ForumTouchy Subjects ► Are there any conservatives here anymore?
Grayseff said:
Yea to be honest a lot of this thread is "I'm a conservative and I am sick of liberals assuming I think conservative things!"
The liberal stigma against conservatives is wildly wrong.

Me calling out that stigma and not living up to it doesn't make me an independent, it just means the stigma is wrong.

Prejudice isn't a conservative or liberal "value". Its a human fault and failing that will find its way into anyone's politics.

Liberals out here be actin' like conservatives have a monopoly on hatred, but we don't.
  
I never said conservatives have a monopoly on hate, what I'm saying is the current conservative platform in the United States actively promotes prejudice. It's one thing to say "the liberal view of conservatives like me is wrong," but we're discussing what major conservative platforms (Fox, PragerU, Ben Shapiro, the Republican Party et cetera) actively promote and endorse as how the country should be run.

You're talking about the conservative everyman that falls to the right on the traditional spectrum, but with the Overton Window where post-Romney Republicans put it you may as well be describing a fantasy.

You can't say we're strawmanning you when the people you identify with are saying what we say they are.
  
See, I feel like they're wrongfully identifying with me, I don't think I'm identifying with them. I don't think they're conservative, I think they pretend to be conservative because conservatism is a good thing and what they really are is a bad thing.

PragerU is a thinly veiled white nationalist propaganda machine. Ben Shapiro is a religious fundamentalist that hides behind conservatism while pushing a religious agenda and pretending its based on facts or whatever.

Fox has always been corporate garbage by the 1% to whip the working class against the working class. The Republican party has been long hated by many conservatives who feel bullied into voting for them because of people they dislike even more across political lines.

I think to be conservative is an emphasis on personal responsibility, individual opportunity, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to live how you want to live without the government having a say in what you can or can't believe or share or express.

Its a way of thinking where we're all the heads of our households, we bow to no one, bend no knees, and do what we value in life without anyone telling us what we're supposed to think or believe.

Groups are important, place in community is important, but there's such an emphasis on freedom of the self and freedom to explore individuality within conservatism and the exploration of personal achievement and meaning outside of a group context where nobody needs to bestow meaning or value on our lives because we create it for ourselves.

We don't want to have a strong system of government that can dictate our place in a group, we want to choose our lives and our values for ourselves. We don't want government restricting what information we have access to, we want to be our own judge of it.

Edit: Having said all of that and written a TEDtalk. It is worth considering what you are saying, Gray, that mainstream conservatism may have evolved to mean something different than what I value and hold dear. Language does change, times change. I may consider dropping the term conservative altogether, but I really would rather call myself a conservative and call them out for being imposters and frauds.
  
There's always going to be someone who has a different understanding of what your political label means. This is what happens when a dozen different sets of ideas get boiled down to a binary.

I kind of include white nationalists as like a fringe of conservatives when the debate is just two options. But I do grasp the argument that conservatives are just King of the Hill types who like trucks and guns and freedom and probably aren't (consciously) racist. Lots of conservatives balk at the idea of racism.

So when conservatives seem to be harbouring mostly the same ideals as liberals I do wonder what the point of being conservative is. I feel like a lot of conservatives I've seen want to go to the same place that liberals want to go, but they're arguing about how to get there.
  
The consciously racist are a fringe minority it seems. Otherwise I don't know why the racists would hide behind so many labels, if there really was a majority ready to embrace them I think they'd be more "out" and in the open.

Subconscious bias is a thing though and I do believe there are lots of conservatives with that.

I don't think the liberals want to go to the same place. I feel like many liberals want to criminalize speech that contradicts a mainstream narrative like if someone posts that they don't trust the government's story on something that happened a lot of liberals wanna make it against the law for people to dissent or have a different opinion calling it "dangerous" and stuff like that.

Conservatives love disagreeing with the government, we don't wanna give up that right. We also love guns. Most of us do, anyways. Liberals do not share our fondness with being armed. We also don't think security and safety is preferable to freedom. For example, most of us hate the TSA so called flight security. Many of us would also rather die than be forced to do something for our safety especially if we believe we don't need it to be safe as is the case with the TSA.

We also don't support as many social wellness programs preferring people for the most part to fend for themselves, although many conservatives would like to even the playing field against big business and the very wealthy that's where people on the left and right often find common ground is a mutual loathing for the 1% as they're colloquially known.

