aspect of your identity. What's it based on? What are its limits?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I agree that just shouting generalities back and forth doesn't accomplish anything, but I find that moving to more specific things doesn't help in that kind of conversation anyway, just changes the scope. Rather, I find that discussing the values behind the concern and the effects of the generality to be a better use of time since it doesn't just fall into nitpicking an example. I find that this thread describes it best. Any specific examples often end up being somewhat trivial and arbitrary, when the real concern is with an overall trend

I feel like academia is naturally pretty left-wing, and the military is naturally pretty right-wing, and neither of those is (in my opinion) something anyone has to “fix.”

I agree that the slant doesn't need to be "fixed" per se. My issue is largely that the slant is often either entirely ignored when it might call an academic work into question, or used as some stupid "hurr durr right wing hates being smart" type talking point.