I’m just curious what y’all think about that aspect of your identity. What’s it based on? What are its limits?
The foundation of my conservative values is my distrust of the government, either they are intentionally fucking people over or their programs accidentally do at a huge cost to tax payers. Government is incapable of making policy at a micro level that is tailored to an individual’s needs.
Tipper Gore with her push censor music was the thing that changed me from apolitical to conservative.
So, how do you think about corporate malfeasance? Because businesses are capable of making policies at a micro level that are tailed to individual needs…that extract value from them to redirect to shareholders.
Walmart isn’t sending men with guns if I don’t shop at their store.
They would if the government wasn’t stopping them from doing so.
OK, I’ll bite. Keep in mind I am not from the USA, so what qualifies as “conservative” in my country is likely considered less so there. This is an adapted version of what I wrote when I was in a similar forum at reddit
I’m a conservative nationalist populist, with somewhat more emphasis on the latter. I am also - get this - a libertarian authoritarian. Confused? I’ll explain.
I believe strongly in live and let live. You do whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesnt harm other people or unduly interfere with their enjoyment of life. Want to smoke dope, wear a furry suit 24/7, identify as polyamorous genderqueer otherkin? Wear a Confederate flag shirt? All at once? Knock yourself out, you do you, and I’m completely OK with that.
But as soon as you start interfering with other people, be it their freedom of speech, their lifestyle choices, or their autonomy, we, as in the state can and should come down on your ass in the most punitive, draconian way possible, your rights be damned. Just like any good authoritarian leader would. If you cannot respect the rights of others then why should you expect yours to be respected?
You respect and abide by the laws of society and its citizens, and contribute as and where you can, then you deserve the same rights as anyone else.
The specific issues that I would probably lean more “conservative” on;
-
Law and order - I agree that there is far too much focus on punishment - on both sides of the debate. Sentencing needs to be about risk management, not punishment. That needs to be the primary driver. If risk can be alleviated by rehabilitation, well and good, and in many cases that can be done. But there is a minority of offenders who can never safely be released back into society, and need to be permanently isolated. I am in favour of rehabilitation if it is going to successfully remove that risk - with the emphasis being on the word successfully, because too often offenders are released upon the public when clearly whatever rehab has been undertaken has not worked. This applies especially for child molester paedophiles, the “treatment programmes” for paedophilia are pretty much snake oil, much like all the “reparative therapy” out there for gay people, and for not totally dissimilar biological reasons. I am extremely sceptical of the long term outcomes of all these “treatment programmes”
-
Strong borders - for a whole host of cultural and environmental reasons, I believe immigration into all developed countries needs to be closely controlled and regulated. I dont object to manageable levels of immigration, but we should be selecting in favour of immigrants from cultures that are not heavily misogynistic, homophobic, or with extremely high levels of corruption, and that ideally share some cultural and linguistic background. Of course an individual may be leaving a country with an unfavourable culture because they are not compatible with it, in which case they are more likely to be compatible with ours, e.g. an atheist wanting to get out of Saudi Arabia. Which neatly segues to…
-
Islam - especially as a gay man, I feel it needs to be acknowledged that Islam is problematic, and more so than any other major religion (barring Scientology which is even worse but thankfully much smaller). It has a few attributes which make it so, one being the lack of separation of church and state, another being the way it treats it’s apostates (i.e ex-Muslims and those in sects that deviate from mainstream Islam). Of course not every Muslim is problematic, a good many arent (especially in the USA where many have come from more educated backgrounds to start with than those in Europe etc), and we need to separate the faith overall from its individual adherents.
-
Free speech is necessary for a free society, including that which we despise. The test for me with this is those fucking Holocaust denier cunts who I loathe with a passion, but I do not want to see them prevented from spewing their shit as much as it rarks me up, because if they are stopped, who’s next? Still hate those cunts though.
-
Israel - I am an unabashed Zionist, and I make no apologies for that. Of course Israel is far from perfect, but it has the best human rights for LGBT people in the region by far (not that that is a particularly high bar) and manages to be a passably functional democracy in a region where those are few and far between while being in a state of siege and constant low level warfare with most of its neighbours. Of course its flawed! But those that criticise Israel while ignoring the far worse human rights violations of every other country in the region need to pull their heads out of the arses to be blunt.
-
Welfare - I support a welfare state, but I do think that the one we have now performs poorly in that it does not adequately help those that really need it most and is far too easily abused. A large part of the problem is that the vast majority of benefits are paid out in cash to the accounts of beneficiaries, with no control on how it is used/ spent. While this is not a problem for many, perhaps most, a substantial proportion of beneficiaries spend the money on feeding their addictions - in other words, it makes all of us enablers. I have seen this first hand, with several different individuals. This is hugely counterproductive, as it feeds into increased costs in health and justice sectors, while completely failing to actually help those the welfare is given to. This needs to change (the details of which are for another post on its own!)
