No Stupid Questions

It's because being hateful has become part of the conservative identity. To be accepted as a right wing conservative you have to spew hateful garbage about something pretty much constantly. If you don't then they think your weak, or start calling you a RINO

Disclaimer: I wondered the same, since 2014, and this is what I puzzled together for myself, read it with that in mind!

I believe a lot of it can be traced back to the wealthy and to conservative think tanks / media control by right wing moguls.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, conservatives were perceived as well-off business people trying to protect their own wealth (I've read that people used to say things like "I'm not rich enough to vote Republican" or children shouting "last one in the house is a dirty Republican"). You can even see old movies dunk on conservatives (i.e. take Stanley Kubrick's "2010: The Year we Make Contact" (1984), at the beginning, with the satellite dish tower, the protagonist noses off about reactionaries being in control of congress, thus leading the country towards war).

This is the rather extreme election result from 1964:

Because liberals mostly were Democratic Party voters, Republicans and their wealthy donors tried to alter public perception of liberals (i.e. make it undesirable for their Republican indoctrinatees to be liberal). This included taking over the media (and Reagan conveniently cancelling the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which gave political bias in the media some guard rails), then painting liberals as all things undesirable: arrogant, weak, clueless, leeches, etc.

Having a "hate object" worked so well that they kept capitalizing on it. Much of it was/is just slinging sh*t against the wall and looking what sticks, but think tanks are indeed looking at what sticks, so successful patterns get repeated. Some of these successful patterns I can see are: installing a victim complex in conservatives (feeling their back against the wall, they lash out easier, ensuring anyone talking about conservatives is conditioned to use very soft gloves) and the two-year bogeyman, often trying to capture, redefine and vilify some prior existing concept (thus, when the campaign hits, indoctrinatees can find lots of "proof" online of this thing existing).

For example, social justice used to be universally agreed on as a good thing, woke used to mean remaining aware of systemic inequalities, now they make conservatives pop an artery. This has been going for a while (the "hate object" over time has been rock music, hippies, metal music, supposed satan worshippers, pen and paper games, paganism+atheism, video games, social justice activists, cancel culture, black lives matter, critical race theory, wokeness, ...)

And I think, yes, your perception is spot on. This is, for example, what I get when I search for "anti-conservative t-shirts" (if it's too tiny, try it yourself - they're all anti-liberal):

TL;DR: conservatives are intentionally made and kept angry. It keeps them unified against a bigger enemy (see Genghis Gambit), drives them to go vote and prevents voters from switching sides even if they do not like some things the conservatives are doing. Add to that Russia amplifying this division like there's no tomorrow. They're installing this hate for liberals both in tankies and in far-right bigots (and, as far as I can tell, anti-liberal sentiment is pushed into Russian society, too).

Because liberals see "the world vs the ideal world" we see problems and we try to correct them.

Conservatives see "us vs them" and burning the world to the ground is fine as long as "The others" burn with it.

They do hate them, but generally conservatives believe in personal failings so do direct action against individuals, liberals believe in systemic failings so direct their effort towards changing the system, not the individuals.

Many many liberals were raised by conservatives.

Many many conservatives raised eventual liberals and are aghast.

I don't need to camp out and bully conservatives. I spent enough of my childhood immersed in their insanity. I'm just done.

Because conservatism is no longer a set of political beliefs. In the modern conservative movement (basically starting in the 80s, liberals and conservatives were much different before that) conservatives had social beliefs, like preserving cultural norms, promoting religion, and maintaining the nuclear family, as well as fiscal beliefs, like limited government, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and a whole lot of other bullshit that basically boiled down to, "we don't want to pay taxes."

Now, conservatism is really only about establishing an in-group and othering their opponents. Oppositions to trans rights may seem like an attempt to preserve cultural norms, but it's real goal is to create outrage and panic over trans, "groomers." Objections go CRT and DEI serve a similar role in othering people of color. "Wokeness," is just a meaningless catch-all for, "enemies." Similarly, fiscal policy is meaningless, and can be picked up and discarded whenever convenient; corporations can be deregulated and given tax breaks in service of the free market, but subsidized or bailed out whenever needed.

