What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Hrothbern]

I want those communities to start reaching out instead. It's the millions who still subscribe to something like virtuous living - Evangelicals, Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and Mormons - who need to take action to protect themselves, muy pronto.

You are stuck in a past that never existed

You know the Sarabande of Haendel ?
That scandalous dance from 16th century South-America, so obscene it was forbidden in Spain.

And here by Haendel, the guy who also wrote the Coronation Anthem of UK, burried in Westminster Abbey...
I am quite sure no-one nowadays would consider it obscene:

 

[Patine]

@Mouthwash the problem with those in your camp of thought is a big one. While constantly looking for the sins and vices of others and society as a whole, people in your line of thought ALWAYS (in my knowledge and experience) refuse to look in the mirror for their own, and ignore (and even denounce and insult) those who point them - but the fact is, you and your ideological brethren can NEVER live up to your own moral standards, and you expect that to be ignored and looked away from for your failings by those you preach to, judge, and condemn. The wild-eyed zealots, the inquisitorial witch-hunters, and the inflexible reactionaries are among the greatest - and most shameless - of sinners.

 

[Mouthwash]

You have to start practicing with makeup when you're younger ... do you think you just wake up one day and know how to do it perfectly? When you start out, you look almost like some kind of circus clown, but again that's what practice is for. Hopefully you have someone to teach you that makeup's about trying to look natural and like "you're not wearing any", but at first you just feel so grown up. I started around ten years old, and I didn't have anyone who would teach me, so I had to learn on my own.

The kid isn't trying to be 'natural'; he's as painted as a prostitute very dignified individual.

Your other comments are frankly disgusting. She's allowed to walk and dress however she wants, and doesn't need your approval.

He's not trans, and I don't need your approval to hold my own opinion of such actions.

You do realize you linked to a satire website??

Ah, you're right. I didn't find on that website, actually, I just Googled it and clicked a link without examining it closely.

The video itself seems real and at least one leftist website out there has defended it.

As a Christian, who follows the actual MINISTRY OF CHRIST as a guiding spiritual path, I find your viewpoint of religion, society, "tradition," and a perceived RIGHT to force your abomination on others, defying the one, single, inalienable right given by God of His own Providence - Free Will regarding salvation - and embracing as a central core ideal of your twisted beliefs the judgementalism, self-righteousness, vindication, unforgivingness, and willingness to violence that Christ, himself, warned against to not only be repugnant, but put you and those who share your beliefs in the camp of the target demographic to come, attend, and serve the Anti-Christ and False Prophet when they may arrive. Your beliefs are a warped, vile, twisted mockery and affront of all that ANY GOOD Christian holds dear.

I suppose my benighted Jewish morality just can't comprehend Christian mercy.

 

[abradley]

I consider myself a conservative, sorry, but my views are not in accordance with what's been posted here by the left.

 

[Patine]

I suppose my benighted Jewish morality just can't comprehend Christian mercy...

You speak of Abrahamic Monotheism like it's all a blender where everyone has always agreed and had a firm, undissenting consensus of a unified system of "tradition," "morals," and "religion," they've derived from it and lived in a magical world of happiness, stability, functionality, and order, with no "modern social problems" at all until the "evil liberals, progressives, and Marxists" came along. It's time to wake up, Sleeping Beauty, and face the real world, and learn this halcyon past you've fantasized about and preach about returning to NEVER existed!

 

[Mouthwash]

Okay, lesson learned. No more feeding time.

 

[Farm Boy]

Being sexualized doesn't necessarily mean you personally want to have at the individual, no. The strut you're observing isn't a sexy walk tho just like her makeup isn't an "evening" look. That's a misread. Struts can be prideful, they can be confident, they can be sarcastic or sassy or bossy, or they can be a sexy sort of present or sway. This is not a sexy present or sway even if the hips move. This is miles from Elvis, not just around the corner. The wig and makeup, likewise, are a caricature of a celebrity. Sexually augmentive makeup is usually softer. Granted, I also think there's a stupid amount of insidious makeup and filters present in society and those are significantly worse at warping expectations and status when you barely even notice they're there. It's vapid, its shallow, it's manipulative, but sexualized all the time it is not. Football announcers wear makeup differently, and also not in a particularly sexualized way. So do clowns(where it's a stronger artistic statement and probably less corrosive to normal interaction and expectation when the act is clearly telegraphed), which is super different again, and that's the level of makeup that kid you think looks like a prostitute is doing. That isn't makeup you use to get somebody to want to engage in a sexualized interaction. Non-traditional, true. Ugly as sin and makes him look stupid, I'd agree. But inappropriately sexy? Not really.

Either there are a lot of misreads like this going on, like Hygro is assuming, or you're of a school of thought that veers towards avoiding temptation through plan rather than forbearance as a general rule, which is closer to my school of thought but still pretty off the mark.

 

[Ajidica]

So, did we ever figure out whether Mouthwash thinks gay people should not be allowed to have sex? That's a bit more concerning to me than his thoughts on drag.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's all linked together if he thinks clownish makeup is a profoundly sexualized act comparable to advertising acceptance of luchre for intercourse.

 

[Ajidica]

It's all linked together if he thinks clownish makeup is a profoundly sexualized act comparable to advertising acceptance of luchre for intercourse.

Wait, if Mouthwash is a 'traditionalist' why is he trying to ban the worlds oldest profession?
HAVE THE YOUTH OF TODAY NO RESPECT FOR TRADITION?

 

[Patine]

Wait, if Mouthwash is a 'traditionalist' why is he trying to ban the worlds oldest profession?
HAVE THE YOUTH OF TODAY NO RESPECT FOR TRADITION?