I’m a moderate conservative and I fall fairly well in line with you. A few small differences but similar
-
I lean more libertarian, though I disagree on some things, but in general my beliefs line up with what people would typically categorize as “conservative” in a modern, American political context.
Removed by mod
Guy who calls himself conservative here.
If a progressive is someone who wants progress things, a conservative is one who says “Is that really how we want to progress?” . With a gas pedal, you need a brake pedal so to speak.
Not all progress is good progress. Look at communism, and what progress towards that goal lead to. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A perfect example is guns. You look at the newspapers, and see all these masd shootings. Of course we should disarm the people. But you look at the stats and see just how rare mass shootings are, you look at what often happens to disarmed populations, and how disarment doesn’t actually work, suddenly disarment looks like bad progress.
Not all progress is good, a lot is bad, even with good intentions.
I’m a moderate conservative. I’m not against social programs but they should be time bound, cost effective and work to remove someone from the social program.
I also want to see a balanced budget.
and work to remove someone from the social program.
What happens to people who are chronically ill, unable to work or heal to a point where they can get off of social programs?
What about the old/retired?
Old/retired is social security/401k/pension.
Chronically ill is social security.
Social security is an insurance program.
Old/retired is social security/401k/pension.
Not everybody has payed enough into social security to get any use out of it, and not everybody has a 401k/pension. And that especially goes for pensions.
Chronically ill is social security.
Unless I’m missing something, people who are chronically ill are typically on medicaid, not social security. But my question was really about the “heal to a point where they can get off social programs part”.
There are many people who will never, for the rest of their life, or for a very long part of their life have no ability to heal or become able bodied. Are you suggesting they get booted off these programs anyways?
Social security disability.
The people who can’t work get social security.
Removed by mod
Disclaimer, I’m far to the left personally. With that in mind:
One definition is that on the left, everyone should be able to be however they want to be, and you shouldn’t infringe people’s freedom by telling them they have to be this way or that way, if that’s not in their nature. On the right, there’s a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and it’s okay if the people who are “in the right” and hold some natural authority as a result are telling the people who don’t have their act together (financially, life-organization-wise, sexually, whatever) what’s what.
I won’t say one is right and another is wrong; they apply well or badly in different contexts. Academia tends to be left-wing. Militaries tend to be right-wing. It’s generally good to be on the left if you’re trying to understand the world and figure things out without a preconceived notion of what the right and wrong answers are. It’s generally good to be on the right if you need action, strength of character, ability to defeat your enemies or defend yourself without getting extensively hung up in second-guessing.
This doesn’t apply very well to the modern US political landscape, which is pretty far afield of the traditional definitions of left and right, but that’s a separate topic.
Let the hate-responses commence 😃
I would not say that’s the lefts view at all. Covid is a perfect example where the left wanted to control every facet of a persons life.
Conservatives lean towards social order by allowing people to do as they see fit unless the action is damaging to society. We prefer tradition over fads.
Academics use to be more conservative but liberals slowly overtook them as they couldn’t find gainful work otherwise. They like to talk about theory rather than results.
So I think it goes without saying that I don’t agree with… well, pretty much any of this. If you really want to talk about this I think it’s gonna be a little bit of a hard road, but I’ll take a stab at it.
Your whole message is generalities. That’s a difficult starting point for a debate, because my generalities are radically different than these, but it’s hard to talk about it because these kinds of broad statements are hard to argue for or against factually. It’s just my world view versus your world view and us hurling disagreements at each other.
Let’s start here: Would you describe Ron DeSantis as a conservative? Would you describe Biden as being on the left? I can talk to you about specific policies from DeSantis and Biden, and how they match up with your generalities, and it can be at least a factual conversation. Also, who are some examples of who you mean by “academics”? (some of the conservative ones who used to be around and some of the liberal ones who are currently around)
No I do not consider de Santis a traditional conservative. I am not sure how I would define him. He did well with Covid by letting people make decisions. I agree with him removing the special district from Disney but I don’t like how he’s turned it into a petty fight.
Biden is left but he’s disorganized. He can’t think past his nose. He isn’t far left. Putin speaks highly of him for their similar ideologies.
Academics. People who work in academia. When I went to college almost all my teachers were conservative. I only had one liberal teacher and that was my English teacher.
I teach college courses on the side and I’ve seen the change from facts to feelings.
