Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I imagine that for at least some of them, they view this as a matter of political survival.  Opposing Trump is politically poisonous to Republicans now in many or maybe even most places.  That doesn't make it any more excusable, but there is at least logic to it.

There are some things that should be country over party, political suicide be damned.

Honestly, Conservatives and Republicans need to be developed as two separate entities. A Republican isn't necessarily evil, but to hell with the regressive Conservative movement.

Not all conservatives are regressive though, theres the hardliners and the more moderate ones, you see this in the various caucases in Congress. So, the conservative movement should be split into separate entities, probably progressives too since there's a similar spectrum.

[redwallzyl]

Conservatives and Republicans are two different things. Conservative is a general philosophy while Republicans are a political party with a set of positions that have very little to do with the conservative philosophy. They like to pretend that everything they do is "conservative" by default, warping Americas image of what conservatism actually is. A conservative can easily be a Democrat, I'm of the opinion that at Heart Obama was a conservative, a conservative that whole heartedly embraces the ideas of old liberalism, that is the inherent goodness of democracy, that philosophy of democracy, and slow, non radical change is at the heart of what he believes. Yet despite this he is painted with absurd brushes by a Republican party that is not actually conservative anymore but simply a power structure attached to a set of specific policies and agendas. There is no longer any conservative philosophy behind the Republican party. The Democrats now contain most of the conservatives and the liberals now which is probably why it has so much trouble.

[Lord Shonus]

That's pretty accurate. At the core, Conservative politics are primarily "What we have works. It might not be the best, but it isn't the worst either, and we should be very cautious about changing it because change isn't automatically better." Which isn't exactly a nonsensical argument, particularly given the way new movements so often go much too far before settling down. The trouble comes in where special interests who are very invested in the status quo hijack the position to attack the changes that threaten them.

"Conservatives" also tends to encompass a noticeable wing of what would more accurately be described as "Reactionaries", who want to drag everything back to the way things used to be in an attempt to restore the golden glow of never-was.

[Trekkin]

"Conservatives" also tends to encompass a noticeable wing of what would more accurately be described as "Reactionaries", who want to drag everything back to the way things used to be in an attempt to restore the golden glow of never-was.

Well, that's as you would expect, as someone opposed to change would eventually want to undo excessive change from whatever the status quo was.

This is quite apart from the other major problem with conservative politics, that being that "what we have works" is usually only the case for a subset of the population, at least for a given definition of "works." The less fortunate tend to hear "what we have works" as "screw you, got mine", which is also not a nonsensical argument.
"

[Lord Shonus]

This is quite apart from the other major problem with conservative politics, that being that "what we have works" is usually only the case for a subset of the population, at least for a given definition of "works." The less fortunate tend to hear "what we have works" as "screw you, got mine", which is also not a nonsensical argument.
"

That would be true if the argument was "No change will be permitted. Ever." The argument (for most actual conservatives) is "we need to move slowly so whatever we change doesn't make things worse instead of better."

For example, most conservatives are willing to agree that the American health care situation is very flawed. They are willing to make changes to address the problem (remember - before it became political poison by being attached to Obama, the Affordable Care Act was primarily an attempt to spread Conservative icon Romney's state-level approach nationwide). They are cautious about switching over to one of the various government-funded approaches on the basis of "If our government bungles it, or it just doesn't scale the way we expect it to, we won't have a health care system at all." Thus, they believe that an incrementalist approach that tries to patch the flaws in the current system is wiser. This message is then hijacked by the insurance companies and their lobbyists who are threatened by the loss in profit, and any changes to the system get roundly attacked.

