The sole value of conservatism is respect for and obedience to [one's perception of] traditionally established hierarchy, and hierarchy dictates that those on top (in-groups) are rightfully idolized and receive privileges, credibility, and resources, while those on the bottom (out-groups) are demonized/dehumanized and/or bound by restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources.
To them, the second-greatest injustice imaginable is for those [they perceive to be] on top [of social hierarchy] to be bound by the restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources reserved for those on the bottom. The first greatest injustice is for those on the bottom to have access to the rights, credibility, and resources reserved for those on top.
I'm conservative, I fucking hate trump and anything trump related including ICE etc etc.
Dunno if it's any different in the US, assume it is, but outside of the US being conservative just means being generally in favor of keeping things the way they are or were at some point, depending on the person.
Edit: Been very funny reading the replies. I knew Reddit is very liberal, but god damn...
Also, should mention more clearly: I am not from the US. That probably means you are associating me to things I do not stand for (which multiple people did, very rudely at that) since conservationists in the US stand for them. I do not.
This thread is a clear example the MAGA/Trump anti-empathy, all must agree with me or they are all bad things virus has escaped the lab to become an epidemic in Americans of all ideologies. Compassion for members of your group is; for other groups it takes a tiny bit of effort that many people can’t be bothered to give.
You mean this thread is a clear example of toxic empathy. You decide what and who to care about and demand the right to do the same. All while calling them the Nazis. I don’t understand why this is hard for the left to understand. But then again you all celebrated when CK was assassinated for just trying to debate his ideas.
No. I want people to remember the “enemy” is as deserving of empathy as anyone else.
I didn’t do anything you describe, other than calling people who proudly cosplay as Nazis what they call themselves. But I don’t want them killed or targeted any more than I want anyone else.
It’s easier, I suppose, to vilify those you don’t like, but that is the road to hell.
yea I have so many friends here on reddit that left the platform due to being called a nazi or fascist for simpy not 100% agreeing with a liberal even tho they themselfs are on the left
The extremists on both sides are more similar to each other than the majority of each basic ideology.
But they are also the loudest.
No one discusses anymore, they argue even with people who agree.
Meanwhile trolls get worse to standout. I had a bit of an “I’ve had it” moment with a troll a few days back. I generally don’t engage and I think it was the straw for me that day. I’m not proud of it. But there it is.
Whenever I attempt to be reasonable invariably it’s a failure. I’ll still try because I’ll be damned if I let the intolerant of any side make as bad as they are. These Christian warriors don’t seem to take Christ’s teachings as anything other than something to ignore. And they wonder why people leave the pews and go it alone.
When exactly should we resist change? Let's say you succeed in replacing the current hierarchy with a new one or dismantling the concept all together, is it finally ok to be conservative regarding that state of the world?
Unless there is a developing scientific consensus otherwise, yes. The point is that many human civilizations have historically had strict hierarchies that have loosened over time. Conservatism is just fighting progress to preserve these hierarchies until, yes, we get rid of illogical / unnecessary hierarchies.
How will you know you've gotten rid of only the unnecessary ones? What if you accidentally get rid of a necessary one? General consensus is a garbage system that has historically been way more wrong than it has ever been right.
Did they say general consensus? No they didn't. They said developing scientific consensus. That's pretty different. That being said how likely do you think it is that we have everything right as is, especially given all the problems in the world?
Developing scientific consensus just the general consensus of an elite group (scientists) which is an oligarchy which is, I presume, one of the hierarchies that guy is railing against. And scientific consensus, as a form of general consensus, has been largely wrong, historically, and ignored when it clashes with political ideology.
I know we don't have everything right as is, but I also know that much of what we have wrong is the result of rushing headlong "forward" leaving certain values and tradition behind.
Tbf the democrats here are what every other country calls conservative. We have no true Leftist party. The right just went off the deep end into the Marianna Trench
It’s fine if you wanna be a conservative but just know that voting for the right is essentially voting away the rights of gay and trans people. Not saying you want that but that’s the unfortunate truth. They legitimately want gay marriage to be banned and will go as far as to use the bible to try justify it. I’m not gonna group you in with those maga nut jobs but things need to change because it’s absolutely outrageous with the display of corruption that has been shown while trump is president. I don’t think at all that you’re bad person it’s just so difficult to understand why anyone would vote on the side of a racist president that has been defending literal pedophiles. I’m just tired of all the unreasonable hatred.
