"Conservatives" and the right are not the ones responsible for the current mess in societies

[VCR-2000]

Everybody else (mostly from the media) is telling us that the "left" (socialists, communists, "social justice warriors") are the good guys who care about the disadvantaged and the right are the "bad" guys who are the racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. If not explicitly, it has become so pervasive to the point where a little of it has even spread to the "right-wing" side.

I am not a racist or homophobe just because I sympathize with many of the right-wing worldviews. Yet, people are insisting that people like me am. It's even affecting areas that were previously seen as "conservative" like the church and religion.

<Staff Edit>

 

[iluvatar5150]

There's a lot of blame to go around, but by and large, at this moment conservatives are (and tend to be) the ones digging in their heels and refusing to work towards evidence-based solutions and/or refusing to acknowledge that problems exist in the first place.

On the subject of bigotry, even if "conservative" does not equate to "bigot", the most charitable assessment of conservative ideology is that it tends to favor the maintaining of a libertarian status quo that, in practice, allows bigotry to flourish.

Perhaps if the right did a better job of policing itself, we wouldn't be having these issues.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't think any "racists, homophobes, sexists, etc" self identify. That is part of the problem.

I was just referred to MLK"s letter from Birmingham jail.

He says, "You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."

Maybe some relevance for today?
Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]

 

[remixedcat]

Try being a conservative EDM artist it's tough Many EDM communities shun sober ravers like me that don't dress badly, practice good behaviours, and don't dig bad lyrics. I prefer EDM with no lyrics... it turns it into a spiritual experience for me!

 

[tbstor]

There's a lot of blame to go around, but by and large, at this moment conservatives are (and tend to be) the ones digging in their heels and refusing to work towards evidence-based solutions and/or refusing to acknowledge that problems exist in the first place.

Yeah, because "evidence-based solutions" lead to this sort of argumentation. Proper conservatives are not moved by that sort of argumentation.

On the subject of bigotry, even if "conservative" does not equate to "bigot", the most charitable assessment of conservative ideology is that it tends to favor the maintaining of a libertarian status quo that, in practice, allows bigotry to flourish.

That's because people have a right to be bigots, especially if it is contained to their own private property.

Perhaps if the right did a better job of policing itself, we wouldn't be having these issues.

The left is literally burning down cities and rioting in the streets. But, yes, conservatives really need to police themselves. /s

 

[stevil]

Everybody else (mostly from the media) is telling us that the "left" (socialists, communists, "social justice warriors") are the good guys who care about the disadvantaged and the right are the "bad" guys who are the racists, homophobes, sexists, etc.

If you watch CNN (some people accuse them of being left biased) you will see they don't paint the world as "left" vs "right", "socialist" vs "populist". When CNN criticise, they are specific, they name the person or people and don't paint the whole "right" or the whole "Republicans" as being the problem.

If you watch FoxNews they regularly paint everything as left vs right and portray everyone on the left as being "crazy socialists".

The vast majority of people on the left aren't socialists or communists, this is a huge mischaracterisation made by Trump, his kids, FoxNews and many Trump supporters.

I am not a racist or homophobe just because I sympathize with many of the right-wing worldviews. Yet, people are insisting that people like me am. It's even affecting areas that were previously seen as "conservative" like the church and religion.

I'm mostly center. Financially I lean to the right, Socially (with regards to freedoms and liberty and diversity) I lean to the left.

As an outsider (not from USA), I struggle to see how someone who supports equality can be be happy supporting Trump and not criticise him at all. But I won't accuse all Trump supporters of being racists or homophobes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yeah, because "evidence-based solutions" lead to this sort of argumentation. Proper conservatives are not moved by that sort of argumentation.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to illustrate by referencing that thread except, perhaps, that the reason conservatives aren’t moved by that sort of argumentation is that they can’t understand it and can’t put together a coherent response to it. With the exception of your comments, I don’t think I saw a single one from a conservative position that wasn’t in some way ridiculous.

That's because people have a right to be bigots, especially if it is contained to their own private property.

They do have a right to be bigots, but we’ve seen what sort of destruction that bigotry can cause when allowed to influence commerce and the rest of society. We tried letting bigots have their way, and that was how we got Jim Crow. So we clamped down on it and placed limits on what sort of “private property” was allowed to let bigotry run free. And conservatives whined and moaned and fought against it the whole time.

