|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I see it as a classic case of dems trying to be victorious while refusing to have a spine.
Making it a "day that will live in infamy" doesn't hit unless they label it as the attempted coup that it was. making it as an "insurection" just makes it sound just like the riots that were going on the previous year.
|
On January 07 2022 12:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2022 11:26 Sadist wrote:
Jan 6th will live in infamy. There may be a solid amount today who dont see it as a big thing but as the years go by that will change and people will see it for what it was. Conservatives will lose the war on history. I am confident about that.
To be clear, social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time.
Frowned on by democrats, maybe, but technically not frowned on by all. Abortion being an example.
|
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective.
|
On January 07 2022 12:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2022 11:26 Sadist wrote:
Jan 6th will live in infamy. There may be a solid amount today who dont see it as a big thing but as the years go by that will change and people will see it for what it was. Conservatives will lose the war on history. I am confident about that.
To be clear, social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time.
I don't think it is a stretch to define many Muslim regimes as social conservative, and many of them are still very far from "losing". In Afghanistan they even won ground back.
For the west, I don't think the endless obsession with enthnicity, gender and sexuality will bring any good. We will only get true equality when these things are usually no-issues and we stop treating them as vulnerable main features of our identities. Searching for things you think someone should be offended by can be counter productive.
|
On January 07 2022 12:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2022 11:26 Sadist wrote:
Jan 6th will live in infamy. There may be a solid amount today who dont see it as a big thing but as the years go by that will change and people will see it for what it was. Conservatives will lose the war on history. I am confident about that.
To be clear, social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time.
Except when they don't. ;-)
|
Northern Ireland26763 Posts
On January 07 2022 18:32 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2022 12:55 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 11:26 Sadist wrote:
Jan 6th will live in infamy. There may be a solid amount today who dont see it as a big thing but as the years go by that will change and people will see it for what it was. Conservatives will lose the war on history. I am confident about that.
To be clear, social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time. I don't think it is a stretch to define many Muslim regimes as social conservative, and many of them are still very far from "losing". In Afghanistan they even won ground back. For the west, I don't think the endless obsession with enthnicity, gender and sexuality will bring any good. We will only get true equality when these things are usually no-issues and we stop treating them as vulnerable main features of our identities. Searching for things you think someone should be offended by can be counter productive.
They never really lost that ground in the first place, they were artificially deposed from it by outside power.
How do they become non-issues? What is the mechanism via which this occurs? Same-sex marriage isn’t even 2 years being legal over here, to take one example.
These things being non-issues is a shared goal with almost every member of the political left I’ve ever read, or personally interacted with. The only difference between that cohort and enlightened colourblind ‘I don’t see gender’ centrist types is a recognition that normalisation and thus things not being issues doesn’t bloody happen via magic.
It’s not about things being vulnerable features of our identities. It’s that they’re not in fact vulnerable facets, but societally they become so. Being a woman, gay, black etc shouldn’t be detrimental to an individual, but hey they often are so there we are.
With perhaps an exception on mental illness and various neurodivergent conditions, although opinion varies quite widely.
It’s not like even in the absence of much ‘pushing the agenda’ that people don’t get outraged anyway. See innumerable confected trans bathroom controversies.
|
On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective.
I don’t think it’s reductionist.
Are Africans people or cattle? - lost
Should black people be able to vote? - lost
Should women be able to vote? - lost
Interracial marriage - lost
Gay marriage - lost
Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer.
|
|
|
On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer.
That's some real hefty selection bias. Again, no doubt things have changed over the years, but rarely strictly in the way that the non-conservatives have wanted to make it happen. Some other examples:
Temperance (anti-alcohol) - won, after several setbacks that included the 18th Amendment
Native American displacement (hard to label, but undeniably supported by people we'd call historical conservatives) - won
End of Reconstruction - won
Eugenics (a decidedly progressive position in its early implementation) - won
Any of the many attempts to significantly change the system of government over the years - won
Yes, you start to get into the question of what a "win" is and what a "conservative" was, but that's the point: the only way you get a "conservatives always lose" position is by gathering up all the losses in history and tacking on a conservative label to them.
Fights like the place of religion and race in the legal system are still ongoing, so we can reserve judgment on many of those related fights (abortion, gay marriage, racial discrimination of many forms, etc) but chances are the conservatives will win some and lose some. It is unlikely that those who want to self-identify as trigendered pyrofoxes will get the legal representation to do so in a meaningful way, for example. But things will continue to change, and a century from now we may see some similarly obtuse reduction of current events into a selectively crafted narrative where the losses become labeled conservatism, the failures of progressivism get forgotten, and the one thing that happened to succeed becomes considered to be the obviously One True Path.
|
On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer.
What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion?
|
On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion?
Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost.
|
United States43971 Posts
On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion?
