Question on Conservative Mindset

[Seismosaurus]

The post writer has said they aren't talking political.

But if you want to make it that. A shed load.

I'll grant you not US

So none, then.

Is the thread "Question on Conservative Mindset" now narrowed down even further to US conservative politicians?

I was certainly under that impression, yes.

 

[cullennz]

Being for public transport isn't expecting people to walk everywhere.

It is when you see what the left local politicians have done to our cities roads.

I should have added cycle every as well, like the 1800's

They have put ridiculously badly planned expensive cycle lanes no one uses on very wide roads that don't need them, making traffic atrocious and wiping out any carparks outside small businesses, which as an affect are going broke.

The Greens who are recently part of govt cancelled all motorway already planned motorway improvements and instead are spending the money on light rail to an airport, because they want cars off the road.

It is too complicated to go into properly and would divert the thread so, that is just a few highlights

 

[Meadmaker]

Seems the older you are, the more of a stake you have on the status quo.

This might make sense in the fiscal debate.

Many years ago, the mother of my girlfriend was commenting about young people's idealism and opined, "You tend to get more conservative when you acquire more to conserve."

 

[novaphile]

There's a lot of straw around here.

Think I may have to do that strawbale extension after all.

 

[cullennz]

So none, then.


I was certainly under that impression, yes.

I haven't given american politics nitty gritty detail that much attention

Interesting impression to be under given the generic title and the fact it is an international forum

 

[kellyb]

Many years ago, the mother of my girlfriend was commenting about young people's idealism and opined, "You tend to get more conservative when you acquire more to conserve."

Which is why the old truism about people getting more conservative as they age isn't holding true any longer, since the younger Gen X and onward generations are the first to have significantly lower standards of living than our parents did. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/

 

[jimbob]

Because he is by definition of a conservative mindset. The political group doesn't own the word. I was asking for people who are also conservatively minded to help me understand what this person is thinking. Hence, that's what I wrote. You chose to take an adjective and turn it into a name, which is confusing because nothing I wrote in the op supports that interpretation. did you read the op?

as for point 2, why then did you repeatedly demanded that I defend those statements when I didn't say it? You've asked me over and over to defend a viewpoint I don't hold about a group I didn't mention and am not talking about.

If you yourself are of a conservative bent I would very much like to hear your thoughts on why the individual in the OP would feel and act the way he did. Otherwise can we please stop derailing the thread now?

From another thread:

Yes, but logical consistency isn't exactly a strong point of such people -

I have a copy of "Uses and abuses of Psychology by Hans Eysenck (Pelican, 1953) and will type out a bit from the following:

Page 267 (Chapter - The psychology of anti-Semitism)

In actual fact, a person who holds one unfavourable view regarding the Jews will tend very strongly to hold other unfavourable views, even though the two views may be logically incompatible. Thus, for instance, one and the same person may believe that Jews are too seclusive, keeping themselves to themselves and not mixing with Gentiles, and also that they are too intrusive, trying to be over-assimilative.

<longish snip>

This finding is important because it shows that we cannot deal with anti-Semitism in isolation. Anti-Jewish prejudice in a way is merely accidental; where there are no Jews, other groups will take their place. The Jews merely stand in for the 'out-group', and prejudices regarding them are created regardless of their own behaviour by certain quite general processes in the psychology of the anti-Semite. If we wish to deal with anti-Semitism, therefore, we must broaden our quest and look at ethnocentrism as a whole.

​

Minor derail but I think it is also interesting to quote from later in the chapter:

Independent studies in the United States have since given string support to these views [that there are certain non-political traits of antisemites] and added various other items as indicators of anti-Semitic tendencies. Nine main groups of items were found to correlate highly with anti-Semitism-ethnocentrism in these studies. The first group of items is referred to as 'conventionalism' or the rigid adherence to conventional middle-class values. Examples of this attitude are 'One should avoid doing things in public which appear wrong to others, even though one knows that these things are really all right.' The second group is known collectively as 'authoritarian submission', or submissive, uncritical attitude towards the idealized moral authorities of the 'in-group'. Examples of this attitude are 'What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more courageous, tireless, devoted leaders, whom the people can put their faith in.' The third group of items is labelled 'authoritarian aggression', or a tendency to be on the look-out for, and to condemn, reject and punish, people who violate conventional values. As an example, we may quote the item 'Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and ought to be severely punished.'

