• ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know I’ve seen some articles on this but I can’t seem to find them again. There were studies done where they asked self identified right wing people to agree or disagree with political statements.

    People were very likely to disagree with a statement like “I support universal healthcare”, but very likely to agree with statements like “I support laws which would ensure no taxpayer would enter into medical debt for obtaining necessary medical care”. Essentially, if you just described socialist ideology, without using the common words for it, a large amount of right wing people completely agreed with it.

    • Danterious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember seeing the same things a while back. This is why I always explain what I believe before I use the common words for it.

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They don’t form opinions so much as inherit them from authoritarians via social pressure.

    • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This has been my anecdotal experience as well. Most of the time when I ask my Republican friends their opinions on specific policies I find that their views are very populist leaning toward socialist. They just happen to also be motivated by fear and easily swayed by propaganda and will readily vote against their own interests in exchange for a false sense of security.

      They are then confused and frustrated when the scumbags they voted for do exactly what they said they would do and it turns out badly.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        What happens when you ask them such a policy, then ask them to tell you what they think the positives and negatives of that policy would be.

        Only to then call it by the name they were conditioned to hate?

        Would they become angry? Start rationalizing against the points they just made? Or accept their hate isn’t justified?

    • RagingHungryPanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve noticed the same in conversations. When I talk about socialist theory, people agree 100%, but as soon as you say a buzz word it’s, “Now I don’t want full socialism!”

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That could easily be assumed as an endorsement of lower health care costs, not universal health care.

      • Arakwar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But right wing also oppose government interventions to lower those prices. And no, the market will not fix itself. Some things are not bound to laws of supply and demand. When your kid is on the operation table, you’re not going to tell him « hey sorry it’s too expensive to keep you around, we’re putting you down ».

        • ChickenBoo@lemmy.jnks.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let me just call some other hospitals, surgeons, and anesthesiologists to price shop when my kid needs surgery.

          Nevermind the fact you’re further limited by the network decided by the insurance provider you don’t get to choose…

        • wagesj45@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. The difference is that its corporations doing the the majority of the propagandizing rather than the government directly. But propaganda is propaganda.

          • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            How can you possibly say that when the CCP exerts such tight control over the parts of the Internet mainlanders are allowed to see?

            • saltesc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s authoritarianism. You don’t see the CCP edging closer to a civil war based on propagated polarising. AFAIK, that’s never been achieved in human history. I’m sure it’s unlikely to happen, but between all the international targeting from Russia, China, etc. and then the US’s own media and governments, the US is soaked in propaganda more than anywhere else. Absolutely surrounded by it.

              But this is the interesting part. The more someone is propagated, the less likely they are to realise it.

            • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              America doesn’t even need to do that. It just convinces people to not trust anything that doesn’t come from pre-approved sources and that works well enough.

  • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s so hard to watch people speak their values and beliefs and then promptly vote against them because of feelings based propaganda.

    • Danterious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they were to vote for their values who would they vote for?

      The democrats aren’t upholding these values either and while I agree that they are much better than the current republican party it doesn’t mean that voting for them would be voting in their interest but instead in the least bad option.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We vote blue not to change the system but because voting red makes the situation worse. The whole affair with the GOP stacking SCOTUS with Federalist Society jurists provides one example of many. At this time, they’re trying to neuter elections to push Democrats out entirely.

        To change society we’ll have to do far more than merely vote. And to date, we’ve had to claw every right we have by force or coercion, and when the public isn’t a direct threat to the elite, they feel free to strip away our rights. Dobbs was only the most public of the provisions: most fourth- and fifth-amendment protections have been stripped away, again by the US Supreme Court.

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you look at what the administration is actually doing and trying to do, there is a lot of going to the right direction. There is absolutely not enough of that, they probably could and definitely should do more, but it’s disingenuous to say that they do absolutely nothing for the working class.

  • kitonthenet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s not about the economic policies, it’s about the racism. They hate Black and trans people more than they want free healthcare…

  • notatoad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    These “the far right just wants normal relatable things” seem to be a relatively popular genre. We can all agree that freedom and safety and health and happiness are good things to have.

    But we’ve all seen what the trumpers do when you start trying to give those things to poor people, or immigrants, or trans people. The question we need to be asking isn’t “do you like nice things?”, the question is “who do you think is deserving of nice things”

    • Danterious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But then the deeper question is “why do you think these other people don’t deserve these things?” and then they tell you all about how they are sinful, lazy, violent, or whatever else that they use to justify shunning those other people which is obviously incorrect but it is what they believe so if they actually believe all of that stuff then obviously they are gonna be hostile towards those kinds of people.

      It is better to understand and try and remedy why people are doing awful and horrible things than dismiss and judge them because the first option actually can lead to a solution and the other is going to isolate them and make the problem 10x worse.

      Being empathetic is the first step to forming trust. Also by the way even though I am saying all of this it doesn’t mean that if someone is being rude to you or insulting your friends you should just turn the other cheek and let them stomp all over you. What it means is that you have to be assertive with who you are and what you stand for but also being willing to listen and understand (not necessarily accept) what other people are saying.

      Edit: Also FYI the far right are people and not all of them are 24/7 talking about far right stuff. So statistically they likely do want “normal relatable things” most of the time.