Who is picking these conservative viewpoints? Paedophilia generally flourishes in environments in which authority figures are protected and victims are treated as attacking the institution. It’s why it’s so common in religious groups. It’s a decidedly conservative thing, conservatives care more about protecting the social hierarchy and institutions than individual rights. They’ve been losing ground on child abuse for a while now but there is still much more to be done.
|
On January 08 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion? Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost.
Eugenics was big in the Western world from late 19th to mid-20th century, including the US. Forced sterilization was public policy in e.g. Sweden for decades. Normalizing paedophilia was on the agenda of the Green Party in Europe in the 70-80s, IIRC. It didn't catch on and they backed out of it. The idea that marriage is an outdated concept was also pushed by the hippies during the 70s and even earlier than that by feminist thinkers. Communal upbringing was a thing in various socialist/communist projects, e.g. in kibbutzim. I hope you don't need any sources for the progressives trying to do away with religion. That dates back to the Enlightenment. It was also attempted during various revolutions etc. E.g. by the Spanish Republicans or the Soviet Union.
|
On January 08 2022 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion? Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost. Eugenics was big in the Western world from late 19th to mid-20th century, including the US. Forced sterilization was public policy in e.g. Sweden for decades. Normalizing paedophilia was on the agenda of the Green Party in Europe in the 70-80s, IIRC. It didn't catch on and they backed out of it. The idea that marriage is an outdated concept was also pushed by the hippies during the 70s and even earlier than that by feminist thinkers. Communal upbringing was a thing in various socialist/communist projects, e.g. in kibbutzim. I hope you don't need any sources for the progressives trying to do away with religion. That dates back to the Enlightenment. It was also attempted during various revolutions etc. E.g. by the Spanish Republicans or the Soviet Union.
Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative
Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting.
|
On January 08 2022 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion? Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost. Eugenics was big in the Western world from late 19th to mid-20th century, including the US. Forced sterilization was public policy in e.g. Sweden for decades. Normalizing paedophilia was on the agenda of the Green Party in Europe in the 70-80s, IIRC. It didn't catch on and they backed out of it. The idea that marriage is an outdated concept was also pushed by the hippies during the 70s and even earlier than that by feminist thinkers. Communal upbringing was a thing in various socialist/communist projects, e.g. in kibbutzim. I hope you don't need any sources for the progressives trying to do away with religion. That dates back to the Enlightenment. It was also attempted during various revolutions etc. E.g. by the Spanish Republicans or the Soviet Union. Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting.
Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support.
But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history.
|
On January 08 2022 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion? Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost. Eugenics was big in the Western world from late 19th to mid-20th century, including the US. Forced sterilization was public policy in e.g. Sweden for decades. Normalizing paedophilia was on the agenda of the Green Party in Europe in the 70-80s, IIRC. It didn't catch on and they backed out of it. The idea that marriage is an outdated concept was also pushed by the hippies during the 70s and even earlier than that by feminist thinkers. Communal upbringing was a thing in various socialist/communist projects, e.g. in kibbutzim. I hope you don't need any sources for the progressives trying to do away with religion. That dates back to the Enlightenment. It was also attempted during various revolutions etc. E.g. by the Spanish Republicans or the Soviet Union. Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting. Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support. But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history.
Eugenics was definitely supported and you’re right about that. Can you clarify what you mean by “abolish religion”? Can you point to when that was largely supported by a large number of US senators?
My point wasn’t that any conceivable idea that could ever be framed as conservative always loses. We still allow humans to live, which is what we also did previously, so you could label that a conservative viewpoint and I guess it wouldn’t be wrong. But no one is really fighting against continuing the human species. I’m talking about actual contentious issues that had widespread support. Eugenics appears to be the only one on the losing side of history. But even then, ethnic/genetic superiority is much more of a right wing idea nowadays.
|
|
|
On January 08 2022 04:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion? Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost. Eugenics was big in the Western world from late 19th to mid-20th century, including the US. Forced sterilization was public policy in e.g. Sweden for decades. Normalizing paedophilia was on the agenda of the Green Party in Europe in the 70-80s, IIRC. It didn't catch on and they backed out of it. The idea that marriage is an outdated concept was also pushed by the hippies during the 70s and even earlier than that by feminist thinkers. Communal upbringing was a thing in various socialist/communist projects, e.g. in kibbutzim. I hope you don't need any sources for the progressives trying to do away with religion. That dates back to the Enlightenment. It was also attempted during various revolutions etc. E.g. by the Spanish Republicans or the Soviet Union. Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting. Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support. But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history. Eugenics was definitely supported and you’re right about that. Can you clarify what you mean by “abolish religion”? Can you point to when that was largely supported by a large number of US senators? My point wasn’t that any conceivable idea that could ever be framed as conservative always loses. We still allow humans to live, which is what we also did previously, so you could label that a conservative viewpoint and I guess it wouldn’t be wrong. But no one is really fighting against continuing the human species. I’m talking about actual contentious issues that had widespread support. Eugenics appears to be the only one on the losing side of history. But even then, ethnic/genetic superiority is much more of a right wing idea nowadays.
