|
im extremely conservative in that if i think when you go out into the woods you should not chainsaw down 120 year old aspens to fuel your gender reveal fire im extremely liberal in that if i think you want to live in a city and be gay and/or trans and get your food delivered but also you don't swat kill your political opponents that's cool too so im a centrist really
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Asymmetric POSTer posted:most of those “actual conservatives” viewpoints are actually liberal political viewpoints, op while it depends on how you frame "conservatism", that's mostly true, classical political liberalism has been dominant throughout the history of the united states (and most other nations). and you're right, conservatism is by most definitions resistant to the constant change that most forms of liberalism strive for. while both could probably not exist without the other, conservatism absolutely inherently requires liberalism to exist as it is a reactionary movement post hole digger posted:there is no such thing as 'actual conservativism', the entirety of the conservative project only exists as reaction. this is correct
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:
actual National Review style conservatives get like 4% of the vote now because people realised they can get the racism and hate they want without the neocon corporatism and blandness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
𝚞𝚙𝚍𝚊𝚝𝚎: there are a lot of problems with your existence
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Trimson Grondag 3 posted:actual National Review style conservatives get like 4% of the vote now because people realised they can get the racism and hate they want without the neocon corporatism and blandness. yeah that's kinda what i meant by "actual conservatives". they have been basically subsumed by what i guess i'll call authoritarian libertarians and it has been an interesting shift to witness, but it's one that has really been underway for most of our lives. it just accelerated about 20 years ago i don't think that "conservative libertarianism" really well defines the modern republican party, but it's probably the best fit i can think of for what is now the mainstream. "conservatism" as a social ideology is so nebulous and contextual that it's hard to define; as noted in other posts it could basically refer to any reactionary, but in the modern lexicon i think generally you could say it is "a policy of maintaining the sociological status quo". of course, since "the sociological status quo" is not constant, its aims shift regularly. and in the united states at least, the term also heavily implies economic ideology that could be described as "liberal". american conservatism is its own distinct strain i think the wikipedia definition is a pretty good one: quote:In the United States, conservatism is based on a belief in limited government, individualism, traditionalism, republicanism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to U.S. states.[1] Conservative and Christian media organizations, along with American conservative figures, are influential, and American conservatism is one of the majority political ideologies within the Republican Party.[2][3][4] you can see this ideology develop throughout american history because it is inherently reactionary to social progress. a lot of its core tenets have remained more or less constant although there have been noticeable shifts in the past few decades. this post is getting way too long already but i'll end it by noting their slide into authoritarianism, which was pretty much always adjacent to the conservative movement but typically rejected for being too anti-democratic by the majority of the party. that seems no longer applicable
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
I'm just so tired of all this politics
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:I'm just so tired of all this politics Sounds like you need a Rally To Restore Sanity, OP
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:Sounds like you need a Rally To Restore Sanity, OP Make sure to invite Cat Stevens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:yeah that's kinda what i meant by "actual conservatives". they have been basically subsumed by what i guess i'll call authoritarian libertarians and it has been an interesting shift to witness, but it's one that has really been underway for most of our lives. it just accelerated about 20 years ago i'm a fan of bob altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" terminology, derived from his psychology research his book "the authoritarians" is free here: https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/ — probably not much in it that the cohort here would find surprising aside from the particulars of his research, but i found it a very useful book to help me gain my own understanding of us "conservatives" back when i first read it 10 or 15 years ago
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
well-read undead posted:i'm a fan of bob altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" terminology, derived from his psychology research I'm a big fan of that book. A lot of internet leftists don't like it because it doesn't take material conditions into account, but the material conditions theory of fascism falls apart once you realize that most of our hardest fascists are used car dealers, realtors, and fast food franchisees anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:I'm a big fan of that book. A lot of internet leftists don't like it because it doesn't take material conditions into account, but the material conditions theory of fascism falls apart once you realize that most of our hardest fascists are used car dealers, realtors, and fast food franchisees anyway. Yeah, the vanguard party of reaction in the US are the petit bourgeois small business owners. They were certainly overrepresented in the January 6 crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
that book was legit a pretty big part of my shift from liberal to leftist and im curious how it'd hold up if I reread it
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
"material conditions" doesn't mean "poor people turn right-wing." it means that peoples politics flow from their relationship to capital, and in that theory, the petit bourgeois owners of car dealerships and dental practices are exactly who you would expect to go fascist first. they own significant capital, but are most precarious among those who do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
Truman Peyote posted:"material conditions" doesn't mean "poor people turn right-wing." it means that peoples politics flow from their relationship to capital, and in that theory, the petit bourgeois owners of car dealerships and dental practices are exactly who you would expect to go fascist first. they own significant capital, but are most precarious among those who do. You should go tell the internet leftists that
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