The left is literally burning down cities and rioting in the streets. But, yes, conservatives really need to police themselves. /s

You guys are the ones who elected a president who built his political career on pushing a racist conspiracy theory, who continues to engage in racist attacks on opponents and throw out racist dog whistles to his base, and who hired a white nationalist and other alt-righters as senior advisers. You guys are the ones who continue to defend the romanticized notion of the confederacy and deny the truth behind the history of the monuments celebrating it. You guys are the ones who sought to undermine a movement trying to get black lives equal treatment.

Yeah, if conservatives don’t want to be associated with racists, maybe they should stop harboring racists.

 

[tbstor]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to illustrate by referencing that thread except, perhaps, that the reason conservatives aren’t moved by that sort of argumentation is that they can’t understand it and can’t put together a coherent response to it. With the exception of your comments, I don’t think I saw a single one from a conservative position that wasn’t in some way ridiculous.

It isn't that conservatives "can't understand" this sort of argumentation. Rather, it is that the argumentation doesn't even speak to the genuine concern of conservatives.

They do have a right to be bigots, but we’ve seen what sort of destruction that bigotry can cause when allowed to influence commerce and the rest of society. We tried letting bigots have their way, and that was how we got Jim Crow. So we clamped down on it and placed limits on what sort of “private property” was allowed to let bigotry run free. And conservatives whined and moaned and fought against it the whole time.

Okay, so people have the right to be bigots up until they become inconvenient? I'm not sure that's how rights work. Either people have the right to be bigots on their private property or they don't.

You guys are the ones who elected a president who built his political career on pushing a racist conspiracy theory, who continues to engage in racist attacks on opponents and throw out racist dog whistles to his base, and who hired a white nationalist and other alt-righters as senior advisers. You guys are the ones who continue to defend the romanticized notion of the confederacy and deny the truth behind the history of the monuments celebrating it. You guys are the ones who sought to undermine a movement trying to get black lives equal treatment.

Yeah, if conservatives don’t want to be associated with racists, maybe they should stop harboring racists.

While I appreciate your perspective, it literally has nothing to do with that I said. Conservatives are not the ones physically assaulting people and burning down cities. Leftists are. As someone who identifies with none of the groups in play right now, I can safely say Con Inc are not the ones who need to police themselves.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It isn't that conservatives "can't understand" this sort of argumentation. Rather, it is that the argumentation doesn't even speak to the genuine concern of conservatives.

I understand the genuine concern of conservatives, and contrary to your assertion, that OP's comments do address them - or, they at least address some of them. No, his comments don't address all of conservatives' concerns, but they do address an important point about the efficacy certain strategies with respect to achieving their alleged ends. And on that point, he's correct. Of the respondents in the thread, you were the only one I saw who tried to argue that the concerns were broader than that - everyone else took the typical right-wing response of incoherently shouting "baby killer!".

Okay, so people have the right to be bigots up until they become inconvenient? I'm not sure that's how rights work. Either people have the right to be bigots on their private property or they don't.

It depends on how you define "private property" - that can mean a lot of things in the US.

In the 1960's, we worked out a compromise - you can be a bigot on your private property if it's truly private. However, if your private property (i.e. privately-owned property) is somehow open to the public (e.g. you have customers or employees), then you can't be a bigot.

]
While I appreciate your perspective, it literally has nothing to do with that I said. Conservatives are not the ones physically assaulting people and burning down cities. Leftists are. As someone who identifies with none of the groups in play right now, I can safely say Con Inc are not the ones who need to police themselves.

This thread is about conservatives being painted as racists - my original comment was addressed towards that concern. Your comment about burning down cities was, effectively, a sarcastic whataboutism used as a weak rebuttal to my original comment. That the left could use its own housecleaning (a sentiment with which I agree, btw, though probably not to the degree to which you do) does not negate the right's need for one.

And yes, cons are physically assaulting people, too. So are police in some cases. Want video?

 

[tbstor]

I understand the genuine concern of conservatives, and contrary to your assertion, that OP's comments do address them - or, they at least address some of them. No, his comments don't address all of conservatives' concerns, but they do address an important point about the efficacy certain strategies with respect to achieving their alleged ends. And on that point, he's correct. Of the respondents in the thread, you were the only one I saw who tried to argue that the concerns were broader than that - everyone else took the typical right-wing response of incoherently shouting "baby killer!".

His comments really don't. The underlying assumption is that conservatives should be perfectly fine with the legality of abortion so long as it is being reduced in frequency. That isn't the case. It never will be the case. Conservatives don't tolerate abortion because it is immoral.

It depends on how you define "private property" - that can mean a lot of things in the US.

