Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
I don't even know what a conservative is anymore. Today's Republicans do not resemble in the slightest old school conservative philosophy.of Republicans of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Conservatives were pro choice at that time. They didn't care about one's sexuality. Ever hear of Log Cabin Republicans? They wouldn't be for reckless tax cuts. That began to change in 1980 when Ronald Reagan created a coalition with the batcrap crazy religious nuts. Reagan combined fiscal recklessness with his deal with GConservatives. The Republicans have been ona dishonest downward slide ever since.
Trump's conservatives are not conservatives. MAGA isn't conservative. It's fascist.
All of that is also an oversimplification and is about a time when folks on the left were also calling conservatives fascists.
That being said, MAGA is quite radical and thus not conservative. But much like painting progressives with as broad a brush as the OP, Painting MAGA as all fascists misses the mark in a lot of cases. Sure, many are, legitimately fascist. Many are not. RFK, whatever you think of him, not a fascist. Once Trump is out of the picture the inherent conflicts among MAGA will explode into a thousand little bits. Just look at Vance's playing footsy with Candace Owens and the right's reaction to Tucker Carlson these days. The Heritage Foundation is basically imploding over it.
I am willing to let former MAGA leave the ranks of the dedicated maggats that can't let go of the hate spewed during its peak.
Not entirely forgiven but leave them space to relearn a few real world values through the struggles poor Americans face now.
They got screwed by trump and soon the rich will get screwed too as thier turn comes.
It's hard enough, but now with a new reality of far less government aid and fewer jobs, higher costs and all they don't need another kick in the shin.
They will fill the rifts that tear Maga apart to a point it cannot be as it was again.
i think it’s fair to say that maga pandered to the racists and evangelicals and the fascists. outside of the anti vax left i’m not sure that a significant portion of them came from liberals though, a lot of conservatives that turned alt right and extremists imo
and that was of course a strategy engineered by steve bannon and the tech wannabe oligarchs like thiel and musk. still the same people, just brain rotted by social media. and i think plenty of conservatives were bottled up fascists waiting for permission to let it out too
in any case, if we say maga aren’t conservatives, then where did conservatives go? seem to have been maga adjacent for a number of years and now almost disappeared off the face of the earth. watched their ideology be snatched from them by christian nazis without a peep. or cheered because a lib was being owned and that was more important than doing the right thing or believing in what you say. and still do
They didn't go anywhere. Some might have changed parties and others just went along. My point is what is labeled as conservative today has changed dramatically. It may have happened incrementally, but it definitely happened.
All of that is also an oversimplification and is about a time when folks on the left were also calling conservatives fascists.
That being said, MAGA is quite radical and thus not conservative. But much like painting progressives with as broad a brush as the OP, Painting MAGA as all fascists misses the mark in a lot of cases. Sure, many are, legitimately fascist. Many are not. RFK, whatever you think of him, not a fascist. Once Trump is out of the picture the inherent conflicts among MAGA will explode into a thousand little bits. Just look at Vance's playing footsy with Candace Owens and the right's reaction to Tucker Carlson these days. The Heritage Foundation is basically imploding over it.
Let's be truthful. Nobody speaks for all progressives. As Will Roger's is famous for saying. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
I'm sure this seemed profound when you first typed it up, but it's utterly banal. Everyone considers themselves the good guys, and those opposed to them the bad guys. Nobody goes around thinking, "Yup, I'm evil, and I sure hope the good people opposed to me succeed in stopping my dastardly plans."
Let's be truthful. Nobody speaks for all progressives. As Will Roger's is famous for saying. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
To be fair, it's true of most ideological groupings. Even with MAGA, Trump does sort of, but much like the bible, various MAGA folks can interpret Trump's nonsense in all sorts of ways. And as soon as Trumps out of the picture or even sooner, MAGA will splinter. They'll end up like the various US communist parties. There've been a dozen or so mostly based on every split in the USSR or between the USSR and some other nations communist party led to a split among the American Commies.
