[QUOTE=bitches;51244680]
Sorry. I'm just saying that this election demonstrates that while the classical two parties hold a lot of influence, they clearly do not dictate the will of the American people. I think that doing away with spoiler effects would embolden these alternative parties and those who like their ideas enough to break up the two party system.
I don't believe for a moment that in such a country we wouldn't have several parties beyond Democrat and Republican in Congress.[/QUOTE]
I do agree that it would be a big step forward. The alternative vote would be good for The US.
I just disagree that it would break the two-party system. At first it might, but over time it would go back to the two-party system. Granted it wouldn't be the same horrible situation as now, but it would still lead to a lack of representation.
Just bottomline, be aware that it still has some problems, even though it's better.
[QUOTE=bitches;51243856]that's the weakest kind of conservatism
"our ancestors were right because they just are"[/QUOTE]
This.
Seriously, I don't know why people refer to "progressives" in such a dirisive manner, it's like saying things such as the emancipation of slaves or the introduction of civil rights was a bad idea.
Social conservatism is honestly a tumour which needs to be cut away.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243854]Conservatism is the no-so-radical idea that we shouldn't simply arrogantly discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and traditions of our ancestors in favour of trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals.
That is what conservatism means to me, primarily. There of course are many types of conservatism, and many conservatives will strongly disagree with me.[/QUOTE]
All ideas should be evaluated equally. Just because people in the past had an idea does not make it good, or bad. It just so happens that a some of those ideas are bad and/or obsolete, and should be excised.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243854]Conservatism is the no-so-radical idea that we shouldn't simply arrogantly discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and traditions of our ancestors in favour of trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals.
That is what conservatism means to me, primarily. There of course are many types of conservatism, and many conservatives will strongly disagree with me.[/QUOTE]
So when Adam Smith disregarded the economic traditions of his day and introduced the idea of radical economic changes, he was just arrogant.
I guess we shouldn't respect his ideas then. Let's move on, folks.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;51245396]So when Adam Smith disregarded the economic traditions of his day and introduced the idea of radical economic changes, he was just arrogant.
I guess we shouldn't respect his ideas then. Let's move on, folks.[/QUOTE]
This is always a point of contention for how the argument "From Tradition" even works.
What is tradition? The amalgamation of the cultural norms of a given group. Where did those come from? From the pieces and parts of the amalgamation of the cultural norms that came before them. And what does one make of a group of historical ancestors throwing [B]their[/B] traditions away for new methods? Should we go with the new tradition or the old tradition? What's more valid and what do we care about?
Tradition has little value implicitly to me. The value of some traditions is demonstrable, the value of others, certainly not.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;51245396]So when Adam Smith disregarded the economic traditions of his day and introduced the idea of radical economic changes, he was just arrogant.
I guess we shouldn't respect his ideas then. Let's move on, folks.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act contributed to the 2008 economic recession. Changing old things isn't always good, some things are in place for a reason. Reasons that new generations may have forgotten about.
Imagine how nice it would be if the recession never happened. I think we'd all be a little better off.
Social conservatism and its flaws become increasingly apparent as time goes on.
But people seem to forget unchecked progressive agenda can backfire in the form of authoritarian social justice warriors who seek to purge all thought crime, discriminate against others because of 'priviledge' and ironically will not tolerate those who don't agree with them and many are children of wealthy white families who for some reason need to be offended on behalf of minorities, college campuses actually segregating students with the logic of [I]protecting[/I] them.
Now the Democrats are increasingly pandering to this toxic minority, eager to enforce their 'No-Fly, No-Buy' which ignores due process and civil rights as well as disproportionately effect Arab-American men.
It makes a mockery of actual justified causes like Black Lives Matter, and it doesn't help there are the jackasses who are neither progressives or social just warriors are just jumping in to loot shit.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51243854]Conservatism is the no-so-radical idea that we shouldn't simply arrogantly discard the entirety of hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and traditions of our ancestors in favour of trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals.
That is what conservatism means to me, primarily. There of course are many types of conservatism, and many conservatives will strongly disagree with me.[/QUOTE]
For those of you who want a much better insight on Conservatism without the sensationalism: [url]https://goplifer.com/what-is-conservatism/[/url]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51245475]Social conservatism and its flaws become increasingly apparent as time goes on.
But people seem to forget unchecked progressive agenda can backfire in the form of authoritarian social justice warriors who seek to purge all thought crime, discriminate against others because of 'priviledge' and ironically will not tolerate those who don't agree with them and many are children of wealthy white families who for some reason need to be offended on behalf of minorities, college campuses actually segregating students with the logic of [I]protecting[/I] them.
