United States of America Still a Nation of Conservatives

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And why shouldn't he? From the opening thread, to my understanding he was not mocking people who vote conservative, or who are in the conservative party, but people who oppose change on the basis of tradition, oppose progress on the basis of maintaining the status quo.

Didn't you read through the conversation? This was about the title of his thread.

Otherwise, he definitely isn't mocking them, however, my dispute was with his silly title.

He didn't say that the common rules of decency do not apply to those who are intolerant, nor that those who are intolerant have no human rights, all he said is that we are under no obligation to tolerate the views and actions of people who are intolerant for no good reason.

No, but not tolerating intolerance is to be intolerant of the intolerant, which is basically saying it's okay to sink to their level, hence I made a comparison.

Then again, "tolerance" is a stupid concept anyway. Imagine if I were to say "yeah, I tolerate black people". It makes me sound like I don't like them, but that I still think myself a good person for putting up with them. This should not be the case - it's not a matter of tolerance, nor is it a matter of acceptance, because there is nothing to "tolerate" or "accept". A more appropriate word doesn't really come to mind right now but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.

I do, in fact I recall Maddox had something similar in one of his articles,: Best Page in the Universe: Stock Photo Models

#4: "When a corporation claims to be diverse, what they really mean is that they hire black people, asians, and a latino every now and then. There is no image more meticulously engineered in this world than that of a corporation's statement on "diversity." For example, the energy company Entergy states on its website that the cornerstone of their corporate culture is:

respect ... for every individual regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or any other cultural factor. "Tolerance" is insufficient in this organization that values differences...

Entergy should be commended for having the courage to go beyond simply "tolerating" different races by treating them with respect, because it is assumed that other races are not treated with respect unless a corporation explicitly states that they do on their website. The world needs more companies willing to follow Entergy's bold leadership by doing more than just tolerating other races."

Before I join this debate I would like to make my position on some issues clear. I am a conservative and generally favor republicans. I am not biased and recently began, well not supporting but I won't say I'm against gay marriage. i suppose I'm rather indifferent. I am religious although instead of sticking by a particular denomination I generally just refer to myself as christian. ON the subject of religion I don't care what the heck you belief so long as you don't try and destroy relgion(like Soviet Russia) or try and kill/attack others for having different beliefs(like the middle eastern terrorists). now that I'm through with that I'll get back to this thread in a little bit and join in on the debate.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

I am a conservative and generally favor republicans.

I am not biased

*cough*

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

No, but not tolerating intolerance is to be intolerant of the intolerant, which is basically saying it's okay to sink to their level, hence I made a comparison.

Not really, since we're not sinking to their level, we're not saying that it's okay to do what they do. Refusing to tolerate a hate-crime is hardly a bad kind of intolerance, and refusing to tolerate an irrational viewpoint is also hardly as bad as simply refusing to tolerate the fact that others may have an opposing view. There's good reason not to allow people with such unobjectively-justified views to influence our society, since they may even be actively harmful. In all honesty it's not intolerance itself that's bad, but intolerance without good reason. We don't tolerate crime, for example. Not tolerating something that's clearly bad is hardly "stooping to the level" of those that refuse to tolerate something that isn't bad in any way.

I do, in fact I recall Maddox had something similar in one of his articles,: Best Page in the Universe: Stock Photo Models

I think that sounds like what I was saying yes. "Tolerance" itself is hardly sufficient.

Lord Zero: And you're honestly gonna tell me that you don't favor liberals? Besides I meant i'm not prejudiced against a certain group of people. And if you don't belief me talk to my two asian friends, my arab friend, and my homosexual friend.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Not really, since we're not sinking to their level, we're not saying that it's okay to do what they do. Refusing to tolerate a hate-crime is hardly a bad kind of intolerance, and refusing to tolerate an irrational viewpoint is also hardly as bad as simply refusing to tolerate the fact that others may have an opposing view. There's good reason not to allow people with such unobjectively-justified views to influence our society, since they may even be actively harmful. In all honesty it's not intolerance itself that's bad, but intolerance without good reason. We don't tolerate crime, for example. Not tolerating something that's clearly bad is hardly "stooping to the level" of those that refuse to tolerate something that isn't bad in any way.

