What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Socrates99]

Most people/corporations with money are publicly going to be taking the left's side in the culture wars, for the foreseeable future.



I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I think it's fair to say that the court which discovered a new inalienable 'right' to gay marriage in the constitution four years ago isn't on our side.



Are you even trying to be serious here?



Where can it be seen? Liberals control the entire press (except for Fox News, which I suppose they keep around as a whipping boy/bogeyman), and it is well within their power to shift the opinions of the moderates/unaligned against anyone trying to reverse the moral collapse of the last two decades. That's not even mentioning all the corporations who would declare war on us and withhold their services. I'm under no illusions that liberals are weak in America.



So does pederasty. I suppose that's the new frontier of LGBT liberation, which everyone in America has to lay down and acquiesce to?



Imagine being so uptight and self-righteous that we resist social engineering by our beneficent liberal citizens! The nerve!

So conservatives favor a gay marriage ban based on what justification? Pretty much only religious reasons right? How is that conservative when conservatives claim to be for small government? Isn't that the state explicitly taking away freedom? How is a ban constitutional when our constitution explicitly separates church from state?

Check out Scalia's decision on the gay marriage ban if you want to see what I mean.

This brings me back to my original post about conservatives having one or a few issues they place above all else and then warping their views to mesh with party lines. Modern American conservatives don't really have a central stance.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Mildly political" in their understanding, and Hygro is right on that point near as I can tell. The marriage issue is done harm by the cake issue. But authoritarians don't care either way, both are their bread and butter.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Ah yes the authoritarianism of... *checks notes* not being able to refuse service on the basis of personal religious belief.

If you are not willing to serve or cater for lgbt people may I respectfully suggest that you do not go into business lol

Edit: Hey mouthwash, if you're so offended by people being taught that lgbt exist maybe you could move to your favourite country of Iran or Saudi Arabia or even Brunei, they seem sympathetic to your plight of being harassed by the lgbt community everytime they commit the egregious sin of existing

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't have to suggest it, the courts will enforce your preference on the one cake shop among many regarding its partially limited selection of personally customized artwork.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, let's say I concede that these are not irreconcilable perspectives. They still require reconciliation. In the first quote, you advocate peaceful separatism, a sort of conservative back-to-the-land movement. In the second, you welcome civil war as the herald of national regeneration. To hold both view requires you to pick out a very specific chain of events in which this separatist movement, which does not yet exist, takes up arms to defend itself against the American state, and that is less a perspective on current events than it is the premise of the single-player campaign in Far Cry 5.

You think liberals are going stand by when some people in this country don't want play by their rules? Conservatives are tolerated up until the point where they stop being completely impotent. Then, they become fascists to fought against.

A nebulous speculation of corporate pocket change weighting causes is a far cry from "taking away" conservatives' "economic power at a breakneck pace".

Corporations are using economic warfare, to the tune of billions of dollars, against states who don't legislate in the right direction on social issues.

I like how people are so used to MW's, er, idiosyncratic takes that he can refer to drag as pederasty and no one really bats an eye

I'm sorry, even with my not having provided the (horrifying) context, you don't see anything creepy in dressing up a kid in sexualized drag?

What is your final solution to the homosexual problem?

Tolerance, but distinction. Procreative family units aren't the 'same' as gay relationships. Gay people who want to be celibate shouldn't be pressured otherwise or told that they are denying their true selves.

But a slippery slope from where to where, how, and how does this kid fit into the narrative?

We've already slipped down the slope; I was recently at a Bat Mitzvah where the girl dressed up in a skimpy outfit and danced to Lady Gaga songs with her friends.

If you are not willing to serve or cater for lgbt people may I respectfully suggest that you do not go into business lol

I agree.

 

[Lexicus]

It’s a slippery slope argument he is making,

I think it might be more of an Al-Qaeda-esque "makeup=sex" thing.

This brings me back to my original post about conservatives having one or a few issues they place above all else and then warping their views to mesh with party lines. Modern American conservatives don't really have a central stance.