Now the Democrats are increasingly pandering to this toxic minority, eager to enforce their 'No-Fly, No-Buy' which ignores due process and civil rights as well as disproportionately effect Arab-American men.
It makes a mockery of actual justified causes like Black Lives Matter, and it doesn't help there are the jackasses who are neither progressives or social just warriors are just jumping in to loot shit.[/QUOTE]
You have some good points, but lumping gun debate into university campus arguments is absurd.
The opposite of conservatism isn't a "progressive agenda" from "authoritarian social justice warriors".
The opposite of conservatism (as modernly practiced) is being willing to explore and argue about new ideas.
[QUOTE=bitches;51245545]You have some good points, but lumping gun debate into university campus arguments is absurd.
The opposite of conservatism isn't a "progressive agenda" from "authoritarian social justice warriors".
The opposite of conservatism (as modernly practiced) is being willing to explore and argue about new ideas.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean to lump in the 'No-Fly, No Buy' in the way you think. Rather, that the Democrats are pandering to these new toxic minorities similar to how the GOP started pandering to the Tea Party in order to score brownie points so that they can pass that legislation they the party want. The gun control isn't a far left pillar in their beliefs but a way to score political points.
You may say and believe that the far right and far left are different, that's fine. I believe in horseshoe theory and that they are closer to each other then they are the center.
I also don't mean to say progressive agenda is inherently "authoritarian social justice", rather what I'm saying is the Millennial Social Justice is the Tea Party of the left and our generation.
The Tea Party wants to go full Reagan and discriminate against anyone who doesn't conform to their standards. They target gays, muslims, among others and foster a Us vs Them mentality and attack anyone who from their own side who criticize them- example given is the RINO insult.
Just like how many Millennial Social Justice groups go about their own methods for a similar objective, but instead are more likely to target straight white males for their 'privilege' and censor them by saying their opinion doesn't count, attack those who don't conform to their beliefs as 'intolerant', and label any minority or woman who doesn't agree with them as suffering from "institutionalized racism/sexism". They work to censor whatever media they can if they feel it doesn't agree with them or dismiss it, similar to how the far right has scorn for the supposed "left wing media".
A progressive agenda is good so long as it has restraint to prevent the poison we have seen surging the past few years.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51246066]I didn't mean to lump in the 'No-Fly, No Buy' in the way you think. Rather, that the Democrats are pandering to these new toxic minorities similar to how the GOP started pandering to the Tea Party in order to score brownie points so that they can pass that legislation they the party want. The gun control isn't a far left pillar in their beliefs but a way to score political points.
You may say and believe that the far right and far left are different, that's fine. I believe in horseshoe theory and that they are closer to each other then they are the center.
I also don't mean to say progressive agenda is inherently "authoritarian social justice", rather what I'm saying is the Millennial Social Justice is the Tea Party of the left and our generation.
The Tea Party wants to go full Reagan and discriminate against anyone who doesn't conform to their standards. They target gays, muslims, among others and foster a Us vs Them mentality and attack anyone who from their own side who criticize them- example given is the RINO insult.
Just like how many Millennial Social Justice groups go about their own methods for a similar objective, but instead are more likely to target straight white males for their 'privilege' and censor them by saying their opinion doesn't count, attack those who don't conform to their beliefs as 'intolerant', and label any minority or woman who doesn't agree with them as suffering from "institutionalized racism/sexism". They work to censor whatever media they can if they feel it doesn't agree with them or dismiss it, similar to how the far right has scorn for the supposed "left wing media".
A progressive agenda is good so long as it has restraint to prevent the poison we have seen surging the past few years.[/QUOTE]
Every time someone invokes my Millennial -> Snake People browser extension, I don't see it coming. For that brief sweet fraction I'm confused why Snake People are being discussed.
[QUOTE=download;51243794]And the fracturing of the Republicans begins!
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
Wait, that's a cutout? :v:
Damn...[/QUOTE]
Begins? Where the hell have you been for the past 8 years?
[QUOTE=bitches;51245545]The opposite of conservatism (as modernly practiced) is being willing to explore and argue about new ideas.[/QUOTE]
Socially I have more progressive than conservative values, but don't you think that you're overselling progressiveness a it?
Change is not inherently good, and even when it's just a mixed bag, people are going to value the positives and the negatives differently. Reform, for example, is a joke of a word. [i]Everyone[/i], including conservatives, wants to pass laws that change things for the better. These laws won't necessarily affect the majority in a positive way, either.
