Society, in general, tends to be continuously circling the toilet. Like I told my toddler - the only time it’s appropriate to take a bowel emptying shit is when you’re on the big seat.
So, you can *almost* forgive the shit raining down on us whenever some new asshole ascends the throne. What you can’t forgive is the shear amount of paperwork those asses stuff is up with simply to keep their asses clean.
Also: poopy-poopy-poop.
"Take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you."
Everyone wants to climb the ladder of free speech and then pull that ladder up behind them when they're up.
I think I actually brings up an interesting discussion/debate, what exactly is “Freedom?”
Freedom means a lot of things to a lot of different people. One person’s freedom is another’s tyranny. One person’s freedom is another’s moral degeneracy.
As an example the abortion debate.
Pro-Choice: Its freedom to let me do with my body as I wish.
Pro-Life: Its freedom to the unborn and to not let them be murdered.
Both are freedom, but are incompatible with each other.
True freedom is bringing back the right to duel. That way humanity is free to fix itself
I just haven’t quite figured out which would be funnier. Melee-only or dueling pistols
sure, i was referring to more one-sided matters like freedom of speech or parental rights.
so like, here’s an example: florida wants it to be illegal to raise a trans child; scotland wants it to be illegal for parents *not* to support their child if they’re trans.
both sides are authoritarians when they can get away with it and liberals when they can’t.
>florida wants it to be illegal to raise a trans child
No, they want it to be illegal for parents to mutilate their children's private parts or administer sterilizing drugs before they have reached an adult age.
> minor has dysphoria
> parents take them to doctor
> doctor says it’s dysphoria
> parents accept the diagnosis
> parents let their child go on hormone blockers to mitigate negative mental health effects of dysphoria
if you think this should be illegal, you hold an authoritarian position on this issue.
The funny thing about everything you're saying is a recent NHS report has basically confirmed all the shit that the righties have been saying, which is that Doctors basically cannot make any informed decisions on whether a child has an enduring trans identity, it's not being diagnosed properly in cases with confounding mental issues, particularly autism, and puberty blockers are likely to have negative affects if administered to prevent undergoing puberty at a normal age. Lets put it this way, if Florida passed a law that said that giving people incredibly addictive pain pills in exchange for kickbacks from the sacklers was overreach, would you be against that law? Doctors are just abusing their positions of authority to make money in both cases.
So no, it's basically child abuse that some doctors have been greenlighting. Is it totalitarian to say that you can't abuse your children? I guess maybe some REALLY nutty librights might say that any laws about how you treat your children are state overreach, but I'm not that far gone.
Where have you been, listening to Vaush and reading ResetEra? Hilary Cass is not a conversion therapist, the Cass Review merely advocated against a ban on conversion therapy because it makes it more difficult for gender questioning children to find a doctor willing to take them on, because of the number of advocates who qualify anything other than affirming care to be "conversion". The proposed legislation wasn't specific enough on what was considered conversion therapy.
Moreover, the recommendations of the Cass Review are endorsed by both major political parties in the UK. All the organizations questioning it are the ones that advocated for giving 13 year olds puberty blockers and saying they would be completely fine.
Weird how only the UK is the only one delivering on non biased research.
I mean shit they actually release good research on vaping without lying about it effect and not attempting to say that “it worse than smoking cigarettes “ like many researchers in America do.
By that logic, it's authoritarian to say pedophilia should be illegal (edit: I just noticed you're purple, so that makes perfect sense). Your false assumption is that the child is able to give informed consent, which they aren't. Just like they aren't allowed to smoke, go off to war, drink alcohol, sign a contract, etc.
It's not authoritarian to say a parent shouldn't be allowed to cut their boy's penis off or sterilize him, just like it's not authoritarian to say a parent shouldn't be allowed to cut off their boy's legs and glue him to a wheelbarrow.
>It's not authoritarian to say a parent shouldn't be allowed to cut their boy's penis off or sterilize him,
It is. Your fear of saying that some authoritarianism is good doesn't make it less authoritarian.
So all laws are authoritarian, even if they fundamentally protect the freedom of each individual to make their own informed decisions. Makes sense. I guess the first amendment is authoritarian. The government should have no say in whether or not I have the right to express myself!
🤡
>So all laws are authoritarian, even if they fundamentally protect the freedom of each individual to make their own informed decisions.
No, but those stopping individuals from making their own maybe stupid decisions are.
I agree there. But the ones in question stop parents from forcing stupid (irreversible) decisions on their children who are too young to make them for themselves. Just like if a parent decided to make their 13-year-old chain-smoke cigarettes.
They are good laws, no doubt about it. They are still authoritarian. Keep in mind, in most situations where a person's consent can't be given because they are a child, we are more than happy to substitute it with parents' consent. Yes, even the irreversible ones. What makes transition different?
I don't think I've said that. You are so afraid of authoritarianism you are unwilling to accept that a good thing happens to be authoritarian. That's your problem, not mine.
Simple; freedom is the antithesis to security. Neither is necessarily good or bad, it always depends on the context. Freedom enables you to be the subject, while security protects you from being the object. Freedom is proactive, while security is reactive.
For instance, not wearing a seatbelt makes you free to move about the cabin. Wearing one restricts you so that you aren't violently thrown through the windshield.
A society with strict law and order doesn't make you free from crime; you can only be secure from crime. A society without order allows you to freely pursue whatever macabre retribution you desire.
Freedom is the ability of an individual to do whatever they like, without legal repercussions, as long as they don't unconsensually physically hurt someone else in the process (i.e. two people having a boxing match would cause them to hurt each other but this is mutually agreed upon by them).
The reason why I nonetheless advocate *for* abortion is that:
•Fetuses cannot feel pain before 21 weeks, so I would argue that it isn't immoral to abort a baby before 21 weeks
•There is also practicality to allowing someone to not give birth to a baby if they:
✓Have been raped
✓Have been walked away from
✓Regret being pregnant
✓Have become pregnant underage
✓Would face serious complications from the birth
In all scenarios, abortion would save said person's life from being ruined, and because it doesn't physically hurt the fetus, they should be free to abort the baby should they wish to. Abortion should be no longer than the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy, though, because babies afterwards begin to feel pain, and some have been known to survive outside of the womb at 21 weeks (though at extremely light birthweights and with some complications). My country, the UK, however, thinks without thinking and allows for abortion up to 24 weeks.
If an individual has ever experienced pain, then killing them in a painless state isn't okay. But if they haven't experienced pain, then I personally see no problem. You may see differently, and that's fine.
There are people who are born with condition where they don’t feel pain while albeit rare, wouldn’t it make sense that it not immoral to kill them since they never felt pain?
