Opinion The Cotradictions of the Conservative Mind

[MetaIIica]

You'll get that explanation around the same time they explain how poverty causes crime, but somehow also that importing more poor from the 3rd world makes the country safer.

In waiting for a liberal to be able to debate Biden/Kamala without going on a Trump Derangement Syndrome rant

 

[PhitePhan]

Everything involving humans is inefficient.

The most efficient thing we could do is die and then there would be no more problems to solve.

This is just to say that efficiency in not an end in itself.

If you have a system that is very efficient at delivering shitty outcomes, that's not a win.

And the kicker is that our current system ISN'T even very efficient...


I appreciate the thoughtful response, but I think you are wrong about #2 when you say no one is interested in having their opinions challened. I'm eminently interested in having my opinions challenged through "friendly debate." I welcome it and appreciate it.

I think people who know their opinions are lazy and not likely to hold up to scrutiny are not interested in debate.


That's a strawman. Give me a tangible example of any of those.


There are a couple of holes in this opinion.

1. Firstly, no one ever equated systemic racism solely with state power. In fact, the only way systemic racism ever has been combatted in this country is through state power. That’s what civil rights and voting rights legislation was all about. Without the imposition of (federal) state power, the South might well be living in Jim Crow apartheid.

2. Currently it is "conservatives" who are trying to centralize and expand state power through the theory of the unitary executive. All of this was spelled out in Project 2025, which is being followed point-by-point by the current administration and mostly being rubber stamped by the "conservative" SCOTUS.

Conservative is in quotation marks because, of course, there is nothing truly conservative about any of it.

Have you ever considered the fact that it was the state that implemented Jim Crow laws in the first place?

 

[luckyshot]

I'll answer for your imaginary friend then. American exceptionalism doesn't mean that everyone in America is some super talented world beater, it means that the American system of limited government, individual freedoms and constitutional rights was the exception to the rest of the world where monarchy and nanny state were the dominant forms of government. If it meant what you thought it did, then your own argument would fall apart too because nobody would need an expansive welfare state and constant handouts. It wouldn't make sense as a claim about the people anyway because our foreign born population is larger than most of those countries' entire population.

Futhermore, when "progressives" claim "things that work in other countries", they don't actually want them to work here the way they do in those smaller countries, they just want the free shit and want someone else to pay for it. None of the lefties seem to ever suggest someone making $60k pay 40% in taxes like they do in those magical countries with so much "free shit".

I don't want to be on a "group plan" with you fatties, and I don't want to pool my finances ever further with a bunch of losers who don't contribute shit to have a safety hammock that I will never use. When we have a flat tax, you can propose all the goofy free shit you want as long as the tax increases you demand apply to you too.

"American exceptionalism" has always carried the connotation that America is not only unique but also exemplary. Goes way back to "City on a Hill."

Also, unless you are paying medical bills directly out of pocket, you're already on a "plan with fatties." So I dont get your point.

Everytime you post I think, "Damn. This poor guy."

Cool.

Have you ever considered the fact that it was the state that implemented Jim Crow laws in the first place?

Actually... Jim Crow was an attempt to preserve the rigid system of racial hierarchy of the pre-Civil War South. It was rooted in the race relationships of slavery, an economic institution, not a gov't program.

 

[USA!USA!]

I mostly understand where most conservatives come from.. what I don't understand is their literal worship of billionaires. It makes them look stupid.

Some Democrats also focus on very dumb issues that don't matter as well - they aren't perfect either.

 

[SKYNET]

it used to be considered bad manners to talk about certain things socially too often

So true. Everything is viewed thru the lens of politics since 2020. Back in the day, there was nothing worse than some dingbat prattling on about shit that everyone knew they knew nothing about.

 

[eddymotto]

Everybody's worldviews are riddled with contradictions, hypocrisy, and inconsistencies.

I am sure that my family members and closest friends hold a few beliefs that I would find bizarre and even troubling. And vice versa.

Don't get me wrong, I am dumbfounded that many of the people who post here can actually function in day to day life. But, presumably, they do. Somehow.

In the case of the OP, I would say that the real issue is that if you find interacting with somebody to be exhausting, you should stop hanging out with them. Or at least as much as you can.

 

[Scerpi]

I mostly understand where most conservatives come from.. what I don't understand is their literal worship of billionaires. It makes them look stupid.

Some Democrats also focus on very dumb issues that don't matter as well - they aren't perfect either.