That's fair, my comparison was inaccurate then.

Lord Zero: But who are we to decide what is bad? Some people consider religion bad. SOme religions consider homosexuals bad see how this could be a problem.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Lord Zero: But who are we to decide what is bad? Some people consider religion bad. SOme religions consider homosexuals bad see how this could be a problem.

Generally, that can be determined through what is logically demonstrable, assuming we are questioning 'moral' standards or non-standards. (Not to steal your question Zero :3)

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Generally, that can be determined through what is logically demonstrable, assuming we are questioning 'moral' standards or non-standards. (Not to steal your question Zero :3)

That's a good way of putting it yes

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Lord Zero: But who are we to decide what is bad? Some people consider religion bad. SOme religions consider homosexuals bad see how this could be a problem.

With objective justification, we can easily decide what is good and what is bad. Thus views that something is bad that aren't objectively justified, such as many of those touted by religion, are ones that shouldn't be taken into consideration. So no, I don't see how this could be a problem, because it isn't.

Lord Zero: And you're honestly gonna tell me that you don't favor liberals? Besides I meant i'm not prejudiced against a certain group of people. And if you don't belief me talk to my two asian friends, my arab friend, and my homosexual friend.

My problem wasn't that you were claiming to favour republicans, it was that you were doing so while claiming not to be biased in the sentence right before it. That you contradicted yourself without even batting an eyelid.

And I'd argue that no, I don't favour liberals at all, I rile on liberal media websites just as much as I do republican media websites (I hate the Huffington Post for being so god-damned lefty, and I hate Fox News for being so god-damn righty). I hate people who wave the flag of their particular side of the particular spectrum no matter what colours that flag may show. I rile on anyone who actually considers themselves part of the political spectrum, rather than someone who has a collection of views on particular issues, and as such refuse to define myself as either liberal or conservative, and I would highly object to any attempt to place me on such a spectrum. I do not lean left. I do not lean right. I have views on certain issues. You cannot quantify such views on a left-right spectrum without a gross amount of generalization and unnecessary association. Thus I refuse to raise a flag, and I will object to any attempt to assign one to me.

Lord: that's a pretty good way of putting it. Also sorry for assuming you were a liberal but is it wrong for me to favor conservatives? I consider myself a conservative and feel a sense of loyalty to them just like some(not all but some) black people feel a sense of kinship to other blacks and would sooner be on another black's side then a white person's side.

From the view of a social moderate:

America is undergoing a dramatic social change right now. All of the aging baby boomers are reaching their last days and most still maintain a conservative stance (though those in government tend to vary). It is obvious that they disliked Obama coming into office as he is quite liberal and so pushed back while the Democrats have been feeling confident about their stronghold and aren't rushing to the polls.

This is sort of surprising. Up until this point, the Democrats/liberals had organized their debate points and campaigns very well and so appeared flawless. The Republicans/conservatives have not taken advantage of what was given to them (mostly economic points about the decaying government, though this is because many of them contributed to a statist economy). America's youth is overwhelmingly becoming liberal-hardly anyone will be voting Republican unless they undergo a major change in a few years. One could see this as a reflection of large social trends: mankind was very liberal in its first stages...then very conservative...and now we are becoming more liberal (for example, central liberals would have been radicals in the 1800's).

With this, it can be said that the Republicans still have some power though this may be a last gasp. The Democrats have shown some social vulnerability but can regain this in a few years at most.

And Black_Mamba, starting a thread like that is not exactly the mature way to do things. Perhaps the conservatives are not so right-of-center as you may think.

Originally Posted by Mooncalf

invisible hand.

Har har.

This is a valid point against free-market capitalism.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Its hardly surprising. Whenever things don't go well, people automatically switch sides. Since Obama hasn't magically fixed the economy in two seconds like most of his voters thought he would, they are now voting Republican, hoping that somehow makes a difference. What this trend shows is that people have very little patience, not that they are more conservative.