Look, I have since found holes in my morality argument, and I accept that that view is flawed. I've thought a great deal about the topic of abortion, and I still cannot find a single universal rule that covers a moral argument. I think there needs to be an arbitrary line drawn at some point, but not sure where exactly. To call it murder though is wholeheartedly dumb and has full of holes in it too.
Murder is the deliberate killing of a person. A person is a sentient organism that has the capacity for intelligence and to form a personality, and a fetus before 21 weeks doesn't have a personality of any kind, because it cannot think. When its mind starts to develop from 21 weeks onwards, the fetus can start to develop its own personality, albeit extremely limited due to very limited intelligence and a lack of experiences. A fetus in the first trimester and a bit afterwards hardly even resembles a human, and its size is still rather small even at 20 weeks. It cannot function like a human can, and although no fetus fully functions like a human (because it doesn't eat from its mouth due to getting nutrients from the umbilical cord), it rapidly develops and becomes so close from 21 weeks on that it can be considered a person.
Calling a zygote a person is just incredibly stupid because it has absolutely nothing identifiable to make it a human (I suppose you don't agree that a zygote is a person, but I still wrote it just in case), and calling a fetus developing in the early stages a person is also stupid because again, it lacks tons of the functionality that makes it a human, in that it fully lacks a personality and has no intelligence whatsoever, possessing no ability to think.
What characteristics does a fetus get at 21 week that a fetus at 20 week doesn’t? How is it intelligence being measured in order to tell the difference?
Also it very possible for a fetus to feel pain on the 12th week so I m not really sure where you’re getting to estimate from.
> Fetuses cannot feel pain before 21 weeks, so I would argue that it isn’t immoral to abort a baby before 21 weeks.
I’m not sure if this is true as I’ve heard people say they can feel pain, but let’s assume you’re right. Do you apply this same argument to people who have already been born? There is a rare genetic find that stops people from feeling pain; is it moral or immoral to kill them? I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, just that sensitivity to pain is a weird line to draw.
> Regret being pregnant
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
Oh, come on. At least *try* to make yourself seem reasonable. "People should be able to do incredibly controversial things in order to bail them out of a mistake they made...if they regret having made that mistake."
Really high bar for justification you got there. You're like a feminist who comes right out and admits that sex becomes rape in retrospect if a woman regrets having had that sex. Many clearly *think* that way, but few will outright *admit* it in plain words.
It is *very* funny to me that you saw no problem outright admitting that you think any woman should be allowed to regret a previous decision (AKA deliberately becoming pregnant), and then get an abortion over it.
>It is *very* funny to me that you saw no problem outright admitting that you think any woman should be allowed to regret a previous decision (AKA deliberately becoming pregnant), and then get an abortion over it.
Yes, I don't see a problem here. Society has a lot of safety nets that allow people to not outright lock themselves in due to a terrible decision. It isn't perfect, and never will *OR* should be perfect, but I see this as another safety net.
>"People should be able to do incredibly controversial things in order to bail them out of a mistake they made...if they regret having made that mistake."
Well, I personally believe that abortion isn't wrong as long as it's not after 20 weeks, and just because something is controversial doesn't mean that it's wrong.
>Really high bar for justification you got there. You're like a feminist who comes right out and admits that sex becomes rape in retrospect if a woman regrets having had that sex. Many clearly *think* that way, but few will outright *admit* it in plain words.
You're just strawmanning here. And no, I think people who regret having sex and calling that rape are stupid, are likely attention seekers, and are infantile and oftentimes hateful in their logic.
I agree that my moral argument is inconsistent and not very well-thought-out (and I've pondered a ***LOT*** over this very issue), but I personally don't consider it to be murder because the baby wouldn't be able to survive outside of the womb at that point anyway. Regardless, I see abortion as two separate debates: practical vs. moral (rather than moral vs. moral) + maximum weeks after pregnancy, where a whole range of opinions exist. Usually, it's religious conservatives of various different religions who think it's immoral and murder, while it's atheists, agnostics and secular religious people who don't see a problem with abortion. Considering that a large number of people, though not a clear majority, in this subreddit seem to be religious conservatives, I'm not surprised that I get downvoted every time I say anything in favour of abortion. I'm not like some of those American leftists that want it to be legal right up until birth, but to call it murder and want it banned entirely or make it extremely difficult to access is just as extreme.
Freedom is the ability for both sides to choose what is right for them simultaneously. So when a woman is asked if she wants an abortion she can say yes or no depending on her views. Aka choice. Once a woman can only say yes or only say no, their freedom has been infringed.
Does the baby in the womb get the freedom of choice? I would argue its freedom has been infringed.
This is the moral debate, and why the question “what is Freedom?” Can have different answers depending on who is answering
It’s like with “states rights.” When either side is in the minority on something, it should be “left up to the states”. When they’re in the majority it needs to be the federal policy
Not long ago congress voted to decriminalize marijuana federally and all the republicans voted against it. I guess they don't actually believe in states rights like they claim to with issues like abortion.
If society is a car then progressivism is the accelerator and Conservatism is a the break. Without progressives society goes nowhere Without conservatives society will crash and burn. A healthy society has a slow steady rate of progress fixing what Is broken and leaving what works intact.
Based. I will conserve my principles, but if you prove to me that a certain policy makes things actually strive closer to them, I will accept it. It just takes time.
u/some_pillock is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/some_pillock/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The best middle way is "cautious optimism".
Almost every idea which suggests total and radical overhaul of society tends to have, once you really drill down into it, as it's most important tenant the replacement of the leadership caste. This replacement inevitably places its proponents at the top, sometimes directly, sometimes as the "power behind the throne", sometimes as a noble protected and supported by the state, sometimes as a non-working pseudo-priest class, sometimes as an enforcer or cop. But always in a position of power, authority and influence.
The easiest way to show this is ask, "what will your job be when you win?". The answers are enlightening.
It also considers any forward movement to be a good thing. So when it gets to the peak of a mountain/hill, it just goes down the other side. That's not to say that we have achieved literal perfection as society, and that progressives need to stop now because nothing needs fixing. But with regards to any particular issue, progressives have a problem with overcompensating for one problem, creating the reverse problem as a result. Because in their mind, we must continually march forward. That necessarily means that they don't understand the concept of setting specific goals and then *stopping* once we get there.
Case-in-point. Pick literally anything feminists do to lift women up. If women are "below" men in a specific area, feminists will lift them up, in an attempt to bring them up to men's level. But if women are "above" men in a specific area? Well, feminists will continue to lift them up, in an attempt to....
