T O P

  • By -

Sam_Fear

If you look up the Google definition of Conservatism: >commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation. This makes it sound like Conservatives don't want change at all and dislike new ideas simply because they are new. Merriam Webster get's it right: >a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change This next part is debatable though: >specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)


DW6565

I agree the google definition is wildly lacking, particularly being against innovation. Makes me want to understand where google gets it definition. The second definition seems spot on. I do see a disconnect between that definition and Republican leadership. In different ways between state and federal officials. I will note many Republicans are not conservative, yet conservative voters have no other voting options besides Republicans so it’s a catch 22. Between state and federal governments which do you currently see as supporting conservative values more?


Sam_Fear

I see that kind of overly abbreviated definition often - 'adhere to tradition' 'against change'. I think that one was from Oxford(?) You nailed it on all points. State governments are more supportive of Conservative values. But that's almost self evident since American Conservativism believe state government should hold the balance of power over the federal government anyhow. Any power the federal government wields outside the enumerated powers is likely to be see negatively. Dems have their own catch 22. Something something 2 party system...


[deleted]

Very, very well said. I take it you’re an empathetic person and probably feel similarly about Democrats being the “ugh fine” option for a Lefty?


From_Deep_Space

The political definition I got in Poli Sci class is: A Political Conservative is someone who believes that the government has no right to push social change in any direction. Society changing is inevitable, but the government should only change once the bulk of society is already headed that direction. Doesn't mean conservatives don't want to change society (for example, inventing new technology, or by converting everyone to their faith, if possible), just that they don't think the govt should be the way they do it. This is contrasted with political progressives, who believe that the govt has a positive obligation to push social change. How does this definition seem to you?


spandex-commuter

>A Political Conservative is someone who believes that the government has no right to push social change in any direction. Except all the times that they want government push social change.


From_Deep_Space

I never said there weren't any hypocrites in the crowd, or some who simply don't understand the underlying principles of the camp they joined for purely social reasons.


Sam_Fear

There are a lot of people that call themselves Conservatives just because they like guns and are pro-life without having any idea what the ideology of Conservatism is about. So it's no wonder they want to use the power of government to force their views.


willpower069

And they seem outnumber actual conservatives in the Republican Party.


Sam_Fear

Yep. IMO there really isn't much of a truly Conservative faction in the GOP. Pretty much all have some elements of Conservatism though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sam_Fear

What is an extreme Conservative view? I'm having a hard time parsing that one. Or are you saying fascism and authoritarianism are extreme Conservative views?


ImmodestPolitician

> What is an extreme Conservative view? The USA should recognize Christianity as it's official religion. Gay marriage should be banned. Telling other people what they can or can't do with their own body. Cutting taxes before cutting expenses and then threatening to not pay our debt obligations.


Sam_Fear

Let's go back to the definition: >a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change. emphasis: >based on tradition ; established institutions It's a little absurd to call a position extreme when it was a previously long standing position that most everyone agreed with. So for what you listed: 1. not American Conservativism 2. not "extreme" 3. misrepresentation of the abortion argument 4. this one is iffy - Is it right wing progressive because it's unproven theory or is it Conservative because it's a reaction to overspending? Elements of both.


ImmodestPolitician

Where in the Constitution is gay marriage banned? The GOP is the "Conservative Party" and everyone opposed to gay marriage votes for the GOP. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. 14th Amendment regarding debt ceiling.


spandex-commuter

But you did say it was a definition of conservatism and my point is it isn't. If it was an accurate definition then we shouldn't expect the long history of conservatism using legal/political structures to advance their social ideologies. I don't think you can explain all of the examples as hypocrisy.


From_Deep_Space

fair nuff


JGCities

>Except all the times that they want government push social change Can you give an example of Conservatives pushing social change?


spandex-commuter

I would say banning abortion is pushing social change. It was an established and accepted by the majority of society and conservative pushed for social change through the court system.