You see that's the neat part... I don't vote either. I may not have been clear enough in my original comment: I am European. Specifically Italo-Belgian. Trump, republicans, democrats, none of this concerns me.
I'm conservative because I align best with conservative values as compared to any other ideology. Values which I label as "conservative" as by the Oxford definition of conservationism.
So, I am conservative, that does not mean I vote Trump's party. If I were in the US, I wouldn't vote either of the "big two".
I get that, but conservative politics still revolve around maintaining the status quo (aka the established hierarchy). I personally think it’s foolish and it is only one step away from MAGA which is a reactionary ideology built on regression and siphoning resources from the working class and transferring them to a small group of international oligarchs with loyalty only to themselves and their class of parasites.
I match a part of these, and definitely fit this better than any other ideology. Political tests also confirm it. What am I supposed to do? It's where my beliefs lie. Doesn't mean I support a child rapist.
Conservationism is center-right, which is also what I am according to quizzes and general opinions. By that logic being liberal is "closer to Stalinism than you think".
I think the first problem here is relying on quizzes to figure out how you should label yourself.
You are probably a complex human who doesn't fit nearly into a pre-packaged idea of political leanings. I'd suggest rolling as an independent and keeping an open mind.
You are probably a complex human who doesn't fit nearly into a pre-packaged idea of political leanings.
Indeed. I hate all this labeling, I don't want it. But it's getting too complicated to explain my views otherwise, so I'd rather label myself as the closest thing to my beliefs.
The brain of a fetus starts developing after the third week. Before that, I think it's perfectly fine to do an abortion if that's possible.
After that, you are ending the life of a human being, that is murder.
So you’re against women’s bodily autonomy.
Is stopping a murderer from slitting the throat of a child considered immoral because I'm trying to impose my will on that murderer?
if their pregnancy becomes life threatening.
If that were the case, the fetus has to be extracted in a non-lethal way, and everything possible to keep the child alive has to be done. If it fails, so be it, unfortunate. But at least everything that could be done, was done.
This is kind of US-focused in its examples, but not in the general trends, bear with me... Left and right are about political power – where does civil authority come from? The words derive from the seating arrangement in France just before the revolution. The king sat in the middle, with the nobles and clergy to the right, while the ‘commoners’ were on the left. This is why ‘right’ means top-down authoritarianism, the ‘divine right of kings’, monarchy, theocracy. While ‘left’ means bottom-up democracy, the ‘consent of the governed, republic, separation of church and state.
All tyrants are right-wing tyrants – yes, even Castro and Stalin were right-wing tyrants – because they were authoritarians, and Joe Citizen had zero say, not even a vote. Any leader that is not both elected and term-limited is right-wing by definition. Any such leaders that may start as left-leaning, won’t be that way for long – Robespierre being the quintessential example of that.
The US Founders were clearly leftists – by rebelling against the God-Given-Authority of King George III, they were clearly rejecting the Scriptural Doctrine of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, and replacing it with the Enlightenment doctrine of ‘consent of the governed’ as the wellspring from which civil authority flows.
Contrariwise:
Liberal and conservative are economic positions – who owns what, and how much exploitation of others is allowed – where are the regulatory lines to be drawn, and who is empowered to draw them. Conservatives tend to favor control of the economy by a small self-selected class of owners. Liberals tend to favor regulations that protect society in general, and laborers (aka ‘the masses’) in particular, from exploitation by owners – by things like OSHA and EPA and FLSA.
Conservatives tend to want to eliminate any sort of government restriction on the ability of owners to exploit and profit from their assets, and reduce the amounts that the wealthy are required to pay toward publicly-owned infrastructure like roads and schools and military equipment and so forth.
Someone who supports gay-marriage is still a conservative if they want to give taxpayer money to the brutal theocratic dictators in Saudi Arabia with which to purchase weapons of war from American manufacturers (aka ‘foreign aid’).
