To my knowledge, the concept of “conservatism” is the will to conserve, preserve past values that are seen as superior. While I don’t agree with this either, this community has almost exclusively posts about fearing new things and trying to show them as evil. Evil migrants, evil new generations, evil new sexualities, whatever.
I do not see any “values” in it, only fear. Rejecting migrants is not based on morals or values that are rational, but on fear. Same for the rest. Which leads to the question, what is the point of this community? It does not lead to debate, people calling it out as fascism on one side (which is quite justified as the root ideas are seemingly identical) and the other side just saying that it’s wrong and that’s it. There’s no debate of values, as there are no values to debate about.
I do not agree with the concept of conservatism, and I couldn’t care less if this place is forever doomed to be downvoted in oblivion. But if you actually want to do something else than fear-mongering, even if you insist on talking about conservatism, then maybe it would be a good idea to refocus the community on actual ideas, and not the typical far-right speeches of hatred and fear that already flood a lot of media.
Of course I believe that it would be better to reconsider opinions that basically encourage the worst of humanity; but even aside from that, there is more to do than to replace every possibility of a conversation with the (stereo)typical “immigrants bad, jesus good, gays evil” speech.
Ideally Conservatism should be about being reserved/realistic and Liberalism should be about being optimistic/hopeful. Kind of like finding balance between art and science if that matters any sense.
Let’s take imagination for example. A liberal view would be too help everyone that comes to America looking for help. A conservative view would be America can’t just have an open border and let in everyone from every country. These are both rational views. Ideally both sides would compromise and find balance somewhere in the middle to help as many imagrants as is reasonably possible. Sadly that’s not the case.
It’s also worth noting that the actual best solution, even from a perspective that takes into account both viewpoints, may not be exactly in the middle. Even the average across all political questions may not be. But the real answers will likely be between the two extremes most of the time.
Yes, that’s why the first word I wrote was “ideally”. Because ideally both side would be trying to do what’s best for their constituents. And your right, even then, meeting in the middle wouldn’t always the best option. I’m just speaking in generalalities.
I am going to think about this but on the surface this appears to be a solid answer.
Yeah, it’s hard to compromise with people who’s only response to anything is to try and yell “racism” as loud as possible
When someone largely supports programs that primarily exacerbate ethnic, minority, or racial disparity. What’s the correct terms?
We call those democrats.
They absolutely were from at least 1870 to 1964. But something happened that made them largely leave the party. If only we knew what it was! We do, actually. We totally know. You know too. But you’ll still go ”reeeeeeee! Thing that historically happened never happened! We all went to Disneyland that year!” Rinse repeat because all you have is deflection. 🤔
Still are democrats. The myth of the party switch is just that. A myth.
Yawn. You all are so predictable. If you actually could go off and live in denial and leave everyone else alone it would be nice.
When you rely on facts. You tend to be predictable.
You should try.
The correct answer is to take a long, hard look at why you’re so obsessed with people’s skin color
Yes, that’s the question we want to know about you. Why do you all enact policies that focus so much on hurting people who share ethnicities, skin colors, etc. That’s the question. That’s why I asked you what the correct term is. But you don’t have an answer. Just straw men and deflection.
We arent focused on skin color. You’re just the ones picking everything apart based on it, and acting like everyone else must be just as obsessed as you are.
Then why does popular conservative policy consistently disparaged certain skin colors and ethnicities so commonly. It couldn’t happen just by chance or accident. The rates that it’s happening aren’t coincidence. So someone sure is. And it’s sure popular with conservatives. That’s interesting right?
Name one policy that disparages someone based on their skin color. I’d love to hear it.
No, your obsession with race, and assumptions that everyone else just must be as obsessed as you is the only interesting thing here
How does that work? I’m supposedly somehow obsessed with race simply because we notice that your policies highly negatively impact certain groups more than others. And you aren’t, even though the people you vote for and the policies you support are responsible for it. I’d really like to see a good explanation for this. Fingers crossed.
Conservatives literally change voting maps to exclude black people. Defend that.
When did this happen? You got that response because your said what exactly?