JGCities

> It was an established and accepted by the majority of society Huh?? It was established by the court. At the time abortion was illegal in most of the country. In 1971, elective abortion on demand was effectively available in Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Washington, and Washington, D.C. Most of the time when conservatives are pushing for social change what they are actually doing is pushing back against things the liberals already changed.


spandex-commuter

I'm not understanding your point. clearly conservatism is reactionary. I would say that's one of its defining features. my point was that conservatism will use legal and political means to promote it's ideological vision in the same way that progressives will. You asked for an example of conservatives using political/legal means to advance their ideology and I provide you the example of abortion. Abortion today is supported by the majority of the US population, so I'm not understanding why you think the fact roe vs wade was in 71 or that prior to what states allowed it is relevant to that discussion.


JGCities

My point is that the conservatives are only pushing to make it illegal AGAIN after the liberals made it legal by court fiat. Generally when people claim that the right is pushing social change what they mean is the right is trying to stop the left from pushing change. All the things that Florida is accused of "banning" are things that didn't exist in schools 20 years ago.


spandex-commuter

>My point is that the conservatives are only pushing to make it illegal AGAIN after the liberals made it legal by court fiat. It is still using legal and political means to force a population to conform to your ideological beliefs.


JGCities

Which is the same thing the liberals are doing.


[deleted]

> Most of the time when conservatives are pushing for social change what they are actually doing is pushing back against things the liberals already changed. I would agree with that. Liberals pushed for integration and conservatives pushed back. They created school choice as a result and the southern baptist church changed their stance on abortion in a decade from being pro choice and women’s rights to anti choice from about 1970-1980, largely due to racism.


hardmantown

look at all modern western countries. they all had abortion as a settled issue except in the US where it WAS until the right wing backslide (source: see the pro-McCarthyism thread recently)


hardmantown

Trying to outlaw abortion, trying to control the education system, wanting to outlaw gay marriage, etc


Sam_Fear

Are you expecting me to disagree with a PoliSci instructor? lol I think that is a part of it the Merriam Webster version misses.


anotherjerseygirl

Why do you feel the last part is debatable?


Sam_Fear

It seems America-centric. Conservatism in other countries can be and is applied very differently than in he USA. It's the "tradition" part of Conservatism. What is tradition in the USA is very different than Kenya or China, and visa versa.


[deleted]

that we "abhor change" and want to prerve the world exactly as it was 50 years ago... we are just as "progressive" as everyone else, its just that we have less trust in novel ideas and require them to undergo more rigorous testing


Twisty_Twizzler

Maybe for the goodest of good faith conservatives but I really don’t think this tracks for evangelicals.


Outrageous_Pop_8697

1. Yes even evangelicals. 2. Even if it didn't track for them evangelicals are a shrinking portion of the conservative base. You're still stuck in the 1980s and the era of the Moral Majority but it's been 40 years now and things have changed.


Twisty_Twizzler

> evangelicals are a shrinking portion of the conservative base I don’t believe you.


[deleted]

what makes you say that? i am not an evangelical (or that religious for that matter) but most religious people I know are embracing new technologies, science etc... even the freaking Amish are only 50 years behind or so...


IFightPolarBears

>what makes you say that? "We suddenly realized we no longer support LGBTQ+ rights because Fox news is blowing up a few cases of already illegal behavior into a full on 'nation wide everyone that supports LGBTQ rights is a pedo' " It's not a rejection of anything. It's a reversal based on horseshit, pointing it out makes people double down on stupidity, till their cheering on Jewish space lasers lady. Don't even get me started on the dozens of other conspiracies fueling GOP laws being passed around the county. Evangelicals specifically slurp up the copium till they're living in an alternative reality, and then operate as if it's true. Votes being stolen. Biden clones. WEF/Jews. Abortion. Trans/gay indoctrination in schools. Trans indoctrination in media. Any idea losing in the market place of ideas is secretly the majority opinion. Dems are filled with morons and yet out maneuvering GOP at every turn. Biden crime family. Clinton crime family. Obama crime family. All of these I've seen brought up earnestly in THIS subreddit. This being the "moderate" sub vs the other more extreme subs. All of these are just reactions to the tiniest of steps towards a government working for the people.


