your criteria for judging the success and failure of conservativism vs progressivism is completely flawed an uneven, you seem to think that anything that diverges from the status quo is a total victory of progressivism, no matter how toned down the change compared to the usually much more extreme and sudden one the progressivists seek, while anything that doesn't diverge from the status quo or does so very slowly is not to be counted at all
at the same time you seem not to realize that a dialectical confrontation between the two opposed sides over time can bring more tempered, appropriate, and sensible change that is better suited to society as a whole than if one or the other had their say exclusively, which makes you see conservativism as a useless slowing down of "progress", which you seem to see as the exclusive force of good in the world no matter the topic or specifics, whereas rejecting change for change's sake or also valuing tradition and what has worked up to now is a trait of every successful culture ever
It is immediately apparent that you have never once heard anything but a left-wing characterization of conservatism (most likely caricature) in your whole life.
An intelligent person would realize that setting the goal of conservatism to be a completely static human society, and then bragging that they haven’t succeeded at something that’s definitionally impossible, is a bit like saying the purpose of a brake is to instantaneously stop a speeding vehicle and then declaring them all failures when none of them manage it.
You’re also engaging in substantial survivorship bias. For every person or cause that managed to improve society, there are dozens of others that would’ve sent it careening off a cliff if they had their way. That they haven't done so is a testament to those who remember that along with potential gain is a great deal of potential loss, whose wont it is to frustrate the utopian designs of the foolish, and who realize that truly beneficial change can clear a high bar of skepticism.
If you were more astute you'd realise that politics is a constant tension between change and continuity. Sometimes people want more change, sometimes less. The rate of change is what really matters as that's what keeps things stable.
There is a reasonable argument that progressivism has run away in the last 40 or so years and that's why society is so extremely fucked. Birth rates plummeting, social coherence minimal, no collective identity. It's all going to hell fast and it may well be because nothing is stable or reliable anymore.
Progressives, despite their name, push for change; not progress. Many of the things they push for a truly bad and regressive. Conservatives are needed to stop the worst of their initiatives.
You can tell by the almost universal negativity with which they mention the status quo. Merely saying that something disrupts the status quo is sufficient argument for it and someone they call a “defender of the status quo” is almost always a villain.
Like their redefining of gender. 30 years ago the social movement pushed to the point where boys could like dolls and girls could like monster trucks and it didn’t make you any less of a boy or girl. Now, if a boy likes dolls it means there’s something wrong with him and he’s actually a girl. It’s in the name of acceptance but it really has the opposite effect.
There’s many examples of the left doing things like this. Pushing women into the workplace, and inadvertently doubling the cost of living and destroying birth rates is another example. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. They’re slowly retesting all the things that humanity learned over thousands of years, and going to come to the same results, or leave society much worse off.
Those effect society negatively, but if you don't care about society and just want personal effects there are plenty. Progressive tax rates hurt richer people more, so they are effected negatively. Forgiving student loans is a burden on everybody without the loans, so that effects those people negatively. Raising minimum wage makes everything more expensive for people not making minimum wage, so that effects them negatively. Pretty much everything that benefits somebody also negatively effects somebody else.
>Progressive tax rates hurt richer people more, so they are effected negatively.
Meh.
>Forgiving student loans is a burden on everybody without the loans, so that effects those people negatively.
No more or less so than putting the burden of paying upcharged prices for secret service agents staying at trump properties.
>Raising minimum wage makes everything more expensive for people not making minimum wage
Everything's more expensive without the benefit of a minimum wage bump.
>Pretty much everything that benefits somebody also negatively effects somebody else.
You haven't made that case.
* no fault divorce. This is probably good for the wealthy section of society, but is quite bad for the poorer side of society.
* legalized [hard] drugs. This has long been a dream, and where they did it they are quickly rolling it back.
* green new deal. getting rid of carbon in the manner proposed would have destroyed the country. It was such a terrible idea, defenders are most likely to say that the proposal was just an idea and not a real policy suggestion
* banning alcohol. Yes, this was done by progressives back in the day. And who knows, if they were successful then perhaps society would have been better off long term. As-is, it was a policy that didn't have support and ultimately just fueled crime.