Hm. Okay, here’s where I’m coming from: I’ve talked to a lot of people on the right who in my opinion say stuff, or think stuff about the world, that doesn’t hold up to factual scrutiny. They hear a lot of people say certain things, and so they start saying it too, but they resist talking about it in a way that pins it down to facts; they just repeat the general viewpoint. I’m asking you specific questions about e.g. who are some academics who exemplify who you’re talking about, so I can get my head around what you’re trying to say as a specific thing that can be tested factually, as opposed to just a generality.
IDK if that conversation is something you’re interested in. Out of curiosity, what college did you go to with all these conservative teachers? I went quite a while ago, and I remember one English teacher who was visibly liberal, and one econ teacher who was visibly conservative, and all the rest were apolitical as far as my knowledge of them.
Putin speaks highly of him for their similar ideologies.
Can you send me the quote?
I teach college courses on the side and I’ve seen the change from facts to feelings.
Right, on this I think I know exactly what you’re talking about and I probably agree with your view on the people you’re talking about. A certain section of the academic left in the US has been skating towards something very weird that I think is un-fact-based, in a way that’s actually very similar to the way I think a lot of people on the modern American right are un-fact-based.
they just repeat the general viewpoint. I’m asking you specific questions about e.g. who are some academics who exemplify who you’re talking about, so I can get my head around what you’re trying to say as a specific thing that can be tested factually, as opposed to just a generality.
Not the guy you asked, but at least to me, the generality is the issue. It isn’t an issue that liberal academics exist such that any single person is worth a call-out, but rather that the academic system as a whole is significantly slanted.
I went through college recently, and between the two universities I was at, both were overwhelmingly liberal (politically speaking) when it came to university policy, and my teachers overwhelmingly expressed liberal political views, and I general, this is backed up by the data. The specific universities I’ve attended is something I’d rather not divulge here for privacy reasons, but I don’t consider it particularly important to the issue since it extends beyond my own observations.
Not the guy you asked, but at least to me, the generality is the issue.
Right, but you get what I’m saying that I don’t necessarily agree with the guy out of the gate? We kind of have to dig beyond the generalities in some capacity, if we ever want to get past just shouting the generalities at each other back and forth.
I went through college recently, and between the two universities I was at, both were overwhelmingly liberal
This, I can 100% agree with. I talked about it in my initial statement - I feel like academia is naturally pretty left-wing, and the military is naturally pretty right-wing, and neither of those is (in my opinion) something anyone has to “fix.” It’s just a natural product of the environment. More what I was surprised by was the other dude saying that his professors when he went to school were dominantly conservative.
I agree that just shouting generalities back and forth doesn’t accomplish anything, but I find that moving to more specific things doesn’t help in that kind of conversation anyway, just changes the scope. Rather, I find that discussing the values behind the concern and the effects of the generality to be a better use of time since it doesn’t just fall into nitpicking an example. I find that this thread describes it best. Any specific examples often end up being somewhat trivial and arbitrary, when the real concern is with an overall trend
I feel like academia is naturally pretty left-wing, and the military is naturally pretty right-wing, and neither of those is (in my opinion) something anyone has to “fix.”
I agree that the slant doesn’t need to be “fixed” per se. My issue is largely that the slant is often either entirely ignored when it might call an academic work into question, or used as some stupid “hurr durr right wing hates being smart” type talking point.
who are some academics who exemplify who you’re talking about, so I can get my head around what you’re trying to say as a specific thing that can be tested >factually, as opposed to just a generality.
I doubt you are going to know any of my college professors but the whole psychology department was conservative. But Dr. Rogers, Dr. Corvellis, and Dr. Case were all conservatives and high up in the department.
I went to school in the midwest in the late 80’s.
Putin Says He Wants to Work With Biden, Claims ‘Shared Values’ Between Democrats and Communism
I was told for next semester I need to add more social justice to my classes. I am not tenured as I am PT. I said no, not because I am for or against social justice but because it has nothing to do with what I am teaching. I am teaching cybersecurity courses right now. We avoid politics unless it is relevant to the topic.
I doubt you are going to know any of my college professors but the whole psychology department was conservative. But Dr. Rogers, Dr. Corvellis, and Dr. Case were all conservatives and high up in the department.
Hm… I wouldn’t be surprised if there are individual universities where particular whole departments are conservative, then and now. Are you basing your whole statement about academia then vs now on your experience in that one department? Because that would be easily believable to me, but I’d hesitate to apply that to the whole of academia.
Again, in this case I actually do feel like I know what you’re talking about with a particular brand of left-wing-ism that’s become common in academia now that didn’t used to be, and if it’s what I’m thinking of, then I will agree with you 100% that that particular brand is a bad thing.
This is just super weird. I mean… I get that this particular article says that Putin said once that he can work with Biden and drew some parallels between Soviet history and American history.
