Conservative Views Explained

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s a wonderful position to be in, isn’t it? Surrounded by bright people helping us to improve and fill the darkness in our own understandings; to highlight our blind spots and offer ways to be better. 

 

When the list comes up for the least smartest members with over 1000 posts, you're not on it.

Just saying.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

The broader point is that we are each individuals with complex thoughts, unique perspectives, and varied viewpoints.

We are all textured and multi-dimensional beings. Now... I’m not saying we travel through rips in spacetime or anything, though of course we might, but am merely saying that these so often used and bandied about flat, bland, hollow, simplistic one and two-dimensional labels... the ones that we see so often applied without consideration and so often painted with broad brushes... do us ALL a disservice. They are obstacles to intelligent discourse, meaningful dialog, and shared consensus. 

If someone calls me a liberal, they’re trying to put me into a box. They’re trying to dismiss and dehumanize me instead of addressing the merit of my point. “It doesn’t matter what he says. He’s just a liberal. Liberals think the rich are evil. Liberals just want government handouts. Liberals are snowflakes.”

Nonsense. Stop addressing the point I didn’t make. Stop telling me what I think. Start listening to what I say. 

That’s what promted me to share that other thread. I’m not one thing. I’m not simple. I’m not some blind sheep following a herd. I’m not easily dismissed. 

And neither are you. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by iNow

[Moontanman]

I will concede I was more than a little harsh with Raider but i took his OP as quite a bit more than just snarky. He described what he thought a conservative was and references to morals and communism should have been explained. I saw no reason why those things we being touted as part of being a conservative. If I listed my own political label I would say pretty much the same things as him and yet I see myself as progressive. He listed so many things that simply had nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It seemed more like he was reciting a talking points from FOX news than anything else. 

To me neither conservatism or liberalism are meaningful terms and taking sides about something this important seems quite a bit less than helpful. 

In this day and age things are far too complex to allow us to pigeon hole anything. In fact one of the worst problems of our current society is the idea that one side is right and the other is wrong. We are being manipulated by this, we have to get past it or lose everything. 

If you really think the way you asserted in your OP... well you have that right, I'd like to think you are better than that but I suggest you read over it and look to see if some of them are just talking points instead of real things than can be hung on a "side". 

I have tried to read through the OP, several more times to see if I was mistaken... I was not but my snarky reply was not how it should have been rebutted. I apologize for that snarky attitude.

You are unlikely to meet anyone more pragmatic than I... And where did I curse?  

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

And where did I curse?  

 

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

How about an oligarchy where the few rich capitalists buy our representatives and holding public office is simply a way to get rich by fucking over everyone but your owners... 

 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

.. fuck it, not worth my time, go worship your Christian president... 

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Yeah, liberals are communists, liberals want to take our guns, liberals want to make everyone have an abortion, liberals have no morals... fuck it, not worth my time, go worship your Christian president... 

 

Moving on...

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 

 

I see, i don't think of that as a curse but point taken... 

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Hear this Phi? We're Anarchists now. Because be both think being pragmatic is good.

Anarchy is nothing to do with pragmatism.

 

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

OR HOW ABOUT ACTUALLY READING MY POSTS?

I started doing that, and I commented on some of the more obvious errors, but it really wasn't going well so I stopped + went to bed.

 

Raider,
As far as I can tell it was me asking this question which triggered the creation of this thread.
 

Even if it was true, that wouldn't stop you answering the question.

Please do so.

What does Republicanism, or Conservatism, if you prefer, actually fix?

 

Perhaps you could answer it?
I'm looking for a reply along the lines of 

Statement of problem;
Blah

Statement of Conservative policy on that problem
Blah

Explanation of how that policy  solves the problem Blah

and,  for bonus points

How the Liberal. Democrat response doesn't fix the problem.

Just 1 example will do fine, and you should be able to do (at least, a  simplistic, unrefined version of) it in 6 lines of text.

[dimreepr]

In my mind, it boils down to:

Conservatives want to control people and liberals want to help people. 

Some people need help and understanding and some people need to be told what to do, more often than not they're the same people at different times in their lives, it's no coincidence that yin and yang complete a circle. 

The problems arise when we choose teams and stick with that choice, team games may mimic life but life isn't a game.

[John Cuthber]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Conservatives want to control people and liberals want to help people. 

I think it's a little more complex than tat. The Conservatives don't per se want to control people, they just don't want to help them, because that costs money

However, since helping people is pretty much hard wired into most human behaviour they need to find ways to convince people to ignore their instincts and avoid helping.
For example, most of us, if we meet someone who is clearly in need of help- for example a refugee from some war or unable to find work, would at least offer to share food with them as long as we were not in great need.

We even set up government systems to help with organising that process by collecting tax and redistributing it as dole (OK govts also do other more complicated stuff too, but that's beside the point).

If you don't want to pay taxes you need to convince people not to behave in what is normally a natural way.

And in order to do that , one way is to convince them that the recipients of the benefits are not "deserving" in some way. So you paint them as liars, scroungers thieves or whatever.

In order to do that you need to invent ways in which "They" are different from "You", and that's the point at which the controls enter into it.

For example, if you notice that many recipients of dole enjoy a spliff, you make that illegal and then you can criminalise the group who weren't actually harming people.

Once you label them as criminal you have a "reason" to stop giving them support (in spite of the fact that logic says that those with substance abuse problems need more resources, rather than less).

 

So you introduce "controls" like banning cannabis- because it lets you label people on the  the list of dole recipients as "undeserving" , and thus drops the tax you need to pay.

It's not directly a desire for control- it's just that control is a means to the end of cutting tax.

Or, in short, Conservatism is selfishness.

Does that sound a bit harsh?
OK, here's some more direct evidence.
 