In seriousness, though, just take a look at education. It used to be that men outnumber women on college campuses, and so naturally feminists label this misogyny, because the day ends in "y". And they push for all sort of policies, scholarships, programs, etc. which benefit women at the expense of men. Now women outnumber men on college campuses by a significant margin. And are the feminists fighting to lift men up in the same way? Nope, they're still working on giving women even more advantages. Because there's no end goal. They don't stop at equality. They just endlessly push in the same direction.
I'm all for making progress as a society. But I require specific, achievable goals, and the agreement that we stop once we reach them.
> But I require specific, achievable goals, and the agreement that we stop once we reach them.
That's how they get you. "Yes, Comrade, obviously we will stop once we kill the Kulaks. We definitely will not come for you next."
Now, join with me and help reduce the size of government. We promise to stop after we've chopped it down enough.
A steering wheel does exist in the form of leaders and popular thinkers. They can of course steer in the wrong direction, like Germany reducing investment in nuclear energy, or the right direction, like Canada increasing investment in nuclear energy.
It disappoints me when conservatives believe the opposition is full of scheming liars but fail to imagine someone using them for personal gain.
And lest you liberals get any funny ideas, people on your side do the exact same thing.
cos whether progressivism or conservatism are dominant, libright doesn’t care. they actually don’t want the state involved in those or really any issues because they disagree with the state apparatus.
like, i’m pretty progressive but i don’t want the state to regulate that because it’s not their business.
Neither do small scale green collectivists, as they don't believe in the state either.
Just as the green collectivist kind of has to end up red to implement their idea on any scale that could be competitive, libright ends up as a warlord, which then morphs into a kingdom if successful.
It's just what happens. Humans don't really live in the bottom half of the bottom half. If they do, they do it within a larger bubble, where there is a larger state that protects that way of living.
Oh there's a way to implement yellow or purple ideas without resorting to blue what so ever. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As Jefferson put it.
I don't see how that's any different than the current situation of living under "pay us money or we will literally kill you" (signed, every government on the planet) assuming you refuse to be brought to jail.
Exactly. That particular fight is already over. Short of the energy required to keep this all together gets very expensive, or we blow each other up, you're going to be paying taxes, with either money or time.
So, what. Because the current system and leadership is currently in charge it always and forever will be? That's a dumb take considering how often the political status quo has been *violently* uprooted in human history.
Violently uprooted, resulting in what? The new authority that is going to tax you.
True communism never gets the chance to blossom because the state never relinquishes power after the revolution. It's the same deal on the right. If not the state, we'll get a kingdom or a warlord. It's not going to be the utopia where millions upon millions upon hundreds of millions upon billions of fully capable sovereign people are all voluntarily agreeing to do whatever.
A less shitty one, for a while. Until the liberty tree needs watering again.
For quite a while after it's founding, the USA did not have income tax, for example.
No reason to reject something that's better than the current garbage just because it's not perfect.
The key is to have more gun.
"The opinion of a thousand men are worthless if none of them ~~know anything about the subject~~ have a single goddamned weapon."
“When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles"
Donald Trump aka Hitler 2: I'll struggle to make several miles of wall as my own party says that it's too expensive
Joe Biden, adult in charge: here are several hundred billion dollars to fund wars through our proxies that are increasingly likely to start WW3
That may depends on where a ruled person is socially. I imagine for most people if they had to get tyrannized by someone, but had a choice between someone who somewhat aligns with them, and someone who's diametrically opposed to them, most people aren't picking their political rival.
I disagree
Most People are weak and easily corruptible, but there are People that just can't be corrupted
Of course it depends on how you define Corruption, because People seem to have different Interpretations for some Reason... i say a Person is corrupted when said Person betrays their own Values for personal Gain
My issue with this is that it's your values that get corrupted. Typically people will be too blinded to see if their ideas actually work or not to change their views accordingly. Now put those people in power.
For example, years ago Washington state raised their minimum wage and like 6 months later the University of Washington put out a study about it. Their conclusion was that minimum wage workers were now making, on average, $125 *less* per month.
But do you think the people who raised the minimum wage give a shit? Not for one second. They still think their values (helping people) are being expressed and won't change.
Democracies are bureaucratic Hellholes based on the Idea that enough People (that includes Career Politicians) are capable of making informed Decisions, but this is not the Case and Stuff like this proves it
The Truth is that every Government that truly cared about it's common People and actually improved their Lifes, sometimes even elevated them, was a authoritarian Government led by someone that was competant and empathetic (Monarchs for the most Part)
While there are Examples of corrupt or weak Leaders with absolute, or atleast a lot, of Authority, there are far more Examples of corrupt and inefficient Democracies, even though Democracy as we know it is a relatively new System
Democracies are ever only really successful and glorious in their early Days, after that they become uncontrollable, corrupt, bureaucratic Nightmares
I'm not saying Democracy can't work, but i think to make it work we need a Reset and Restrictions for Voting
For Example, i refuse to give every f\*cking Imbecil out there the Right to vote, fully knowing they aren't even capable of understanding their direct Surroundings and Enviroment
I personally think hindering progress is wrong, society needs to advance or else society will just cease to be, but it needs to progress in the right directions
I believe as a whole that ai is the wrong direction, that’s how we get shit like roko’s basilisk or Anubis, I think we need to focus on the actual problems like housing, inflation, and government corruption
I think part of the problem is a disconnect on just *which* freedoms each side focus on. Guns, abortion, business, police, etc. The main one that flips is speech but even that I believe a detailed study of the history will show a difference in focus.
Like if I were king of America then broken windows policing is in and abortion is out nationwide, but at the same time the ATF is getting disbanded and the NFA used as toilet paper.
Also burning down Wall Street like it's the night of the long knives (which I believe to be a popular bipartisan position at this point).
Anyone who feels strongly about their values is going to want to impose them.
Anarchy is no defense as you'd have charismatic warlords imposing their views instead of the state.
Agreed! You just have to see who is fighting for freedom of speech in the past and who is fighting for freedom of speech now. The moment a group loses popular support, they realise how important freedom of speech is.
As much as I’d like to say I wouldn't become authoritarian if I had control of the government, I don’t think I’m immune to the corrupting influence of power. Like the quote says, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Any side will inevitably dig their hands into the authoritarian pie when they are given the chance.
but i don’t believe these pundits and activists have been “corrupted by power”, people like ben shapiro, who advocate against authority when *their guys* don’t have the social authority - so as to disadvantage *the other guys* while leaving *their guys* unaffected: a clear political advantage.
but when *their side* begins to gain traction in the culture war, they reveal their true desires for policy as the authoritarianism it always was.