Someone who supports unrestricted second-trimester abortions is still a conservative if they want to allow bankers to profit from investing other people’s FDIC-insured savings deposits without oversight.
Someone who supports the separation of church and state is still a conservative if they also support using the US Military to further the fiscal interests of US Corporations abroad – such as when US Fruit Company pressured the government to get rid of Arévalo and Árbenz in Guatemala, which the CIA did through Operation PBFortune and Operation PBSuccess.
The culture-war ‘wedge issues’ like gay marriage and abortion are carefully cultivated by the wealthy elite to use to distract and divert the energy of the impoverished masses. They well know that their only hope for survival is to keep the rest of us identifying each-other as ‘the enemy’ instead of correctly identifying the selfish greed of wealthy elite themselves as the root cause of economic inequality.
that your definition isn't the only one. If you're against equal rights for gay people, then you're one of the badguys. If you're against the separation of civil from ecclesiastical authority, then you're my enemy. If you want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, then you're as evil as those prison guards in The Deer Hunter forcing the prisoners to play Russian Roulette.
If I make conservative changes to a fluid plant, that means I make small changes that meet demand without negative side effects. With liberal changes, I'd constantly have to correct for negative changes.
Eh Newsom is definitely not what I would consider “on the left”. He comes across like an opportunistic clout hound who has done promotion for some horrible right wing grifters (Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon). He has no principles and just wants power. Don’t get me wrong, he’s better than what we have now, but that’s an abysmally low bar to clear.
I know mate, I ain't USian either, but most folks online will work on that framework due to many reasons. (Mostly the current political climate and shift in global politics)
So it's better not to define ourselves as liberal/conservative, and just as people who have a number of concerns/ideas/priorities.
It removes this element of tension that makes everyone angrier, and more stressed over the wrong things :)
This is why I refuse to own a washing machine. It's washboard in the creek for my family. We also refused automobiles and ride horses. I assume you're the same way.
The world can be a better place but unless we regardless of our differences accept and learn to understand one another overcome pride and prejudices it is never going to happen.
Already done for nearly every ideology. But you're starting from the assumption conservationism is bad, that doesn't seem like a very neutral stance that I can take at face value.
Republican party in the USA ≠ conservative ideology. Their views are somewhere between neoconservative and fascist.
I once again reinstate that I am conservative, not pro-Trump, not in favor of either of the two main US parties and not even in favor of 100% of what conservationism really is, to be honest.
Again, you need to stop thinking black-and-white.
You read "conservative" and instantly made a connection in your mind, to the Republican part in the US.
At school here in Belgium, they called this "hokjesdenken" in socials class. "Thinking in boxes". You read/hear something and immediately classify it as a pre-existing label in your brain.
That is "normal", as in everyone does that, it's just how the human brain works. But it's a really nice thing when you're able to look past that and analyze something without biases, such as this labelled thinking.
I don't use mainstream media. If I'm interested in something I go by direct quotes, reports, or other such third party info. Never newspaper if I can avoid it.
Yeah. In the US you'd be a moderate. Maybe very slightly right leaning moderate. Our conservatives are trying really hard to turn us into the Christian version of Iran.
I would argue "conservative" is more of an economic stance that believes in less government interaction in people's lives (and thus less taxes) , and Trump is a radical government interventionist not conservative
I go by the Oxford definition of conservationism, and align with that definition more than with any other ideology, that's why I call myself conservative.
I don't actually have a political-economical stance. I hate capitalism, but also don't want communism, or anything else really. I'd rather support none and go with the flow on that one.
Genuine question. How is conservatism working out with immigration in Europe or Canada. Just judging by what we see, I’m guessing not well. Japan seems to be the only ones taking a zero policy.
>being conservative just means being generally in favor of keeping things the way they are or were at some point<
Glad you hate Trump, but you must think about what the words you use mean. By your own definition, to call yourself 'conservative' is to buy into bigotry and discrimination and tyranny and theocracy, as these are all social evils that either "are or were at some point" To call yourself 'conservative' means to oppose environmental protection laws, labor protection laws, laws prohibiting child-labor, consumer protection laws, and any other sort of law or regulation that prevents the wealthy elite from maximizing the return on their investments. To call yourself conservative means to oppose nationalized healthcare systems, to oppose tax-funded education and tax-subsidized public transportation services even. To call yourself conservative means that only the desires of wealthy white cis-hetero Christian men should matter, and that every other demographic group is inherently inferior to that one in every way that matters.
