
That’s the biggest issue with our two party system. People focus on specific issues they care about, and everything else is just a trade off or a sacrifice. For example, someone can genuinely think that undocumented immigrants, but end up being Republicans because they decided that the bigger issue for them would be increased censorship
i try my best to understand but i truly cannot. i understand how they probably see leftists the same way we see them, and i know that political belief is often shared in families, but it's just it's incredibly difficult to see how they believe anything they stand for is morally correct.
No, that’s exactly my point. Just because there are only two options doesn’t mean that they’re equivalent. So it’s not as trivial as “picking the opposite party”, it’s specifically an evaluation of the Republican Party as being in opposition to the best interests of neurodivergent people.
Yeah, I don’t know why they come in here and pretend it’s a totally neutral choice, or that it has no implications for one’s values lol There’s a significantly higher percentage of neurodivergent people who are trans compared to neurotypical. So if you’re conservative (and/or transphobic) you’re probably not compatible with the ND community.
I wouldn’t say that. I’d say plenty of conservatives are ND, but there is indeed not only a correlation between those that are ND and LGBTQ+, but also a correlation that those that claim to be just “conservative” or even “Republican” are often either openly or not openly transphobic, even if it’s not always the case
No, I agree, you definitely CAN be conservative and be ND, but the *community* and interacting with other ND people at scale isn’t going to be good. And so I ask the question straight up and right away, because it’s tedious to sit through ashamed waffling like “I just like traditional values” or “why do you let my politics affect how you see me?”
Well for free speech not so much in the US but in other western countries like the UK governments are actively working to take it away by having police literally come to peoples houses for stuff they posted online. And having conservative leadership would make stuff like that happening here much less likely
I agree that censorship is unreasonably strong right now, especially with the amount of data unfairly collected to facilitate it. I would actually argue that there’s significant censorship issues in the U.S., too, with books being banned from school libraries, and federally with institutions being pressured by Trump to remove bad parts of American history, for example.
Nuclear family isn’t something I think is outright evil, but I worry that when you limit family units to such small, separated groups, the hierarchy becomes very strong. Children are more susceptible to parental abuse if the only people they could feasibly go to about it are abusers themselves. Same thing with domestic violence.
I’d also like to ask… In addition to those things, do you ALSO believe things like “there are only two genders (and this should be enforced by the state)”, “immigrants who come here illegally make the country a worse place”, or “reproductive healthcare is up to the government to decide, and those who receive or perform abortions should be prosecuted”?
Because if you do, and depending on how strongly you believe in those things, it’s not cancelled out by the more reasonable things that you, as an individual conservative, might also believe. And you can’t phrase it like a trade-off, because these two beliefs aren’t necessarily interconnected. You can advocate for less censorship while also advocating for the rights and dignity of undocumented immigrants.