In the 1960's, we worked out a compromise - you can be a bigot on your private property if it's truly private. However, if your private property (i.e. privately-owned property) is somehow open to the public (e.g. you have customers or employees), then you can't be a bigot.

I disagree with that understanding, obviously. I think Goldwater had it about right.

This thread is about conservatives being painted as racists - my original comment was addressed towards that concern. Your comment about burning down cities was, effectively, a sarcastic whataboutism used as a weak rebuttal to my original comment. That the left could use its own housecleaning (a sentiment with which I agree, btw, though probably not to the degree to which you do) does not negate the right's need for one.

And yes, cons are physically assaulting people, too. So are police in some cases. Want video?

Assuming the charge of racism is true, it isn't nearly as alarming as what is happening on the left. I am much more comfortable with a "racist" president than violent mobs.

 

[iluvatar5150]

His comments really don't. The underlying assumption is that conservatives should be perfectly fine with the legality of abortion so long as it is being reduced in frequency. That isn't the case. It never will be the case. Conservatives don't tolerate abortion because it is immoral.

But conservatives often don't even pursue policies that reduce the frequency. It's like they're only trying to feed their self-righteous moralism, not actually fix the problem.

I disagree with that understanding, obviously. I think Goldwater had it about right.

Well, when you prioritize the rights of bigots to ostracize parts of society with their bigotry, you shouldn't be surprised when bigots start to warm up to your side and folks start having a hard time telling who's who.

Assuming the charge of racism is true

Birtherism was racist.
His comments about illegal immigrants were racist.
Telling The Squad to go back to where they came from was racist.
His recent comments about poor folks destroying suburbia was so obvious it's almost not a dog whistle.

, it isn't nearly as alarming as what is happening on the left. I am much more comfortable with a "racist" president than violent mobs.

You're not black, are you?

Again, if you're okay with that, don't be surprised when folks have a hard time telling the difference between racists and "real" conservatives.

 

[tbstor]

But conservatives often don't even pursue policies that reduce the frequency. It's like they're only trying to feed their self-righteous moralism, not actually fix the problem.

I agree with that. No one in their right mind should vote for a Republican or a Democrat (unless they're an accelerationist).

Well, when you prioritize the rights of bigots to ostracize parts of society with their bigotry, you shouldn't be surprised when bigots start to warm up to your side and folks start having a hard time telling who's who.

Folks have a hard time because they don't care about nuance.

Birtherism was racist.
His comments about illegal immigrants were racist.
Telling The Squad to go back to where they came from was racist.
His recent comments about poor folks destroying suburbia was so obvious it's almost not a dog whistle.

All subjective.

You're not black, are you?

Should I be?

 

[iluvatar5150]

All subjective.

Birtherism and the Squad comments only worked because the targets weren't white. It's not subjective to label as racist attacks that rely on the color of the target's skin in order to work.

Should I be?

It might inform your opinions on what's more dangerous - a localized mob or a racist with the power of the entire federal government at his fingertips.

Folks have a hard time because they don't care about nuance.

I love nuance, but the funny thing about it is that it often winds up being something of a pedantic, semantic shield for folks who want to obfuscate the truth and hide something darker.

In this thread, you've described the description of Trump's racist behaviors as "subjective", you've said the 1964 Civil Rights Act constituted inappropriate government overreach, and that you'd take a "'racist' president" over a mob. In another thread, you espoused a somewhat romanticized view of the confederacy and said that you have a pro-confederacy sticker on your vehicle.

I don't know you or your beliefs, but that's a lot of nuance to parse and there are a lot of people who check all those boxes who are just plain racist. And the right doesn't even try to weed them out.

 

[tbstor]

Birtherism and the Squad comments only worked because the targets weren't white. It's not subjective to label as racist attacks that rely on the color of the target's skin in order to work.

Does it rely on the color of their skin in order to work?

It might inform your opinions on what's more dangerous - a localized mob or a racist with the power of the entire federal government at his fingertips.

We still haven't established the latter exists.

I love nuance, but the funny thing about it is that it often winds up being something of a pedantic, semantic shield for folks who want to obfuscate the truth and hide something darker.

In this thread, you've described the description of Trump's racist behaviors as "subjective",

There is an assumption being made here. See if you can spot it.

you've said the 1964 Civil Rights Act constituted inappropriate government overreach,

Which is only controversial in 21st century politics (even still, it is not controversial in libertarian circles).

and that you'd take a "'racist' president" over a mob.