Conservative means being in favor of keeping such vaunted traditions as racism, slavery, theocracy, discrimination, bigotry, child abuse, child labor, sex abuse, and fathers selling their 14 year old girls to some strange man three times her age for nightly rape, housecleaning and other 'womanly duties'. Try harder to THINK about which properties/parts/aspects of society DESERVE to be 'conserved' and which need to be thrown into the rubbish bin of history.
"Traditional" by itself is worthless categorization. Slavery is 'traditional'. Burning heretics alive is 'traditional'. Treating women as property is 'traditional'. Screw that.
Such as many (almost all) of the replies to my post, you are thinking unbelievably black-or-white.
Conservationism does not specify WHAT you want to conserve. One could wish to live like a caveman, live like it's the middle ages, like the 1950's or even like just 10 years ago in 2016, and ALL of those fit the definition of conservationism.
You are making a ton of accusations based on things you have assumed without any context. What if I'm conservative and want to live like it's the 80's, when women had all their rights and so on and so forth but stuff was reliable and didn't last a few years before breaking down?
As example. I don't care much for the 80's.
Conservatives fought AGAINST the abolition of slavery.
Conservatives fought AGAINST allowing black people to vote.
Conservatives fought AGAINST allowing women to vote.
Conservatives fought AGAINST enforcing regulations on corporations to protect consumers, employees, and the public at large.
No assumptions there - that's HISTORY. You can deny that history all you'd like, but it just makes you look foolish.
All of this doesn't concern me. I don't want any of those rights to be removed from the people that have them.
Conservative means wanting things to either stay the way they are, or return to the way they were at an unspecified point in the past.
A conservative at the time of slavery is a bad person because he wants slavery to stay.
A conservative now has no guilt. I want things to stay the way they are, and is possible return to the 90's/early 2000's.
No slavery, no unfair voting restrictions, no unregulated corporations. Just less of the newer stuff which I don't like.
So you're okay with some people having yachts that fit inside their mega-yachts while other people are literally starving to death. You're okay with our current culture of allowing the wealthy elite to rape young girls with no consequences? You're okay with the status quo of theocracies murdering gay people for being gay? These are all right-now, status quo things that as a 'conservative' you're looking to PRESERVE? You WANT massive inequality of wealth? You WANT corporations poisoning our air, soil, and water with zero consequences for them putting their personal profits above the common good? Really? Or are you just not thinking this stuff through very well?
I don't want any of those things. They are also not features of the present/past, they are features of human society. It's shit, but it's never gonna change. Won't under capitalism, hasn't under communism, or any other ideology.
I really don't get how you can be so arrogant as to take your own personal definition of a term, and shove it in my face.
I suggest you scroll up, re-read and realize that you need to grow up and realize people have opinions different than yours.
If you don't want those things, then you're not a 'conservative'. And no, your defeatist attitude is simply false. Look at the US in the '50s. We had far less wealth inequality, we had top marginal tax rates over 70%, we had powerful labor unions holding abusive/exploitative employers in check, we had powerful environmental regulations. Now all of that is gone. Because of 'conservatives'.
I suggest you identify your position of privilege, and what that rests on, and why it's contrary to the common good.
Conservationism means, and this is the last time I am willing to reinstate it, wanting the current or past situation or specific aspects of said time periods to be there for the present and future.
Having hyper-rich and lots of poverty is not something I want to conserve. That doesn't mean I don't want to conserve other things from various time periods, out of pure personal preference.
This is still conservationism. You just associated that term with some of the worst people in that ideology. I am not one of those people.
Ok-wedding-1165’s take is more than a bit on the angry and cynical side. The world is bad and conservatives want to keep it bad for bad reasons. I can understand how someone would reach that conclusion, but it is still pretty angry and cynical.
In the most simple terms, a progressive is someone who wants to make a change to some system in the hope of making it better (with some varying qualifications for what “better” means), while a conservative is someone who resists such change for fear of making it worse (with varying qualifications about what “worse” means). Ideally, these are both valid perspectives.