[WealthyRadish]

I think one of the essential conditions for the growth of reactionary politics among the public (as is currently expressed in the Republican Party) is a generational distance from the reforms they'd like to roll back, or more accurately the non-existent past ideal they're pursuing. Reactionaries who are grounded in their own personal experience of life before are rarer in these times, probably because there isn't much progress in these times. The conservative position is always a lame-footed shuffle barely keeping along with general day-to-day progress, but reactionaries who openly flaunt even that limited progress can only retain significant popular support if the public has never experienced life before the major change. Some examples:

1) The social democrats in much of Western Europe achieved most their post-war agenda, and quickly stagnated and succumbed to neoliberalism in the generations succeeding the war survivors. Now they are effectively the conservatives, defending a status quo that has been made politically unattractive to youth who have never experienced the life of working poverty, uncertainty, and hazards that drove those reforms, while the parties themselves seem willing to concede more and more ground to the old opponents now coming out of the woodwork. Something similar can be seen in the erosion of the New Deal in the US, though of course our reforms were stunted from the start, and politics here are the product of a much more distorted representation of the public.

2) In interwar Germany when the nationalistic cult surrounding the first World War was reaching its zenith, the most ardent nationalists and Nazis among the public were largely youth who had not experienced the war itself, and instead allowed themselves to get wrapped up in a fantasy myth that most who lived through it (even as civilians) wouldn't have indulged in. The older reactionary veterans and government officials in Germany tolerated or offered conditional support to groups like the Nazis because they were natural allies in opposing the post-revolution government, but the ranks of the Nazis themselves were largely middle-class youths swept up in the currents chasing a mythic past placed before they were born.

3) The first generation of immigrants who arrive in a country usually choose seek either assimilation or invisibility, but the second generation born in the country are almost always far more conscious of a totally undeserved second-class status (since the second generation are usually functionally indistinguishable from anyone else except by appearance), and if this alienation is strong they may develop an identity of alienation that romantically yearns for the culture of their parent's country (ignoring the reasons why their parents left) and something analogous to a reactionary mindset in chasing that ideal against the country they were born in.

[Trekkin]

This is quite apart from the other major problem with conservative politics, that being that "what we have works" is usually only the case for a subset of the population, at least for a given definition of "works." The less fortunate tend to hear "what we have works" as "screw you, got mine", which is also not a nonsensical argument.

That would be true if the argument was "No change will be permitted. Ever." The argument (for most actual conservatives) is "we need to move slowly so whatever we change doesn't make things worse instead of better."

And, for people for whom things are already as bad as they can probably be (or degenerating on their own), it can be hard to distinguish between no change and slow change. I'm not saying conservative caution is ill-founded. It is absolutely necessary. When followed to excess, though, it can come off as self-centered, because crises always feel more urgent when they're happening to you. Conversely, of course, the liberal desire to rush to change everything can seem insanely short-sighted.

[Lord Shonus]

And, for people for whom things are already as bad as they can probably be (or degenerating on their own), it can be hard to distinguish between no change and slow change. I'm not saying conservative caution is ill-founded. It is absolutely necessary. When followed to excess, though, it can come off as self-centered, because crises always feel more urgent when they're happening to you. Conversely, of course, the liberal desire to rush to change everything can seem insanely short-sighted.

Sounds like we're mostly on the same page, then. My point was not "conservatives are the only sane way", but "conservatives are not universally the cackling money hungry assholes that people associate with the term, because they have hijacked it."

[PTTG??]

75% of Americans say the government isn't doing enough to fight climate change. No matter how you slice it, most people (including the majority of Republicans,) say we need more regulation of CO2. I can handily accept the argument that ideologically, there isn't a problem with the theoretical ideology of Republicans, or with the ideology of most Republicans in practice. That doesn't mean that one must support the behavior of mainstream republicans in supporting the leadership that opposes both liberal goals and their own...

[Hanslanda]

I don't have the source but Trump just tweeted about the boat crash here in Missouri (literally just 20 minute drive away) and my manager's brother might have been on it. Hardly the most political thing but meh.

[Trekkin]

Well, somehow the NYT got hold of one of Michael Cohen's tapes on which Trump discussed the payments to Karen McDougal.