Just curious: do you study history or political science?

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Lord: that's a pretty good way of putting it. Also sorry for assuming you were a liberal but is it wrong for me to favor conservatives? I consider myself a conservative and feel a sense of loyalty to them just like some(not all but some) black people feel a sense of kinship to other blacks and would sooner be on another black's side then a white person's side.

Yes, because opposing progress solely because it is progress and favouring tradition solely because it is tradition is retarded. Feeling loyalty to such a side even when it is wrong is something that should never be advocated, just like a black person who sides with a black person because he's black, not because he's right, is something we should never advocate.

But as I said, I highlighted your statement that you favoured republicans because it contradicted the statement you made right before it that you weren't biased. By making these claims of loyalty and kinship to justify such favour, you are demonstrating that you very much are. I wasn't so much attacking what you said, as the way you contradicted yourself while trying to say it.

Zero: WHen I said i favor Republicans that was just a default thing. For instance I supported McCain(please let's not make this political) because I believed that he was the better choice. Not because I was all "Obama is a black man! HE ain't good for this country!" While I don't like his policies I'll admit he is a good guy. But if two people are on the ballot and I'm not sure which of them is the better choice I will choose the Republican over the conservative. But this is off topic so let's stop with this little discussion.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Zero: WHen I said i favor Republicans that was just a default thing. For instance I supported McCain(please let's not make this political) because I believed that he was the better choice. Not because I was all "Obama is a black man! HE ain't good for this country!" While I don't like his policies I'll admit he is a good guy. But if two people are on the ballot and I'm not sure which of them is the better choice I will choose the Republican over the conservative. But this is off topic so let's stop with this little discussion.

That is basically the definition of bias, since instead of looking for evidence to justify your choice you just side with the republican.

Lord: What if there is no clear cut thing that would make one favorable? I mean I'll probably disagree with both of them on some things but I tend to disagree more with the democrats because of my beliefs.

McCain and Obama were pretty distinct, there's quite a lot of clear-cut issues to look at, so if you went McCain and Obama based on McCain's republicanism and not based on what he said, you basically just ignored any evidence that might make your mind up. But now we are veering quite far off topic so yeah.

Originally Posted by sea

Either way, I pointed it out because it's a very common thing these days to say that "racism no longer exists" or that "we are now all treated equally" because that is clearly not the case, and will never be the case, since our society, and arguably all societies, are necessarily founded upon power difference. Equity is important because it takes that problem into account, and saying that we merely need to treat everyone the same does not do justice to the reality we live in.

You obviously didn't read my post. No where did I even allude to "treating everyone the same", and I was arguing against the denial of racism, among other things. Honestly, if you have nothing worth while to contribute, please don't--and be sure to read posts carefully before making such brash statements.

Going to try to bring the topic back on track a bit. ^_^;

One of the big problems about American conservatism is the obvious insecurity that comes along with it. Conservatism often comes with the symptom of feeling vulnerable and endangered, and it also comes with the need to shield that vulnerability. The United States is what I like to call a "barbaric" nation; by "barbaric", I do not mean that they are cavemen with a crude culture, but that, as opposed to a "decadent" nation - which does not mean a nation is overfilled with overly rich slobs - a barbaric nation is relatively new, culturally young, and has less roots than what many are willing to give them credit for. They are sure of their customs, believing them to be the law of nature, and that anyone who doesn't believe them is worthy of contempt, redemption, and/or destruction; this is a contrast to the older cultures of "decadence", which, after ages of unrest and turmoil, are likely to adopt a viewpoint that nothing is better than anything else, and that it's those who actually believe in and fight for something who are worthy of contempt.