that doesn't seem like it would accomplish much
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
Realtors are so loving good at lying it's incredible https://www.zillow.com/homes/1429-Alton-ST%27_rb/11444929_zpid/
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
Truman Peyote posted:"material conditions" doesn't mean "poor people turn right-wing." it means that peoples politics flow from their relationship to capital, and in that theory, the petit bourgeois owners of car dealerships and dental practices are exactly who you would expect to go fascist first. they own significant capital, but are most precarious among those who do. I’ve not read the book but I assume it deals with the fact these movements are 96% white people at some point too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
not familiar with that book but i read the reactionary mind by corey robin when the first edition come out around 2012 or so and it covers a lot of the stuff beeftweeter was talking about in the second half of that post and traces the hisotrical origins of the idea a bit more, beyond even the US back to the french revolution. pretty good read if are into that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
my absurdly reductionist take of the authoritarians, that is, what i internalized from reading it, is this: no matter what people you're talking about, and regardless of any external conditions, about 20% of them will always be unreasonable garbage humans and you can't do a goddamn loving thing about it. things like ideology and politics don't actually matter at all, and it is literally impossible to reason with them and so the test for any given system is how empowered or disempowered these people are to act on all their worst impulses. whether they're given leaders to follow, whether their grievances are given air to breathe. and brother we're not doing so good at any of that stuff!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
well-read undead posted:my absurdly reductionist take of the authoritarians, that is, what i internalized from reading it, is this: Pretty much - a significant number of the Trump boomers got their political start being Jimmy Trafficante-style anti-Reagan guys, which segued into opposing GHWB, which turned into being anti-Clinton in all ways, which somehow turned into being anti-Clinton in all ways forever. They're not defined by what they care about, they're defined by oppositional defiance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
ah, there's a good tweet about this making the rounds https://twitter.com/EdbieLigerSmith/status/1691474226941755392
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
"social values" usually means, like, letting trans people exist peacefully, so no i tend not to budge on that
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:Pretty much - a significant number of the Trump boomers got their political start being Jimmy Trafficante-style anti-Reagan guys lol no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
quiggy posted:"social values" usually means, like, letting trans people exist peacefully, so no i tend not to budge on that ive listened to some of that guys podcasts, and what he actually thinks is that there are sometimes social contradictions that become primary, that mean people fundamentally cant work together, until the contradictions are resolved. like, you cant honestly ask black people and the klan to work together on their common economic problems
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
i always liked the presentation and phrasing in https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376, that tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral absolute or suicide pact, when one side breaks a peace treaty, the whole thing is off so there is no such thing as "tolerance" of nazis or the kkk, they are not playing the same game
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:ah, there's a good tweet about this making the rounds problems bad, causes good, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
post hole digger posted:lol no. in youngstown, absolutely yes itd be interesting to look up the data on this though, idk how many counties are like mahoning
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
yeah well the current situation is culture wars between us plebs, incited and driven by the ruling class who dont actually care about any of that stuff, and while we're all busy arguing with our lovely uncle the people who actually own everything are changing material reality to give themselves more money. at some point you have to stop playing that game or you just give up and lose forever
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:yeah well the current situation is culture wars between us plebs, incited and driven by the ruling class who dont actually care about any of that stuff, and while we're all busy arguing with our lovely uncle the people who actually own everything are changing material reality to give themselves more money. at some point you have to stop playing that game or you just give up and lose forever true but also a year ago a trans woman was stabbed to death at the laundromat a few blocks from here because she was "deceiving" the men so like it's easier for some people to do this than others
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
well-read undead posted:i'm a fan of bob altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" terminology, derived from his psychology research the turn to authoritarianism isn't really unexpected. as i said in the other post authoritarianism has always been adjacent to the conservative movement: it's basically baked in. there are certainly degrees of american conservatism, but the form that is predominant today basically opposes social progress in any form to the point of being regressive inherent in conservative ideology is resistance to it. the existence of social progress (or just change in general) to oppose necessitates proponents of progress being resistant to its regression. american conservatives historically did not oppose progress in totality — many developments were at the very least tolerated, if not adopted, due to their adherence to economic liberalism; once the benefits of, for example, racial integration became economically clear and outweighed the social cost to racists, bitter opposition to the concept was dropped. as long as the changes to social policy led to economic prosperity, they were acceptable, or at least palatable. this is not really the case today imo, that problem is twofold. first, the conservative elite is already very wealthy and politically powerful. they have built up enough generational wealth and consolidated enough power to the point where they do not need to be more permissive in order to maintain their position at or approaching the top of the social hierarchy. basically, since the goal of the movement is to maintain the existing hierarchy, and they are at the top of it, no changes to it are necessary. those