I don't worship billionaires. But i don't demonize them either. And I do respect some for how they got to where they are. And others... not so much

But the far left often takes the position that no one should be a billionaire or even a multi-millionaire. And from personal experience of lefty friends and family, it's usually the laziest ones who feel that way. And from online media, the ones with some garbage liberal arts degree who couldn't find a relevant job and is working for barely above min wage. It's nothing but being jealous that someone is better off than them, even if they earned it.

Seriously, any school counselor who recommends a Gender Studies degree, that will cost $100k or more, should be fired.

The owner of the company I work for started from almost nothing in the early 90's and slowly grew his company over 20+ years. I make a good living now working for his company and I have zero issues that he makes a shit ton of money now... some of it as a result of my projects making more than the projected profit margins from bid day.

Some complain that CEO's and other paid positions make too much money. But these positions are usually filled highly driven workaholics with almost zero social lives. It's extremely high stress and there's huge expectations on company performance. These people are hard to find, most people don't have the stomach or the drive to handle it. The stress alone would crush most people. And CEO's are axed all the time when companies fail to meet profit goals.

And the bigger the company, the number of employees relying on the jobs these companies can go up exponentially.... including the bonuses and benefits received based on the profit margins. And thousands or more can lose their jobs when one of these companies go under... usually because of mismanagement at the top.

In another thread, a lefty poster complained that Sports GM's make too much money for the job they do. Which I found hilarious. There's massive unrealistic expectations put upon them for the team's performance and the average life span of a GM at a team is around 3-4 years. Most of us don't even know who most these people are because on shit teams the GM is a revolving door. There's a few who have long runs... because they're fucking good at it. And as a result, the Team owner makes more money.

Also, I'm not a fan of big government bail outs... the main examples being the auto industry and the banks.

 

[USA!USA!]

I don't worship billionaires. But i don't demonize them either. And I do respect some for how they got to where they are. And others... not so much

I don't think all billionaires are bad people at all either

I just don't want them running the government and making decisions for the other 99% of people in which they have no relation or understanding of - their lives are so incredibly different than your normal person working a 9-5 trying to put a kid through college and pay the bills

They literally just purchase opportunity and attention because of their money - not because they are the best leaders our country has to offer

I can respect and admire a person for being successful WITHOUT wanting them running the country and making decisions for me and my family..

 

[Possum Jenkins]

"American exceptionalism" has always carried the connotation that America is not only unique but also exemplary. Goes way back to "City on a Hill."

Right, so the US sets the example and everyone else follows and copies it. The US doesn't follow or copy anyone.

American conservatives are such chauvinists and so convinced of American superiority/exceptionalism that sometimes pointing out that other countries do this or that is a negative for them. That other countries have figured out a social problem before or better than the US is too much to bear so they'll bend over backwards to explain how it's actually inefficient, shitty, or somehow improper.

 

[Scerpi]

I don't think all billionaires are bad people at all either

I just don't want them running the government and making decisions for the other 99% of people in which they have no relation or understanding of - their lives are so incredibly different than your normal person working a 9-5 trying to put a kid through college and pay the bills

They literally just purchase opportunity and attention because of their money - not because they are the best leaders our country has to offer

I can respect and admire a person for being successful WITHOUT wanting them running the country and making decisions for me and my family..

Well, that's been an issue in DC for decades. Lobbyists have far too much power due to the money they hand out. And DC politicians will never cut off that golden goose.

 

[PhitePhan]

"American exceptionalism" has always carried the connotation that America is not only unique but also exemplary. Goes way back to "City on a Hill."

Also, unless you are paying medical bills directly out of pocket, you're already on a "plan with fatties." So I dont get your point.


Cool.


Actually... Jim Crow was an attempt to preserve the rigid system of racial hierarchy of the pre-Civil War South. It was rooted in the race relationships of slavery, an economic institution, not a gov't program.

You left out the fact that Jim Crow LAWS were a GOVERNMENT attempt to do what you explained… the power of the government was wielded against black folks to perpetuate the most abhorrent of behavior.

 

[USA!USA!]

Well, that's been an issue in DC for decades. Lobbyists have far too much power due to the money they hand out. And DC politicians will never cut off that golden goose.

Maybe, but I will never stop criticizing them for it and will never ignore it. It is pretty outrageous how much they all get away with. I still think its worth calling out.

We'll never reach the ideal of no money being passed around and good-will being all that pushes our elected officials, but maybe we can make it less egregious somehow.

And that is only speaking on corruption and what they make from lobbyists and donations or back-room deals.. there are very rich people that go into power without corruption, just with the money they already have.. which, as mentioned, I also don't particularly like if they aren't above and beyond other candidates.. they can afford better campaigns which trick stupid voters.

 

[Cid]

What you describe is not hypocrisy, it’s just logic you do not get. In any case, hypocrisy is a part of human nature and completely unexceptional.