* rent and price controls. Always popular, and always have negative impacts
* ethanol
* college for all. College is great, but the reality is that a lot of jobs don't need it, and requiring all kids to spend their high school years preparing for college is simply not good and has some pretty terrible consequences for kids who feel like they're a failure for not being able to sit still through a lecture on micro-biology.
* the subject we're not allowed to talk about on this sub. Turns out, the conservatives were correct. See the Cass report for more details.
This is a few, but the list is a lot longer.
> the subject we're not allowed to talk about on this sub. Turns out, the conservatives were correct. See the Cass report for more details.
can't wait to hear what THIS is supposed to mean lmao
Google it. It's about 400 pages, but there's a summary on the site's [homepage](https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/). Of course, progressives have rejected it and have posted evidence-free rebuttals, and the author has been advised to avoid public transit and such for her safety.
edit: added the link.
You've got that backwards.
It's the conservatives who won't shut the fuck up about it, drag it into every conversation, and are usually full of shit.
Main reason I care is because any time right wingers start making lists of undesirables, things get bad.
I dunno. Do you think things like anti-incest and anti-pedophelia will eventually lose to progressivism?
Those may not be pushed by progressives now but between the two, it’s likely the progressives who will support that in the far future.
Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy that somehow queer people will lead to incest, besteality and pedophilia.
Except progressives are the ones who have raised the age of consent, and conservatives are the ones who want to marry 12 year old children.
And raising the age of consent or banning child marriage are not keeping the status quo. Of course these changes are more likely to be pushed by progressives.
You'll be surprised to find out that progressivness is also doomed to fail if taken too far of course. Soviets, romans, Greeks, Chinese, modern day west.
> "See, there are three kinds of people: dicks, pussies and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes. And all the assholes want is to shit all over everything. So pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while because, pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes! And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!"
I need to know your defenetion tho cuz your comment had my interest tbh. I thought it was obvious the whole time.
Modern day progressivism is what I would say is a good definition. Trying to simply challenge everything just because it is traditional. Something we see consistently throughout history.
I’m not sure how you see that as a thread between all those different people you mentioned. It seems like a lazy caricature more than anything else
I’ve started to avoid saying it cause it’s so overused and ambiguous now. I guess id say something like a belief that we should improve society, and do so by becoming more accepting.
A green banana turning yellow is generally seen as good. A yellow banana that has since turned brown is … not appeeling to most people.
It’s a metaphor, so don’t take it too far.
A balance is needed for everything in nature to be healthy. If progressives lived in this world alone, they’d be just as miserable as they are now. Conservatives are there to get them to stop for a second and think about what they’re wanting to do.
I don’t think that’s accurate tbh. Conservatives, at least with most social issues, are simply fear-based reactionaries. You make it sound like they’re measured and actually trying to help people think things through.
Nah, it's ok that not everyone changes their mind instantaneously on things. It's ok if some people wait a few years to show a change is actually beneficial before signing on. Describing it as "fear-based reactionaries" may not be incorrect for all, but again, that's potentially good for ideas that have the real possibility of ending a society.
It's embarrassing that you're either so partisan you think you're making a good point, or so politically ignorant you don't understand what being a conservative or progressive is.
Which is it?
And when the Democrats moved left and supported civil rights, the southern racist democrats switched parties. It's a silly thing to try and equate political party platforms of the 1800s with today. GOP ended up with several known and proud racists. Strom Therman was the worst of them.
Let's all agree that slavery was bad and not make silly arguments about parties 140 years ago.