I've uploaded a pdf of this essay called "What Is Conservatism And What Is Wrong With It." I suggest that everyone in this thread read it, in particular you, @Estebonrober @Cutlass (I've recommended this piece to Cutlass before, not sure if he ever read it though) @Hygro @El_Machinae and @Traitorfish

I do not agree with all the theory or all the assertions in the piece, but I think it is highly interesting and contains a lot of useful observations about American conservatives.
In particular the bit that this reminded me of is here:

Conservative arguments are often arbitrary in nature. Consider, for example, the controversy over Elian Gonzalez. Conservatism claims that the universe is ordered by absolutes. This would certainly make life easier if it was true. The difficulty is that the absolutes constantly conflict with one another. When the absolutes do not conflict, there is rarely any controversy. But when absolutes do conflict, conservatism is forced into sophistry. In the case of Elian Gonzalez, two absolutes conflicted: keeping families together and not making people return to tyrannies. In a democratic society, the decision would be made through rational debate. Conservatism, however, required picking one of the two absolutes arbitrarily (based perhaps on tactical politics in Florida) and simply accusing anyone who disagreed of flouting absolutes and thereby nihilistically denying the fundamental order of the universe. This happens every day. Arbitrariness replaces reason with authority. When arbitrariness becomes established in the culture, democracy decays and it becomes possible for aristocracies to dominate people's minds.

The points that the author makes in relation to the rhetorical and ideological techniques used by conservatives are really remarkable to consider in the era of Trump. As you will be able to tell from the topical references (and the date at the top), the piece was written in August 2004, long before Trump and "alternative facts". In many respects Trump is a perfectly predictable consequence of these techniques having been applied for decades on end. The result is, as the author says, the replacement of reason with arbitrariness, which is perfectly encapsulated in the complete departure from reality exhibited by Trump's supporters.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Literally "seperate but equal" for lgbt. Remind us all MW, how well that worked last time

 

[Mouthwash]

Literally "seperate but equal" for lgbt. Remind us all MW, how well that worked last time

For the entirety of human history up till a decade ago?

I've uploaded a pdf of this essay called "What Is Conservatism And What Is Wrong With It." I suggest that everyone in this thread read it, in particular you, @Estebonrober @Cutlass (I've recommended this piece to Cutlass before, not sure if he ever read it though) @Hygro @El_Machinae and @Traitorfish

I do not agree with all the theory or all the assertions in the piece, but I think it is highly interesting and contains a lot of useful observations about American conservatives.
In particular the bit that this reminded me of is here:

The points that the author makes in relation to the rhetorical and ideological techniques used by conservatives are really remarkable to consider in the era of Trump. As you will be able to tell from the topical references (and the date at the top), the piece was written in August 2004, long before Trump and "alternative facts". In many respects Trump is a perfectly predictable consequence of these techniques having been applied for decades on end. The result is, as the author says, the replacement of reason with arbitrariness, which is perfectly encapsulated in the complete departure from reality exhibited by Trump's supporters.

The liberal strategy is based on misdirection. Pushed on abortion? Talk about the poor. Questioned on economics? Focus on race. Backed into a corner over a drag kid? Lambast conservatives over immigration. EDIT: loled at the claim of 'rational debate' solving things in democratic societies.

 

[Farm Boy]

This brings me back to my original post about conservatives having one or a few issues they place above all else and then warping their views to mesh with party lines. Modern American conservatives don't really have a central stance.

The liberal strategy is based on misdirection. Pushed on abortion? Talk about the poor. Questioned on economics? Focus on race. Backed into a corner over a drag kid? Lambast conservatives over immigration.

It's nice to see people fundamentally agree.

 

[Hygro]

You think liberals are going stand by when some people in this country don't want play by their rules? Conservatives are tolerated up until the point where they stop being completely impotent. Then, they become fascists to fought against.

Having control of Congress and the presidency and most state houses is impotent. So yeah I guess at some point beyond that they become fascists who start picking fights?