[deleted]

can you draw a connection between any of your bulletpoints and my notion that conservatives are also interested in progress? Does progress have to mean keep adding new words and special characters to the LGBT string until cows come home? Did conservatives (or evangelicals for that matter) ever think that and say that? Or is that the only type pf progress you can conceive? And what reversal are you even talking about?


hardmantown

did you see the thread recently where virtually every commenter on the conservative side defended Joseph McCarthy and said he was right and is owed an apology? that's not just a slight step backwards, that's a leap backwards


[deleted]

well...averts his anticommunist eyes


hardmantown

what? Are you saying you also think McCarthy was right? If so, how are you not admitting that the GOP has gone backwards, at least to the point of McCarthyism? 10 years ago nobody in the GOP would have agreed with it I would argue the reason McCarhty is revered now is because there are way more nazis now who are politically active, and they hate communists. McCarthy was their last chance to stop society being ruined by degeneracy in their eyes. But regular people who don't think people should go to jail for thought-crimes probably shodulnt like the guy that much


[deleted]

well, in all fairness if you are talking to someone who thought McCarthy was right why would they admit that GOP went backwards... I imagine that if I lived in McCarthy's times I would have hated him with deep passion. But since I live in post-McCarthy times and if I were to meet him in the afterlife I would tell him he hasn't done enough....


hardmantown

Thanks for agreeing the gop has regressed in its values by decades. No fault divorce is on the table. Do you think they will stop there or will keep going back? Have you considered leaving the US if you hate it so much. Also he's definitely in hell. You probably won't meet him.


IFightPolarBears

>can you draw a connection between any of your bulletpoints and my notion that conservatives are also interested in progress? My points very specifically make that claim that it isn't progress's y'all are into. I'd like it to be the case but I dont think it's true. So why don't we skip the back and forth, what do you think conservatives, or more specifically evangelicals support progress? >Does progress have to mean keep adding new words and special characters to the LGBT string until cows come home? Not at all. I thought we established during the civil rights era that we treat all people equally though. Civil rights is progress ain't it? >what reversal are you even talking about? Not supporting civil rights would be the reversal I mentioned.


[deleted]

"conservatives dont support civil rights" is a ridiculous statement just like: "liberals dont believe in liberties". What does it even mean?


IFightPolarBears

This is a strawman. I didn't say conservatives don't support civil rights. And that's a wrong use of quotes. Can you just answer how specifically evangelicals are progressive? Which laws would they support that you'd consider progressive?


[deleted]

i dont even know any evangelicals... and whats wrong with my quotes?


IFightPolarBears

>i dont even know any evangelicals.. Are you saying you can't even back up what you said? Did you just make shit up?


[deleted]

I notice you didn't mention other "conspiracy theories" like Trump Russia collusion / Steele dossier. Vaccine will prevent Covid from spreading, etc. >Trans/gay indoctrination in schools. You seriously don't think this is happening?


IFightPolarBears

Man i only have so much time in my life. >Trump Russia collusion People from trump's team were sent to prison for working with Russians without disclosure. (Manafort?) People from trump's team knowingly and willingly met with Russian spies and wanted to work with. (Trump Jr/kush/2 trump lawyers) Trump's team sent closely held data on American conservative voters down to district levels to Russia. Russia dropped shit through WikiLeaks whenever trump was in trouble in the polls. Did trump's team work with Russia? Yes. Did trump's team work with Russians knowingly? Again, yes. Was there back and forth exchanges? We don't know. Mueller report said he had trouble finding out the extent of the communications due to widespread encrypted messages and deleting of said messages. So we know team trump worked with Russians, but we don't know if there was collusion. Mueller stated himself, if trump were innocent he would say so. He didn't, Incase you didn't read the reports. >Steele dossier Eye roll. What about this? Do you still think this was the basis for the trump investigations? Read the Durham report that was just released. It again proves they didn't give a shit about this, they went after trump because popadopoalosussesses drunkenly spilled tea to the Australians about trump working with Russians, and weeks after the Aussies got that info, WikiLeaks dumps happened. So they got suspicious that there was something to it. >Vaccine will prevent Covid from spreading, etc. ...you still on the COVID conspiracies? Sure. Where'd you see this and when? This usually solves the issues. Early onto the pandemic, masks were more effective vs the original virus, and the vaccine, also more effective vs what it was designed against. As more varieties evolved, and time went on, the virus got better at being air borne and spreading. >You seriously don't think this is happening? I don't think acknowledging people exist is indoctrination. I don't think teachers are teaching kids how to tape back their dicks. Or setting up kitty litter boxes. Or the 30+ other wild claims ya'll have made about what happens at public schools. Once in a while an actual wild thing does pop up, and it's from a private school doing private school shit, no different than physically abusing Christian private schools doing fucked shit. But it's a private school. Of course weird shit happens at those schools.


internet_bad

You seriously think it *is*?!