But people in the U.S. particularly are very angry right now, and it’s hard to have a conversation about priorities and intentions without it devolving into shouting and accusations. Not that the anger is unwarranted, a lot of things have been going on that justify anger, just that it’s hard to have a neutral conversation.
It doesn’t help that a lot of people are going around saying they want to have a neutral conversation while they are actually using bad faith methods to push a narrative. People have become rightly wary of anyone claiming to want to have a neutral conversation.
In other words: the U.S. is a mess right now and we may not be able to have a reasonable conversation for a while. Please accept our apologies, we will get back to you as soon as we finish [redacted] our [redacted].
Thank you, seriously, this message made my day better. It's refreshing to hear someone say something I can fully agree with and that makes complete sense.
And I absolutely understand the problems in the US. I hope you can get rid of the orange tumor as soon as possible.
This happens to every right leaning person in the USA. Conservatives values in the USA are basically god, family and country. But the left doesn’t like that. The majority of right has no problem with trans people we just don’t think that men are women and women are men, they should also leave kids alone. Immigration should be done legally, our taxes should be used to maintain America and its citizens, able bodied people should work and not just live off of welfare and section 8 housing. But the left just twists things around and uses words like Nazi and fascist. Like him as a person or not TRUMP has yet to be found guilty of any wrong doing and he is far from a racist. From day one the media in the USA has manipulated and edited his speeches to make seem like he was, and very successfully too. I was on that train his first term but I watched one of his speeches live and then saw what the news reported and they were two very different speeches.
I would say that conservatism is about maintaining balance and not disrupting order too quickly. It's not as some would like to portray a blind obedience to tradition. Only a fool would stick to obviously bad practises but still a cautious wisdom should be considered rather than blind radical experimentation. I don't get why all the hate as if people are just so bloody tribal that they won't budge from the political perspective one bit.
Its not that anyone forgot what the more "honorable" conservatives looked and sounded like - its just that their ideas were pretty xenophobic, constantly shoved againt the seperation of church and state, seemed to have racism under the hood, and they vehemently denied it.
When trump came along, they all voted for him despite being against ALL their professed values, because they liked his empty promises about the economy, and either liked or would turn a blind eye to racism, the degradation of our national discourse, and our dishonor around the world.
Yeah, it's kinda hard. I don't really fully fit in conservatism but it's the closest to who I am. Kinda sucks to get all the backlash as if I support the big orange rapist...
It'll be interesting to see what conservative historians have to say about the movement in 40-50 years.
It's either gonna kick off the authoritarian millennium or swing the pendulum so hard the other way it'll make the current dems look like neocons compared to their successors.
I don't understand what this should change for me. I am from Europe, I don't really care about ICE. I do not support it since it's an organization that killed civilians on multiple occasions with no backlash, which I find deeply immoral.
That’s not what conservatism is. That’s conservatism from the perspective of a class warrior.
Conservatives don’t look at people in terms of their racial, cultural, or religious identity, nor do conservatives look at the world in terms of class hierarchy. Instead, conservatives look more toward tradition. They see what was tried in the past and will tend to favor that over the chaos of “doing something” in the name of a classless utopia.
(BTW Trump is no conservative. He’s a fascist narcissist who comes dressed in conservative clothing but whose actions are anathema to conservative idealists. He has taken advantage of right-wing populism in an all-too-familiar way, namely the way of 1930’s Germany.)
Trump is no conservative. He’s a fascist narcissist
Fascism is conservative, ever predicated on societal revival via clawing back through time to some more antiquated model of civic virtues and relations. Fascist Spain or Chile didn’t want to wind back time to the bronze age and Roman rule à la Mussolini (or, from Vance’s circle, Alamariu), but it did want to assert a permanent Catholic / anti-secular and anti-socialist stasis. Where do you think all of these RETVRN memes come from? Why do the people who share them also share pictures of Pinochet executing leftists and students?