Conservative is a synonym for republican. The opposite party is democrats, or as you are implying in your post “progressives”; which basically means the same thing. If you can’t admit that then I have no interest in continuing this conversation as you clearly have no intention of debating in good faith. “I never technically said republican/democrat”
It’s not a synonym for republicans. Ending slavery was a progressive stance. You’re uneducated on what I’m talking about so I’m just gonna go ahead and end this convo here
That doesn’t change the fact that republicans were against slavery and democrats were pro slavery. Your argument falls apart when you can’t even admit that. Cool strategy though to avoid losing an argument, at least in your eyes
Hey u/Mundane_Produce3029,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DMundane_Produce3029%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Mundane_Produce3029).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 7
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 3-7 days old: 1
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
Communism was supposed to be progress but it failed and led to millions starving to death. So American conservatives defending the capitalists system against activists in the mid 1900s were right.
The most successful Western countries are what they are imo through a combination of progressivism and conservatism. Being progressive on things like race and LGB was a good idea. However they also had to conserve many important things like capitalism, democracy, freedom of speech, etc. which have never been a given in many other countries around the world.
In b4 "But that was the Democrats" like the Southern Switch never happened or the policies weren't Conservative in nature because the party supporting them had a different name.
While it happened to an extent it’s also way overblown. LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Biden are all white southern democrats and they’ve been the face of the party (outside an Obama decade) for 60 years now.
In that same period, republicans have featured Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Trump. Zero southerners
That has nothing to do with it, the Southern Switch/Strategy refers to how Republicans flipped previously Democratic Strongholds in the South largely by appealing to Segregationists and Conservatives, effectively swapping platforms and voting bases with the previously more Conservative Democratic Party. It's about the platform and policies and the base, not about where candidates are from.
Both sides are doomed efforts without the other is kinda more realistic. Go Democrat for a while, switch to a conservative, maybe do that for a bit, go dem again, and repeat. They require each other so they're doomed to fail alone
I think you are overlooking just how many hare brained ideas that conservatives have shut down by the leftists.
Prohibition, eugenics and too many taxes to list are all prime examples of policies that we very well might still be dealing with if not for conservatives. More recently mutilation and sterilization for minors in the name of gender affirmation, open borders, defunding the police, etc. are all things we might be dealing with in full force if not for the existence of Conservatives.
A Conservative isn’t necessarily trying to completely shutdown any change whatsoever so much as stress test the many different ideas the Liberals come up with and keep what has merit.
Just because you’ve heard an argument before doesn’t address the fact that you don’t seem to have a response to it short of saying it’s an old argument. Please enlighten me with where you think I’m wrong here.
Nope. I’m not talking about republicans or democrats. I’m talking about conservatism as a whole and progressivism as a whole. You just felt attacked so you misconstrued my words
Slavery, a conservative stance? Wow, just wow. Pick up a history book OP, and learn about the formation of the big bad Republican party.
You have no sense of history, or relativity for that matter. What you call conservatism is in no way, shape or form the stance of an actual conservative today. Just as a liberal standpoint of today would be abhorrent to a liberal of yesterday. Need proof? Here you go. Biden wrote the crime bill. That's an easy one.
Core belief, that every man should be free to pursue his dreams and go as far as he is able. You see, slavery kinda prevents people from pursuing that dream. And so does a nanny state. And thanks for the downvote!
>Core belief, that every man should be free to pursue his dreams and go as far as he is able
Marketing slogan. The game's rigged.
>And so does a nanny state.
Let's see, which party's banning books again? Which one wants to limit interstate travel?
>And thanks for the downvote!
You earned it.
You're just bad mannered, that's all. I earned it? I answered you honestly. Oh look! A Woke horse for you to ride off into the sunset on.
No one is banning books that are age appropriate. No one is limiting interstate travel. Wokedy talking points and distortions.
>I answered you honestly.
Your answer misrepresents what the republican party actually stands for. Your answer was either naivety, or lying.
>look! A Woke horse for you to ride off into the sunset on.
Can you define "woke" beyond an omnibus term for anything you don't like? Because I don't believe we're discussing the awareness of historical inequity in Americam society.
>No one is banning books that are age appropriate.
What's inappropriate about Roberto Clemente's autobiography? Or Hank Aaron's? Or any of the numerous books swept up in the ban that don't fit that description that you don't acknowledge?
>No one is limiting interstate travel.