Only tradition that serves their own narrative. And if there's too many gaps, they make new stuff up, or import it from completely inappropriate other old sources, and tell people it always was tradition. Besides, REAL traditionalists would stone us or burn us at the stake for "sacreligious insolence" rather than debate us.

 

[Farm Boy]

Their as in "youth" or their as in deciding to ignore goodly portions of the participatory self identifying OP label in favor of nebulous BS tribal willy-waving definitions?

 

[Mouthwash]

So, did we ever figure out whether Mouthwash thinks gay people should not be allowed to have sex? That's a bit more concerning to me than his thoughts on drag.

Having gay sex out of 'curiosity' or a desire to rebel against society's norms is definitely wrong, but people with genuine attraction to their own sex shouldn't be judged for it. Since it isn't feasible for the law to determine which is which, it must remain legal in all cases.

 

[Patine]

Having gay sex out of 'curiosity' or a desire to rebel against society's norms is definitely wrong, but people with genuine attraction to their own sex shouldn't be judged for it. Since it isn't feasible for the law to determine which is which, it must remain legal in all cases.

That's mighty forebearant of you, given the majority of your "fire-and-brimstone, vindictive, paternalistic theocratic despotism" - excuse me, rule by "tradition" - posts. There may be hope for you yet.

 

[Estebonrober]

I want those communities to start reaching out instead. It's the millions who still subscribe to something like virtuous living - Evangelicals, Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and Mormons - who need to take action to protect themselves, muy pronto.

I completely support your right to have your opinions and your way of living until you start forcing others to live how you want them to live everything you've said is fine with me for you and yours.

The quoted statement though is just plain wrong. I'm the second thing on your list and trust me I do not feel threatened by anything other than our own self made scandals. Which just threatens the organization actually and does not threaten me or my household. Regardless I'm not afraid of some trans kid acting silly in high school.

I consider myself a conservative, sorry, but my views are not in accordance with what's been posted here by the left.

The point of the thread is to get you to post what you actually believe in since for me it is so incoherent as a group anymore that its a wonder it is still a voting block here in the USA. There is no shortage of right wingers on this forum, yes you will be challenged on your views if you post them but that is as it should be. So tell us what are your one or two strongly conservative takes that you would stand for?

 

[Traitorfish]

I assume what you're thinking of are the practices and visible aspirations of the Republican party, which in 2019 has no conservative characteristic besides wanting a bit less internationalism than the liberal consensus.

That's not really an answer to my question. I asked you what in contemporary American conservatism points towards the sort of mass self-segregation you propose; whether the Republican Party is authentically conservative is as secondary to that question as whether Chick-Fil-A is authentically conservative. Denouncing false conservatives doesn't tell us what the authentic conservatives are doing, and what in that behaviour points towards this self-segregation, this collective voluntary renunciation of mainstream institutions. And if there are no authentic conservatives, or if they are too rare enough to support the sort of project you envision, what elevate that project above simple utopian fiction?

 

[BornInCantaloup]

For starters, conservatives do not support wild capitalist policies. They are usually paternalist, which goes with a sound regulation of economic practices. They are protectionist and welcome a level of social welfare.
The ultra-right economic policies are indeed progressive (deregulations and such). It's conceivable there could also be progressive hard-left economic policies but we don't hear about those much, or do we ? None comes to my mind.

This is some point where the 1980's confused everything, as "The Right" has become an aggregate of social conservatives and economic progressives (capitalist liberals).
Nowadays, the social conservatives have lost much of their influence in the face of the economic trend.

When somebody claims to be liberal or conservative or progressive or much of anything... he'd better mention in respect to what exactly. Because the same guy who'll be progressive in some respect will be a conservative in another.

 

[Ajidica]

Having gay sex out of 'curiosity' or a desire to rebel against society's norms is definitely wrong, but people with genuine attraction to their own sex shouldn't be judged for it. Since it isn't feasible for the law to determine which is which, it must remain legal in all cases.

Well, isn't that nice of you. However, I'm wondering where the innovation of believing it isn't feasible for the law to determine whether gay sex is due to 'curiosity' or genuine attraction comes from. That didn't seem to stop sodomy laws in the past and deciding it isn't possible for the laws to determine it seems like a dangerous application of rational thought to 'tradition'.

 

[Cutlass]

For starters, conservatives do not support wild capitalist policies. They are usually paternalist, which goes with a sound regulation of economic practices. They are protectionist and welcome a level of social welfare.
The ultra-right economic policies are indeed progressive (deregulations and such). It's conceivable there could also be progressive hard-left economic policies but we don't hear about those much, or do we ? None comes to my mind.

This is some point where the 1980's confused everything, as "The Right" has become an aggregate of social conservatives and economic progressives (capitalist liberals).
Nowadays, the social conservatives have lost much of their influence in the face of the economic trend.

When somebody claims to be liberal or conservative or progressive or much of anything... he'd better mention in respect to what exactly. Because the same guy who'll be progressive in some respect will be a conservative in another.

This is wrong. Economic progressives were entirely destroyed in the US in the 1980s-90s. The move to deregulation was not 'progressive', it was 'reactionary'. It exists for the purpose of destroying the middle, and driving labor into poverty. All of Reaganomics, and what follows, is exclusively about the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy.

 

[Estebonrober]

When somebody claims to be liberal or conservative or progressive or much of anything... he'd better mention in respect to what exactly. Because the same guy who'll be progressive in some respect will be a conservative in another.

I think this is particularly true for conservatives right now.