 

 

[Raider5678]

28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Or, in short, Conservatism is selfishness.

 

For someone who said it's far more complex than that, you sure summed it up in another simplistic manner.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

I think it's a little more complex than tat. The Conservatives don't per se want to control people, they just don't want to help them, because that costs money

However, since helping people is pretty much hard wired into most human behaviour they need to find ways to convince people to ignore their instincts and avoid helping.
For example, most of us, if we meet someone who is clearly in need of help- for example a refugee from some war or unable to find work, would at least offer to share food with them as long as we were not in great need.

We even set up government systems to help with organising that process by collecting tax and redistributing it as dole (OK govts also do other more complicated stuff too, but that's beside the point).

If you don't want to pay taxes you need to convince people not to behave in what is normally a natural way.

And in order to do that , one way is to convince them that the recipients of the benefits are not "deserving" in some way. So you paint them as liars, scroungers thieves or whatever.

In order to do that you need to invent ways in which "They" are different from "You", and that's the point at which the controls enter into it.

For example, if you notice that many recipients of dole enjoy a spliff, you make that illegal and then you can criminalise the group who weren't actually harming people.

Once you label them as criminal you have a "reason" to stop giving them support (in spite of the fact that logic says that those with substance abuse problems need more resources, rather than less).

 

So you introduce "controls" like banning cannabis- because it lets you label people on the  the list of dole recipients as "undeserving" , and thus drops the tax you need to pay.

It's not directly a desire for control- it's just that control is a means to the end of cutting tax.

Or, in short, Conservatism is selfishness.

Does that sound a bit harsh?
OK, here's some more direct evidence.
 

 

 

Well, I was trying to be simplistic (chew down to the bone, so too speak) and yes I think selfish is too harsh; in order to help others, one needs to be in a position to do so, and the harsh reality is, one needs enough money.

[John Cuthber]

In general, it's the people who have enough money who are Conservatives.

[dimreepr]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

In general, it's the people who have enough money who are Conservatives.

That's why we need liberals, to balance the scales and complete the circle.

[John Cuthber]

The interesting question is what do we need Conservatives for?
I already asked that, and I have yet to see an answer.

[dimreepr]

To make the money we need to help others.

[Ten oz]

Just now, dimreepr said:

That's why we need liberals, to balance the scales and complete the circle.

We need good governance  directly focused on what's best for the most amount of people. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We need good governance  directly focused on what's best for the most amount of people. 

I'm not sure I understand, isn't that what I said?

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The interesting question is what do we need Conservatives for?
I already asked that, and I have yet to see an answer.

I don't believe Conservatism even exists in the manner many self described conservatism express. Times change and as they do Conservatives march around the field with the goal posts. To me conservatism is less about any specific ideology and more about protectionism for specific sub groups within society. Just as the OP included the long stand trope about loving immigrants but just wanting them to immigrate legally so too did conservatives argue back during civil rights that they loved all people but blacks in the south needed to follow the law. Fast forward and goal posts are on the move. Conservatives in office now favor limiting legal immigration and are thoroughly disgusted by NFL players who silently/legally protest be taking a knee. It is all about things needing to be done legally until it isn't and the posts move.  

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure I understand, isn't that what I said?

I just mean we do not need liberals or conservatives as type. We need people interested it doing what's best for the most. In my opinion anyone who beliefs any of the self described conservatives in public office (in the U.S.) today are interested in the best for the most  are willful idiots. Meanwhile liberalism doesn't really even exist in U.S. public office. If we are going to break it down by labels the political scene in the U.S. is dominated by Capitalists, Conservatives, and Moderates. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I just mean we do not need liberals or conservatives as type. We need people interested it doing what's best for the most. In my opinion anyone who beliefs any of the self described conservatives in public office (in the U.S.) today are interested in the best for the most  are willful idiots. Meanwhile liberalism doesn't really even exist in U.S. public office. If we are going to break it down by labels the political scene in the U.S. is dominated by Capitalists, Conservatives, and Moderates. 

6

Your view seems skewed because you're an American. Too liberal equates to nationalism (on this side of the pond we know where that leads), too conservative equates to a runaway wealth gap. The balance is a well regulated private sector.

[Ten oz]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Your view seems skewed because you're an American. Too liberal equates to nationalism (on this side of the pond we know where that leads), too conservative equates to a runaway wealth gap. The balance is a well regulated private sector.

Which is why I have previously posted, a few times, that conservative and liberal mean different things within the specific political environment for which they are being used. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Which is why I have previously posted, a few times, that conservative and liberal mean different things within the specific political environment for which they are being used. 

I disagree, the political environment has no influence on the basic descriptions.  

Just those who have yet to decide which side of the fence they stand.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I disagree, the political environment has no influence on the basic descriptions.  

Just those who have yet to decide which side of the fence they stand.

Different countries have different fences. 

[MigL]

Wasted time.
Wasted threads.

No sooner do you finish lambasting Raider for daring to define Conservatism as it relates to what he thinks is wrong with Liberalism, than you all start saying what is wrong with Conservatism. And some of you ( John , Dimreepr ) aren't even American, so you shouldn't be as polarized as them.

The point of the two threads, on liberalism and conservatism, should be to highlight how much people have in common, and how we can work together to build a better society where everyone benefits. NOT our differences.
Yet instead of using these threads as a teaching tool, we ( certainly Americans ) insist on getting into pissing contests, and widen the tolerance gap.

Does that seem like a worthwhile goal ?

Moony, John and Dimreeper, I respect you guys, but the only thing beating up on Raider does is make him more committed to voting for D Trump in 3 yrs time ( he's 15 now I believe ).
What problem does that solve ?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

To make the money we need to help others.

And how did you come to the conclusion that Liberals can't make money?