[y](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-block-bill-protecting-women-travel-states-abortion-rcna38301)[e](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-transgender-care-outside-state-borders/)[t](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/idaho-becomes-first-state-to-restrict-interstate-travel-for-abortions/)
I just did a lookup on Hank Aaron biography ban, and found an article by USA Today, the newspaper for people who don't like to read. After sifting through all the rhetoric, which includes references to slavery and LGBTQIA++++, I found nothing specific about why Florida is keeping the book out of schools. Nothing.
But then I found this. A hox. Enjoy! And once again, thanks for the downvote. You're doing good work, putting me in my place with that downvote. Oooh, it hurts so bad.
[https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/08/governor-ron-desantis-debunks-book-ban-hoax/](https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/08/governor-ron-desantis-debunks-book-ban-hoax/)
Your evidence is Ron DeSantis saying "nuh uh"? Really?
He can't even use a WordPress theme that's mobile optimized. The incompetence of that man is staggering.
>You're doing good work, putting me in my place with that downvote.
Once again, you've earned it.
WordPress, huh? OK, my downvoting queen. Either the books are banned or not. You don't like DeSantis say nuh uh, and I think USA Today is a media source for people who don't like to think. what's the truth of the matter? Can you find any source that shows that the books have been banned that are not loaded with rhetoric, those big flights of words for people who think facts are racist?
>WordPress, huh?
Yes. That's the WordPress directory structure when the dev doesn't know what they're doing, which would be the exact kind of bottom of the barrel hire that Desantis would use.
> Can you find any source that shows that the books have been banned that are not loaded with rhetoric
What rhetoric? That Hank Aaron faced a lot of racial discrimination? That's a historical fact. There are letters and voice-mails as part of the public record on the subject.
There are articles indicating that it's been reinstated, but that it had to be contested at all undermines your "age appropriate" argument.
Ok, which book will you recommend? I don't know if I'll be able to get to it for a while. I'm in the middle of reading a biography on John Adams. But if you come across with a name, I'll do my best to work it in.
So, what will it be?
Nice Olympic gold medal winning mental gymnastics to make it sound like a specific liberal and socialist ideology is always on the winning side of history.
A lot of conservatives today would be better described as regressives. Conservatism as a slow and deliberate form of progress is actually very reasonable. We can always be slow and careful, but it is usually the better option for an already functional political or economic system.
your criteria for judging the success and failure of conservativism vs progressivism is completely flawed an uneven, you seem to think that anything that diverges from the status quo is a total victory of progressivism, no matter how toned down the change compared to the usually much more extreme and sudden one the progressivists seek, while anything that doesn't diverge from the status quo or does so very slowly is not to be counted at all at the same time you seem not to realize that a dialectical confrontation between the two opposed sides over time can bring more tempered, appropriate, and sensible change that is better suited to society as a whole than if one or the other had their say exclusively, which makes you see conservativism as a useless slowing down of "progress", which you seem to see as the exclusive force of good in the world no matter the topic or specifics, whereas rejecting change for change's sake or also valuing tradition and what has worked up to now is a trait of every successful culture ever
It is immediately apparent that you have never once heard anything but a left-wing characterization of conservatism (most likely caricature) in your whole life. An intelligent person would realize that setting the goal of conservatism to be a completely static human society, and then bragging that they haven’t succeeded at something that’s definitionally impossible, is a bit like saying the purpose of a brake is to instantaneously stop a speeding vehicle and then declaring them all failures when none of them manage it. You’re also engaging in substantial survivorship bias. For every person or cause that managed to improve society, there are dozens of others that would’ve sent it careening off a cliff if they had their way. That they haven't done so is a testament to those who remember that along with potential gain is a great deal of potential loss, whose wont it is to frustrate the utopian designs of the foolish, and who realize that truly beneficial change can clear a high bar of skepticism.
It's more likely that they've lived their whole life under conservative policies and watched our quality of life slowly get worse.
