Conservatism to me means to conserve this world instead of destroying G-D’s creation and to uphold the principles of justice, meaning fair and speedy trials with due process and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. It means to call out and confront injustice when we see it without moral selectivism; to work together as a unified country towards a common good. It means to go out and help your fellow man get back onto his feet when he is in need. That and religious values. Regardless, we all live in this universe and destroying it with pollutants, destroying ecosystems, smashing justice as if it means nothing at all, and being morally selectice against bad is intolerable. We already have caused unfathomable damage through deforestation, throwing mercury in the water that poisons the fish, and hunting entire species to extinction en masse. I am just one type of conservative though… there are many other types! I will list them later.
Now tell me, what do you think conservatism is? Let me know down below! Good faith answers only.
It’s immediately bringing “god” while conveniently not saying which, making it like there is only one obvious god which is a typical thing.
This switches immediately to justice, a bit of a weird switch and it rushes to talk about “innocent until proven guilty” which is something talk about in the public, social sphere (generally to defend rapists), because if you are in a courtroom, everyone knows that the point is to determine guilt through evidence.
Following with “moral selectivism” is a typical pattern that fascists use to, for example, say that freedom of speech should protect nazis, because “it’s just another opinion, just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it should be censored”. “being morally selective against bad” is a specifically funny sentence since morals are made to separate good from bad, so saying that they shouldn’t separate good from bad doesn’t seem like something that anyone would say, unless they know they are in the “bad” side. The concept of saying that the whole country needs to ignore their differences and work together is a theme heavily used by fascists, and the “helping a man in need get back onto his feet” remind me of how fascists tried to look “nice” in France when a nazi terrorist was beaten up to death, by saying that people shouldn’t have kept on kicking him while he’s down, and should have brought him to the hospital and saved him.
The rules of this community including things such as the “queer lifestyle”, I’m done with even giving the benefit of the doubt, the tones and undertones of this place reek of the typical “nice nazi” attitude, which is one of the favorite techniques of nazis nowadays.
You’ve assumed a lot of things from very little. I think you should read your comment again and review what you know to be thinking vs feeling.
It’s not really very little, when it comes from someone who when to the extent of creating a community to defend conservatism, when conservatism is known to be at the core of fascism.
Tolerating ambiguity is exactly what allowed fascist parties to slowly be seen as valid, almost moderate.
I’m sorry, but if you’re ambiguous in your way to talk about lgbt+, and when called out on it you just try to justify it or to ignore it, it means that you’re more comfortable discriminating against them than you are comfortable about rephrasing a sentence, and that says a lot.
If you decide to wear the outfit of the KKK and you say that it’s not for the same reasons as the KKK, you’d better have a rock-solid speech.
You speak exactly like those you point your finger at. Fascism can’t exist without Anarchism. Conservatism can’t exist without Liberalism. They can’t exist without You.
Like I’ve mentioned in my comment in this thread, I am trans. These days I’m more offended by cis people getting offended and trying to ‘defend’ trans rights than I am of anything else. Most of y’all are just virtue signalling and/or using us as an excuse to push your own agendas and your own hatred of those who perceive things differently. Our blood is just as much on your hands as it is on theirs and until you realize that, blood will keep spilling.
I could easily choose to be offended by the wording, assume the worst of their entire being and never come back. If I’m right, I’m just leaving weeds to spread freely, if I’m wrong, I’m casting my own negativity on innocent people. What you think of people is reflected back upon you. You judge them negatively, they judge you negatively. Simple as.
I want it to be clear that I am not saying, nor do I think that you are wrong in this case. I simply do not know, but I care to find out. What I am actually saying is that what you see in others is more of an indication of what you currently are, than what they ultimately are.
Your whole premise for this is that this person went out of their way to create a conservative community. Well, let’s say you were actually someone with more conservative values, not a fascist, just a more conservative person.
Remember what things were before we were all pushed towards extremism? What? Did you think you were immune to that? Think harder lol.
Now, if you look at how fucking insane and just basically astroturfed and puppeteered by troll farms and bots running on LLMs all conservative spaces are online, would you not want a more sane place?
Now think about how ‘our’ spaces look to the people who fall more on the right of the ‘political spectrum’. Do you really think that leftist spaces do not suffer the same type of manipulation by the opposite end of the spectrum? Do you really think that some people are just ‘evil’ and incompatible with life on Earth? Do you think you were given some kind of knowledge at birth that just made you better or more right than them?
There is an extreme right and there is an extreme left and they are equals. The extreme left would gladly do to the right, what they believe the extreme right would do to the left and that perpetuates a cycle that needs to be broken somewhere before it breaks by itself in a catastrophic fashion.
Isn’t it funny that there is a part of me that feels like I’m gonna get shit on for trying to remain neutral about someones intentions before they show them to me?
Sorry, non-sequitur, but that is an ADORABLE plushie to the left of your computer monitor! Where did you get it?
The little raccoon thing? It was at some dollar store. Sadly that is an older picture of my bag and it has lost its legs.
I did not know the Dollar Store sold that. Huh… the more you know I guess!
Damn. That sounds very bot-like. Must be your accent.
Lol. I am not a bot. I do tend to type formally tho.
Conservatism is at the core of Fascism ≠ Conservatism is always Fascism. Two things can be true at the same time. Nonetheless, Fascism is banned here.