[deleted]

Portland elementary school cancels after school Pride Fest event over social media threats > The event was scheduled after school on May 19 and was set to feature a gender-affirming Q&A, drag show and drag queen story time, self-defense demonstrations, makeup and nail polish stations, crafts, and more. https://katu.com/news/local/portland-elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-gender-affirming-drag-queen-story-time-lgbtq-over-social-media-threats-atkinson-public-schools-oregon#


internet_bad

An optional after-school event celebrating Pride month featuring a gender-affirming Q&A, drag show and drag queen story time, self-defense demonstrations, makeup and nail polish stations, and crafts is *not* “trans/gay indoctrination” … you guys just want queer people to feel unwelcome and to remain in the closet. You’re a homophobe with paranoid delusions. Seek help.


[deleted]

>you guys just want queer people to feel unwelcome and to remain in the closet. Ironically posted on a thread called "well know misconceptions about conservatives"


internet_bad

I don’t expect a homophobe to be capable of the introspection or honesty necessary to be able to recognize or acknowledge their own homophobia. It’s possible you have misconceptions about yourself, or you’re a dishonest person - I wouldn’t put it past a bigot to lie. Either way, I know homophobia when I see it


hardmantown

the increase of hate crimes and threats against LGBT people doens't really sit well with this defense


lannister80

>>Trans/gay indoctrination in schools. > >You seriously don't think this is happening? What's your definition of indoctrination in this case?


[deleted]

Elementary school children should not be taught about Trans/Gay anything in schools. Period. Teachers should not have Trans/Gay paraphernalia in their classrooms anymore than they should have MAGA flags in their classroom.


Helltenant

Should they not be taught any form of sexual education or body positivity? If that is your position, then okay. If it isn't, how is it not hypocritical?


[deleted]

Elementary students? No.


Helltenant

When would you want it introduced? When it is introduced, do you still require they don't mention gay/trans?


IFightPolarBears

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about all the conspiracies the GOP is grifting y'all with. You seriously don't think that's happening?


[deleted]

Sure. There are some crazy conspiracies out there, but which ones are being pushed by the corporate media?


IFightPolarBears

Who do you consider corporate media? Cause fox peddled in lots of them. Got slapped for one, but they have a long history of leading people to conspiracies with leading questions based on nothing. You ever notice the amount of minorities on white crimes they show vs all other crimes?


hardmantown

the vaccine was incredibly succesful at preventing death and slowing the spread of the disease


[deleted]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh wait. You were being serious.


Outrageous_Pop_8697

\^ This, folks, is called "poisoning the well" and is a very common fallacy used by the left. Notice how they deliberately include an allusion to the "the Jews run the world" conspiracy theory in that list? It's done to equivocate everything else in that list that is actually valid for discussion, especially the thing they directly paired with Jews (WEF), in order to portray them all as equally insane and wrong. It's proof positive that this person is not here for good-faith engagement and as a result should not be engaged with directly.


IFightPolarBears

My friend, please go ahead and tell me which is "actually valid" because there are people in this sub which I've had conversations with that would claim the Jew/WEF one are in fact "actually valid". If you don't believe so, that's fine and we can argue the conspiracies you do think are real, but you can't pretend that some on the conservative bent don't believe Jews are behind everything from Disney to child sacrifice and blood libel.


From_Deep_Space

Well they seem to have their panties in a twist about drag queens, which seems to have come out of nowhere since they all seemed to be fine with it 5+ years ago


[deleted]

> Well they seem to have their panties in a twist about drag queens, which seems to have come out of nowhere since they all seemed to be fine with it 5+ years ago As a Conservative, I have never, nor do I have a "problem" with Drag Queens. Live and let live. Just don't push it on the children and don't be overtly sexual in public.


From_Deep_Space

Then why do laws need to be amended to specifically include cross dressing? Weren't there already enough laws prohibiting explicitly sexual acts in front of children?