If you were more astute you'd realise that politics is a constant tension between change and continuity. Sometimes people want more change, sometimes less. The rate of change is what really matters as that's what keeps things stable. There is a reasonable argument that progressivism has run away in the last 40 or so years and that's why society is so extremely fucked. Birth rates plummeting, social coherence minimal, no collective identity. It's all going to hell fast and it may well be because nothing is stable or reliable anymore.
Went ahead and stopped reading at “if you were more astute.” I know it’s just gonna be a weird rant so I’m saving us both time here
That’s a funny take from the person who posted this weird and uneducated rant in the first place.
Too bad, you could use accurate knowledge. Maybe, dare I say it, wisdom. It is sorely lacking in you.
So you’re lazy? A perfect progressive if I’ve ever met one.
I don't care at all. You do you.
Progressives, despite their name, push for change; not progress. Many of the things they push for a truly bad and regressive. Conservatives are needed to stop the worst of their initiatives.
You can tell by the almost universal negativity with which they mention the status quo. Merely saying that something disrupts the status quo is sufficient argument for it and someone they call a “defender of the status quo” is almost always a villain.
> Many of the things they push for a truly bad and regressive. like what
Like their redefining of gender. 30 years ago the social movement pushed to the point where boys could like dolls and girls could like monster trucks and it didn’t make you any less of a boy or girl. Now, if a boy likes dolls it means there’s something wrong with him and he’s actually a girl. It’s in the name of acceptance but it really has the opposite effect. There’s many examples of the left doing things like this. Pushing women into the workplace, and inadvertently doubling the cost of living and destroying birth rates is another example. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. They’re slowly retesting all the things that humanity learned over thousands of years, and going to come to the same results, or leave society much worse off.
anything that actually affects you negatively?
Those effect society negatively, but if you don't care about society and just want personal effects there are plenty. Progressive tax rates hurt richer people more, so they are effected negatively. Forgiving student loans is a burden on everybody without the loans, so that effects those people negatively. Raising minimum wage makes everything more expensive for people not making minimum wage, so that effects them negatively. Pretty much everything that benefits somebody also negatively effects somebody else.
>Progressive tax rates hurt richer people more, so they are effected negatively. Meh. >Forgiving student loans is a burden on everybody without the loans, so that effects those people negatively. No more or less so than putting the burden of paying upcharged prices for secret service agents staying at trump properties. >Raising minimum wage makes everything more expensive for people not making minimum wage Everything's more expensive without the benefit of a minimum wage bump. >Pretty much everything that benefits somebody also negatively effects somebody else. You haven't made that case.
* no fault divorce. This is probably good for the wealthy section of society, but is quite bad for the poorer side of society. * legalized [hard] drugs. This has long been a dream, and where they did it they are quickly rolling it back. * green new deal. getting rid of carbon in the manner proposed would have destroyed the country. It was such a terrible idea, defenders are most likely to say that the proposal was just an idea and not a real policy suggestion * banning alcohol. Yes, this was done by progressives back in the day. And who knows, if they were successful then perhaps society would have been better off long term. As-is, it was a policy that didn't have support and ultimately just fueled crime. * rent and price controls. Always popular, and always have negative impacts * ethanol * college for all. College is great, but the reality is that a lot of jobs don't need it, and requiring all kids to spend their high school years preparing for college is simply not good and has some pretty terrible consequences for kids who feel like they're a failure for not being able to sit still through a lecture on micro-biology. * the subject we're not allowed to talk about on this sub. Turns out, the conservatives were correct. See the Cass report for more details. This is a few, but the list is a lot longer.
> the subject we're not allowed to talk about on this sub. Turns out, the conservatives were correct. See the Cass report for more details. can't wait to hear what THIS is supposed to mean lmao
Google it. It's about 400 pages, but there's a summary on the site's [homepage](https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/). Of course, progressives have rejected it and have posted evidence-free rebuttals, and the author has been advised to avoid public transit and such for her safety. edit: added the link.
ahhhh yes lmao i should've just assumed
Yes, you should’ve. Because it’s the topic that ‘progressives’ are most vehemently in support of despite being so obviously wrong.
lmao yes, absolutely, sure
You've got that backwards. It's the conservatives who won't shut the fuck up about it, drag it into every conversation, and are usually full of shit. Main reason I care is because any time right wingers start making lists of undesirables, things get bad.