This is because modern conservatism isn't a political ideology, it's a fascist movement. I mean that literally, and while the meaning fascism is notoriously hard to pin down, I use Umberto Eco's 14 properties of fascism. And, to bring this back around to your original question, fascists hate liberals because hating a group is very important to a fascist movement. The modern conservative hate for liberals is especially clear in Eco's 4th, 5th, and 7th properties of fascism (disagreement as treason, fear of differences, and obsession with plots, respectively).

So, tl;dr: the one-sided hate that conservatives have for liberals is because conservatism is no longer a coherent political ideology, it's a fascist movement.

USA here. They'd likely consider this to be extremely patronizing, but I consider most conservative voters to be unaware of what it is they are actually preaching. It's crazy but the more extreme their views get, the more I'm convinced they're misinformed and misled. Some folks at the top of their pyramid I legitimately hate - I have no doubt they know exactly what they are doing.

So many of conservative beliefs just fly in the face of reality. I hate that they're perpetuating the harm that the beliefs and resulting policies cause, but seeing as how they are mostly based on clear and obvious lies, I have to assume that most of the supporters just don't realize they are being lied to and have invested emotionally in an identity that actively harms their own interests.

Saw a cartoon years ago. Panel 1 = "How Democrats See The World." It's a globe with the USA divided into Red States and Blue States. The rest of the countries are pink/green/orange except for a few black spots with a skull and crossbones marked 'Terrorists.'

Panel 2 = "How the GOP Sees the World.." Same globe, except there are only two colors; the Red States and everything else is "Terrorists."

A lot of the responses are correct, but there is one aspect being missed.

Liberals don't NEED to hate conservatives. There are real problems in the world that the left is trying to remedy.

Conservatives NEED to hate the left. Modern conservatism (and some would argue all conservatism) doesn't have any moral ideology. There is nothing they're fighting to for. Conservative ideology is the idea that there is a group that the law should protect but not bind and a group that the law should bind but not protect. To push this, an out-group has to be created and hate is the only way to dehumanize someone enough to treat them the way conservatives treat women, minorities, LGBTQ+ etc...

Conservatives hate Liberals because conservatism doesn't work without hate. They hate because they NEED to.

Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It's drilled into them by their media outlets.

The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.

Seriously. Nixon's think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.

They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.

The Frankenstein's monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.

So there's your answer. It's because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don't believe me, turn on Fox news. There's always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.

Because conservatism is fundamentally based on fear.

Bruh I'm tired, I gotta work. I don't have time to be that angry.

You have been hanging in the wrong places lol.

There are absolutely identity politics driven US liberals (as opposed to the use of liberal by the rest of the world) that are ranting, raving assholes. Always have been.

But, here's the thing. Those assholes are much more likely to be ostracized and/or shut down by the less batshit US liberals, progressives, socialists, etc that form the "left" writ large. But echo chambers for it do exist anyway. There's a few on lemmy, though they aren't federated with most of the rest.

Here's the key difference. What conservatives want to conserve is their sense of power. It's mostly straight, cis white people here in the US. There's plenty of exceptions, but they tend to not be as loud and asinine as the ones you're talking about.

That's where the anger comes from: fear. Fear of black/brown/yellow/red people. Fear of anything different. Fear of a non Christian based world leaving them behind.

The ones at the top also want to stay rich and powerful in the political sense, and are perfectly willing to weaponize their voting base to do so.

The ones at the top of the various non-conservative branches in the US also want to keep power and make money, and they'll use different fear to mobilize, but they don't usually weaponize it.

Fwiw, if you're one of the ones that does want to play petty, childish games instead of doing something useful, it's good you're shamed and muted. Shit or get off the pot. Engage in real work for real change, and do it like you know how to pretend to be a civilized human being. I'm not even talking about peaceful efforts. If you really want to force change, step the fuck up and do something about it. Start the revolution you want to see. Just don't be some douche harassing churches and pretending it's anything other than self congratulatory masturbation.

Because there is no mirror image.

@[email protected] has given you a good description of fascist methods. They're not available to the opponents of fascism because they are not fascists.

Fascism appeals to the worst parts of our nature. It gives permission to those feeling fear, humiliation or shame to lash out in anger and destroy the people that make them feel that way.

You can't deploy the same tactics to make those people want to be on your side instead. If you try to shame them, they will just hate harder.

You should, of course, expose and ridicule the grifters who lead fascist movements and punching fascists is encouraged. But you need to distinguish between authoritarian leaders and the people they seek to lead.