One can love and believe their country is the best, while acknowledging societal and institutional constraints that prevent us from adopting certain things. It’s very simple, but I guess very difficult to understand if you do not share the same worldview.

What if you're nowhere near the best because you don't adopt best practices anywhere near the rate of others?

 

[WhiteMousse]

I don't know if this is the biggest contradiction but the first thing that comes to my mind is the hard-line stance against abortion paired with the flippant and ambivalent attitude towards children, and suffering people in general.

Now it's not like they completely dismiss the wellbeing of children- conservatives usually take a very rigid stance against things like transgenderism, adult content, etc. But while I believe that the life of an unborn child is precious, I also believe that's really just the very beginning, and for many, possibly most conservatives, what happens to a kid after their born just doesn't seem to be a priority, or something they fret over.

I also don't believe that all conservatives are like this- taking such an unmoving stand on one side while disregarding the things that are directly related to it. Most of the conservatives I know are fairly consistent- why fight for unborn children? Because they're gifts from God. And if they're gifts from God they need to be cherished, valued and protected after they're born too, not just before.

I usually see the glaring inconsistency when I'm dealing with people online. Maybe it's precisely because they're online that they voice such contradictory ideas. Maybe it's because being online gives access to more views and so we see more of the bad ones. But if I had to guess I'd say one of the biggest explanations is that people are only able to care about so many things at once. Maybe they guard what they'd call the more valuable nodes of morality more fiercely, and figure the other things will come naturally. So for example, a conservative might say the moral thing to do is to ensure a child is born, and then ensure their mind isn't polluted by immoral subject matter, and they should in theory be fine. They don't need programs to help them, they can achieve for themselves and thrive.

And I'm not saying that's true, I'm just saying that might be what they're thinking when they reason through the topic.

And the other thing is everyone does this to some extent, in various facets of life. We can't always care about everything. But I think in the context of politics, especially large scale American politics, this aspect has been warped pretty badly which is why you'll see some really weird combinations of tenets.

My advice to anyone who actually really wants to understand is to ask someone of the opposite political view about something that is equally confusing to them.

Understanding each other is the best way to move forward and unite. After a while people stop trying to understand each other and when that happens they become strangers, and "others". And then they become enemies.

 

[Yehudim]

What if you're nowhere near the best because you don't adopt best practices anywhere near the rate of others?

What if anything? What if a bomb dropped on your head right now?

 

[WhiteMousse]

Everytime you post I think, "Damn. This poor guy."

Why? He's a good dude and he's opening a dialogue that has a better chance of fostering honest discourse than most of the threads that get posted

 

[Kassitus]

Sherdog can you not have the bot checker crash the page and erase my posts? Thanks.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

This is like having imaginary arguments in the shower

 

[Plissken]

You have to think of the 50 states much like 50 countries, that was the loose intention the founders originally had, a union of separate states with their own customs and rule of law and the like held together by a constitution and the Bill of Rights. Most states have GDP's that are applicable to entire countries and often populations as well. In that sense what works in other countries often would not be applicable on the national level, especially when you are comparing smaller and more homogenous countries. Now the central government in the U.S. has become exponentially more powerful since the Civil War and the culture has become more homogenized with advances in transportation and communication, but it's still a nation a lot larger and differently structured than others one can compare it to. I'm not saying something can or cannot work, just why it's a different ballgame in the U.S.
When you look at the two larger countries population wise one is a sort of communo-fascist and loosely capitalist dictatorship in China where the government has significantly more power over the populace and industry; and India is a massively overpopulated mess with a caste system and where there's a real divide between Hindu and Muslim populations even decades after the country had to split off a chunk of itself into Muslim majority Pakistan for those very same reasons. Pakistan is a mess with a significant inbreeding problem and Nigeria's no picnic either, especially with the recent attacks on Christians there. Indonesia and Brazil are a bit more similar to the U.S. in some ways but they are probably not the countries you're thinking of implementing programs from. I think you have to go all the way down to Japan to really get a country with a high population that isn't full of real glaring issues and they are a pretty ethnically and culturally homogenous population when compared to the U.S.

 

[luckyshot]

You left out the fact that Jim Crow LAWS were a GOVERNMENT attempt to do what you explained… the power of the government was wielded against black folks to perpetuate the most abhorrent of behavior.

You're not mathing the math. If you subtracted government influence in toto from the late 19th/ early 20th century South, you'd be left with chattel slavery, not some state of racial justice.

The Southern gov't did Jim Crow because the Northern gov't kept the Southern commercial/ private sphere from doing what it really wanted, which was worse.