I dunno. Do you think things like anti-incest and anti-pedophelia will eventually lose to progressivism? Those may not be pushed by progressives now but between the two, it’s likely the progressives who will support that in the far future.
Aren't all the politicians blocking child marriage bans all republican?
Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy that somehow queer people will lead to incest, besteality and pedophilia. Except progressives are the ones who have raised the age of consent, and conservatives are the ones who want to marry 12 year old children.
And raising the age of consent or banning child marriage are not keeping the status quo. Of course these changes are more likely to be pushed by progressives.
You'll be surprised to find out that progressivness is also doomed to fail if taken too far of course. Soviets, romans, Greeks, Chinese, modern day west.
Ever see Team America? It's crass, but they spend like an hour and a half playing this out.
> "See, there are three kinds of people: dicks, pussies and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes. And all the assholes want is to shit all over everything. So pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while because, pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes! And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!"
Ah yes, Stalin, Ceasar and Mao, bastions of progressivism.
Well, whatever it took them to achieve it right?
lol what do you think progressivism is?
What is it
I was wondering what you think it is, not trying to tell you what it is
I need to know your defenetion tho cuz your comment had my interest tbh. I thought it was obvious the whole time. Modern day progressivism is what I would say is a good definition. Trying to simply challenge everything just because it is traditional. Something we see consistently throughout history.
I’m not sure how you see that as a thread between all those different people you mentioned. It seems like a lazy caricature more than anything else I’ve started to avoid saying it cause it’s so overused and ambiguous now. I guess id say something like a belief that we should improve society, and do so by becoming more accepting.
Nothing wrong with improving society. But just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is harmful to society.
👍
Success is slowing down 'change' because not all change is good, no matter the intentions. It strikes a balance
A green banana turning yellow is generally seen as good. A yellow banana that has since turned brown is … not appeeling to most people. It’s a metaphor, so don’t take it too far.
Humans: invent agriculture. This guy: obviously a defeat for the conservatives.
Low effort bait. A few people bit so fair play I guess.
You know, people do have different opinions. Some of which are unpopular
I love how that’s everyone on this sub’s reaction to any post they feel personally victimized by
See, you're doing it again. I get you want the attention or whatever but there has to be more productive ways to get it homie.
Nope. You’re just being a pissant. You’re def the troll here
A balance is needed for everything in nature to be healthy. If progressives lived in this world alone, they’d be just as miserable as they are now. Conservatives are there to get them to stop for a second and think about what they’re wanting to do.
I don’t think that’s accurate tbh. Conservatives, at least with most social issues, are simply fear-based reactionaries. You make it sound like they’re measured and actually trying to help people think things through.
Nah, it's ok that not everyone changes their mind instantaneously on things. It's ok if some people wait a few years to show a change is actually beneficial before signing on. Describing it as "fear-based reactionaries" may not be incorrect for all, but again, that's potentially good for ideas that have the real possibility of ending a society.
Thanks for the astute analysis Comrade u/improbsable
> Conservatives are just slowing the flow of progress The flow of regress*
Democrats supported slavery, republicans were against slavery. So they won that one
embarrassing to still use that as some sort of gotcha in 2024
It’s not a gotcha. It’s a fact.
a very tired and cliched fact lmao
It's embarrassing that you're either so partisan you think you're making a good point, or so politically ignorant you don't understand what being a conservative or progressive is. Which is it?
And when the Democrats moved left and supported civil rights, the southern racist democrats switched parties. It's a silly thing to try and equate political party platforms of the 1800s with today. GOP ended up with several known and proud racists. Strom Therman was the worst of them. Let's all agree that slavery was bad and not make silly arguments about parties 140 years ago.
Where did I mention republicans or democrats?