Are we talking exclusively about the US Senate? You framed your point as a universal truth: "(...) social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time."
Progressives have lost when it comes to eugenics, the Green Party backtracked on their ideas regarding paedophilia and the left changed its stance on marriage. Like I said, abolishing religion was championed by massively popular movements in many parts of Europe. That too is a thing of the past. What about communism vs. capitalism? The former was very much a progressive idea, with massive popular support. The Multikulti approach to immigration is also losing in Europe.
@JimmiC
Kwark's argument is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the battle of ideas, not practical handling of paedophilia. As far as I know, conservatives have never championed the idea of normalizing paedophilia. They have always condemned it, while sweeping it under the rug if it happened within its ranks. The Green Party, however, had the idea on its agenda for a while.
|
United States43971 Posts
On January 08 2022 05:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 04:43 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 02:19 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 07 2022 15:35 LegalLord wrote:
In the sense that the world will always change, I suppose taking a stance of "social conservatives will always lose" is true if you define social conservatives as the ones pushing for things to stay the same. But that's an observation that is trivially true enough to be almost meaningless. On a long enough timeframe, the local "conservatives" of one era will have absolutely lost ground, but that doesn't mean that all the not-conservatives of that era will have gotten what they want either. That things will eventually change in the world/country/etc is obvious; which party gets the most influence in how and to what extent such changes occur is another question entirely - one far less well-suited by the aforementioned reductionist perspective. I don’t think it’s reductionist. Are Africans people or cattle? - lost Should black people be able to vote? - lost Should women be able to vote? - lost Interracial marriage - lost Gay marriage - lost Every time it comes up, the socially conservative perspective is purely obstruction. They lost every time but they drag their feet and make it take longer. What about eugenics? Or normalizing paedophilia? Doing away with marriage? Communal child upbringing? Doing away with religion? Can you point me towards where there was a large movement for any of those things? All the things I listed were supported by a huge majority of conservatives during the time they lost. Eugenics was big in the Western world from late 19th to mid-20th century, including the US. Forced sterilization was public policy in e.g. Sweden for decades. Normalizing paedophilia was on the agenda of the Green Party in Europe in the 70-80s, IIRC. It didn't catch on and they backed out of it. The idea that marriage is an outdated concept was also pushed by the hippies during the 70s and even earlier than that by feminist thinkers. Communal upbringing was a thing in various socialist/communist projects, e.g. in kibbutzim. I hope you don't need any sources for the progressives trying to do away with religion. That dates back to the Enlightenment. It was also attempted during various revolutions etc. E.g. by the Spanish Republicans or the Soviet Union. Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting. Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support. But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history. Eugenics was definitely supported and you’re right about that. Can you clarify what you mean by “abolish religion”? Can you point to when that was largely supported by a large number of US senators? My point wasn’t that any conceivable idea that could ever be framed as conservative always loses. We still allow humans to live, which is what we also did previously, so you could label that a conservative viewpoint and I guess it wouldn’t be wrong. But no one is really fighting against continuing the human species. I’m talking about actual contentious issues that had widespread support. Eugenics appears to be the only one on the losing side of history. But even then, ethnic/genetic superiority is much more of a right wing idea nowadays. Are we talking exclusively about the US Senate? You framed your point as a universal truth: "(...) social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time." Progressives have lost when it comes to eugenics, the Green Party backtracked on their ideas regarding paedophilia and the left changed its stance on marriage. Like I said, abolishing religion was championed by massively popular movements in many parts of Europe. That too is a thing of the past. What about communism vs. capitalism? The former was very much a progressive idea, with massive popular support. The Multikulti approach to immigration is also losing in Europe. @JimmiC Kwark's argument is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the battle of ideas, not practical handling of paedophilia. As far as I know, conservatives have never championed the idea of normalizing paedophilia. They have always condemned it, while sweeping it under the rug if it happened within its ranks. The Green Party, however, had the idea on its agenda for a while.
Communism vs capitalism is another example of you misplacing the conservative belief. Conservatives are protectionist, pro intervention in the markets, and consistently opposed to any form of individual liberty. They are desperate to regulate speech, political affiliation, and so forth. In most conservative controlled US states it is not legal to not do business with Israel, for example. You are confusing neoliberals with conservatives when they are two opposing forces. Conservatives despise neoliberals. Neoliberals are the capitalists (as opposed to socialists). Conservatives prefer state control.
Where you’re going wrong is assuming that everything that isn’t socially progressive and economically socialist is conservative. It’s more complicated than that. Conservatism is a specific thing that is mostly centred on propping up existing social hierarchies. They’ll support pedophiles if they’re part of the elite (hell, Trump is on record bragging about the girls on Epstein island). They’ll play favourites in the economy. They’ll arrest people for their political opinions, they’ll censor the media, they’ll overturn elections, they don’t give a fuck as long as it supports the elites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