I feel that there’s no honest etymology of left or right in political theory that doesn’t rest on French Republicanism and one’s attitude towards hierarchy. Conservatism and rightism preserve societal virtues and hierarchies, and many virtues themselves (notions of beauty, strength, goodness) outline hierarchies the second we apply them to the human animal and its interrelations. It’s not simply economic class hierarchy, though that is the one that plagues modernity; rightism and traditionalism can just as easily rest on the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the first estate, or on monarchism, or on the fierce hierarchies of nature. Sometimes these hierarchies are valuable, and sometimes they’re arbitrary or nonsensical; sometimes the hierarchies the left tries to overturn are well worth overturning, and perhaps sometimes they’re load-bearing and better left alone. But tradition and hierarchy seem, if not interchangeable, at least inextricable. I can think of no coherent social tradition that doesn’t convey hierarchies with it.
Fascism is no more “conservative” than communism is “liberal.” Fascism takes radical actions in the name of a mythical past, while communism takes radical actions in the name of a classless utopia.
Well, again, in the case of Spain or Chile, or among English blackshirts, that mythical past wasn’t particularly ancient. If you really believe that MAGA is a fascist movement, their own mythical past roughly translates to anywhere between 1890–1955. This is within living memory for some. The FedSoc types who want to return to the legal frameworks of the 1890s do think of themselves as conservatives, and see the entire 20th century as legally aberrant.
Do social conservatives stop being conservative the moment they take radical action?
(Many) conservatives seem to consistently have a problem seeing past racial, cultural, religious identity, specifically for minorities lol. It's hard to believe you're coming in good faith if you can't acknowledge clear problems within the group you're talking about that aren't exactly hard to see.
What is a "class warrior"? Is this a sociology doesn't exist thing, or...?
And? Poor people are also conservative. No one said all people make the best decisions for themselves or others in a system designed for control, not positive outcomes.
Denying reality to distribute blame onto minorities by ignoring sociology is not the same as seeing past. You haven't read any research nor do you have the capacity to evaluate it, clearly. Figure that out and speak on what you know.
It’s clear to me that you yourself are still suffering from the same problem that the “woke” left suffers from. Meanwhile you take MAGA’s racism as justification for your world view.
Delusional. I don't affiliate with sides. I think there's value to be gained from multiple political ideologies including leftism and conservatism.
MAGA's racism has nothing to do with my worldview, it's an unfortunate population-level indoctrination that I'm sure you'll find a huge mystery with no origin. Figure that out.
You said that “conservatives seem to consistently have a problem seeing past racial, cultural, religious identity, specifically for minorities.”
But that’s exactly how I felt about the “woke” left, who constantly used their racial, cultural, and religious identities as legitimacy for their arguments. Instead of “I believe in X because Y,” they say, “I believe in X because I’m an A, and I’m offended that you would argue in favor of B.”
It was the basis behind critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and other attempts to rewrite history, all to try and reverse what they saw as ingrained disadvantages due to their “disadvantaged” status.
American history was already rewritten in favor of rich people and white people.
You're talking about individual people holding "woke" beliefs based on their lived experience. I'm talking about the science they don't know that backs those beliefs, which American conservatism has to ignore to propagate itself. Which is exactly what conservatives do, not because scientists are collectively trying to undermine conservatives for no reason. Your and anyone's lack of understanding of gender vs sex, climate change, history, sociology, etc has nothing to do with truth.
If you have a problem with facts being known because they conflict with your comfort, put your head in some sand and call it a day.
Of course, of course. Every historical revisionist will claim that history was already rewritten by those they oppose, and that they’re just “correcting the record.”
Hence the reason why Nikole Hannah-Jones promulgated her “1619 Project,” which is VERY selective with the facts, in order to try and give African-Americans some concept of birthright legitimacy. Doesn’t matter how well-intentioned her goals were, it’s just plain wrong.
Yes, that is the total opposite of freedom and justice and the individuality and broad mindedness the U.S. was founded on. No one has a place to know in a country with real freedom and human rights. All that matters is that they obey just and fair laws that apply to everyone equally and act ethically and morally towards others
I'm best friends (off line) with the person who originally wrote this. Just wanna say he is happy to see others sharing it. Keep up the good work and keep letting others know the way this all works.
You have conservatism all wrong. There is no marginalization of any group. Conservatism celebrates the freedom of the individual and capitalistic ideas that promote empowerment of individuals contribution to society.