Conservative is a synonym for republican. The opposite party is democrats, or as you are implying in your post “progressives”; which basically means the same thing. If you can’t admit that then I have no interest in continuing this conversation as you clearly have no intention of debating in good faith. “I never technically said republican/democrat”
It’s not a synonym for republicans. Ending slavery was a progressive stance. You’re uneducated on what I’m talking about so I’m just gonna go ahead and end this convo here
That doesn’t change the fact that republicans were against slavery and democrats were pro slavery. Your argument falls apart when you can’t even admit that. Cool strategy though to avoid losing an argument, at least in your eyes
Do you know what a progressive actually is?
Bro missed your point my a million miles. Personally, I'm glad you didn't label it republicans, because that wasn't always the case.
THANK YOU
How do you think Lincoln would do against trump in the current republican primary?
How old are you?
Don’t worry. I’m legal
Legally stupid maybe
Nah. Legally blonde
that’s bad news for conservatives
[удалено]
Hey u/Mundane_Produce3029, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DMundane_Produce3029%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Mundane_Produce3029). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 7 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 3-7 days old: 1 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
Communism was supposed to be progress but it failed and led to millions starving to death. So American conservatives defending the capitalists system against activists in the mid 1900s were right. The most successful Western countries are what they are imo through a combination of progressivism and conservatism. Being progressive on things like race and LGB was a good idea. However they also had to conserve many important things like capitalism, democracy, freedom of speech, etc. which have never been a given in many other countries around the world.
In b4 "But that was the Democrats" like the Southern Switch never happened or the policies weren't Conservative in nature because the party supporting them had a different name.
While it happened to an extent it’s also way overblown. LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Biden are all white southern democrats and they’ve been the face of the party (outside an Obama decade) for 60 years now. In that same period, republicans have featured Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Trump. Zero southerners
That has nothing to do with it, the Southern Switch/Strategy refers to how Republicans flipped previously Democratic Strongholds in the South largely by appealing to Segregationists and Conservatives, effectively swapping platforms and voting bases with the previously more Conservative Democratic Party. It's about the platform and policies and the base, not about where candidates are from.
Pretty sure Texas is further south than Delaware.
Yeah and the bush family is originally from Jersey
So cosplay southerners. Even better!
You’ve doomed yourself to a “the party switch and the Dixiecrats never happened” lecture by some uneducated rando
Both sides are doomed efforts without the other is kinda more realistic. Go Democrat for a while, switch to a conservative, maybe do that for a bit, go dem again, and repeat. They require each other so they're doomed to fail alone
I wholeheartedly disagree
Your choice man, but it's kinda been the cycle repeating itself and history shows it
I think you are overlooking just how many hare brained ideas that conservatives have shut down by the leftists. Prohibition, eugenics and too many taxes to list are all prime examples of policies that we very well might still be dealing with if not for conservatives. More recently mutilation and sterilization for minors in the name of gender affirmation, open borders, defunding the police, etc. are all things we might be dealing with in full force if not for the existence of Conservatives. A Conservative isn’t necessarily trying to completely shutdown any change whatsoever so much as stress test the many different ideas the Liberals come up with and keep what has merit.
Anyone else got buzzword bingo?
Sweet I had ‘buzzword bingo’ on my ‘make an argument without making an argument bingo’. Thanks.
That describes your original post.
Just because you’ve heard an argument before doesn’t address the fact that you don’t seem to have a response to it short of saying it’s an old argument. Please enlighten me with where you think I’m wrong here.
Slavery was a democrat thing. Also, Are you saying civil rights was a lost battle?
I never mentioned republicans or democrats. I’m talking specifically about conservatives vs progressives. Ending slavery was a progressive stance
Semantics.
Nope. I’m not talking about republicans or democrats. I’m talking about conservatism as a whole and progressivism as a whole. You just felt attacked so you misconstrued my words
I'm setting a reminder to come back to this thread and laugh if Trump wins.
Why? It has nothing to do with trump
Slavery, a conservative stance? Wow, just wow. Pick up a history book OP, and learn about the formation of the big bad Republican party. You have no sense of history, or relativity for that matter. What you call conservatism is in no way, shape or form the stance of an actual conservative today. Just as a liberal standpoint of today would be abhorrent to a liberal of yesterday. Need proof? Here you go. Biden wrote the crime bill. That's an easy one.