You should not pander to the billionaire-funded leaderships (take note NYT), but you must not sneer at the people they are trying to lead (take note centrist Dems).

Conservatives are afraid. They (at least the professionals and the GOP as an organisation) are well aware that they are on course to get irrelevent in the future. Not only are their politicians getting older, their voter base is getting older and shrinking. So the try everything in the book to stay relevant: Gerrymandering, reducing access to the voting process fro people who are unlikely to vote for them, etc. And as we all know, fear, or worse, existencial dread, leads to hate for the other side, the group of people seen as their very threat to their existence.

They are basically cornered rats, clawing and biting the pest control man.

Conservatives make politics their identity, and hate everyone that doesn't also identify as them. Most other people realize that's stupid, they just want a better life.

Liberals are not leftists. You can choose your own definitions, but I would say that many so-called liberals are actually pro-capitalist anti-worker centrists. And the center is not so far from the center-right. So many liberals don't hate conservatives. On the other hand, many conservatives bundle liberals and leftists together, because complexity is so irritating, making it easy to hate the entire group (even though it's actually at least two groups).

And quite obviously, many liberals and leftists hate some conservatives. You aren't alone. That being said, hate is an emotion, and however you feel is totally fine because it's your life. At the same time, hate itself is not constructive. Many people read and write about politics online because we want to learn about or change our world. If the content you're creating doesn't help with either of those goals, some people are going to ignore or down vote it.

Anyway, your community is surely out there, if you keep looking.

Gunna take this as Liberal/Conservative as party brand names rather than strict social ideology and you're talking about "the left" more generally.

I think the short answer is empathy. When you dig down to the bottom a lot of the discussion on the left talks about different forms of human needs. A need to feel accepted and loved, desires to exist publicly without fear... It is a radical form of empathy that asks you to put yourself in multiple pairs of shoes and see the world through perspectives you aren't naturally born into. The ultimate aim is to achieve a picture of humanity which is inclusive of the widest possible range of understanding.

In that way "Conservatives" are also people. It is not impossible to empathize with their issues. It takes a lot cognitively to internalize this new data and a lot of the rejection from the right comes not from outright cruelty but a desire for things to be and remain simple and easy. They don't want to stretch themselves and are scared of a world where that is something they are forced to do. The issue is a lot of the people selling the pitchforks on that side are doing it because it benefits them. That desire to understand encompasses the motives of individual Conservatives and splits them apart. A lot of the issues Conservatives have is that the left is "preachy" that we act like we're better than them and that does come from somewhere. Some leftists do just want to be the smartest most correct person in the room but others are just waiting for the Conservatives they know to be more understanding of other people who they learned about so they stop being mean. The person who pitties the school bully is often their target because that empathy seems to the bully like condescension.

Hate comes from fear. All varieties of conservatives operate from a fundamental core of fear. They are often preyed upon in broken systems with limited education options and are often kept ignorant to so much of the world around them. Because they don't know, they fear. Further, they can be limited by a heavy blanket of religious fundamentalism, more systematic fear.

"Liberals", on the other hand, are often educated and taught to understand things and ask questions about things they don't understand. As a result they are often aware of their surroundings, their neighbors and that exposure breeds empathy. That empathy is what kills fear which means they don't generally hate.

The feeling towards conservatives for many "liberals" is likely more of a strong disappointment mixed with regret that, as individuals, they can't really do more to help them out of the predatory cycle that conservative politicians keep them treading water in.

All this while the majority of both sides are actually struggling on the sane listing side in the same class war that has already taken the entire middle class as a casualty.

I'm going to take a somewhat different tack to describing this.

There are many ways to motivate large groups of people. You've likely seen this a lot and not really noticed or paid attention to it. Some examples are tribalism ("Hey! They're not one of us!"), nationalism ("Those dirty foreign people!"), religion ("Do what I say and go to heaven!"), money ("Do this and I'll give you something valuable"), etc.

One of the best motivators is fear. ("Do this or I/they will do something you really don't like").

Political groups need something to motivate large groups of people. When done well, they appeal to the better sides of humanity. When done by the lazy, the dumb and the craven, they go with the simple one: fear.