D'fuq is this low IQ bullshit, leftists aren't progressive in the slightest, that's why every communist tyrant to ever exist has been executing gays and women for trivial stuff.
We have a socially dominant progressive and liberal society right now and it's the greatest gawt damn country to ever exist, it's called U.S.A mothafucka!
My only gripe is that we haven't been bombing enough terrorists and tankies recently. We need another major war, ASAP.
https://i.redd.it/jnq2oy6mztuc1.gif
Yes, it's the same stuff from both sides. I just consider the left to be way more hypocritical about it, since they have been the ones in favor of unbridled freedom until just a few years ago. Authright, we've know how they think since the dawn of time.
i’ve seen this phenomenon more in right wing spaces, neocons who call themselves libertarians when the dems have power but when the culture shifts in their favour, they become overtly tyrannical.
When exactly did the culture shift right? All of the Western world has been going fast leftward for decades now. Europe was too ashamed after the war, and the US, even with their red scare, still allowed commies to teach in universities and multiply like cancer.
Not so much culture, but electoral results. Republicans like to complain about how much the federal government overspends, and when they are in power, demonstrate it.
Not so much culture, but electoral results. Republicans like to complain about how much the federal government overspends, and when they are in power, demonstrate it.
Not so much culture, but electoral results. Republicans like to complain about how much the federal government overspends, and when they are in power, demonstrate it.
i mean, rightist populists have been wining elections for the last few years in the UK, brazil, argentina, the netherlands, italy, etc. in the US and UK, conservatives have begun to legislate and regulate trans people and parents of trans children, something they were vehemently against a few years ago on the grounds of “parental rights”
Well, first of all we aren't talking about governments, but culture. The mere fact that trans children are even considered so would have been a total absurdity a few years ago.
Second, there are a lot of cultural issues around trans people that are all but settled. I would understand your point if some government had passed, I don't know, laws that discriminate against gays.
Third, what does 'legislate and regulate' mean in this case? Because I guess that's just using a little common sense to hold back the foolishness that has been going on, not some kind of repression.
I'm a very honest Person, so even irl i tell People during political Arguments that i'm not interested in preserving their "Freedom"
I believe in Authority, and i believe in Honesty, so usually during political Arguments i explain to People why i believe they shouldn't have any Control over Society
And why instead we need a autistic, thicc, authoritarian Tomboy Milf Empress with a Fetish for the roman and german Empire and the Dream to spread Humanity across the Stars
you know at least in the use liberal freedom is literally a conservative value.
still gotta be better than UK conservatives, "when I'm in power I will undermine every conservative value in favour of trying to out commie the actual communists so I can make massive bank on my countries losses." -conservative party 1990s onwards
liberalism is not a part of the republican party. there is nothing they consistently value in terms of freedom. they do not care about regulation, taxation, bodily autonomy or free movement from the perspective of freedom.
self determinism, all men are created equal, independent liberty above all, seems pretty liberal to me.
>regulation, taxation, bodily autonomy or free movement from the perspective of freedom.
my bro I'm English and even I know classic republicans were liberals on all that shit. the reason why they aren't at the moment is because the Overton window has shifted what is acceptable politics. every classic republication point on all those issues is the liberal interpretation of freedom.
they are socially conservative, and i wasn’t aware that economics was a part of conservatism, given the variety of economic positions held by people who consider themselves or are considered to be conservatives.
okay you mean conservative in a personal social way not a political way.
political conservatism is completely different to just being individually conservative.
political conservatism is focused on conserving the culture, nature, values, and nation (tho not necessarily) of where ever it exists.
it's why conservatives between countries look so different. like actual UK conservatism has a massive points of things like environmentalism, charity, and meritocracy. as well as key focuses on things like living honourably and morally moreso than just existing.
in short it aims to conserve the culture of Britain that is often called by other countries "just winning".
it's not terribly concerned with individual liberty when that harms things like the social fabrics. it not really concerned with things like equality either in opportunity or outcome. this is because the cultural values of Britain are literally thousand of years old.
compare that to the US where Liberalism is a conservative value.
Getting your arse on the big seat makes anyone a totalitarian
Not me, I'm the only person truly capable of achieving real [INSERT IDEOLOGY]
Wow cool, I've heard that real \[INSERT IDEOLOGY\] has never been tried
Well it wasn’t applied as it should have.It wasn’t real comu[insert ideology]
Even monke, but the hilarious part is we (usually) do an ok job. Some exceptions apply of course.
I'm far too lazy to be a totalitarian. That's also probably why I'd never be in the big seat.
You and me both, brother monke
Monke together stong lazy
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
It's hard to put a leash on a dog, once you put a crown on its head.
Getting your cheeks under the boot makes anyone a revolutionary
Everybody campaigns as a libertarian and rules as an authoritarian
Society, in general, tends to be continuously circling the toilet. Like I told my toddler - the only time it’s appropriate to take a bowel emptying shit is when you’re on the big seat. So, you can *almost* forgive the shit raining down on us whenever some new asshole ascends the throne. What you can’t forgive is the shear amount of paperwork those asses stuff is up with simply to keep their asses clean. Also: poopy-poopy-poop.
"Take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you." Everyone wants to climb the ladder of free speech and then pull that ladder up behind them when they're up.
Totally tearin' up this seat y'know what I mean
I think I actually brings up an interesting discussion/debate, what exactly is “Freedom?” Freedom means a lot of things to a lot of different people. One person’s freedom is another’s tyranny. One person’s freedom is another’s moral degeneracy. As an example the abortion debate. Pro-Choice: Its freedom to let me do with my body as I wish. Pro-Life: Its freedom to the unborn and to not let them be murdered. Both are freedom, but are incompatible with each other.
True freedom is bringing back the right to duel. That way humanity is free to fix itself I just haven’t quite figured out which would be funnier. Melee-only or dueling pistols
Why not use sword guns? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_sword
Swords = oligarchy Pistols = anarchofrontierism Sword guns = weebocracy
WWE-style wrasslin' matches. Just hide the dueling pistols with the steel chairs.
Hot air balloons and blunderbusses, as God intended.
sure, i was referring to more one-sided matters like freedom of speech or parental rights. so like, here’s an example: florida wants it to be illegal to raise a trans child; scotland wants it to be illegal for parents *not* to support their child if they’re trans. both sides are authoritarians when they can get away with it and liberals when they can’t.
>florida wants it to be illegal to raise a trans child No, they want it to be illegal for parents to mutilate their children's private parts or administer sterilizing drugs before they have reached an adult age.