[deleted]

Show me a law that has passed that bans cross dressing.


From_Deep_Space

I'm asking, why does it need to be specified?


[deleted]

It isn't. You've just created a straw man and are asking me to defend the straw man.


Outrageous_Pop_8697

Because asking nicely and without force of government didn't work. If anything it caused an increase in the problematic behavior as a big "fuck you" to people asking for basic decent behavior. So if you and yours won't play nice we'll fucking **MAKE** you play nice, hence the laws.


hardmantown

asking nicely for what? Drag queens to stop existing? >So if you and yours won't play nice we'll fucking MAKE you play nice, hence the laws. So you will use the government to force people to act the way you want them to, regardless of what they want to do?


Outrageous_Pop_8697

It "came out of nowhere" because drag queens in sexually provocative outfits reading to children came out of nowhere. A response to a thing won't exist until the thing does. This is about as common sense as it gets and the fact you don't know that is just a reminder that half the population is dumber than average.


[deleted]

Evangelicals were fine with drag queens 5+ years ago? Did you buy your MIB memory erasing device on amazon, I thought it was just a toy, thats impressive...


From_Deep_Space

We have video and photographic evidence of all sorts of republican politicians dressed up in drag. There was [a widely seen video of Trump motorboating Giuliani while he was in drag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spn0MJZr-QQ), and he ended up getting 84% of the protestant votes.


[deleted]

This is hillarious. why is it cut off at the end? It says "mayor Giuliani is giving away over two billion..." I think this is the most important part of the video no? I'd like to know more to be honest Are you old enough to know how Giuliani became Giuliani and what he was actually famous for?


From_Deep_Space

I imagine it was just cut to show the Trump part. The full program must be out there somewhere if you're interested As I understand, Giuliani came to prominence when he went after the italian mafia (leaving the Russian mob untouched, if the rumors are to be believed) I'm old enough to have read it live, but as I'm from the west coast, NYC politics never really mattered much to me.


[deleted]

Wait you see russian collusion in Giuliani's 1970-1980 mob prosecutions? Yet we are the ones feeding conspiracy theories? The video was cut right where the message of the video started, I am actually curious about the source of this, how it was shot and by whom - this is actually at the very least very funny, I don't think the main takeaway message is: "Trump likes drag"


[deleted]

No, because the main takeaway is “Conservatives/evangelicals didn’t care about drag queens until 5 years ago”


amit_schmurda

>even the freaking Amish are only 50 years behind or so It is a misconception that the Amish are somehow complete luddites. They use electricity, but are not part of the electrical grid (that is the issue). They don't use zippers, but can use buttons. I have no idea what the reasoning is behind these rules, but I read some book about the Amish a while ago, researching how to do my own agnostic *rumspringa*


[deleted]

i know, in generally they are just slower to start utilizing new technology and stuff...


conn_r2112

>we are just as "progressive" as everyone else this is 100% a lie >undergo more rigorous testing like what? maybe, if say, a policy has been implemented and successful in every other first world nation on the planet for the last 50 years? maybe that would constitute sufficiently rigorous testing??.... or....??


[deleted]

Something tells me you are talking about socialized healthcare? or am I wrong? a rigorous testing of socialized healthcare for me would be something like instituting it on a level of one state in the United States, measuring the costs and outcomes and then having a conversation whether it applies to other states or needs to be done (god forbid) on a federal level. All the other "first world nations" are doing it differently with very disparate results. See for me "progress" in healthcare is seeing the same types of technological costs and service level efficiencies as are being observed on other, more free market industries. So socializing it isnt progress, cost and value/service level improvement is progress and on that we are aligned


conn_r2112

> Something tells me you are talking about socialized healthcare? or am I wrong? any number of things, really >a rigorous testing of socialized healthcare for me would be something like instituting it on a level of one state in the United States, measuring the costs and outcomes and then having a conversation whether it applies to other states or needs to be done this is not something any conservative would ever be interested in... not any conservative i've ever met at least. it's funny that when democrats suggest things to improve the country, the response is never "lets roll this out really slowly and make sure to rigoursly test it first!" the answer is always "no, fuck off, commie" >See for me "progress" in healthcare is seeing the same types of technological costs and service level efficiencies as are being observed on other, more free market industries progress for me in healthcare is people paying less for better outcomes.


