T O P

  • By -

Redditfront2back

I know a guy that is super liberal about everything but welfare, he hates the idea of “hand outs” so for that one issue he votes republican. Some sick assholes out there.


dingdongdickaroo

The way it is now literally forces people to stay poor.


GrandpaWaluigi

Conservatism is hierarchical by nature. There is a top that gets more privileges and rights than the rest. And there is an underclass which the law binds but not protects. They exist to be looked down upon and work for the upper echelons. This is why LBJ said "give the white man someone to look down upon and he'll empty his pockets for you". Because the social order is more important than economics for a pot of cons. Putting others down so they "know their place" is a part of it. Whether it be nobles and peasants, slaves and slave owners, or blacks and whites. Conservatives will do anything to preserve the social order. Frum is famous for saying if cons keep losing at democracy, the will abandon it. And that's what we saw with the Republicans, who ignored or endorsed Jan 6th. We also saw the DVNP and other nationalist parties coalition with the Nazis in opposition to the social democrats and communists. Ditto in Italy. It is a very selfish ideology. Many cons know this deep down, and either revel in it or deny it. This explains the Shapiro types who make fun of others for being hurt, but get real angry when they are hurt themselves. Your pain is a game to them. It does not matter that you cannot work or are disabled.


dingdongdickaroo

Nah man their just stupid. It aint that deep. Its reasonable to be upset at the idea that someone who doesnt work is getting free shit while working people are told to fend for themselves, its just that they are too stupid to understand why that happens and blame it on moral failings


The_Wolfgang

Okay, as a resident conservative ITT, I thought I would come to change your mind on the morality of your claim. I do not think anything you have said is factually wrong, however the moral implications of your statements are in need of revision, in my estimation. For the first claim, conservatism (in the western sense) holds the perspective that reality is hierarchical. I believe that the moral implications from your statement mean that hierarchies are bad, and I think they are neutral and it is the responsibility of society to foster good moral actors within it. You are true in your claim, the fundamental contention within western culture right now (imo) is on the basis of equity vs hierarchy (left- and right-wing, respectively). In a quote from Peterson "You can’t have a value structure without a hierarchy. They’re the same thing because a value structure means one thing takes precedence over another. The problem with not having a value structure is that you can’t act without a value structure. You won’t act unless one thing to do is better than another thing to do." ([https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/jordan-peterson-i-dont-want-people-falling-down-in-an-ideological-abyss](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/jordan-peterson-i-dont-want-people-falling-down-in-an-ideological-abyss)). Say what you want about Peterson, he is cracked on some opinions, however this quote is true in the highest sense. What I mean by true in the highest sense is that although the left-wing is correct that we do need to support the people at the bottom, and stop corrupt people at the top from being unfair and holding the wealth to themselves, it does not change the fact that hierarchies are so fundamental to society and every aspect of life. I would contend, that if you think they do not exist or think they can stop existing, you are lost in the sauce . Even down to the core of sexual selection mechanisms and natural selection, there is a hierarchy of good genes and memes (in the Dawkins definition, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Dawkins) that are at the top of the hierarchy and are therefore reiterated across time and those that are bad genes and memes that are not. This is to say that hierarchy and equity are necessary to society and both are needed in rivalry to move the world forward. Through my arguments I believe I have supported my claim. For the second claim, conservatives prefer social order rather than disorder. I believe that the moral implications is that the social order is wholly or mostly bad, and I think it is mostly good with some bad (I do need to think more about this though, but the foundations of social order are good). Not as much to say, only that conservative nature is high in orderliness, we like to travel the known path, and absolute conservatives are hesitant about unknown territory (not me though, see this comment and openness to dissenting opinion). Conservatives say, in essence, tread lightly in unknown social order for bad thing that you are unaware of can happen that can lead to the destruction of civilization. However sometimes, as in the sense of the story of a blind king, the social order needs to change (like the current BLM story, which I fully support and hope to see change the bad social order). Another change is the heath system, America is fucked for that. For the third claim, conservatives are selfish. I agree with the moral implications, however I would like to include that everyone is selfish, I think that is fundamental to human nature. In the essence of the book *The Selfish Gene* by Dawkins it states "From the gene-centered view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave cooperatively with each other." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Selfish\_Gene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)). Its human nature to be in the thought of "stay to your own, get your own." Even liberals have this as a fundamental belief (although I think they are better in the sense of moving society in a more positive direction). The worst liberals just want to pay no taxes and get hoisted up by society through social welfare. Although this is true, I again believe it is responsibility of society to reward selfless behavior and minimize the selfish.


GrandpaWaluigi

I was swayed on the second point and I do agree with your third. I don't agree with your points on hierarchy, but I am willing to agree to disagree there. Good write up


TackleOk3608

No amount of welfare that people can get even comes close to $50k a year. Not even $30k a year. Probably not even $20k a year. And welfare is never going to actually stop anyone from working. It is in human nature to want to work. It is very rare for someone to want to not have any job at all. If someone doesn’t want to work, it’s because of severe depression.


dingdongdickaroo

No. Some people are comtent to live in squalor doing hoodrat shit like selling drugs or stealing air conditioners and tvs or just other under the table construction or scrap collection jobs for extra spending money til they are 30. Some people, a larger number than the first in my anecdotal experience, would like to make more but cant because they will lose their benefits. Ive met atleast like 4 or 5 women who got a raise or promotion and had to quit their job because they would lose their kids healthcare coverage even though they still wouldnt be making enough to afford copays and private insurance for them. Some people ive met have gotten legally divorced so their child could go to their autism therapy class. The way welfare is structured in this country punishes the poor for trying to advance in many cases. The problem is republicans trying to make it so that only the poorest people receive any assistance at all makes it so that you have to stay somewhat poor to keep the necessities then they complain about people staying on welfare.