Thank for taking the time to reply. I too am interested in understanding perspective on this issue because I have American friends in both political camps (centre-right and far-right).
I see your logic and I think your arguments have weight and are done in good faith. That being said the gulf in our perspectives and experiences is simply too far apart, where it may almost seem like we are talking about different things (and we are from different sides of the planet).
I don't see why I or other any SJW member should be subject to bad faith, corporate spam. I am not interested in "demagogue destroys [political opponent]", "[political opponent] is a member of Al-Qaeda] or "[US Oligarch says some a propaganda]". All found in the first two pages of maga.place. What is this point of this?
I do not believe in "safe spaces" or "echo chambers". The latter in particular is a loaded, polemical term that means nothing. You can very much be open to new experiences and perspective without wanting malicious goons shitting up a forum that you use. There is a beautiful irony that US conservatives claim to oppose echo chambers when they are the biggest enablers of this concept. Is it unreasonable to claims that almost all US conservatives oppose real regulation of social media (other than to dictate and force their own interpretation of moderation policies on others) to address harmful engagement algorithms?
Just recently Facebook was found to have earned $16.5 B in 2024 from commissions on fraud and scams. Am I acting in bad faith by stating that most conservatives in the US would oppose true action (not words) against FB's leadership and those who implemented this policy? Real action; prison, asset seizure, breakup of criminal organizations.
I don't believe in American polemics about "big government spending". First of all, fiscal policy is a pretty complicated thing, "I want lower taxes no matter what" is not a serious policy proposal (and that is the sole prerogative of US conservatism). Legitimate reform approaches (even more technocratic proposals) are rejected outright by US conservatives. Secondly, there is the moral imperative. US is a very a rich country and is more than capable of providing healthcare for all, not to mention there are economic reasons why such a system allows for more efficiency (purchasing economies, remove of massive insurance company and healthcare administration bureaucracy). My friend works in healthcare in the US, from my discussions with him it seems clear (to me), that the current US healthcare system is simply a local scheme for corruption and criminality. Third, from the research I did, US conservatives are more than happy to be the beneficiaries of government spending (e.g. farming, certain conservative states/regions de facto existing on government initiatives).
For me, it's not good enough to say "I don't like what ICE is doing, but I will tolerate their actions because I want to remove illegal immigrants". Security services beating people up, arbitrarily arresting people and deporting citizens is unacceptable. Excuses don't count. When you ignore such things, you get russia.
Russia became the way it is because the people were willing to tolerate putin because they thought he was doing the right thing. I lived in russia in the 90s, you could criticize the government and there was some hilarious satirical shows (sometimes very high quality subtle satire). There partially free elections. They lost it all that because they thought putin was doing the right thing.
I also disagree that the US has fully free elections. There are parts of the country where people aren't allowed to vote (and US conservatives largely support this). The approach to districting is also clearly malicious and strongly suggests US conservatives oppose real democracy (districting is just one example, there are many others).
When I mentioned the distinction between the conservative movement in general (on a global scale) and US conservatives I was referring to the above points. You can be a conservative in other countries and not support security services setting up check points for non-whites, beating up people and deporting your own citizens.
It is also the height of arrogance to think it is impossible for a political movement to be fundamentally flawed and lacking in any real positives. There are more than enough political movements in world history (both left and right) that have been completely discredited. To believe this is impossible in the US is how you get putin and your country turning into russia.
I have no issues with conservative perspectives, you need a balance to keep both sides honest, but that doesn't mean I must believe an American political movement cannot be rotten to the core by the virtue of being American. And that's why I think it is legitimate to preemptively ban oligarch propaganda and borderline degenerate spam "demagogue destroys [political opponent]" from what I consider to be a fundamentally malicious movement.
Apologies for the rather negative tone, but this is my perspective.