If you think about it, compared to many other nations, the United States seems to always have this mentality - reflected through newspapers, live media, editorials, magazines - that America is headed swiftly towards disaster. It has been this way since the 50's, with Americans convinced that the Soviets are going to invade, that left-wing Communists in America will take over, that the economy is going south, that there will be another Great Depression, that the melting polar ice caps will drown us, that a wrathful deity will smite us for homosexual marriage. American mentality is hard to predict like that - there's a great deal of brazen overconfidence sometimes in American supremacy, but it's also being constantly undermined by a gloom and a premonition that things are about to get a whole lot worse. It's with this mentality that America always seems to be defensive, always seems to be trying to protect themselves with much more exaggerated fanfare than any other nation of its power.

This is one of the reasons why America is so willing to fight for what they believe for. As George Friedman puts it, "America is a place where the right wing despises the Muslims for their faith and the left wing despises them for their treatment of women. Such seemingly different perspectives are tied together in the certainty that their own values are self-evidently best." And that's also why the United States is still a conservative country, holding its values as self-evident truths that the rest of the world had better get behind. And while there's certainly nothing wrong with conservatism per se, it's how their views reflect on society that causes a great deal of stress...such as the apparent inability to respect the beliefs of others. Say what you will about liberals, but they tend not to criticize conservatives about their beliefs as much as how conservative beliefs are trying to forcefully impose themselves on liberal beliefs.

...I am, by the way, neither conservative nor liberal. XD

(I wonder if I actually managed to bring this topic back on track, or if I just led it down an even more confusing route... @_@ )

Originally Posted by Ysionris

One of the big problems about American conservatism is the obvious insecurity that comes along with it. Conservatism often comes with the symptom of feeling vulnerable and endangered, and it also comes with the need to shield that vulnerability. The United States is what I like to call a "barbaric" nation; by "barbaric", I do not mean that they are cavemen with a crude culture, but that, as opposed to a "decadent" nation - which does not mean a nation is overfilled with overly rich slobs - a barbaric nation is relatively new, culturally young, and has less roots than what many are willing to give them credit for. They are sure of their customs, believing them to be the law of nature, and that anyone who doesn't believe them is worthy of contempt, redemption, and/or destruction; this is a contrast to the older cultures of "decadence", which, after ages of unrest and turmoil, are likely to adopt a viewpoint that nothing is better than anything else, and that it's those who actually believe in and fight for something who are worthy of contempt.

You really think it's that extreme here?

If you think about it, compared to many other nations, the United States seems to always have this mentality - reflected through newspapers, live media, editorials, magazines - that America is headed swiftly towards disaster. It has been this way since the 50's, with Americans convinced that the Soviets are going to invade, that left-wing Communists in America will take over, that the economy is going south, that there will be another Great Depression, that the melting polar ice caps will drown us, that a wrathful deity will smite us for homosexual marriage. American mentality is hard to predict like that - there's a great deal of brazen overconfidence sometimes in American supremacy, but it's also being constantly undermined by a gloom and a premonition that things are about to get a whole lot worse. It's with this mentality that America always seems to be defensive, always seems to be trying to protect themselves with much more exaggerated fanfare than any other nation of its power.

It's good news friend. People either want to hear about their country winning, or how much despair there is.

This is one of the reasons why America is so willing to fight for what they believe for. As George Friedman puts it, "America is a place where the right wing despises the Muslims for their faith and the left wing despises them for their treatment of women. Such seemingly different perspectives are tied together in the certainty that their own values are self-evidently best." And that's also why the United States is still a conservative country, holding its values as self-evident truths that the rest of the world had better get behind. And while there's certainly nothing wrong with conservatism per se, it's how their views reflect on society that causes a great deal of stress...such as the apparent inability to respect the beliefs of others. Say what you will about liberals, but they tend not to criticize conservatives about their beliefs as much as how conservative beliefs are trying to forcefully impose themselves on liberal beliefs.

America is unable to respect the beliefs of others?

No **** that the United States is still a right-wing nation. Why do you think there are so many ****ing serious issues in America?

^team america.


**** yea?


If the cultural maturity of Europe is that of a 5 year old, then China is roughly 25 and America is a soon to be aborted fetus. Islamic fundamentalists were trying really hard, they just needed bigger guns.

PS: you guys don't mind if I talk in imagery right? I'm just trying to use inclusive language here.