To be fair, it's true of most ideological groupings. Even with MAGA, Trump does sort of, but much like the bible, various MAGA folks can interpret Trump's nonsense in all sorts of ways. And as soon as Trumps out of the picture or even sooner, MAGA will splinter. They'll end up like the various US communist parties. There've been a dozen or so mostly based on every split in the USSR or between the USSR and some other nations communist party led to a split among the American Commies.
Liberal Progressives (Lib-Progs) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. Lib-Progs have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the oppressors) versus the marginalized groups (the victims). In the Lib-Prog world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, and the Lib-Progs are here equalize everyone and make everything alright. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the Liberal Progressive mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.
Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset.
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished.
There is nothing that demonstrates how the Lib-Prog mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. British Commentator Melanie Phillips currently writes on social issues for The Times and The Jerusalem Post from a socially conservative perspective.
(Lib-Progs will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss her as a far-right racist without ever reading anything she has written or hearing anything she has to say)
There is a transcript below the link for those who are allergic to YouTube videos.
TRANSCRIPT
The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's Liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself "I'm a good person because I'm Liberal - I'm Liberal because I'm a good person" which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man,
So you're creenrawling because people take your nonsense for what it is, and your awful political ideology has been proven to be an utter failure (for about the hundredth time at this stage).
No skin off my nose lad, but for your own sake, look at plank in your own eye before trying to pick the mote out of others.
PS posting the witterings of a failed far right politician are not going to get you far in a reality based arena.
It seems to be the latest low blow in the culture war, and I've thought about it a fair bit.
I've come to the conclusion over the course of my now 56 years on this planet that compassion and empathy for others is a moral good. Human rights are a moral good. Kindness to those less fortunate is a moral good. Those people who don't recognise this, who don't show kindness, empathy, and compassion to all human beings, are not morally good people. They cannot be. There are some things that good people can disagree on, but this isn't one of them.
I think this is a truth that is as close to being objective as any truth can be: all human lives have intrinsic value. All human beings by virtue of their existence deserve a baseline level of respect. If someone cannot respect them for their existence alone, then that person is not a morally good person.
I'm sorry if this moral stance of mine makes anyone uncomfortable. And I'm sorry that you have to frame it as "anyone who doesn't think like me is a bad guy". I don't think that is particularly fair or thoughtful. It shows neither empathy nor kindness. It is antagonistic and aggressive. I don't want to fight anyone, and I would rather that they did not pick fights with me. We can't make the world a better place for everyone's children if we're always picking fights.
So yes, to a certain extent I think that the quote above is basically correct, though I think it is articulated in a way that is intended to provoke discord and distrust. I would like to help people become more morally good, as I think that too is a moral good, but I can't while they're being deliberately provocative.
Is a moral good, selectively applied, still moral? Is it still good?
I see a lot of misanthropy on this forum, from the left, directed at the right. You* express hatred for those on the right who don't express empathy to your satisfaction, but the moment someone votes differently from you, all that empathy goes out the window. People transform before your eyes, from human beings making flawed choices, into subhuman monsters who deserve everything their oppressors do to them, and deserve none of the moral goods you have in store for the real humans who agree with you.
Can something be good even if it is not perfect? Yes, of course. If you are talking about a moral good then it is surely both moral and good by definition. It is right there in the words you are using.
The problem with speaking of generalities, they can only generally be true and there will always be exceptions. So, best to define who you mean when using them. Just saying, "They believe...." is unlikely to start a productive conversation.
Any trait or belief or what not that we use to define progressives are likely to result half a dozen progressive saying, that's not true but at least one saying, I'm a progressive and that's true! It's the abolish the police problem. No matter how many folks on the left say, "we don't really mean get rid of all the police we mean......." There is always going to be that guy in the back yelling, "Yes we do!"
Can something be good even if it is not perfect? Yes, of course. If you are talking about a moral good then it is surely both moral and good by definition. It is right there in the words you are using.
