Conservatism is about favoring tradition and supporting the status quo. Going this wild about a common grammatical construct because it reminds you of people you hate for existing isn’t conservative, it’s something far worse.
I think we agree that most self-identified conservatives aren’t actually very invested in the status quo or tradition, and are actually regressive reactionaries, but I think it’s a clearer point to say that most self-identified conservatives aren’t in fact conservative, than that conservatism isn’t actually what people (claim they) mean when they say conservative. At that point, conservatism loses its meaning.
One could argue that so called “traditions” they are holding so much dearly in their heart never was fully a thing and is just the product of past idealizations and marketing propaganda. “The perfect suburban american trad family” from the 60s is a construct made by marketing people to sell fridges, diamond and beautiful car.
Climate change is a thing and back then life was cheaper, this “MuH WhIte PeOpLe” shit needs to stop. 80s and 90s were not some sort of ethnonationalist world where black people were genocided.
I thought we were talking about the 1960s? You know, the era that where black people didn’t have civil rights or even voting rights in some places legally until the middle of the decade and were still being lynched in significant numbers? The era where both Malcolm X and Dr. King were assassinated?
The world is honestly too far into the crumbles for it to work like that anymore, they would just use circuitous accounting to funnel it into bunkers, militarized yachts, private armies, and extra planetary fever dreams.
There is a difference between historical conservatism and what it has become. Even setting that aside, there is much daylight between what a movement will profess and what it will ultimately produce.
A broadly educated population is incompatible with, and toxic to, conservative ideologies.
I would suggest it’s the conservative ideologies that are toxic, education is the antidote.
I’d posit both statements are true and fundamentally complimentary.
Well, toxins are
inorganicnot really alive, so they’re not really killed by antidotesNow if the analogy were infections an antibiotics….
(Edit corrected a word. Apparently, toxins are produced by organisms, got confused for a second there.)
deleted by creator
Conservatism is about favoring tradition and supporting the status quo. Going this wild about a common grammatical construct because it reminds you of people you hate for existing isn’t conservative, it’s something far worse.
That’s just what Conservatism claims to be about, but it has always been regressive
I think we agree that most self-identified conservatives aren’t actually very invested in the status quo or tradition, and are actually regressive reactionaries, but I think it’s a clearer point to say that most self-identified conservatives aren’t in fact conservative, than that conservatism isn’t actually what people (claim they) mean when they say conservative. At that point, conservatism loses its meaning.
Conservatism hasn’t lost its meaning, conservatism just never meant what conservatives claimed it meant; it’s always been a façade.
Conservatism is about conserving (and reinforcing) power structures; all talk about ‘tradition’ and ‘stability’/‘status-quo’ is wool over your eyes.
The status quo is white supremacy, patriarchy, gender norms, and capitalism. That is what they are conserving. Those are the traditions.
And the preservative is done through fear.
No, that’s a lie conservatives tell to make their ideology seem less abhorrent.
What conservatism is actually about is perpetuating hierarchy.
That would be the tradition they favor.
One could argue that so called “traditions” they are holding so much dearly in their heart never was fully a thing and is just the product of past idealizations and marketing propaganda. “The perfect suburban american trad family” from the 60s is a construct made by marketing people to sell fridges, diamond and beautiful car.
Idealizing a fake era of greatness which came before the weak, but also very powerful bad people took it away.
Now where have I heard that one before? 🤔
It was an era of greatness, but conservatives destroyed it.
An era of greatness… for white people.
Climate change is a thing and back then life was cheaper, this “MuH WhIte PeOpLe” shit needs to stop. 80s and 90s were not some sort of ethnonationalist world where black people were genocided.
I thought we were talking about the 1960s? You know, the era that where black people didn’t have civil rights or even voting rights in some places legally until the middle of the decade and were still being lynched in significant numbers? The era where both Malcolm X and Dr. King were assassinated?
I stand by my comment.
Again, I repeat: climate crisis automatically makes the current times worse.
Were it for me, 70s, 80s and 90s on a loop forever.
Had one working parent and stay at home moms. But they don’t give a single fuck about that part of it, do they?
They don’t talk about the 90% top tax rate either.
“Nobody paid that. They just reinvested in their company [and their employees and reputation] instead.”
No shit. Sounds great. Let’s do that.
The world is honestly too far into the crumbles for it to work like that anymore, they would just use circuitous accounting to funnel it into bunkers, militarized yachts, private armies, and extra planetary fever dreams.
Can’t just give up though. It’s one step towards making things better.
We don’t have to solve it all at once.
Oh I don’t propose surrender friend.
A flat unmitigated tax rate on the rich.
Or a flat unmitigated axe rate on the rich.
In liberal democracy, the status quo is liberalism. Conservatism was to conserve the monarchy and aristocracy.
There is a difference between historical conservatism and what it has become. Even setting that aside, there is much daylight between what a movement will profess and what it will ultimately produce.
No, there really isn’t. True conservatism is an unbroken line from royalists, to confederates, to nazis, to Trump.
It’s the allegedly small government, pro-freedom “conservatives” – i.e. self-deluded liberals who mislabeled themselves – who were the aberration.
What’s the most confrontational way to respond to someone who agrees with you?
I think you dropped your writing prompt
Fascism. The word you want is fascism.