Corporations are using economic warfare, to the tune of billions of dollars, against states who don't legislate in the right direction on social issues.

You mean the entertainment industry finding anti-abortion anti-gay legislation to be really bad for business? What billions are we possibly talking about? Or are we back to bakers?

I'm sorry, even with my not having provided the (horrifying) context, you don't see anything creepy in dressing up a kid in sexualized drag?

Mouthwash, there's nothing sexualized about that kid's drag attire. Drag is weird, and some of it is sexual, but much of it is not. Conclusions are in your head.

We've already slipped down the slope; I was recently at a Bat Mitzvah where the girl dressed up in a skimpy outfit and danced to Lady Gaga songs with her friends.

Oh no! I'm sorry you flustered by a skin-bearing 12 year old but what does that have to do with drag? (Also, not new, and also, the younger a person is the more naked they're going to be. The people in the smallest, skin-bearingest outfits have always been kids. Grownups cover up).

Hey, you're dodging the most important question.

WHO IS BEING GROOMED FOR PEDOPHILIA? THE KID IN DRAG, OR YOU?

And if it's you, how is the kid in drag grooming you for pedophilia?

Because wouldn't that actually mean something else?

 

[Farm Boy]

That is an odd take on clown costuming.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Hey look, as long as it's straight people dolling up their underage kids in make-up that's fine, but LGBT people? A line too far, clearly

I'm beginning to think Mouthwash might not like LGBT people or their existence

 

[Gori the Grey]

Opaque is a very kind synonym.

"Cryptic" was another possibility. I might opt for it ultimately.

But don't forget the full-on honorific: prose poet.

 

[Mouthwash]

Mouthwash, there's nothing sexualized about that kid's drag attire. Drag is weird, and some of it is sexual, but much of it is not. Conclusions are in your head.

 

[Hygro]

That's not sexual...

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't want to live in your universe.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't want to live in your universe.

What is sexual about it?

 

[Socrates99]

It's nice to see people fundamentally agree.

Sort of a good point if his examples had no correlation.

An abortion ban does affect the poor more. A woman of means will be able to travel and pay out of pocket if she wants one. She can afford to raise the child and probably has good FMLA at work or maybe can even survive on hubby's single income. A poor woman wont have that choice and the child could disrupt her ability to support herself let alone that kid. Even if she chooses to give it up the pregnancy alone could inflict heavy financial burden if she's under insured. She likely doesn't have good FMLA at work and that could drive her further into poverty. This is all without mentioning that orphans can sometimes age out of the foster system making me wonder if the adoption argument is even viable. Granted all this would be moot if the pro life party supported programs that actually helped women in these situations. Unfortunately they dont.

Economics and race are statistically linked whether we like it or not. I'm personally in the camp that wants everyone to have an equally good education, everyone to be clothed, fed and sheltered until adulthood. Once you're an adult then it can be dog eat dog.

The drag kid thing....I dont know where he gets that, I've never heard that pivot.

 

[Berzerker]

I kept expecting her to strip down. Kids mimic adults and adults encourage them, evolution demands it.

 

[MaryKB]

Could take a swipe at it like we seem to be taking a swipe at Downs?

What on Earth are you talking about?

We've already slipped down the slope; I was recently at a Bat Mitzvah where the girl dressed up in a skimpy outfit and danced to Lady Gaga songs with her friends.

Oh dear, heaven forbid a girl/woman should be allowed to choose her own clothing and music!

For the entirety of human history up till a decade ago?

Worked better for whom? Surely you don't mean the transgender people who've been abused, murdered, and driven to suicide by an intolerant society?

You repeatedly make comments about how you don't believe women should have basic human freedoms, but should basically exist for men's sexual pleasure. You support racist and transphobic/homophobic ideas and policies. You recommend violence against people who are opposed to white-male domination. You're really demonstrating everything that's wrong with modern conservativatism and why it's the greatest danger and threat to freedom in our world.