Liberal people feel a social cohesion and responsibility to the group and often feel like the group should override an individual's autonomy if its for the greater good. Conservatives usually feel like an individual has the right to protest and be heard and be allowed to walk away or leave a group if the group tries to force him to do something he doesn't want to do. We don't feel as much social obligation to be the same as each other.
  
Conservative "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values." Conservatism as a political descriptor is associated with a wide variety of groups with varying interests, each possessing varying beliefs, traditions, and values, but they all are generally linked by this one description - aversion to change, and the desire to uphold traditional values.

Generally, it is thought that in a patriarchal society built by white supremacists, aversion to change is equal to advocacy for racism and sexism. If conservatism serves to defend the current social order - one that many contend that data and the historical record shows to be demonstrably racist and sexist - it ultimately serves to defend that inequity.

In time, perhaps we will make society progressive enough that our traditions and mores will be worth upholding, and conservatism will once again be the ideal political viewpoint.

There is also 'fiscal conservatism'. Deregulation, free trade, privatization and tax cuts are its defining qualities. This camp of 'conservatives' are mostly just shills for the 1%. Only a truly ignorant person believes that deregulation is a good idea, but a lot of very educated people will tell you they believe it because they serve to benefit. Tax cuts can be a good idea, but generally they harm economic growth by reducing government revenues, thereby reducing public investment in things like infrastructure. More money sits instead of working. Privatization has led to things like for profit prisons that have a vested financial interest in ramping up enforcement, and introducing new laws and stiffer penalties for laws. That's next level dystopian nonsense.

What you're describing isn't fiscal conservatism, and it's not political conservatism. You're describing a cowboy. You're describing a bull moose. If conservatives want to continue to support ideologies that have nothing to do with them because of tribal affiliation, that's on them.

I think they need to follow Teddy Roosevelt's example, and break away, and destroy the party so it can find itself. Be the bull moose party again. Bring it back. Conservativism doesn't have any redeeming merits, but there are a lot of redeeming qualities to a lot of people on 'the right' - and if they could just make their platform about those things instead of freaking out about trans people wanting to be treated like humans, or whether someone has a wet pussy or sells demon shoes, then maybe they could escape the judgement and 'stigma' that they have rightly earned for themselves.
  
I'm just gonna mirror your words to show how this is not a water tight definition of conservatism and I'm going to apply your own logic to progressivism.

Conservative "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values." Conservatism as a political descriptor is associated with a wide variety of groups with varying interests, each possessing varying beliefs, traditions, and values, but they all are generally linked by this one description - aversion to change, and the desire to uphold traditional values.

Progressive "a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.". Progressivism is associated with a wide variety of groups with varying interests each possessing varying beliefs, traditions, and values, but they all are generally linked by this one description - embracing of change and the desire to grow beyond traditional values.

Generally, it is thought that in a patriarchal society built by white supremacists, aversion to change is equal to advocacy for racism and sexism. If conservatism serves to defend the current social order - one that many contend that data and the historical record shows to be demonstrably racist and sexist - it ultimately serves to defend that inequity.
Generally, it is thought that in a traditional society that abhors pedophila, embracing of change is equal to advocacy for pedophilia. If progressivism serves to change the current social order - one that many contend has bad directions it could change in and the historical record shows to be more liberal sexually, then it ultimately serves to enact a normalization of pedophila.

In time, perhaps we will make society progressive enough that our traditions and mores will be worth upholding, and conservatism will once again be the ideal political viewpoint.
In time, perhaps we will make society conservative enough that our changes and progress will be worth enacting in a good direction, and progressivism will once again be the ideal political viewpoint.

There is also 'fiscal conservatism'. Deregulation, free trade, privatization and tax cuts are its defining qualities. This camp of 'conservatives' are mostly just shills for the 1%. Only a truly ignorant person believes that deregulation is a good idea, but a lot of very educated people will tell you they believe it because they serve to benefit. Tax cuts can be a good idea, but generally they harm economic growth by reducing government revenues, thereby reducing public investment in things like infrastructure. More money sits instead of working. Privatization has led to things like for profit prisons that have a vested financial interest in ramping up enforcement, and introducing new laws and stiffer penalties for laws. That's next level dystopian nonsense.
I actually agree pretty much one hundred percent with the fiscal side of too much deregulation, seems like a scam by the 1% for the 1% so no arguing here. Its more the race baiting earlier that I take issue with and think that you are wrong about.