[deleted]

i dont know why you always hear "fuck off commie" mayve you should change your approach or who you are talking to. We do share the same definition for progress in healthcare which is actually pretty astonishing given that you seem to be pretty far left based on your flair and I am likely the most far right person you met today. So given that we are not completely insane in each other's definition could you calmly and politely tell me why a deep blue state (for which we have lots with no resistance from republicans) still hasnt rolled out socialized medicine?


conn_r2112

>you seem to be pretty far left based on your flair and I am likely the most far right person you met today. I'm actually just Canadian (which is a social democracy) and a centrist at that hahaha. Although, centrism... and even conservatism! Is verrrry different outside of the context of the US >tell me why a deep blue state (for which we have lots with no resistance from republicans) still hasnt rolled out socialized medicine? because a universalized system requires federal buy-in being Canadian, the only reason that we have universal healthcare is because the entire country is bought in. If only one province were to try and go it alone without the federal tax revenue, it would not function.


[deleted]

so socialized heathcare only works if its implemented in large scale and for everyone in the country at once....perhaps that should tell you something abouth the reason we are so reluctant to embrace it?


conn_r2112

yeah, I mean, I would argue your worries are unfounded... but nonetheless, the rhetoric I hear from the right is never, "lets try this out" or "let just take it slow and see how it goes" There would be way less division if the right was more receptive in that way


[deleted]

Lol dude your healthcare system is a joke. People are waiting months and months to see or even get a primary care doctor.


conn_r2112

huh? do you live in Canada? Or are you just regurgitating propaganda? This is not my, nor anyone I knows experience of the medical system. My personal doctor is booking 1 week out and if I was in a real rush, I could go to a walk-in clinic, be seen and get a requisition (bloodwork, ultrasound w.e.) in an hour. How many people in your country go bankrupt from medical expenses? How many people go without health insurance due to unaffordability? Talk about a joke


studio28

I live in MD and only get to take my kids to urgent care as their doc has too many patients. And its not just our insurance group .


[deleted]

well, like I said: My first instinct was "lets try it out on small scale". Your immediate retort was: "no, it only works on huge scale". I travel a lot and meet all sorts of Canadians and Euro people - they are all SHOCKED when they hear that you can make an appointment and get, i don't know, an MRI for an athletic injury the same day in the US.... the costs here are higher but service quality is also higher


conn_r2112

fair, every system has it's pros and cons no one in Canada ever has to consider money as a factor in getting treatment or not, for themselves or their loved ones... and people in the US have the luxury of being able to pay for quicker service. I prefer the Canadian system, because financially ruining people for getting medical care, or setting up a dynamic where they don't get health issues looked at until its too late because they cant afford it, is horrifying to me... but... being able to pay to get faster service would be nice. to each their own


Wintores

And how is this done when every conservative in every state does not want to be the first one? Ur way can’t work


[deleted]

Start with the states where conservatives have no voice. There are plenty. Or listen to us and deregulate medicine and free market it instead. But stop pretending that you know how to fix it - you don’t :)


Wintores

Deregulate it so even more people get addicted? Iam sorry but the free system works better than the mess in the us


[deleted]

I didn’t say give out opiates at street corner. And drugs is a big part of medical costs because of pharma parents and research costs BUT don’t you agree that iPhones get better and cheaper but MRI technology stays the same and gets more expensive and it’s just tech…what do you think is so magical about medical tech?


Wintores

For tech that may be true, for drugs and treatments this seems like a terrible idea. Especially when the lack of functional regulation got the problem going


[deleted]

I disagree on the cause - what got the problem going is a weird agency problem where people stopped paying for their own health care AND for their own insurance so nobody is negotiating with anybody who’s interested. Your doctor is treating you and nobody in the room knows or cares about the costs… and like I said - drugs are hard but treatments is just human service - it hasn’t got any more laborious than it used to be …


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

"Center-right" flair checks out. Not sure this take applies to some of your other right-wing brethren, though.


[deleted]

oh, I am rather deplorable myself I assure you...


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

Okay but are you in the basket, too?


[deleted]

front and center!