that are not at the top of the economic hierarchy nevertheless believe that the shared set of social beliefs that bind them with their wealthier cohort will allow them to one day get there. of course, this is despite their own policies being designed to keep them in their place: maintenance of the status quo means just that, for all of them — social, economic, racial, religious, etc. secondly, and relatedly, there is no clear economic benefit for most in allowing policies they oppose. to name a few examples, allowing gay people to get married or allowing trans people to transition does practically nothing for them economically and offends them socially. permissive immigration and religious tolerance, in their view, hurts them; immigration threatens the sociological status quo more broadly by diluting their power simply as a function of the population growing, and each new immigrant is potentially an economic threat if their upward mobility is unrestricted. religious tolerance threatens their cultural cohesion and can also threaten their economic position as they are frequently intertwined. the same applies to abortion, climate change denial, industrial or financial regulation, etc. — you name it, they probably see it as a threat in some way, if not only because it offends their nebulous sensibilities. but this is also inherent in a reactionary movement the problem for them is then that you can't really impede social progress, not forever anyway. eventually, what might be outlier social views turn mainstream. again the example of racial integration is instructive. sure, it was finally achieved, but it took an extremely loving long time due to conservative opposition, and it required a ton of federal legislation and enforcement to finally implement in a lasting way. the lesson the conservative movement took from the experience of integrating was that the levers of government are extremely powerful. the initial response to this was with calls to limit what government can do, by shrinking it to the point where it would not be able to implement its agenda but as we have discussed that is not really a goal of the movement anymore. they have realized that it is better to actually wield governmental power to achieve their aims. this has manifested in authoritarianism. they are no longer able to convert those that don't already subscribe to their viewpoint with the (mostly false) promises of economic prosperity or social mobility as they are explicitly trying to limit those; even if they could, to a huge segment of the population, their cultural views are unpalatable. so they have to force adherence
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
goddamn that ended up longer than i expected
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
i don’t think giving our lovely uncles a break is going to affect the iron grip the ruling class has on every source of wealth in this country and if we let the most virulent elements of the right hate crime to their hearts’ content, i don’t think that would magically engender some kind of class solidarity that would tip the balance of power what do we do now fart simpson?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
quiggy posted:true but also a year ago a trans woman was stabbed to death at the laundromat a few blocks from here because she was "deceiving" the men so like it's easier for some people to do this than others yep
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
well-read undead posted:i don’t think giving our lovely uncles a break is going to affect the iron grip the ruling class has on every source of wealth in this country its not about giving them a break, its that for the left to ever wield power we need to figure out a way to cut through all the culture war stuff and get people to work on a common economic goal. i dont know how you do that in america. if you figure it out you'll be american lenin or something
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
i mean like for an extreme example, look at the nazis in 1940s germany. you had very ordinary, normal people all throughout german society at least going along with that stuff. the state could ask random german men to go exterminate people and very few of them said no. once the war was over, how did they integrate all those people back into a "normal" society? because most of them didnt hold on to the nazi ideology post war. i mean the basic answer is the war fundamentally changed the reality that they lived in i guess, but you didnt get there by arguing with individual people
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Trimson Grondag 3 posted:I’ve not read the book but I assume it deals with the fact these movements are 96% white people at some point too. it's been a decade since i read it but i don't remember anything like that. iirc the "right wing" part of his "right wing authoritarian" moniker was justified pretty much entirely by "in the united states, authoritarians are overwhelmingly right-wing, and since i didn't study any non right-wing authoritarians i call them all the one thing." i found it a pretty weak part of his thesis. well-read undead posted:my absurdly reductionist take of the authoritarians, that is, what i internalized from reading it, is this: altemeyer briefly touches on this at the end. he says: yeah it's really goddamn hard and there's not really any logic involved, but the only thing that seems like it might possibly work is to make authoritarians feel like you're all part of one shared in-group, which means talking to them and working on shared non-political projects and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
decided to reread the authoritarians and boy howdy 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
can't imagine right wing authoritarians clinging to an indicted president
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
been a bit too long for me to remember the sort of prevaricating bob did regarding right wing and left wing authoritarianism, but i do remember being slightly and momentarily confused by that. nonetheless, lots of good insight to be had in the bookquiggy posted:can't imagine right wing authoritarians clinging to an indicted president don’t worry, nothing like that could ever happen in this amazing country 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
fart simpson posted:i mean like for an extreme example, look at the nazis in 1940s germany. you had very ordinary, normal people all throughout german society at least going along with that stuff. the state could ask random german men to go exterminate people and very few of them said no. once the war was over, how did they integrate all those people back into a "normal" society? because most of them didnt hold on to the nazi ideology post war. i mean the basic answer is the war fundamentally changed the reality that they lived in i guess, but you didnt get there by arguing with individual people i hear you loud and clear: we need to go to war
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 04:32
|
|