That's what Conservatism has been hammering for a while now. They don't really have a way to appeal to people's better sides, primarily because their platform isn't to make humanity better off. They platform is to make a few people better off to the detriment of everyone else. So they try tribalism ("Those brown people are trying to take your money!"), nationalism ("Those foreigners are taking your jobs!"), religion ("Those non-Christians are trying to install sharia law!"), etc. The most effective one is still fear. So getting their followers scared and angry is the best way to motivate them, get them to stop thinking rationally and build moats that will isolate them from people that might talk them down.

This is used to motivate people to vote in certain ways, as well as motivate them to watch advertisements. In other words: power and money.

Conservative Politics is about giving their base something/someone to be angry at.

LBJ summed it up the best:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Back then it was the african american population. Today it's trans/lgbt/migrants/muslims/etc... Insert your group of choice here and that's the Conservative political machine.

Because the right doesn't have a system of morals, just a list of justifications.

The center and left actually feel bad if they don't live up to their own ideals and so try to avoid behaving in ways that run counter to those ideals unless it becomes absolutely necessary for them to do so, and even then they'll still feel like shit for it.

See also, all those AITA posts where OP is very obviously in the right and just snapped after years of abuse, but has been gaslit hard enough to start doubting themselves because biting back just feels wrong to normal people.

Fetishization of the concept of civility. Liberals have always preferred a negative peace to even incredibly mild disruption, and that'd include hating people who want nothing more than to see the world worse for everyone. Hang out with leftists instead if you want to see people rightfully angry.

Liberals are dismissive of conservatives. You can only hate people so much when you infantilize them.

The right is too angry to listen, and the left is too arrogant to listen.

This is how democracy dies.

ConservativesofTikTok hehe.

Okay first thing: there is no mainstream left in US politics. AOC and Bernie taper off at a hair left of center. I don't even dislike them. And normally that would be fine, but the right does include flamboyant, very loud fascists. So the right has no counter weight, and what there is are Centrist Libs, who long for days of "reaching across the isle", and "order," and "civility" While people talk about Fascists projecting, the Libs are too; they think everyone approaches politics in good faith. They don't realize the fascist uses their invitation to get in, and civility as a mask to play the game. The fascist uses any means they can to gain power, and then disposes of the libs when they don't need them anymore. The libs are left, like Eddard Stark holding a piece of paper, with their dicks in the breeze.

This last piece of this is that there is an aspect of the left that matches what you say, the so called "dirt bag left," streamers like Vaush and Hassan Abi, and Chapo Trap House. They are in fact quite controversy prone, and I don't think they are good people, but I think they do match the general vibe of your statement.

Conservatives are typically motivated by anger and fear. They tend to be less educated and more superstitious. They can be easily swayed by appeals to their religious beliefs.

Those motivated by anger and fear are far more easily tricked and manipulated by others with nefarious intent. They can even be deceived into going against their own interests, as evident by Republican politicians and their opposition to democracy and freedom.

Liberals are typically motivated by humanism and live-and-let-live philosophy. They tend to be more educated and less superstitious.

Democrat politicians have a much harder time trying to browbeat liberal voters to do their will. They're conflicted as they lose voters if they obey their rich donors, and they lose rich donors if they obey their voters.

I mean I'd probably change my answer depending on the phrasing of the question here.

If you mean like, classical liberalism, which includes both laissez-faire capitalism and interventionism, you'd probably find quite a lot of conservatives at this point who would define their economic ideology (if they even have any) as belonging to that kind of realm of thought, at least with laissez-faire. That shit's pretty old, we've been through like multiple cycles of that, both globally, and domestically in america, and calling for a regression to a period when your specific breed of liberalism was in place is pretty possible. Which would be kind of lumped under conservative thought, despite the window dressing of like, wanting to just kind of, hedge your bets, maintain the status quo, and "conserve" things, and even the branding of "this is the way things really are, so we need to conserve the real reality", it's mostly actively regressive horseshit.

So, that's to say, you could both be a liberal and a conservative at the same time, if you're going based on the like, actual political definitions of things. I get the sense you're more trying to use the term "liberal" to mean "progressive", or probably more accurately "socially progressive". If you want a reason why I'm making this kind of stupid semantic distinction, it's because I think it's important to distinguish liberalism, and neoliberalism, right, which refer to economic freedom, from other more actually socially progressive ideologies. I'll get to that later. In any case, it's pretty much part of the intrinsic nature of the ideology that, being okay with gay people, at the least, is going to be more chill than not wanting gay people to exist. The same for trans people, the homeless, racial minorities, neurodivergent people, whatever.