I say "somehow" because this is just more evidence of Trump lying about committing crimes and mocking his base's values, and we already know that does nothing but eat up news time. For it to come on the heels of Trump's burbling about a second summit with Putin and all the people daring to call him a traitor is surprisingly good timing.

[Dunamisdeos]

Trump's burbling

Ok so I read everything and Trump basically poops all over everyone's everything but this made me laugh

burble burble

[Loud Whispers]

Regarding James Gunn being fired from Disney for joking about raping children or being a part of NAMBLA, I find it highly suspicious you have media like the drudge report manufacturing a counter-narrative of James Gunn being a target of a right wing conspiracy, as if a right wing conspiracy forced him to tweet all of these things. Then you have media saying he was fired over innocuous jokes blaming PC sensitivity whilst ignoring the actual tweets which got him fired. I remember making a post about sophisticated media influencing for commercial or political reasons, but another large one today is the topic of public relations - with the especially spicy new field of those capable of using social media assets and search engine optimization to generate outrage or else bury it one way or another. Astroturfing a platform with information which deflects, defuses or denounces criticism. Lowering the results of negative information, promoting positive. Manipulating platforms to marginalize organic critical individuals whilst promoting the group's ability to manipulate the appearance of its own size and popularity: Fucking spicy, and more reasons why I believe sites like reddit are long overdue destruction. So for example, you see common arguments continually repeated in defence of Gunn on these easily manipulated websites:
-No one actually cares. (Demotivate, demoralize and disorganize the opposition).
-James Gunn makes that movie you love. (Appeal to popularity).
-Only people like right wing conspiracy theorists, CHUDS, Mike Cernovich, pedophiles, care, and you're not one of those? (Instigate political argument to deflect from individual).
-It's political correctness gone mad. (Instigate political argument to deflect from individual. Works in tandem with above point to ensure right and left wing both feel attacked and go on the defensive against one another).
-What about "x" celebrity who said "y" thing and wasn't fired? (Deflect attention from individual).
-When "x" celebrity said "y" thing and was fired it was different because they said it currently. (Attack validity of criticism).
-James Gunn is sorry, Disney is kowtowing to internet outrage over ancient tweets. (Deligitimize criticism as manufactured controversy).
-James Gunn supporting the dismissal of people for their opinions is different because he shares our opinion. (Lol).

Spoiler: And to ensure these points drown out organic criticism, have teams on standby working around the clock to astroturf these arguments. This account in particular just spends hours solely commenting on and viewing imgur posts relating to James Gunn, posting several arguments coherent with accounts with similar suspicious patterns of behaviour (click to show/hide)

Tl;dr Wealthy powerful man in Hollywood gets himself into pedophilia scandal, serving as a useful example for how social media assets are mobilized to work round the clock spamming deflections, promotions and attacks, promoting the posts of their peers or organic support whilst suppressing the posts of their opponents. This fulfills two objectives: it creates the appearance that critics are a minority buried under "bad replies," and are subsequently socially unacceptable to support, while supporters are in the majority and have moral right of way, while burying criticism and promoting damage control for the individual - potentially defusing public demand for a police investigation or industrial action. We Weinstein world nao

[Dunamisdeos]

Disney's been doing all of that since the release of TNJ in regards to their movie. If you check you will find exactly the same patterns. Any company that can afford to seems to employ these tactics.

I'm glad people can recognize these patterns, though. Maybe we should be angry/care/not care/whatever but it's important not to let one's opinions be controlled in that manner.

[Loud Whispers]

Disney's been doing all of that since the release of TNJ in regards to their movie. If you check you will find exactly the same patterns. Any company that can afford to seems to employ these tactics.

I'm glad people can recognize these patterns, though. Maybe we should be angry/care/not care/whatever but it's important not to let one's opinions be controlled in that manner.

Pretty much. Not much you can do to change the state of affairs, but also not much use in being ignorant either
Obligatory post music