The fourth group of items deals with opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, and the tender-minded and is called'anti-intraception'. Intraception is a somewhat technical term meaning 'the dominance of feelings, fantasies, speculations, aspirations - an imaginative, subjective, human outlook' as opposed to extraception, 'a term that describes the tendency to be determined by concrete, clearly observable physical conditions (tangible objective facts).' As an example, we may quote the the item 'There is too much emphasis in colleges on intellectual and theoretical topics, not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the homely virtues of living.'

The next group of items is headed 'superstition and stereotopy', i.e. a belief in the mystical determinants of the individual's fate and a disposition to think in rigid categories. As an example, the following may serve: 'Although many people may scoff, it may yet be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things.'

Next comes a belief in 'power and toughness', i.e. a preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; and exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. This attitude is expressed by items such as 'Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way,; we sshould return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active way of life.' Another group of items is characterised by the terms 'destructiveness and cynicism', or a generalised hostility and vilification of the human species. Instances of these attitudes are 'No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only one reason', and 'When you come right down to it, it's human nature to never do anything without an eye to one's own profit.

The last two sets of items are called 'projectivity', identified as the disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things are going on in the world; and the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses and sexual strivings, i.e. an exaggerated concern with sexual goings-on. Examples of these two tendencies are 'To a greater extent than most people realise our lives are governed by plots hatched in secret by politicians, and 'The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery-school stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even in circles where people might least expect it.'

​

How many of those boxes do Trumpettes tick?

 

[Belz...]

The parent was quoted as saying he "felt as if his rights were being infringed upon every time his country invented new ones for special interest groups". Specifically, this person had fought against gay marriage for this reason.

Reminds me of the claim that "regular" marriage is cheapened by gay marriage. I've never understood that.

In fact, I don't think they believe that at all. I think it's an excuse to justify the intolerance they already have. Conservatives are, on the whole, wary of minorities it seems.

Of course, the reverse is true of liberals, who seem afraid of the majority, which is quite amusing.

 

[Magrat]

So none, then.


I was certainly under that impression, yes.

I never asked about politicians, nor did I specify a country. I am asking for insight into the quote posted in the op. if the thread title bothers you so much you cannot read the op and the buckets of posts I've made after to clarify that I am not asking about a political group nor politicians nor whatever else you can pull out that is tangentially related to one word picked out of the two hundred plus in the op, I can't help you.

To those who have offered insight to what I was actually asking, thank you.

eta that is a general "you", not solely or specifically aimed at seismosaurus

 

[Magrat]

Upon rereading through this thread, I am reminded why I had left for so long. So, cheers for that I guess.

Perhaps this phenomenon wherein people will go to any lengths to prevent coherent discussion will be a subject of a future book.

Thank you again to those who have contributed thoughtfully to my question, I appreciate the assistance.

 

[Mike!]

There's an interesting inconsistency with conservatives regarding homosexuality: They believe that gay people can be converted, whereas liberals argue that gays should love and accept themselves the way they are. If, however, you're born a male and want to be a female, then go ahead with surgery and hormones.

I self identify as conservative ("Right wing loon" specifically) and I have zero problem with homosexuality and gay marriage whatsoever.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I came upon an interesting quote in the book Becoming Nicole by Amy Ellis Nutt. This book is about a transgendered (M to F) child. When the child, Nicole, was in 5th grade, the parent of another child became aware of Nicole being transgendered and objected forcefully to Nicole using the female bathroom while having been born male.

The parent was quoted as saying he "felt as if his rights were being infringed upon every time his country invented new ones for special interest groups". Specifically, this person had fought against gay marriage for this reason.

I am politically and socially liberal (which I am presuming is relevant, but please correct me if it is not), and I don't understand how giving rights to one person impacts my rights. For instance, as a straight woman, I cannot see how giving gay people the right to get married impacts me. It doesn't remove my right to get married.

Could anyone explain this? Having read it, I am coming to see how a mindset like this would support anti-LGBTQ actions. what I am asking is, could you explain why you would see things this way? What is being taken away from you? thank you.

I'm late to the show, as usual, but it is a question I have asked myself and I won't give up the chance to relate my answer.

My answer is that this is an expression of group-based thinking: THEY are telling US what WE can do with OUR gays.

But there is also a lot of history shaping that feeling.

There is, of course, nothing inherently conservative about group-based thinking. Chances are that you feel that WE should organize OUR society in a way that all OUR rights are secured. Collectivism is not associated with either the left or the right.