Socially progressive values are also kind of default, I think, in a vacuum (which hardly anything is), whereas nutter conservative ideology is something you have to be more actively radicalized into. If you don't give a shit about gay people, you're probably also fine with them just like, going about life and existing. You might also be fine with their oppression, but you're not actively hindering things, necessarily. You have to be actively radicalized and convinced they're bad, though, in order to call for them to be like, killed, or barred from marriage, or whatever.

You would have to more actively want gay people to have rights, to care about them more in a positive way, and actively oppose their oppression more, in order to like, actually push for things. It's a more active position, basically, to be actually socially progressive, or actually progressive. It necessitates caring. I think despite it just being on the surface more nice as in ideology, which helps prevent people from being like, actively hateful, I think it's probably also sadly the case that a lot of people who would otherwise pretend to be socially progressive don't actually give two shits about what happens or doesn't happen, and are just mindlessly occupying what they see as kind of a default position at the time.

If you go back to like the 2000's, lots of people who are otherwise pretty "progressive" nowadays would've been pretty turbo homophobic and transphobic. That's not really a slight against their character, right, we're all products of our environment, but they're just occupying kind of whatever position they think is acceptable to the mainstream.

Put even more simply, they kind of, understand that one side is right and one is wrong, but since they don't really understand the underlying reasoning behind either side, they're just jumping onto whatever they get better vibes from. That used to be some more reactionary stuff, because we were kind of in both a more apathetic and callous cultural era where "not caring" was seen as cool and offering a better vibe, and we were seen as being kind of in a "post-history", "post-racial" world, where if you were offended by racism, that was your fault, because we ended racism, and now the only real racism is you thinking racism is real, man hits bong. Just sort of like, the idea of racism as existing in a purely cultural state, just as a remnant, a cultural artifact relic which we need to move past culturally, but doesn't affect the "real world" in any way. Those ideologies were kind of appealing to a mostly white mainstream cultural population, who could pretty easily just walk around, and make edgy jokes, and pretend still that everything's gonna be okay because they haven't encountered a housing market crash and the consolidation of all of the wealth in a fraction of the population and a once in a century pandemic partially accelerated by huge misinformation campaigns. Basically, because the mainstream cultural consciousness, mostly controlled by white people, was still insulated from the worst of the worst consequences, and because they were still getting treats.

We still had a white suburban middle class, basically. We still do, but we used to, too.

Now though, people see being socially progressive as having a better vibe. Probably this is because we're on the long end of the economy being shit, and everyone having realized that collectively burning your children's futures in order to further white supremacy isn't a sustainable thing long term and just fucks you over, probably it's also because the internet has made it easier for marginalized voices to occupy more space in the cultural consciousness, whereas before they would've been screened by industry gatekeepers. Probably it's also because conservative nutters collectively lost their fucking minds and kind of went mask off with trump and gamergate shit, partially as a reaction to obama just being like, black, but also those other factors I've named.

Probably it's because the middle class that you used to see in all those 90's movies, like fight club and office space, got automated away, outsourced, or otherwise traded for a bunch of IT and internet developers, which can mostly take their place as part of the managerial class. We go from cubicles in high rises, to open floor plan offices in mid-rises, to work-share rental spaces in low-rises, to work-from-home setups, and the amount of people allowed treats from their overlords narrows in total population because you simply don't need as many. The amount of people who are actively fooled by corporate propaganda and bootstraps mentalities also narrows with the proliferation of the internet and with the lack of people who are now "in" on this middle class lifestyle, so your immediate social group is more likely to have people who you know are chilling but are also struggling a lot financially.

yeah I think that's all I got as far as this one goes.

Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh were largely responsible for turning politics into a team sport and convincing Conservatives that all Liberals are evil and that is a Liberal wants it, it must be bad.

I hate racists and bigots, but there’s not much to be done about it. Stress and anger will take years off your own life - don’t let them harm you. On the other hand if you can troll them a bit, you may be sending some of them to an early grave, just with words. It’s not hard to do they’re triggered by anything gay, reparations, dominant women, intelligence and education, health foods, immigrants, solar power, and so on. So you don’t really have to send them any hate, you just need to be an example of the world you want to live in and they’ll rage about it.

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

You go high, we go low

People on the left don't tend to act like people on the right and people on the right know that and exploit it.