What you're describing isn't fiscal conservatism, and it's not political conservatism.
No, your bizarre and degenerate caricature of conservatism is just plain incorrect. Mine is closer to correct even if it is a romantic and poetic way of describing mainstream countrymen.

I think they need to follow Teddy Roosevelt's example, and break away, and destroy the party
Conservatives many of them don't like the Republican party. We don't even think the party is conservative anymore. Not since Bush invaded Iraq over twenty years ago. Trust was lost, and it hasn't been regained with many conservatives, nor should it.

Conservativism doesn't have any redeeming merits
Says you.

then maybe they could escape the judgement and 'stigma' that they have rightly earned for themselves.
Honestly, these kinds of extreme accusations and finger pointing of yours is reminding me why I'm so defensive of the title. There's a part of me that doesn't want to be bullied out of calling myself what I am just because you and others vilify and demonize me and mine and paint everything in this horrible shade of all good and all bad with no room for nuance or shades of grey.
  
So the functioning wing of the conservative movement, the organs that further its cause and act on its behalf are wrong and a mere advocate who disagrees with them is right?

No TRUE Scotsman
  
Generally, it is thought that in a patriarchal society built by white supremacists, aversion to change is equal to advocacy for racism and sexism. If conservatism serves to defend the current social order - one that many contend that data and the historical record shows to be demonstrably racist and sexist - it ultimately serves to defend that inequity.
Generally, it is thought that in a traditional society that abhors pedophila, embracing of change is equal to advocacy for pedophilia. If progressivism serves to change the current social order - one that many contend has bad directions it could change in and the historical record shows to be more liberal sexually, then it ultimately serves to enact a normalization of pedophila.

In time, perhaps we will make society progressive enough that our traditions and mores will be worth upholding, and conservatism will once again be the ideal political viewpoint.
In time, perhaps we will make society conservative enough that our changes and progress will be worth enacting in a good direction, and progressivism will once again be the ideal political viewpoint.


Apologies if this doesn't make sense; I should probably have gone to sleep by now:
I don't really think this approach to defining things is all that great on either side but it is a much weaker argument against progressivism. Sure, either is ridiculous if we treat conservative and progressive as absolute rules, but if we treat them as a priority of either "more C than P" or "more P than C", one holds together much better than the other:

There's a finite set of things that can be conserved, so the point of contention is "can we conserve enough of those things to say out defining priority is conservatism without inadvertently also conserving the problems produced by the status quo" the argument doesn't require assuming conservatives believe in conserving any one particular abhorrent thing in order for the logic to hold. It's a valid argument but it is only sound if 1) conservatism is about largely preserving the way things are 2) the way things are is bad 3) the amount of change required to fix what is bad about the way things are is too great to be considered "largely preserving the way things are"
whereas progress is an infinite set, and by deciding on a particular horrid thing to say progressives believe out of infinite possibilities, you're basically just begging the question. the logic is "if progressives believe in change AND they believe in [particular change that would be bad], then they believe in [particular change that would be bad]"

similarly for the second part: in a progressive society, what this type of conservatism can be changes as different things become the status quo, so the types of conservatism available now and the types of conservatism available in 100 years from now can actually be two different things and therefore one can be ideal even if the other is not.
but in a conservative society, you always have the same options available to progress. The types of progressivism available now and the types available in 100 years are the same, so it doesn't make as much sense to say one is more ideal than the other.
  
Malcolm, the point is that if progressives decide what they want to progress a conservative can decide what they wanna conserve. I'm contesting an incorrect all or nothing definition of conservatism.
  
I'm conservative but im too tired to argue about why.
  
Grayseff said:
So the functioning wing of the conservative movement, the organs that further its cause and act on its behalf are wrong and a mere advocate who disagrees with them is right?

No TRUE Scotsman
What you call the functioning wing is in reality just a minor faction of many factions of the right wing. You're begging the question and now you're using that fallacy to hit me with the no true scotsmen.

You're also implying a huge hyperbole that I am the only person who disagrees with a niche faction on the right.

The reality is that I am one of many people who don't share the values or goals with the alt right, there are dozens of us, dozens I tell you.

I was here before them. They already have a word for their movement, it starts with the word "alt" and ends with "right". I'm conservative. There's a difference and there has been.