What’s your assertion with this in terms of what it means about Biden? If you’re trying to point to this to say that Biden and Putin are aligned in any way, I think you gotta tell Biden that, because he’s more or less fighting a proxy war against Putin right now.
It’s anecdotal but don’t confuse conservative with republican. I bet most of them were democrats. It’s one of my complaints is we’ve become more divided. My hard science instructors were conservative. Psychology has went hard left now and it use to be more conservative. But it’s all anecdotal and I acknowledge the limits of that. I went to three schools and two leaned conservative. One I have no clue. It never came up. The second school was mainly retired military as instructors.
What does it mean about Biden? Fair question and I’ll give you a fair answer. Nothing. It’s a dig at Biden but Putin is a master at words. Putin isn’t stupid. He picked those terms carefully to stain Biden.
Biden political is all over the place but if we look at his record he’s fairly conservative. As president he’s neurotic. He’s trying to appease the left when he’s more right. Look at his crime bill in the 90’s
deleted by creator
It’s not always, though.
If someone shoplifts, the police should come by and impose their will on the shoplifter that they’re under arrest. If you’re raising a child, and the child doesn’t want to mow the lawn or keep their room clean, my opinion is that it’s your responsibility as a parent to address it in some fashion, instead of just saying “Oh well, he doesn’t want to.”
This is precisely what I was saying: There are contexts where you can say “X is right and Y is wrong and we need to enforce that,” and other contexts where yes, trying to enforce it is some form of human rights violation. There can legitimately be disagreement about which is which, but pretending that everything is the second case is just as wrong as pretending everything is the first case.
Edit: spelling
deleted by creator
This is the authoritarian mindset – I don’t believe ruining someone’s life and putting them in danger of being shot is the solution to likely petty losses.
How about if someone breaks in your apartment and threatens your safety? Would you support the cops being authoritarian with them, maybe putting their life in danger if they’re resistive against being arrested, in that case?
deleted by creator
The question (1) wasn’t someone who wants your stuff - it was specifically someone breaking in and endangering you personally (2) wasn’t about what you thought might happen if you called the cops; I asked it in a very specific way for this exact reason. If there happened to be police around, or somebody else who wasn’t the police, and that person intervened to stop you being assaulted and informed that endangering party that they were breaking the law and tried to forcefully subject them to the consequences of breaking the law. Would you support that action? Or you’d support the burglar’s right to be free from authoritarianism in their effort to hurt you?
I’m not trying to be combative with you about it. I do absolutely get the point about not wanting to engage with the justice system if the justice system isn’t interested in justice for you and in fact seems dangerous to you. But to me you’re clearly taking it to such a broader extreme that I honestly have trouble believing that you’d apply it to that extent as pertains your own life and safety.
I think being able to constructively address the very real problem of police misconduct has to include acknowledging the very genuine reality of “something very bad is happening and violent action is warranted to stop it.” Have I understood you accurately, that you’re saying you don’t think that’s true in any case? Because I feel like floating that argument actually makes it more difficult to address the very real problem of police violence, because it makes your viewpoint super easy to dismiss for someone who’s into the day-to-day reality of crime and law enforcement.
Care to shoot me a dm with your address then?
Everything is forcing something on somebody.
Do you think Riley Gaines is wrong for not wanting to compete with trans women? That’s was imposed on her when she didn’t want it.
deleted by creator
She is forced to play with a biological male. That’s enforcing views on someone else.
It’s how the world runs.
deleted by creator
Woosh. You went on some rant that wasn’t relevant to the point.
The point is things are always imposed on people. To act otherwise is just ignoring how the world works.
deleted by creator
Is it wrong for me to want to impose my will onto others and make them not rape kids?
Your straw man fails to account for something very simple. The rapists is imposing their will on the victim, stopping others from imposing their will on others is the line between anarchy
Just saying the name of a fallacy doesn’t make your moronic comment any less retarded
deleted by creator
Actual conservative here. To me it mostly means a defense of the essential culture and values of Christendom, AKA Western civilization.
Thank you.
What do you mean though? It could mean anything from literally waging war to a steeping yourself in its philosophy to push back against other ideological strains…or both.
Christendom
lol.
Do you think america was founded as a christian nation?
Yes? Well specifically protestant if you don’t consider protestants to be Christianity which I know some catholics do.
Theres seperation between church and state, but that comes from Christianity, and a lot of the other constitutional values come from Christianity.
We are not a Christian nation but we are a nation of Christian’s. I was raised Catholic but I’m an atheist.
Many of the founding fathers were deist but many of the citizens were Christian.
The separation was something that came up much later. Some of the original states had a state religion.
Religion and the government is an interesting topic. It was much more tolerated in the past
