Look, I’m reasonably left wing, but it is fallacious and unhelpful to do this American thing of trying to lump everything into “us” and “them”. Polarisation and oversimplifiying is how this mess happened in the first place.
Conservativism is principally concerned with the preservation of the good. The failings of Conservativism are simple: it’s also quite good at preserving the bad. Why? Because there isn’t a robust enough system to determine one from the other. One person’s moral outrage is another person’s right to exist, and the other way around.
What low-IQ, highly manipulated and brainwashed people do is they call something a name, but it actually has nothing to do with the name. Christianity is the perfect example, historically speaking, whatever is observed by the American Right has almost nothing in common with the core principles of Christianity. It’s the fucking opposite.
Hierarchies obey the same logic. Human beings are different to each other. Sometimes these differences are the same in various demographics. This is not a contraversial statement.
Does this stop the right to opportunity and life? Of course not. Choosing to celebrate it, along with all the nuances makes it a wonderful quirk of the world we live in. Human beings are hierarchical creatures, because some of us are fundamentally more competitive than others, some more cooperative. This isn’t news to anyone, and no amount of political posturing is going to change this. This isn’t anything to do with Conservativism, because it’s just an observation of reality. Politics that does not observe reality is doomed to fail from the outset.
It is not “conservative” nor is it honest to say that everyone is as good at a specific job as anyone else. Some people are just well arranged to do some things well.
Conservatives conserve capitalism, which needs social hierarchies to function. Conservatives conserve the class war. Oppressors / Oppressed. If you’re not an oppressor, you’re being oppressed. Historical Materialism:
They conserve a lot of things. Choosing one that you think is bad as an example is reasonable, but it doesn’t really make a point.
It’s arguable (but not something I agree with) that you simply don’t understand that capitalism is, because no one person is able to fully comprehend all of the unintended consequences of a system. It may be that in fact the only human compatible system that doesn’t immediately decay. (Again - Obviously, I don’t believe this)
A theoretical argument for this (that I don’t necessarily agree with) could be that because we are hierarchical creatures, it’s the only way to reasonably integrate this, via a system of social classes. But the system would have to be sufficiently performant for the lowest class, otherwise it would collapse. So perhaps the only evil in capitalism, is the manipulation and dishonesty towards the lower classes, to accept something that is not performant for them. Perhaps if the system was policed with honesty, then it might allow an interation of the system to be discovered that does not fundamentally abuse its constituents. Perhaps even, if the classes simply represented different subcultures but were fundamentally equal in the eyes of the social system?
Enough with the theoretical, the point is nuance is essential. The more we dispense with it, the more embedded, violent and dysfunctional everything becomes.
Undoing mistreatment by mistreating the mistreaters doesn’t exactly set a precedent for a mistreatment free future, does it?
What part of egalitarianism advocates for mistreating people?
Conserving the wealth inequality. Conserving the status quo. Conserving the social stratification. What is the superstructure that defines these structures?
—- Capitalism.
Rosa Luxemburg answered this question 125 years ago.
she argues from a historical materialist perspective that capitalism is economically unsustainable and will eventually collapse and that a revolution is necessary to transform capitalism into socialism.
Thank you for linking the Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing. Treating everyone right of you as “them” and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said. Yes, conservativism maintains a lot of bad things! We have already discussed this.
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing.
You veered from the original post. Not me.
Treating everyone right of you as “them” and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
Is Nazi apologia, and dangerous.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said.
Just because someone doesn’t cowtow to your circular logic doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
One. Give me one example of how capitalism has been reformed— and lasted.
Because younger people will be the audience for a high school wikipedia article link. While I’m sure it’s reflexive for some to check the basics on Wikipedia, others thankfully may not be in that particular educational stage, as this discussion wouldn’t be valid otherwise.
My comment on it’s relevance stands, I don’t think I veered at all.
I’m depressed to see that you invoked Godwins law with such enthusiasm. Please don’t ever reference nazi apologia to me in the same breath as justification for dehumanising others. It’s in acutely poor taste and education.
There is nothing circular about my logic that I can see, and youve not highlighted any. I’ve accused you of speaking the same rhetoric despite it being addressed which might qualify?
Luxemburg is proven wrong by there never being a revolution, the reformation and lasting are a separate discussion.
What is “good” is subjective to the individual. A conservative doesn’t necessarily conserve good ideas, often simply preferring the status quo due to its stability. On the other hand, a liberal doesn’t always want good reforms
I’m not sure you are asking an actual question but an example might be language, or attempting to preserve the existing culture. This is a noble effort, but often falls short in reality because it becomes too inhibiting or unreflective of the state of play for everyone.
This is a really good explanation. I really hate this kid of mentality online where people lump things they don’t like, like conservatism, with completely unrelated things like this comment and say that this is what conservatism is. Through this us vs them mentality people seem to forget to at things critically and immediately take the us vs them approach to everything they see
Look, I’m reasonably left wing, but it is fallacious and unhelpful to do this American thing of trying to lump everything into “us” and “them”. Polarisation and oversimplifiying is how this mess happened in the first place.