If there weren't a difference, if they weren't a breakout group, they would just be called conservative not alt right.
  
Gonna address two points.

1. Liberals want to make some speech illegal

I haven't really seen evidence of wanting to make speech illegal by liberals. However, there is call to deplatform speech. For example, society holding major television networks accountable for hosting bigoted speakers or "both sides"-ing clear cut issues like racism. Bigots are free to say what they want, but most liberals would prefer that major networks or privately run social media groups not give them a megaphone to spout that everywhere. And that's before getting into issues of bots and fake accounts.

2. Liberals... Like the TSA, apparently?

This is the first I've heard that liberals like the TSA. Mostly liberals I know agree that they are largely security theater and not really functional in their stated purposes. I, and most other liberals I know, think they're a waste of money in their current form. It's a stupid way to spend tax dollars when it doesn't really make air flight safer.
  
eriophora said:
Gonna address two points.

1. Liberals want to make some speech illegal
I've heard people say they wish they could arrest people for sharing dangerous beliefs. That is a thing some liberal people hold to. To be fair, some so called conservative people think flag burning should be criminalized whereas that seems clearly protected speech to me even though its offensive expression.

eriophora said:

2. Liberals... Like the TSA, apparently?

This is the first I've heard that liberals like the TSA. Mostly liberals I know agree that they are largely security theater and not really functional in their stated purposes. I, and most other liberals I know, think they're a waste of money in their current form. It's a stupid way to spend tax dollars when it doesn't really make air flight safer.
I'd be very happy to be wrong about this one. I hate the TSA and would be glad to know that more than just conservative people hate them. I seem to have, wrongly, just assumed liberal people would like them because liberal people are usually more trusting of government institutions and programs than conservatives so I just assumed that also included the TSA.

Again, I'm be happy to be wrong, and at the moment I've decided to just take your word for it.
  
Bleh, I've been sick so I've missed out on a lot and it's a little late for me to respond to past stuff, lol.

Anyways, liberals are also very hard against the TSA. They single out and harass minorities, they abuse the disabled, they molest women and children, and as someone that is trans, I've met a few trans women that have been misgendered and harassed after the body scans. The TSA is a disgusting overreach of authority that has proven time and time again that they are worthless as each time they are tested, they fail on a massive scale.

As far as free speech, I am one of those that want to criminalize hate speech against all groups (excluding political and politically active religious groups). I see hate speech as an extension of incitement as it can bubble over into things like the synagogue and El Paso shootings. I even consider hate speech to be a sign of mental illness; similar to a cluster B personality disorder. I don't want immediate jail, but rather progressive fines that eventually lead to mandatory therapy, and if the person is unwilling to work in therapy, then jail. But, it's very rare that I find other liberals on board with this. Same with going gun-free, fyi.

But on the whole, it sounds like you are not playing in the same field as the absolute vast majority of conservatives out there. All the others are very much hateful. I had someone I thought was really moderate right-wing dump on me after she started spewing off a whole hell of a lot of covert racist things about BLM and black people after January 9th, getting furious that I was calling her out and proving her racism. And as Greyseff said, conservative media and social media are strongly to blame. It is absolutely pervasive and willingly reaches the TVs and computer screens of tens of millions of conservatives, each one bobbing their head in agreement to each little covert or outright racist statement. Why are neo-Nazis and white supremacists so ingrained in the conservative circles now? Because they are accepted. They always have been. Never once have I ever seen a conservative group kick even a Nazi out, even when I was personally skirting the alt-right line myself (yes, I used to be conservative/libertarian about 7 years ago).

Now I'm really going to jump on something I spotted and that is your pedophilia remark. Pedophilia happens in traditionalist societies. Why? Because traditionalist societies treat the male as the monarch and the women and children as domestic slaves to that monarch. Pedophilia is no different from rape in that it is an abuse of power. Tim Nolan, George Nader, and Ruben Verastigui are all conservatives convicted of child porn and child sex trafficking, all of them close to Trump, with Nader being a Trump advisor convicted of raping 10 boys back in 2003. Matt Gaetz is on his way to jail too it seems. We all know the Roy Moore story. And Republican Washington governor candidate Lauren Culp protected his pedophile buddy (also ironically named Roy Moore) and still got 43% of the vote. Why so many Republican child predators within a 4-year span? Because children are property to them. On the whole, liberals protect children because they know that children are naive and will give authority unquestionably to any adult. No amount of sexual freedom will ever make it OK because child sex strips the child's freedoms away due to their naivety of adult relations (same goes with animals). Yes, once in a blue moon something does pop up on the liberal side, but it is incredibly dishonest to compare the two, especially when you ask yourself which side protects the churches and the billionaires like Epstein.
  