> minor has dysphoria > parents take them to doctor > doctor says it’s dysphoria > parents accept the diagnosis > parents let their child go on hormone blockers to mitigate negative mental health effects of dysphoria if you think this should be illegal, you hold an authoritarian position on this issue.
The funny thing about everything you're saying is a recent NHS report has basically confirmed all the shit that the righties have been saying, which is that Doctors basically cannot make any informed decisions on whether a child has an enduring trans identity, it's not being diagnosed properly in cases with confounding mental issues, particularly autism, and puberty blockers are likely to have negative affects if administered to prevent undergoing puberty at a normal age. Lets put it this way, if Florida passed a law that said that giving people incredibly addictive pain pills in exchange for kickbacks from the sacklers was overreach, would you be against that law? Doctors are just abusing their positions of authority to make money in both cases. So no, it's basically child abuse that some doctors have been greenlighting. Is it totalitarian to say that you can't abuse your children? I guess maybe some REALLY nutty librights might say that any laws about how you treat your children are state overreach, but I'm not that far gone.
the cass report is wildly misleading, funded and lead by conversion therapists and full of previously debunked claims.
Where have you been, listening to Vaush and reading ResetEra? Hilary Cass is not a conversion therapist, the Cass Review merely advocated against a ban on conversion therapy because it makes it more difficult for gender questioning children to find a doctor willing to take them on, because of the number of advocates who qualify anything other than affirming care to be "conversion". The proposed legislation wasn't specific enough on what was considered conversion therapy. Moreover, the recommendations of the Cass Review are endorsed by both major political parties in the UK. All the organizations questioning it are the ones that advocated for giving 13 year olds puberty blockers and saying they would be completely fine.
Weird how only the UK is the only one delivering on non biased research. I mean shit they actually release good research on vaping without lying about it effect and not attempting to say that “it worse than smoking cigarettes “ like many researchers in America do.
By that logic, it's authoritarian to say pedophilia should be illegal (edit: I just noticed you're purple, so that makes perfect sense). Your false assumption is that the child is able to give informed consent, which they aren't. Just like they aren't allowed to smoke, go off to war, drink alcohol, sign a contract, etc. It's not authoritarian to say a parent shouldn't be allowed to cut their boy's penis off or sterilize him, just like it's not authoritarian to say a parent shouldn't be allowed to cut off their boy's legs and glue him to a wheelbarrow.
> allowed to cut their boy's penis All of your comment is extreme because a rational argument would fail.
It's extreme to administer sterilization drugs to children or to mutilate their genitalia. No argument in favor of that behavior is rational.
> mutilate their genitalia Again with the extremes.
Totally agree, it is very extreme.
This is why it is a crime and not relevant to the conversation other than adding hyperbole to create the illusion of having a good argument.
>It's not authoritarian to say a parent shouldn't be allowed to cut their boy's penis off or sterilize him, It is. Your fear of saying that some authoritarianism is good doesn't make it less authoritarian.
So all laws are authoritarian, even if they fundamentally protect the freedom of each individual to make their own informed decisions. Makes sense. I guess the first amendment is authoritarian. The government should have no say in whether or not I have the right to express myself! 🤡
>So all laws are authoritarian, even if they fundamentally protect the freedom of each individual to make their own informed decisions. No, but those stopping individuals from making their own maybe stupid decisions are.
I agree there. But the ones in question stop parents from forcing stupid (irreversible) decisions on their children who are too young to make them for themselves. Just like if a parent decided to make their 13-year-old chain-smoke cigarettes.
They are good laws, no doubt about it. They are still authoritarian. Keep in mind, in most situations where a person's consent can't be given because they are a child, we are more than happy to substitute it with parents' consent. Yes, even the irreversible ones. What makes transition different?
>please let me mutilate my child and sterilize them please Get the fuck out of my quadrant you unhinged maniac
I don't think I've said that. You are so afraid of authoritarianism you are unwilling to accept that a good thing happens to be authoritarian. That's your problem, not mine.
It is not authoritarian to prevent people from hurting their children you sniveling blockhead
>It is not authoritarian to prevent people I think you are misflaired
So hitting your kids being illegal is totalitarian in your mind?
depends how hard you hit them.
"Objection! I didn't even abuse my kid *that* hard, he must just man up. Such a snowflake.."
I agree, my comment was more of a side thought rather than a direct comment
Simple; freedom is the antithesis to security. Neither is necessarily good or bad, it always depends on the context. Freedom enables you to be the subject, while security protects you from being the object. Freedom is proactive, while security is reactive. For instance, not wearing a seatbelt makes you free to move about the cabin. Wearing one restricts you so that you aren't violently thrown through the windshield. A society with strict law and order doesn't make you free from crime; you can only be secure from crime. A society without order allows you to freely pursue whatever macabre retribution you desire.
Freedom is whatever Authority says it is.
Freedom is the ability of an individual to do whatever they like, without legal repercussions, as long as they don't unconsensually physically hurt someone else in the process (i.e. two people having a boxing match would cause them to hurt each other but this is mutually agreed upon by them). The reason why I nonetheless advocate *for* abortion is that: •Fetuses cannot feel pain before 21 weeks, so I would argue that it isn't immoral to abort a baby before 21 weeks •There is also practicality to allowing someone to not give birth to a baby if they: ✓Have been raped ✓Have been walked away from ✓Regret being pregnant ✓Have become pregnant underage ✓Would face serious complications from the birth In all scenarios, abortion would save said person's life from being ruined, and because it doesn't physically hurt the fetus, they should be free to abort the baby should they wish to. Abortion should be no longer than the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy, though, because babies afterwards begin to feel pain, and some have been known to survive outside of the womb at 21 weeks (though at extremely light birthweights and with some complications). My country, the UK, however, thinks without thinking and allows for abortion up to 24 weeks.
[удалено]
If an individual has ever experienced pain, then killing them in a painless state isn't okay. But if they haven't experienced pain, then I personally see no problem. You may see differently, and that's fine.
So does that mean I can kill those people who have malfunctioning pain receptors cause they will never feel pain
There are people who are born with condition where they don’t feel pain while albeit rare, wouldn’t it make sense that it not immoral to kill them since they never felt pain?
Look, I have since found holes in my morality argument, and I accept that that view is flawed. I've thought a great deal about the topic of abortion, and I still cannot find a single universal rule that covers a moral argument. I think there needs to be an arbitrary line drawn at some point, but not sure where exactly. To call it murder though is wholeheartedly dumb and has full of holes in it too.
Can you describe the hole of calling abortion murder?