Conservativism is principally concerned with the preservation of the good. The failings of Conservativism are simple: it’s also quite good at preserving the bad. Why? Because there isn’t a robust enough system to determine one from the other. One person’s moral outrage is another person’s right to exist, and the other way around.
What low-IQ, highly manipulated and brainwashed people do is they call something a name, but it actually has nothing to do with the name. Christianity is the perfect example, historically speaking, whatever is observed by the American Right has almost nothing in common with the core principles of Christianity. It’s the fucking opposite.
Hierarchies obey the same logic. Human beings are different to each other. Sometimes these differences are the same in various demographics. This is not a contraversial statement.
Does this stop the right to opportunity and life? Of course not. Choosing to celebrate it, along with all the nuances makes it a wonderful quirk of the world we live in. Human beings are hierarchical creatures, because some of us are fundamentally more competitive than others, some more cooperative. This isn’t news to anyone, and no amount of political posturing is going to change this. This isn’t anything to do with Conservativism, because it’s just an observation of reality. Politics that does not observe reality is doomed to fail from the outset.
It is not “conservative” nor is it honest to say that everyone is as good at a specific job as anyone else. Some people are just well arranged to do some things well.
Conservatives conserve capitalism, which needs social hierarchies to function. Conservatives conserve the class war. Oppressors / Oppressed. If you’re not an oppressor, you’re being oppressed. Historical Materialism:
They conserve a lot of things. Choosing one that you think is bad as an example is reasonable, but it doesn’t really make a point.
It’s arguable (but not something I agree with) that you simply don’t understand that capitalism is, because no one person is able to fully comprehend all of the unintended consequences of a system. It may be that in fact the only human compatible system that doesn’t immediately decay. (Again - Obviously, I don’t believe this)
A theoretical argument for this (that I don’t necessarily agree with) could be that because we are hierarchical creatures, it’s the only way to reasonably integrate this, via a system of social classes. But the system would have to be sufficiently performant for the lowest class, otherwise it would collapse. So perhaps the only evil in capitalism, is the manipulation and dishonesty towards the lower classes, to accept something that is not performant for them. Perhaps if the system was policed with honesty, then it might allow an interation of the system to be discovered that does not fundamentally abuse its constituents. Perhaps even, if the classes simply represented different subcultures but were fundamentally equal in the eyes of the social system?
Enough with the theoretical, the point is nuance is essential. The more we dispense with it, the more embedded, violent and dysfunctional everything becomes.
Undoing mistreatment by mistreating the mistreaters doesn’t exactly set a precedent for a mistreatment free future, does it?
What part of egalitarianism advocates for mistreating people?
Conserving the wealth inequality. Conserving the status quo. Conserving the social stratification. What is the superstructure that defines these structures?
Rosa Luxemburg answered this question 125 years ago.
Thank you for linking the Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing. Treating everyone right of you as “them” and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said. Yes, conservativism maintains a lot of bad things! We have already discussed this.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
Just a whole lot of nothing.
Because older people don’t need equal rights?
You veered from the original post. Not me.
Is Nazi apologia, and dangerous.
Just because someone doesn’t cowtow to your circular logic doesn’t mean they are wrong.
One. Give me one example of how capitalism has been reformed— and lasted.
Marx and the Impossibility to reform Capitalist Society
Because younger people will be the audience for a high school wikipedia article link. While I’m sure it’s reflexive for some to check the basics on Wikipedia, others thankfully may not be in that particular educational stage, as this discussion wouldn’t be valid otherwise.
My comment on it’s relevance stands, I don’t think I veered at all.
I’m depressed to see that you invoked Godwins law with such enthusiasm. Please don’t ever reference nazi apologia to me in the same breath as justification for dehumanising others. It’s in acutely poor taste and education.
There is nothing circular about my logic that I can see, and youve not highlighted any. I’ve accused you of speaking the same rhetoric despite it being addressed which might qualify?
Luxemburg is proven wrong by there never being a revolution, the reformation and lasting are a separate discussion.
I waited 2 days for that ? Disappointed. You don’t impress me with your veiled social dominance.
Then my goal has been achieved. Thanks for the discussion.
What good things do conservatives “conserve”?
What is “good” is subjective to the individual. A conservative doesn’t necessarily conserve good ideas, often simply preferring the status quo due to its stability. On the other hand, a liberal doesn’t always want good reforms
They said language. This is what they want to conserve.
I’m not sure you are asking an actual question but an example might be language, or attempting to preserve the existing culture. This is a noble effort, but often falls short in reality because it becomes too inhibiting or unreflective of the state of play for everyone.
This is a really good explanation. I really hate this kid of mentality online where people lump things they don’t like, like conservatism, with completely unrelated things like this comment and say that this is what conservatism is. Through this us vs them mentality people seem to forget to at things critically and immediately take the us vs them approach to everything they see
This is literally the epitome of what conservatism is.