"I've heard people say they wish they could arrest people for sharing dangerous beliefs."

Hmm, while not true for all, I think it may be worth considering that that's just kind of a fantasy for most? It's like... wishing you could just solve the problem by removing bigots from society. I've said similar when I'm feeling tired and frustrated with bigotry, but I don't actually want it to happen because I know that there are a lot of reasons it would be a terrible precedent to set.

I wish we could just arrest bigots and remove them from society because it would be a simple solution. But it's only a wish because I know we can't do that for a while host of reasons, since it would ultimately be a very bad thing for society.
  
Imprisoning or removing someone because they don't share the same ideals and opinions you do? Are you being serious?

Have you ever heard of the Holocaust?
  
Yeah, that was my point. It's an overly simplistic and obviously terrible way to get rid of racism.
  
What you call the functioning wing is in reality just a minor faction of many factions of the right wing. You're begging the question and now you're using that fallacy to hit me with the no true scotsmen.

You're also implying a huge hyperbole that I am the only person who disagrees with a niche faction on the right.

The reality is that I am one of many people who don't share the values or goals with the alt right, there are dozens of us, dozens I tell you.

I was here before them. They already have a word for their movement, it starts with the word "alt" and ends with "right". I'm conservative. There's a difference and there has been.

If there weren't a difference, if they weren't a breakout group, they would just be called conservative not alt right.


They aren't a minor faction, they are the public-facing faction that sits in government and acts on behalf of conservatives. The way the Republican party folded after the nomination and election of DJT and the way it continues to bend after his loss tells me where conservative loyalties and fears lie.
  
eriophora said:
I haven't really seen evidence of wanting to make speech illegal by liberals. However, there is call to deplatform speech.
What about hate speech laws? That's definitely a left-wing policy, albeit an illiberal one if you think about it. (Note that the US legal system does not currently recognize the concept of hate speech.)
  
Yes, I find it remarkable that the increasing restrictions on speech being pushed by liberals is not taken as a fact. I mean, Count Dankula anyone. Or the girl who got an ankle bracelet because she said the n-word on Instagram (in the context of quoting rap lyrics!).
  
Imprisoning or removing someone because they don't share the same ideals and opinions you do? Are you being serious?

Have you ever heard of the Holocaust?


Seriously? Yes, I've heard of the Holocaust. It was about groups of minorities (Jews, LGBT, mentally ill, homeless, immigrants, etc) that were blamed and scapegoated for an entire nation's failings with all the reasons based on conspiracy theories fermented in racism and hate. You know, letting hate speech go unpunished.

I lived with my literal Nazi grandmother as a child and we are Ashkenazi Jew by heritage on my mother's side. I know full well the history of Nazi Germany and how the Jews were treated as we know nothing of my other grandmother's family since they were wiped out and erased, which might have happened to my mother, half-sister, or me had my grandmother not chosen a suicide attempt instead, landing her in nursing homes for the rest of her life.
  
Just a fun question I wanna throw out to everyone here: should we try to make people healthier even if they don’t want to be?
Millpond said:
Yes, I find it remarkable that the increasing restrictions on speech being pushed by liberals is not taken as a fact. I mean, Count Dankula anyone. Or the girl who got an ankle bracelet because she said the n-word on Instagram (in the context of quoting rap lyrics!).
I have no clue who count dankula is but I’m much more interested in the second one.
  
Millpond said:
Yes, I find it remarkable that the increasing restrictions on speech being pushed by liberals is not taken as a fact. I mean, Count Dankula anyone. Or the girl who got an ankle bracelet because she said the n-word on Instagram (in the context of quoting rap lyrics!).


Yea the UK's had a slew of hate speech laws that are draconian, all while liberals complain about crackdowns on protests without seeing that they're two sides of the same coin: censoring speech you view as dangerous with punitive laws.
  
I have no clue who count dankula is but I’m much more interested in the second one.
Woman guilty of 'racist' Snap Dogg rap lyric Instagram post - BBC News 19 April 2018.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Are there any conservatives here anymore?