Agreed. It is why I made the rules so explicit as to not tolerate ambiguity.
Did I do that? I noticed people have mention that to me multiple times. I do not get it? Sorry… English is not my native language, so I sometimes miss things. My native language is ‘עברית’ (Ivris). I know you said you are ‘done even giving the benefit of the doubt’, but I legitimately do not know and do not mean malintent. What do you suggest I change the wording to?
The KKK is a different thing entirely and I do not and will not support or even tolerate a racial-Christo supremacist hate-group.
Edited to fix typo as I accidentally left off ‘ת’, lol.
‘G-D’ refers to the Jewish One. Not the Christian ones. Of course a religious person will have a great deal of (although not all) of their values based around their religion. Polytheist Conservatives believes in many gods and Civic Conservatives/Non-Theist Conservatives believes in no god, although their reasons may differ. I was simply saying what it means TO ME. Not what it is universally. I made that pretty clear when I said I am just one type of conservative and there are many other.
Not particularly. It is what it says. For example, people in the right often accuses Governor Newsome of crimes when it has not been proven. Innocence until proven guilty is very simple: Innocent until proven guilty. This is a universal principle. It should be on the state to prove guilt instead of on the defendant to prove they are not guilty. Many countries do not have this principle and assumes guilty until proven innocent. There is nothing deeper there and it is supposed to be taken at face-value.
That is a lot of extrapolation and reaching for something that said to stop and confront injustice. And I never combined good and bad. In-fact, I explicitly said to work towards a common good. It is not about ‘sides’ at all. Ignoring the differences of people is not a good thing as people have deeply engrained convictions that will not budge easily; working together likewise is not about helping evil ideologies. In-fact, as I already said multiple times, Fascism and Nazism is banned in this community. Nazis do not deserve help. Why would I help someone who wants to exterminate multiple groups of people? That makes no sense. It is about whether you work towards a better world or not because, at the end of the day, we all live together anyways and it is better to discuss and work together than to not. If we infinitely say ‘so and so is bad and believes X, Y, and Z’ without asking, that is how polarisation happens and is what things such as Nazis exploit.
Okay? That is your judgement-call to make. I will not force anyone to stay if they do not want to stay. I respect your decision.
The whole “G-d” thing stems from a wacky misunderstanding.
Quite a few evangelist churches started it because they misread the Commandment:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)
First, God is not God’s name, it’s God’s job title. 😉
Second, taking the name in vain doesn’t mean typing “God” or even utterances of “goddamn”. It’s making the claim that you, personally, are speaking for God, which is an affront on multiple levels.
Every televangelist who says or implies “God wants you to give me money!” is breaking this commandment.
I am a Jew. Not a Christian. The reason we say ‘G-D’ instead of ‘God’ is because outside of davening (praying) or teaching, we not allowed to say His name. This has been taught since before the rabbonim during the original Twelve Tribes. We say that the intention behind speaking matters more than the word itself. If you intend to curse by saying ‘Frick’, ‘Dang’, ‘Crud’, etc, it is still considered cursing. Likewise, if you intend to say ‘God’ when referring to His name, it is still considered saying His name.
For Jews, it’s totally different. Not directed at you personally, because I’m sure you already know this. 😉
God’s name is unknowable and unpronounceable which is why the Bible displays it as the tetragrammaton, based on how you maybe, kinda, might have said it.
But regardless, God isn’t the name, the tetragrammaton is, which is why Jews avoid saying it out loud in favor of substitutes like “Adonai”.
https://reformjudaism.org/learning/answers-jewish-questions/why-do-some-jews-write-g-d-instead-god
“The bulk of Jewish legal opinion agrees that the law applies only to the written name of God when written in Hebrew and not when written in other languages.”
Using one specific sect does not really negate what I said. Yeah. Reform Judaism is ~10% of worldwide Jewry, Conservative Judaism (not conservative, more reformist, just the name) is ~8% of worldwide Jewry, ~2% adheres to Other sects of Judaism, secular Jews and cultural Jews without a particular sect are ~40% of worldwide Jewry, and Orthodox Judaism is ~40% of worldwide Jewry. When talking about religious authority, I would generally go with the largest sect as it represents religious Jews the best, not other sects that makes up ~20% of worldwide religious Jewry combined. Do note that these are averages and percentages varies based on the polling method. Regardless, it is disingeneous to list a source from a sect that only has 1/10 of all Jews worldwide over the largest sect with 3/10-4/10 of all Jews worldwide.
Edited because I got a percentage inaccurate that I had to fix for accuracy purposes.
The state (nazi germany) said that people who helped Jewish folk were guilty. Do you stand by your innocent until proven guilty by the state for that situation?
There is a difference between actual innocence and what the state says is innocence. Those are not the same thing. If a man is ACTUALLY innocent and he did not harm another, innocent until proven guilty. If the state says a man is guilty when he is innocent or if the state says a man is guilty for not harming the innocent, that is called tyranny and the leader is a despot.
Edited because I said whay instead of what. Lol.
Getting esoteric, what would you say is tyrannical? Right wing (read: conservative) governments are currently using laws based on their flavour of god to set morality, so how do you colour someone as tyrannical?
Tyrannical is when the government restricts speech, expression, protest, religion, physically hurts others who are not actively threatening or being violent, and going after others for immutable characteristics or identity.
Right, so why align yourself with a political belief that does all those things, or is actively working towards doing those things?