No. I said I'd rather have a "racist" president over violent mobs. A racist isn't inherently violent. A violent mob is.

In another thread, you espoused a somewhat romanticized view of the confederacy and said that you have a pro-confederacy sticker on your vehicle.

Yes. Ironic neo-Confederate. Unironic Lost Causer.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Does it rely on the color of their skin in order to work?

Yes, both were premised on the perception of non-white liberals as being non-American. The attacks don't work on white people.

There is an assumption being made here. See if you can spot it.

That I had not yet articulated my reasoning in this specific thread doesn't mean that it was an assumption on my part.

 

[tbstor]

Yes, both were premised on the perception of non-white liberals as being non-American. The attacks don't work on white people.

Why not? Could a white person not have (perceived) questionable origins (e.g., Ted Cruz)? Is Ilhan Omar not an immigrant from somewhere else? Could the same criticism not be leveled against a white immigrant?

That I had not yet articulated my reasoning in this specific thread doesn't mean that it was an assumption on my part.

It is an assumption because I have already contested it. You haven't justified it within this discussion.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why not? Could a white person not have (perceived) questionable origins (e.g., Ted Cruz)?

Sure, they could, but those concerns never seem to gain any traction when it's a light-skinned person.

Is Ilhan Omar not an immigrant from somewhere else?

Omar is - she's a naturalized citizen who came here as a refugee when she was a child. The other three were all born here.

Either way, the sentiment conveyed was that, regardless of their citizenship and constitutional rights, they're outsiders who have no business participating in our political process when their home countries (of which 3/4 are the US, of course) have problems.

Could the same criticism not be leveled against a white immigrant?

Sure, they could be. But they aren't and if they were, I doubt they'd stick.

It is an assumption because I have already contested it. You haven't justified it within this discussion.

Your contesting something I said doesn't make it an assumption on my part.

 

[tbstor]

Sure, they could, but those concerns never seem to gain any traction when it's a light-skinned person.

Has it ever stuck with anyone other than Obama? He's the same guy who had other hysterical criticisms (e.g., antichrist).

Omar is - she's a naturalized citizen who came here as a refugee when she was a child. The other three were all born here.

Either way, the sentiment conveyed was that, regardless of their citizenship and constitutional rights, they're outsiders who have no business participating in our political process when their home countries (of which 3/4 are the US, of course) have problems.

I took it as a commentary on their politics, not their ethnicities.

Your contesting something I said doesn't make it an assumption on my part.

It does when you assume it within the discussion without justifying it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Has it ever stuck with anyone other than Obama? He's the same guy who had other hysterical criticisms (e.g., antichrist).

Not that I can recall, which would lend credence to the theory that it's at least partly influenced by his skin color.

I took it as a commentary on their politics, not their ethnicities.

It's a combination of the two. You don't see these sort of charges leveled against conservatives and you don't see them leveled against folks with light skin. Rhetoric about being "real Americans" gets directed at liberals all the time, but not in the sense of accusing them of literally being from somewhere else.

It does when you assume it within the discussion without justifying it.

No, that still doesn't make it an assumption. If, for example, I stated that smoking causes cancer, but didn't provide sources, that wouldn't make my claim an assumption; it would make it unsupported within the context of the thread. The existence of a body of evidence <somewhere out there> supporting my statement is what makes it not an assumption, regardless of whether or not I've effectively communicated that evidence to the other thread participants.

 

[tbstor]

Not that I can recall, which would lend credence to the theory that it's at least partly influenced by his skin color.

Or that he was an exception. There have been non-whites in political office for over a century.

It's a combination of the two. You don't see these sort of charges leveled against conservatives and you don't see them leveled against folks with light skin. Rhetoric about being "real Americans" gets directed at liberals all the time, but not in the sense of accusing them of literally being from somewhere else.

And conservatives often get accused of being Nazis, but not in the sense of accusing them of literally being Nazis. This is just the nature of puddle politics.

No, that still doesn't make it an assumption. If, for example, I stated that smoking causes cancer, but didn't provide sources, that wouldn't make my claim an assumption; it would make it unsupported within the context of the thread. The existence of a body of evidence <somewhere out there> supporting my statement is what makes it not an assumption, regardless of whether or not I've effectively communicated that evidence to the other thread participants.

You say X. I contest X. You then use X to support an argument within our discussion. That is you assuming X to be true. I can either accept or reject that assumption since you haven't justified it. Considering I had previously rejected it, there shouldn't be any surprise that I rejected it again. You can continue to make arguments based on your assumption, but it won't move the needle.