Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Socrates99, Jan 2, 2020.
They're the ones trying to start a war with Iran, so it's probably going to come up at some point.
You've slipped into being full of yourself.
It has been a while but that was not the idea I got at the some, and retain now, from reading his book. He did argue that there were different cultural blocs, but his tone struck me as one that assumed confrontation between the blocs was inevitable and should be prepared for. Which necessarily becomes a self-fulfilling concern: one arms against the others, one then has to make use of those arms...
Not that I disagree with the idea that there are different cultural blocs. I only disagree with the idea that hostility should be assumed and confrontation becomes inevitable.
I genuinely don't think that what I'm saying is very contentious.
Then I challenge you to think of a conservative value that isn't fundamentally about defending a hierarchy. Or, more realize that the same game could literally be played with any value.
We did flip from 'rightwing' to 'conservative' in the conversation. "Conservatives have no values" is certainly not contentious.
When looking at Pelosi i.e., there are imperialistic rogues on the blue side as well.
I wonder how many more applaud Trump on that when nobody is looking (or in some cases, even when they are looking).
On the contrary, the whole point of the essay was how to avoid a major inter-civilizational conflict. He believed tension between some blocks (not all) was inevitable, but an actual major conflict was not only avoidable but also something that should be avoided. He stated that respect, understanding and cooperation between the different Civilizations was the only path to peace in the post Cold War world.
Huntington got a lot of bad rep with "progressives" because he wrote "Islam has bloody borders", and he was skeptic of the long term viability of multi-culturalism within a same state. But his essay was not anti-Islamic, nor warmonger, nor apologistic of the West in any way (on the contrary!). I think the vast majority of criticism directed at him is by people who never read Clash or Civilizations.
He was also not at all interested in describing eternal realities or grand systems. He explicitly stated many times his framework was applicable to the post Cold War world, and could become obsolete by the mid 21st century of before.
I heard on the news last week that the Iraqi government and military are refusing to cooperate whatsoever with the American forces in the country.
I don't know what this means.
Well yeah, the Democratic party isn't actually all that left-wing.
Were invading Iraq again ? (joke couldnt resist)
It is very contentious. And he knows it.
Anyway one pillar of conservatism is that there is no universal recipe valid for all time periods and all cultures, unlike the magical formulas written in the 19th Century that form the core of Traitorfish's religion and are supposed to be applicable to all mankind forever.
So, regardless of being a conservative or even having any sympathy for conservatism, one key difference between it and Traitorfish's religion is that conservatism is not necessarily idiotic and delusional.
Wow! Which conservative believes this then? And why is it that the idiotic and deluded have nonetheless inherited the leadership of conservatism?
I'm not sure what strategic advantage there is in Russia attacking Turkey, except as you mentioned a strong chance that NATO abandons them and thus an overall, possibly significant weakening of NATO trust entirely, especially among Russia-bordering nations like Poland or the Baltics.
I was feeling lazy, and I'm neither much of a conservative nor a philosopher, so I actually copied and pasted that line from noted conservative philosopher Roger Scruton. So he believes in that, for one.
And I said conservatism is not necessarily idiotic nor delusional. Burke was a conservative, arguably he created tye tradition of British conservatism, and he was neither. That doesn't mean that there aren't deluded idiots who call themselves conservative, rightly or wrongly.
And for what it's worth, the leadership of far-left parties and movements, the kind Traitorfish approves, is entirely made up of delusional idiots.
If the majority of people who call themselves conservative are deluded idiots, isn't it fair to call conservatism idiotic and delusional? Maybe I'm just tired posting this early, but isn't an answer of 'no' just a no true scotsman?
Burke was a liberal before he was a conservative.
His earlier liberal writings supporting better treatment of the American colonies and in support of Irish emancipation are more palatable than his later writings around the time of the French revolution when he showed a deep contempt for the masses.
Well he moved towards conservatism and fear of populism and mob rule after witnessing the horrors of the French Revolution. Quite sensible, really.
Also, I didn't say everyone must agree with Burke. It's fine if you don't. I said he was not a delusional idiot.
I've been thinking for like, a year that we've needed a thread on modern conservative thought, but haven't started it because I'd pretty much start from the insufferably smug position that conservative thought is moribund and lacking vitality in this decade.
TBH that line doesn't sound like Roger Scruton just that much, due to apparent agreement with post-modernism. What was the context?
I don't think that's true, unless you believe the majority of people are delusional idiots.
Separate names with a comma.