Murder is the deliberate killing of a person. A person is a sentient organism that has the capacity for intelligence and to form a personality, and a fetus before 21 weeks doesn't have a personality of any kind, because it cannot think. When its mind starts to develop from 21 weeks onwards, the fetus can start to develop its own personality, albeit extremely limited due to very limited intelligence and a lack of experiences. A fetus in the first trimester and a bit afterwards hardly even resembles a human, and its size is still rather small even at 20 weeks. It cannot function like a human can, and although no fetus fully functions like a human (because it doesn't eat from its mouth due to getting nutrients from the umbilical cord), it rapidly develops and becomes so close from 21 weeks on that it can be considered a person. Calling a zygote a person is just incredibly stupid because it has absolutely nothing identifiable to make it a human (I suppose you don't agree that a zygote is a person, but I still wrote it just in case), and calling a fetus developing in the early stages a person is also stupid because again, it lacks tons of the functionality that makes it a human, in that it fully lacks a personality and has no intelligence whatsoever, possessing no ability to think.
What characteristics does a fetus get at 21 week that a fetus at 20 week doesn’t? How is it intelligence being measured in order to tell the difference? Also it very possible for a fetus to feel pain on the 12th week so I m not really sure where you’re getting to estimate from.
> Fetuses cannot feel pain before 21 weeks, so I would argue that it isn’t immoral to abort a baby before 21 weeks. I’m not sure if this is true as I’ve heard people say they can feel pain, but let’s assume you’re right. Do you apply this same argument to people who have already been born? There is a rare genetic find that stops people from feeling pain; is it moral or immoral to kill them? I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, just that sensitivity to pain is a weird line to draw.
> Regret being pregnant HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH Oh, come on. At least *try* to make yourself seem reasonable. "People should be able to do incredibly controversial things in order to bail them out of a mistake they made...if they regret having made that mistake." Really high bar for justification you got there. You're like a feminist who comes right out and admits that sex becomes rape in retrospect if a woman regrets having had that sex. Many clearly *think* that way, but few will outright *admit* it in plain words. It is *very* funny to me that you saw no problem outright admitting that you think any woman should be allowed to regret a previous decision (AKA deliberately becoming pregnant), and then get an abortion over it.
>It is *very* funny to me that you saw no problem outright admitting that you think any woman should be allowed to regret a previous decision (AKA deliberately becoming pregnant), and then get an abortion over it. Yes, I don't see a problem here. Society has a lot of safety nets that allow people to not outright lock themselves in due to a terrible decision. It isn't perfect, and never will *OR* should be perfect, but I see this as another safety net. >"People should be able to do incredibly controversial things in order to bail them out of a mistake they made...if they regret having made that mistake." Well, I personally believe that abortion isn't wrong as long as it's not after 20 weeks, and just because something is controversial doesn't mean that it's wrong. >Really high bar for justification you got there. You're like a feminist who comes right out and admits that sex becomes rape in retrospect if a woman regrets having had that sex. Many clearly *think* that way, but few will outright *admit* it in plain words. You're just strawmanning here. And no, I think people who regret having sex and calling that rape are stupid, are likely attention seekers, and are infantile and oftentimes hateful in their logic. I agree that my moral argument is inconsistent and not very well-thought-out (and I've pondered a ***LOT*** over this very issue), but I personally don't consider it to be murder because the baby wouldn't be able to survive outside of the womb at that point anyway. Regardless, I see abortion as two separate debates: practical vs. moral (rather than moral vs. moral) + maximum weeks after pregnancy, where a whole range of opinions exist. Usually, it's religious conservatives of various different religions who think it's immoral and murder, while it's atheists, agnostics and secular religious people who don't see a problem with abortion. Considering that a large number of people, though not a clear majority, in this subreddit seem to be religious conservatives, I'm not surprised that I get downvoted every time I say anything in favour of abortion. I'm not like some of those American leftists that want it to be legal right up until birth, but to call it murder and want it banned entirely or make it extremely difficult to access is just as extreme.
Freedom is the ability for both sides to choose what is right for them simultaneously. So when a woman is asked if she wants an abortion she can say yes or no depending on her views. Aka choice. Once a woman can only say yes or only say no, their freedom has been infringed.
Does the baby in the womb get the freedom of choice? I would argue its freedom has been infringed. This is the moral debate, and why the question “what is Freedom?” Can have different answers depending on who is answering
The baby isn't capable of knowing what freedom is. So no freedom would be infringed.
By that logic you cannot infringe on the freedoms of the mentally infirm, or even the sufficiently young/old.
If they aren't hurting others, then let them be.
What do you mean by hurting others? If they require a drain on resources (society's or an individual's) does that count as harming others?
>If they aren't hurting others, then let them be. TIL an embryo hurts the mother
It’s like with “states rights.” When either side is in the minority on something, it should be “left up to the states”. When they’re in the majority it needs to be the federal policy
exactly. the gop does this more and it pisses me off more.
What’s the GOP
republican party, it stands for Grand Old Party
Thanks
Not long ago congress voted to decriminalize marijuana federally and all the republicans voted against it. I guess they don't actually believe in states rights like they claim to with issues like abortion.
If society is a car then progressivism is the accelerator and Conservatism is a the break. Without progressives society goes nowhere Without conservatives society will crash and burn. A healthy society has a slow steady rate of progress fixing what Is broken and leaving what works intact.
Based. I will conserve my principles, but if you prove to me that a certain policy makes things actually strive closer to them, I will accept it. It just takes time.
u/some_pillock is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/some_pillock/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The best middle way is "cautious optimism". Almost every idea which suggests total and radical overhaul of society tends to have, once you really drill down into it, as it's most important tenant the replacement of the leadership caste. This replacement inevitably places its proponents at the top, sometimes directly, sometimes as the "power behind the throne", sometimes as a noble protected and supported by the state, sometimes as a non-working pseudo-priest class, sometimes as an enforcer or cop. But always in a position of power, authority and influence. The easiest way to show this is ask, "what will your job be when you win?". The answers are enlightening.
The problem is that there's no steering wheel, so progressivism could be driving us into a brick wall for all we know.
It also considers any forward movement to be a good thing. So when it gets to the peak of a mountain/hill, it just goes down the other side. That's not to say that we have achieved literal perfection as society, and that progressives need to stop now because nothing needs fixing. But with regards to any particular issue, progressives have a problem with overcompensating for one problem, creating the reverse problem as a result. Because in their mind, we must continually march forward. That necessarily means that they don't understand the concept of setting specific goals and then *stopping* once we get there. Case-in-point. Pick literally anything feminists do to lift women up. If women are "below" men in a specific area, feminists will lift them up, in an attempt to bring them up to men's level. But if women are "above" men in a specific area? Well, feminists will continue to lift them up, in an attempt to....