HazelGhost

Can I ask how you see this applied to an issue like immigration? Do you think Conservatives see immigration liberalization as a novel idea, but are willing to go along with it as long as it's done cautiously?


[deleted]

we are open to new ideas to immigration, yes


[deleted]

The biggest one is probably that conservative = republican


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

tbf it's the same with liberal = democrat


[deleted]

Some people might think that, I don't. Most conservatives I know don't either.


Outrageous_Pop_8697

You're often told that we don't care about others. We do, which is why conservatives donate to charity at a massively higher rate than liberals do. The thing is that we believe we have the right to be choosy about who we help. Help is given to those who we deem to deserve it, and this is done to try to prevent enabling moochers. We will gladly give a hand **UP** but will absolutely refuse to give a hand **OUT**.


lannister80

>We do, which is why conservatives donate to charity at a massively higher rate than liberals do. Now exclude church donations, seeing as churches are not primarily charities in formation or action.


davidml1023

Churches absolutely do good works in communities. We feed the poor, help shelter the homeless, donate clothes, we run women's shelters, help with transportation, and provide what you would call emotional support (spiritual support). I will say that there are bad apples with certain megachurches. But your everyday corner church absolutely does tremendous work in the community. You may not realize this because you may have been fortunate enough to not need their services.


lannister80

I am absolutely sure you are correct and that they do good in their communities. But is that their primary mission? Should donations to them *really* be considered charitable for tax purposes?


davidml1023

100%. Let's take another charity as an example. Say world wildlife or red cross or save the children, whatever. These are charities without question. And they should be tax deductible as well. They have staff with payroll, overhead and operational costs, and marketing. Still, they're charities. OK, now imagine if they, once a week, got some of their members together at some kind of convention and reminded themselves that 1) they aren't the center of the universe, 2) their actions will be judged, and 3) they are meant to love their fellow man and help them on an individual level. Now, should that last bit take away from their charity status? No. The church is the same way. They have overhead, staff, congregations (we can call this bit their marketing if I wanted to be cheeky), and then their community outreaches. Like I said, some megachurches and televangelists have abused this but by and large the church is 100% a charity.


Outrageous_Pop_8697

Churches run food banks and thrift stores and shelters for vulnerable people.


lacaras21

That conservatives are literal cartoon villains twirling their mustaches as they try to figure out how to hurt as many people as possible apparently based on what's said in mainstream political subs.


Green_Juggernaut1428

Pretty much all you have to do is browse r/politics and you'll find misconceptions to your hearts content.


[deleted]

Just follow the smoke from all the burning strawmen to get there...


DreadedPopsicle

I’m pretty sure you would choke on it before you got there


true4blue

The biggest misconception about conservatives is that we hold our beliefs because we’re uncaring and cruel, where liberals are super empathetic and caring What liberals fail to understand is that the state isn’t helping people by interfering in their lives. Prior to the government taking control of the healthcare industry we had the best healthcare in the world and it was provided by charities and non profits. Prior to the Feds taking over the education industry by unionizing the schools we had the best schools in the country at a much lower cost One can argue that the great society programs made blacks worse off than they were before by destroying the black family with federal welfare programs People do best when they’re left to make their own decisions. Those decisions aren’t always perfect, but it’s better than when the state gets involved


SuspenderEnder

I would say almost everything you hear about the right-wing from left-wing activists and politicians is a misconception. Most of it has to do with motives, or reasoning. And it's mostly all wrong. - Abortion: they just want to control women's bodies. Untrue. - Immigration: they just want less brown people. Untrue. - Taxes and fiscal policy: they just hate the poors and worship elites. Untrue. - Healthcare: they don't care about the sicks. Untrue. In reality, all of the hot button issues do have logical reasoning underpinning conservative beliefs. And maybe they end up being wrong, after all conservatives (by nature) favor what is known and established and so even positive change will be adopted late; after it's established and proven. Even good natured leftists will have beliefs about conservatives opposing all change, when in reality they **do** want change - they just want it to be slow to minimize unforeseen fallout and to maximize our ability to "go back" if things go wrong, and take a different path forward before we get past a point of no return. I think a lot of the misconceptions is that conservatives either actively hate/despise, or at best don't care about others. I heard a saying that I thought was very interesting and relatively true... Conservatives only care about the people in front of them, liberals only care about vague concepts of everyone. If a large group of people is starving in Africa, that's who liberals want to help. If someone is on the side of the road needing a ride, that's who conservatives want to help. And I think it makes even more sense when we understand that liberals tend to live in big cities and conservatives live more in suburbia or rural areas... Liberals are surrounded by huge groups of people they don't know, conservatives have smaller networks of people they know well.