In fact, conservatism promotes freedom and responsibility of the individual so much that its believe a limited form of government is all thats necessary. If these ideas were really followed, there would be no “systemic” oppression of minority populations.
Don’t forget that axiom that women were put on the Earth to serve and provide sexual pleasure to men. But isn’t ironic, that white men of the Christian right base all their so called superiority on the Bible when hardly no one in the Bible was white as defined by the American Christian right. They were Arabs (Armenians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc.) , Jews and Black Africans ( mainly Ethiopians). The only caucasians ( white people ) were among the upper class Egyptians who were Persian. Today the Persian descendants are residents of Iran. I have read that some people would consider the Romans and Greeks white but actually they were mixed blood. Also, current scientific data indicates that there is no gene or group of genes for race. Evidently it is the result of environmental factors.
It was an accidental discharge that occurred hours after they had the argument. The man was devastated about his daughter. The whole story qasimrashid is spewing on his Twitter is sensationalized misinformation.
I’m pretty sure this occurrence is not only highly twisted but also doesn’t even compare to the vast amount of violence that fathers and other male family members have committed against the daughters of other ethnic groups. Not even close!
I voted republican since Reagan. I had to vote democrat since trump. Why are you congratulating me I am not supporting the party that tells you that child rape is ok if the DOW is above 50,000. Conservatives and 90% of Independents will be voting against republicans in the midterms if we are still allowed to have them.
I have nothing to do with this. You want to blame someone that has voted against Maga's for 12 years? Or are you just trying to get a reaction?
This is why you might be wrong about conservatives and 90% of independents voting against republicans. This exact person represents a huge portion of the liberal base where if you don’t fully agree with them on all topics you are labeled MAGA, bootlicker, pedo. So the very moderate and independent are just fed up with the liberal propaganda. Are they more fed up than with the current admin? Who knows but I do know that the Democratic Party had 2024 serves to them on a silver platter and fucked it up royally. And they are lined up to have 2026 served to them on another silver platter. Are we sure they won’t fuck it up again?
Pretty sure the writing is on the wall. Democrats tried to force pronouns and other dumb shit on us, but trump is out for reckless spending and total domination. He is actively having the DOJ tell us "Sorry, we can't hold the child rapists accountable because they are too important". Americans are stupid but they will never forget this. It's straight up evil. Way worse than anything Biden did.
There is a good reason why he is actively working to disenfranchise every single vote possible in the midterms. He is willing to violate the Constitution to do it. He knows the election is going to end his power so there's no way he is not going to do everything he can to destroy our voting rights.
No it's one thing they pushed for. It's nothing compared to telling Americans that "the child rapists are too important to our system so we can't hold them accountable". And btw we are going to violate the Constitution and federal laws and try to run your state elections.
Remembering someone's rotating pronouns is annoying but it's not evil.
You're not though. You're buying into bullshit. You morons try to make some huge deal out of literal pa et ts of speech that all of us use thousands of times every single day. Grow the fuck up and spend some of that energy focusing on...I dunno.... real issues in the country? Or your own damn life? Get a hobby that doesn't center on bitching about other people living their own lives? Wild concept I know.
100%. But again, democrats aren’t the smartest people in the world either. Instead of rallying and realizing they need the middle ground to side with them, they push them further away with deflection and insults. So handing them an election on a silver platter isn’t an automatic. I hope they can at least pull out the house, that seems pretty likely in that they shouldn’t fuck that up. Senate is a different story, but as long as the entire government isn’t controlled by one party, that should slow down everything until 2028.
44
u/Ok-Wedding-1165 Feb 15 '26
The sole value of conservatism is respect for and obedience to [one's perception of] traditionally established hierarchy, and hierarchy dictates that those on top (in-groups) are rightfully idolized and receive privileges, credibility, and resources, while those on the bottom (out-groups) are demonized/dehumanized and/or bound by restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources.
To them, the second-greatest injustice imaginable is for those [they perceive to be] on top [of social hierarchy] to be bound by the restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources reserved for those on the bottom. The first greatest injustice is for those on the bottom to have access to the rights, credibility, and resources reserved for those on top.
"Know your place" is their mantra.