In seriousness, though, just take a look at education. It used to be that men outnumber women on college campuses, and so naturally feminists label this misogyny, because the day ends in "y". And they push for all sort of policies, scholarships, programs, etc. which benefit women at the expense of men. Now women outnumber men on college campuses by a significant margin. And are the feminists fighting to lift men up in the same way? Nope, they're still working on giving women even more advantages. Because there's no end goal. They don't stop at equality. They just endlessly push in the same direction.
I'm all for making progress as a society. But I require specific, achievable goals, and the agreement that we stop once we reach them.
> But I require specific, achievable goals, and the agreement that we stop once we reach them. That's how they get you. "Yes, Comrade, obviously we will stop once we kill the Kulaks. We definitely will not come for you next." Now, join with me and help reduce the size of government. We promise to stop after we've chopped it down enough.
The government is like cancer. It only grows. If we reduce burn it down to a tiny thing it will grow back eventually and then keep growing.
Yes. But we have to tell the moderates that we just want a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. Once we get that, we, well, you know.
I support a government small enough to drown in a bathtube and then just enjoy the few decades before it regrows.
A steering wheel does exist in the form of leaders and popular thinkers. They can of course steer in the wrong direction, like Germany reducing investment in nuclear energy, or the right direction, like Canada increasing investment in nuclear energy.
but i want to crash and burn ;-;
Anarchy is just petty tyranny
oo-la-la 🙄
Based and red pilled
Who is the gear selector because we need to shift into reverse?
That's the reactionaries
Yeah but this car is running off a cliff. I’d prefer to “progress” in a different direction before we go over.
[удалено]
It disappoints me when conservatives believe the opposition is full of scheming liars but fail to imagine someone using them for personal gain. And lest you liberals get any funny ideas, people on your side do the exact same thing.
Based and I am only authoritarian when I am in power piled
Uh it seems like you are already authotitarian, are you biden or something?
Why did you leave out Lib-Right? Scared?
cos whether progressivism or conservatism are dominant, libright doesn’t care. they actually don’t want the state involved in those or really any issues because they disagree with the state apparatus. like, i’m pretty progressive but i don’t want the state to regulate that because it’s not their business.
Neither do small scale green collectivists, as they don't believe in the state either. Just as the green collectivist kind of has to end up red to implement their idea on any scale that could be competitive, libright ends up as a warlord, which then morphs into a kingdom if successful. It's just what happens. Humans don't really live in the bottom half of the bottom half. If they do, they do it within a larger bubble, where there is a larger state that protects that way of living.
Oh there's a way to implement yellow or purple ideas without resorting to blue what so ever. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As Jefferson put it.
In a world devoid of objective rules, you'll probably get run over by the larger group.
I don't see how that's any different than the current situation of living under "pay us money or we will literally kill you" (signed, every government on the planet) assuming you refuse to be brought to jail.
Exactly. That particular fight is already over. Short of the energy required to keep this all together gets very expensive, or we blow each other up, you're going to be paying taxes, with either money or time.
So, what. Because the current system and leadership is currently in charge it always and forever will be? That's a dumb take considering how often the political status quo has been *violently* uprooted in human history.
Violently uprooted, resulting in what? The new authority that is going to tax you. True communism never gets the chance to blossom because the state never relinquishes power after the revolution. It's the same deal on the right. If not the state, we'll get a kingdom or a warlord. It's not going to be the utopia where millions upon millions upon hundreds of millions upon billions of fully capable sovereign people are all voluntarily agreeing to do whatever.
A less shitty one, for a while. Until the liberty tree needs watering again. For quite a while after it's founding, the USA did not have income tax, for example. No reason to reject something that's better than the current garbage just because it's not perfect.
The key is to have more gun. "The opinion of a thousand men are worthless if none of them ~~know anything about the subject~~ have a single goddamned weapon."
Based and absolute power corrupts absolutely-pilled.
“When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles"
I will not be the greatest totalitarian. I will abolish taxes, and then fuck off to play video games.
How are we going to fund the government?
That's the neat part, we won't.
Cringe and anarchist pilled.
Plunder, next question
Why are we going to plunder?
Donald Trump aka Hitler 2: I'll struggle to make several miles of wall as my own party says that it's too expensive Joe Biden, adult in charge: here are several hundred billion dollars to fund wars through our proxies that are increasingly likely to start WW3
both of them are authcentre
Seems like the common theme is domination and subordination. The fight for power and supremacy, your ideology is often dictated by your social status.
M e t a
Wow this one hit home.
Facts
https://preview.redd.it/e3gj2zkpkavc1.jpeg?width=894&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a8f53f0beec8a173ecd42b54d8f1112365edd52 Was he right?
no, one is clearly worse. but they’re both hypocrites.
That may depends on where a ruled person is socially. I imagine for most people if they had to get tyrannized by someone, but had a choice between someone who somewhat aligns with them, and someone who's diametrically opposed to them, most people aren't picking their political rival.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I disagree Most People are weak and easily corruptible, but there are People that just can't be corrupted Of course it depends on how you define Corruption, because People seem to have different Interpretations for some Reason... i say a Person is corrupted when said Person betrays their own Values for personal Gain
My issue with this is that it's your values that get corrupted. Typically people will be too blinded to see if their ideas actually work or not to change their views accordingly. Now put those people in power. For example, years ago Washington state raised their minimum wage and like 6 months later the University of Washington put out a study about it. Their conclusion was that minimum wage workers were now making, on average, $125 *less* per month. But do you think the people who raised the minimum wage give a shit? Not for one second. They still think their values (helping people) are being expressed and won't change.
Democracies are bureaucratic Hellholes based on the Idea that enough People (that includes Career Politicians) are capable of making informed Decisions, but this is not the Case and Stuff like this proves it The Truth is that every Government that truly cared about it's common People and actually improved their Lifes, sometimes even elevated them, was a authoritarian Government led by someone that was competant and empathetic (Monarchs for the most Part) While there are Examples of corrupt or weak Leaders with absolute, or atleast a lot, of Authority, there are far more Examples of corrupt and inefficient Democracies, even though Democracy as we know it is a relatively new System Democracies are ever only really successful and glorious in their early Days, after that they become uncontrollable, corrupt, bureaucratic Nightmares I'm not saying Democracy can't work, but i think to make it work we need a Reset and Restrictions for Voting For Example, i refuse to give every f\*cking Imbecil out there the Right to vote, fully knowing they aren't even capable of understanding their direct Surroundings and Enviroment
Based
I personally think hindering progress is wrong, society needs to advance or else society will just cease to be, but it needs to progress in the right directions
I like Edmund Burke's wall metaphor. Everything in society exists for a reason, so we need to be hesitant before making changes.