There's no political party with the agenda of "exploring and arguing about new ideas". They want to [i]implement[/i] them. And if those ideas are shit or they overturn a good system that was already in place, then that change is negative in and of itself.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51246903]Socially I have more progressive than conservative values, but don't you think that you're overselling progressiveness a it?
Change is not inherently good, and even when it's just a mixed bag, people are going to value the positives and the negatives differently. Reform, for example, is a joke of a word. [i]Everyone[/i], including conservatives, wants to pass laws that change things for the better. These laws won't necessarily affect the majority in a positive way, either.
There's no political party with the agenda of "exploring and arguing about new ideas". They want to [i]implement[/i] them. And if those ideas are shit or they overturn a good system that was already in place, then that change is negative in and of itself.[/QUOTE]
Where did I label that as "progressiveness"?
I was specifically responding to FlashMarsh's depiction of "conservative" and producing an antonym for it.
I even made it clear that not being conservative doesn't also mean being right all the time. It's like you meant to respond to someone else or something.
[QUOTE=bitches;51246936]I was specifically responding to FlashMarsh's depiction of "conservative" and producing an antonym for it.[/QUOTE]
You quoted LtKyle. I don't know if you got him confused with one of FlashMarsh's posts.
The whole point is that the opposite of conservatism (progressiveness) in a social context is [i]not[/i] just being open-minded about new ideas and prospects. It comes with its own legislative agenda, which just like conservatism, is meant to cause change in the way governments currently run things, which may or may not be good.
the problem with saying conservativism is good because 'how do you think we got here' is that generally we got here through social advancement and progressivism
At this point, there's almost nothing to distinguish social Conservatism from Anti-Intellectualism.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51246961]You quoted LtKyle. I don't know if you got him confused with one of FlashMarsh's posts.
The whole point is that the opposite of conservatism (progressiveness) in a social context is [i]not[/i] just being open-minded about new ideas and prospects. It comes with its own legislative agenda, which just like conservatism, is meant to cause change in the way governments currently run things, which may or may not be good.[/QUOTE]
i'm criticizing conservatism for specifically trying to cause change to be more like "the old days" for the obstensible sake of tradition; it is used as an excuse to avoid using real arguments to support their social views
[QUOTE=bitches;51246985]i'm criticizing conservatism for specifically trying to cause change to be more like "the old days" for the obstensible sake of tradition; it is used as an excuse to avoid using real arguments to support their social views[/QUOTE]
If there are policies with the only real merit being an appeal to tradition (or change/progress, for that matter), then that's a valid criticism.
[QUOTE=bitches;51243879]do you have some examples of things you consider the new voting generation to be "trashing our institutions on behalf utopian ideals"?[/QUOTE]
I think one massive example of our moving away from conservative values is the absolute destruction of the family, especially in the poor and inner city communities. I know people have a hard time believing it, but poor and black people weren't always associated with having horrible family stability.
I honestly don't think it's even possible to create a working society when you have the 70%+ rates of children being born into unmarried households like you already have in the inner cities. Just for comparison, in 1965 that number was switched. Inner city out of wedlock birth rates sat right around ~30%.
Note that this isn't just an issue for minorities. White people may have better stats at the moment, but they are also on the decline.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51247772]I think one massive example of our moving away from conservative values is the absolute destruction of the family, especially in the poor and inner city communities. I know people have a hard time believing it, but poor and black people weren't always associated with having horrible family stability.
I honestly don't think it's even possible to create a working society when you have the 70%+ rates of children being born into unmarried households like you already have in the inner cities. Just for comparison, in 1965 that number was switched. Inner city out of wedlock birth rates sat right around ~30%.
Note that this isn't just an issue for minorities. White people may have better stats at the moment, but they are also on the decline.[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with utopian ideals and politics? It's a side effect of population density and bad economic working conditions.
What would you change to be like the old days, in order to fix this?
Whether or not you answer, I already know what sort of society you want, given your history in claiming that gay people never had less rights than others because they too could marry the opposite sex.
You're the classic conservative: vaguely concerned about "family values" but actively pushing for a society that shames families that are not like yours.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51245462]On the other hand the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act contributed to the 2008 economic recession. Changing old things isn't always good, some things are in place for a reason. Reasons that new generations may have forgotten about.
Imagine how nice it would be if the recession never happened. I think we'd all be a little better off.[/QUOTE]
ya but conservatism as far as economics has nothing to do with actually preserving the past status quo, theyve always been about deregulation and justified it by using social conservartism to say that we shouldnt be trying to force equality and fairness in wealth distribution, whereas the liberals have usually been about tightening regulations to provide for a level society and more equal playing field
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.