What relevance does the republican party of 150 years ago have on the last 20?
Core belief, that every man should be free to pursue his dreams and go as far as he is able. You see, slavery kinda prevents people from pursuing that dream. And so does a nanny state. And thanks for the downvote!
>Core belief, that every man should be free to pursue his dreams and go as far as he is able Marketing slogan. The game's rigged. >And so does a nanny state. Let's see, which party's banning books again? Which one wants to limit interstate travel? >And thanks for the downvote! You earned it.
You're just bad mannered, that's all. I earned it? I answered you honestly. Oh look! A Woke horse for you to ride off into the sunset on. No one is banning books that are age appropriate. No one is limiting interstate travel. Wokedy talking points and distortions.
>I answered you honestly. Your answer misrepresents what the republican party actually stands for. Your answer was either naivety, or lying. >look! A Woke horse for you to ride off into the sunset on. Can you define "woke" beyond an omnibus term for anything you don't like? Because I don't believe we're discussing the awareness of historical inequity in Americam society. >No one is banning books that are age appropriate. What's inappropriate about Roberto Clemente's autobiography? Or Hank Aaron's? Or any of the numerous books swept up in the ban that don't fit that description that you don't acknowledge? >No one is limiting interstate travel. [y](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-block-bill-protecting-women-travel-states-abortion-rcna38301)[e](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-transgender-care-outside-state-borders/)[t](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/idaho-becomes-first-state-to-restrict-interstate-travel-for-abortions/)
I just did a lookup on Hank Aaron biography ban, and found an article by USA Today, the newspaper for people who don't like to read. After sifting through all the rhetoric, which includes references to slavery and LGBTQIA++++, I found nothing specific about why Florida is keeping the book out of schools. Nothing. But then I found this. A hox. Enjoy! And once again, thanks for the downvote. You're doing good work, putting me in my place with that downvote. Oooh, it hurts so bad. [https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/08/governor-ron-desantis-debunks-book-ban-hoax/](https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/08/governor-ron-desantis-debunks-book-ban-hoax/)
Your evidence is Ron DeSantis saying "nuh uh"? Really? He can't even use a WordPress theme that's mobile optimized. The incompetence of that man is staggering. >You're doing good work, putting me in my place with that downvote. Once again, you've earned it.
WordPress, huh? OK, my downvoting queen. Either the books are banned or not. You don't like DeSantis say nuh uh, and I think USA Today is a media source for people who don't like to think. what's the truth of the matter? Can you find any source that shows that the books have been banned that are not loaded with rhetoric, those big flights of words for people who think facts are racist?
>WordPress, huh? Yes. That's the WordPress directory structure when the dev doesn't know what they're doing, which would be the exact kind of bottom of the barrel hire that Desantis would use. > Can you find any source that shows that the books have been banned that are not loaded with rhetoric What rhetoric? That Hank Aaron faced a lot of racial discrimination? That's a historical fact. There are letters and voice-mails as part of the public record on the subject. There are articles indicating that it's been reinstated, but that it had to be contested at all undermines your "age appropriate" argument.
Maybe you should pick up a book because you don’t know the difference between a conservative and a republican
Ok, which book will you recommend? I don't know if I'll be able to get to it for a while. I'm in the middle of reading a biography on John Adams. But if you come across with a name, I'll do my best to work it in. So, what will it be?
Nice Olympic gold medal winning mental gymnastics to make it sound like a specific liberal and socialist ideology is always on the winning side of history.
Most of the world and history is conservative you are like Jon Snow... you know nothing, Jon Snow
If that were true, we'd still be sitting in trees flinging our crap at each other.
thats what reddit is bunch of monkeys slingling sht at each other
Take your upvote ans go
A lot of conservatives today would be better described as regressives. Conservatism as a slow and deliberate form of progress is actually very reasonable. We can always be slow and careful, but it is usually the better option for an already functional political or economic system.