However, the idea of universal, equal, individual rights is decidedly left-wing.
The origins of conservative thinking are in support of monarchy and aristocracy. In that view there are no universal rights. There are only privileges that are inherited (such as nobility) or gained by being part of a group (such as the clerus).
The class based society is quintessentially medieval while the universal rights based society is an enlightenment concept.

In the UK you can see openly how this thinking survives by the existence of royals and aristocrats and more subtly in the class culture.
It also survives in more subtle ways. Take the austrian-born economist Hayek who is popular among the right. He is was, in fact, von Hayek (von= of) until Austria became a republic and abolished the nobility. With that knowledge many of his social arguments sound more like :"You peasants, respect my authoritah!".

Of course, the US has its own, unique tradition of group-based privileges: The whole all-pervasive issue of race. Most visibly and importantly this comes in the issue of slavery and seggregation, thought legally entrenched race-based privileges are also found in the north.
The southern experience is fascinating in having both a pervasive influence and culture and being ignored. Take that famous scene from Apocalypse Now where helicopters attack with the sound of Ride of the Valkyries. Everyone knows that scene but how many people know that it quotes an earlier blockbuster movie? So often Americans say that Vietnam was the first time "we" lost a war. Who's "we", yankee?

Look at the common trope that private gun ownership provides a defense against government tyranny. This seems ludicrous when you look at world history; but when you look at the defeated confederacy it suddenly makes sense. The assassinations of Lincoln and countless other republicans fundamentally altered the course of reconstruction. Citizen militias preserved the social order by massacring returning black union veterans.

And this is where my rambling gets to a point. The feeling that minority rights take away from majority rights is firmly rooted in US history. When slavery was abolished it was objectively true. Exploitation of the black minority continued in various ways to the civil rights era in living memory. There are many recent examples where minority rights truly take away a majority privilege.

 

[Magrat]

GnaGna thank you very much, this gives me a lot to look into!

 

[xjx388]

You are looking for logic or an explanation that will make sense to you but you won't find it. It's all feeling with little rationality behind it. "Gay people/trans people are mentally ill." OR "Gay/trans is an immoral choice." And behind those positions is one singular position: "That stuff is weird and I don't like it."

All the other arguments stem from that fundamental feeling.

 

[Drewbot]

I'm just trying to frame this in a more scientific way.

Did Nicole actually have male genitalia?

I'm assuming Nicole was born a male, but because of gender dysphoria, identified as a female?

The other parent objected to someone with male genitalia using the girls bathroom?

Do you think only conservatives would object to a male going into the bathroom of their daughter?

 

[xjx388]

As for "what is being taken away," people like that, at least the ones that I know, feel that recognizing same-sex marriages diminishes the meaning of marriage overall. They don't see marriage as a mostly legal thing; it's a sacred bond with the purpose of creating a stable family (the fact that most marriages end in divorce and there are a lot of broken families is simply handwaived away). If we let any two people get married, even two men? That will be the beginning of the end for the importance of families. And how can two men or two women ever be a stable family unit? That "union" is born out of immorality or mental instability. And that's why we have so many kids these days announcing that they are LGBTQ, because we as a society are allowing immorality/mental instability to spread by normalizing it. Kids no longer have role models of the two sexes: How can two daddies ever model feminine roles or two mommies present a "strong male presence?" Those modeled gender roles are essential to the fabric of society.

Basically it's an argument from incredulity mixed with flawed premises and a myriad of other fallacies. But you can't really argue them out of their position because the underlying feelings are so strong. Feelings > Science, for too many people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To me at least, these people are called idiots.

One bit I don't get is how you can think there aren't non-conservatives who disagree with gay marriage.

It gets into what people mean by conservative. Keeping marriage as it is is the conservative position on marriage(clearly by definition of conservative). Just like keeping marriage to those with in their own race was the conservative position on marriage before loving V Virginia.

People are not uniformly conservative on all issues.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is when you see what the left local politicians have done to our cities roads.

They have been very effective at getting all non automotive traffic off of them, no matter what their original purpose was for. Call this more a win for auto makers. Forcing everyone to buy cars was a genius plan of theirs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Many years ago, the mother of my girlfriend was commenting about young people's idealism and opined, "You tend to get more conservative when you acquire more to conserve."

Which is why millennials are not getting more conserve, they have been screwed so hard they are just paying back college loans and such. A bit of a failure on the part of boomers to keep the status quo going really.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which is why the old truism about people getting more conservative as they age isn't holding true any longer, since the younger Gen X and onward generations are the first to have significantly lower standards of living than our parents did. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/

They should be happy to give all their money to the more worthwhile generations. Eat the young as the conservative moto goes.