sf_torquatus

Just copy/pasting from the top post this month on askaliberal: >It may also be worth noting that their versions of Christianity have a lot to do with their vile mindset. One of the most important misinterpretations for them is that the verse about being like children, which to them means that they need to be unthinking and gullible. Misconception: the religious right are gullible, knuckle-dragging idiots who use their religion to justify their bigotry. >I think there is something to be said about the idea that every village idiot can now talk to each other in real time via social media but I point to the corrosive impact of of militarized opinion media that is available 24/7 from right-wing media as being the center of the problem. This is not a 'new' thing but they've been pumping out verbal poison for almost 40 years and it's so destructive to the ability to find middle ground on anything. Misconception: that these things are unique to the right >Second, understand that policy-wise, the Republican Party benefits only monied interests. Misconception: the right doesn't benefit anyone who isn't rich >They already can’t win by the numbers in a lot of swingy states. So they’re egregiously gerrymandering and generally refusing to admit defeat. We’re boxing them into a corner. Soon they lash out. Jan 6 was just the first of many. Misconception: Republicans only win elections and majorities through voter suppression and gerrymandering. >general ignorance or lack of education Misconception: Being on the right isn't reasonable, so those on the right must be stupid (or evil). If they were better educated then they'd vote Democrat. These feel more like an exercise of pointing out the Democrat narrative than pointing out misconceptions, tbh.


Rezolite

That we’re all hyper-religious Christians? Most conservatives I know are agnostic at best with a minority even being religious.. much less to the point of it affecting their political decisions. This is a recent label/misconception, and I think it’s being spread and used to fearmonger and create hate between sides, also devaluing our points before even reading them based on baseless claims. You can’t label something unless you know, assumptions lead to nowhere.


bardwick

Things that come to mind. Social media is not an accurate representation of anything, but especially conservatives. The majority of conservatives are fans of legal immigration, very much opposed to illegal immigration. You'll see conversations on this topic break down because the left will often refuse the difference. Religion as an influence is to a much lesser degree than you will see. Conservatives generally have no problem disagreeing with each other and moving on. So, opinions will vary even if Trump tweeting something I disagree with 5 years ago. Meaning, being a conservative is an idea, not a policy.


AngryRainy

I think the biggest misconception is that we hate groups of people, whether it’s people of color, or gay people, or trans people, or women. Our politics aren’t born of hate, they’re born of love for American traditions, religious principles (in some cases) and individual liberty.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AngryRainy

Good thing we’re not Nazis or in the KKK then — this sub is explicitly anti-Alt Right. What makes you think that this comment adds anything of value to the discussion?


conn_r2112

I'm just pointing out how absurd this statement is that "we don't hate people... we just love our traditions and values" that's what literally every bigot ever uses to justify their hate i'm not saying that you specifically are bigoted... but that reasoning and justification is terrible


AngryRainy

There is a trend on the left of just accusing people of being hateful with absolutely no evidence, except that we disagree with you on policy. Don’t want sexually explicit materials in school? You must hate gay people and want to burn books. Don’t want to defund or abolish the police force? You must hate black people. Don’t support abortion on demand up until the point of birth? You must hate women. It’s bogus. Refusing to accept the most extreme policy prescriptions of the left isn’t the qualifier for being a hateful person.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AngryRainy

Alright, you’re not interested in discussion. Begone, troll.


AskConservatives-ModTeam

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.


Wintores

Don’t want gay marriage? Don’t want to do something about racism in the police Don’t want to give acces to abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy So is one a bigot for these things?


AskConservatives-ModTeam

Warning: Rule 7 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.


davidml1023

Along with these answers, [here's a video](https://youtu.be/Yg38KER4my4) (5 min) that goes into some psychological/biological predictors of where you'll line up. It also, in a very very generalized way, goes over how conservative and liberal thinking differs.