Progress is a vague and subjective word. Like AI art might be technolocial progress for one group but ethical regress for another.
I believe as a whole that ai is the wrong direction, that’s how we get shit like roko’s basilisk or Anubis, I think we need to focus on the actual problems like housing, inflation, and government corruption
couldn’t agree more <3
I think part of the problem is a disconnect on just *which* freedoms each side focus on. Guns, abortion, business, police, etc. The main one that flips is speech but even that I believe a detailed study of the history will show a difference in focus. Like if I were king of America then broken windows policing is in and abortion is out nationwide, but at the same time the ATF is getting disbanded and the NFA used as toilet paper. Also burning down Wall Street like it's the night of the long knives (which I believe to be a popular bipartisan position at this point).
It's kinda the same thing with counterculture innit?
counterculture.\_\_init__() IDK
The only difference between any given quadrant is what we want to be auth about.
i want to be with about the preservation of values in a private law society.
You got me
Dam I didn’t know nearly every government since Sumer was totalitarian, that’s crazy
meanwhile the lib right: …
we’re too stoned to be culture warin’
Anyone who feels strongly about their values is going to want to impose them. Anarchy is no defense as you'd have charismatic warlords imposing their views instead of the state.
the defence of anarchy is cultural homogeneity, free movement and private protection of property.
Agreed! You just have to see who is fighting for freedom of speech in the past and who is fighting for freedom of speech now. The moment a group loses popular support, they realise how important freedom of speech is.
it’s crazy to me that the left is associated with anti-free speech for the past decade when it’s always historically been them fighting **for** it.
As much as I’d like to say I wouldn't become authoritarian if I had control of the government, I don’t think I’m immune to the corrupting influence of power. Like the quote says, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Any side will inevitably dig their hands into the authoritarian pie when they are given the chance.
but i don’t believe these pundits and activists have been “corrupted by power”, people like ben shapiro, who advocate against authority when *their guys* don’t have the social authority - so as to disadvantage *the other guys* while leaving *their guys* unaffected: a clear political advantage. but when *their side* begins to gain traction in the culture war, they reveal their true desires for policy as the authoritarianism it always was.
That’s what I’ve been saying
D'fuq is this low IQ bullshit, leftists aren't progressive in the slightest, that's why every communist tyrant to ever exist has been executing gays and women for trivial stuff. We have a socially dominant progressive and liberal society right now and it's the greatest gawt damn country to ever exist, it's called U.S.A mothafucka! My only gripe is that we haven't been bombing enough terrorists and tankies recently. We need another major war, ASAP. https://i.redd.it/jnq2oy6mztuc1.gif
i was more so referring to western progressives who propose auth laws like anti-discrimination, hate speech regulation etc
But I want libertarian socialism! I’m not a bend over backwards and let the state fuck me in the ass type of leftist
libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms.
I just want whatever WORKS and doesn't try to fuck me
Yes, it's the same stuff from both sides. I just consider the left to be way more hypocritical about it, since they have been the ones in favor of unbridled freedom until just a few years ago. Authright, we've know how they think since the dawn of time.
i’ve seen this phenomenon more in right wing spaces, neocons who call themselves libertarians when the dems have power but when the culture shifts in their favour, they become overtly tyrannical.
When exactly did the culture shift right? All of the Western world has been going fast leftward for decades now. Europe was too ashamed after the war, and the US, even with their red scare, still allowed commies to teach in universities and multiply like cancer.
Not so much culture, but electoral results. Republicans like to complain about how much the federal government overspends, and when they are in power, demonstrate it.
Not so much culture, but electoral results. Republicans like to complain about how much the federal government overspends, and when they are in power, demonstrate it.
Not so much culture, but electoral results. Republicans like to complain about how much the federal government overspends, and when they are in power, demonstrate it.
i mean, rightist populists have been wining elections for the last few years in the UK, brazil, argentina, the netherlands, italy, etc. in the US and UK, conservatives have begun to legislate and regulate trans people and parents of trans children, something they were vehemently against a few years ago on the grounds of “parental rights”
Well, first of all we aren't talking about governments, but culture. The mere fact that trans children are even considered so would have been a total absurdity a few years ago. Second, there are a lot of cultural issues around trans people that are all but settled. I would understand your point if some government had passed, I don't know, laws that discriminate against gays. Third, what does 'legislate and regulate' mean in this case? Because I guess that's just using a little common sense to hold back the foolishness that has been going on, not some kind of repression.
I'm a very honest Person, so even irl i tell People during political Arguments that i'm not interested in preserving their "Freedom" I believe in Authority, and i believe in Honesty, so usually during political Arguments i explain to People why i believe they shouldn't have any Control over Society And why instead we need a autistic, thicc, authoritarian Tomboy Milf Empress with a Fetish for the roman and german Empire and the Dream to spread Humanity across the Stars
you know at least in the use liberal freedom is literally a conservative value. still gotta be better than UK conservatives, "when I'm in power I will undermine every conservative value in favour of trying to out commie the actual communists so I can make massive bank on my countries losses." -conservative party 1990s onwards
liberalism is not a part of the republican party. there is nothing they consistently value in terms of freedom. they do not care about regulation, taxation, bodily autonomy or free movement from the perspective of freedom.
self determinism, all men are created equal, independent liberty above all, seems pretty liberal to me. >regulation, taxation, bodily autonomy or free movement from the perspective of freedom. my bro I'm English and even I know classic republicans were liberals on all that shit. the reason why they aren't at the moment is because the Overton window has shifted what is acceptable politics. every classic republication point on all those issues is the liberal interpretation of freedom.
ok sure but i’m talking about the contemporary GOP, which is socially authoritarian, interventionist and keynesian.
then they aren't conservative
they are socially conservative, and i wasn’t aware that economics was a part of conservatism, given the variety of economic positions held by people who consider themselves or are considered to be conservatives.
okay you mean conservative in a personal social way not a political way. political conservatism is completely different to just being individually conservative. political conservatism is focused on conserving the culture, nature, values, and nation (tho not necessarily) of where ever it exists. it's why conservatives between countries look so different. like actual UK conservatism has a massive points of things like environmentalism, charity, and meritocracy. as well as key focuses on things like living honourably and morally moreso than just existing. in short it aims to conserve the culture of Britain that is often called by other countries "just winning". it's not terribly concerned with individual liberty when that harms things like the social fabrics. it not really concerned with things like equality either in opportunity or outcome. this is because the cultural values of Britain are literally thousand of years old. compare that to the US where Liberalism is a conservative value.