Lots of empathy and compassion for the Master Race, zero empathy and compassion for the International Jew. Where's the moral good in privileging one group and oppressing another, on the basis of race?
I'd argue that empathy and compassion applied without prejudice is a moral good. I'd say that empathy and compassion that reserved for some and denied to others is not, on the basis of race or politics or religion, is not.
I'm increasingly feeling that the liberal / conservative divide is far less important than that between those who view others equally and seek better outcomes for all, and those who seek advantage for themselves and / or their peer group at the expense of those they see as other. Whether they choose left or right wing ideology is simply a matter of preferred means. Some of the nicest people I know have political opinions that differ quite radically from mine, and are kind and generous people. They make just as good neighbours as people who agree with both my politics and my ethics.
The problem with speaking of generalities, they can only generally be true and there will always be exceptions. So, best to define who you mean when using them. Just saying, "They believe...." is unlikely to start a productive conversation.
Any trait or belief or what not that we use to define progressives are likely to result half a dozen progressive saying, that's not true but at least one saying, I'm a progressive and that's true! It's the abolish the police problem. No matter how many folks on the left say, "we don't really mean get rid of all the police we mean......." There is always going to be that guy in the back yelling, "Yes we do!"
i agree, it’s one of the dangers of saying “no one believes…” because someone will find someone else saying exactly that. and they may not even be a progressive or conservative, just anyone saying it is good enough.
but that’s individuals. a group’s ideology is more clear. for example, if i were to say maga is racist, and an individual identifies as maga and isn’t racist, it doesn’t really matter when you start pulling out the examples of racist ideology becoming racist policy. that’s really more that individuals internal struggle to square up with, identifying with harmful ideologies, rather than the responsibility of the claimant to include language allowing for exceptions for outliers. it’s just too pedantic for me to do it otherwise
sometimes that means i’ve offended people inadvertently, which is my own internal struggle to deal with.
Is a moral good, selectively applied, still moral? Is it still good?
I see a lot of misanthropy on this forum, from the left, directed at the right. You* express hatred for those on the right who don't express empathy to your satisfaction, but the moment someone votes differently from you, all that empathy goes out the window. People transform before your eyes, from human beings making flawed choices, into subhuman monsters who deserve everything their oppressors do to them, and deserve none of the moral goods you have in store for the real humans who agree with you.
but how often do your voting choices really come into the conversation? if i can guess them correctly by reading your words and opinions, it’s not your voting preferences that’s doing the transforming. i almost never see people stating their voting choices, i see people accusing others of supporting this or that, but that’s based on assumptions gleaned from the way you express yourself
edit
in fact, the best example is probably the poster that claims to be a socially liberal centrist that only participates in discussions on lame wedge issue distractions from a right wing viewpoint that always gets mad no one believes they’re a liberal centrist
i agree, it’s one of the dangers of saying “no one believes…” because someone will find someone else saying exactly that. and they may not even be a progressive or conservative, just anyone saying it is good enough.
but that’s individuals. a group’s ideology is more clear. for example, if i were to say maga is racist, and an individual identifies as maga and isn’t racist, it doesn’t really matter when you start pulling out the examples of racist ideology becoming racist policy. that’s really more that individuals internal struggle to square up with, identifying with harmful ideologies, rather than the responsibility of the claimant to include language allowing for exceptions for outliers. it’s just too pedantic for me to do it otherwise
sometimes that means i’ve offended people inadvertently, which is my own internal struggle to deal with.
There's the problem though. If you want to get the guy who votes maga to stop voting maga and you start with maga is racist, well, that's not going to help. There's some good evidence that the way to change folks minds is by starting by getting them to see you as being on there side. That doesn't mean you have to become MAGA, but find the things with the individual you can agree on first.
There's that Black guy that had converted a bunch of Klansmen. That's all he did, become friends with Klansmen and eventually they figure out how stupid racism is.
but how often do your voting choices really come into the conversation? if i can guess them correctly by reading your words and opinions, it’s not your voting preferences that’s doing the transforming. i almost never see people stating their voting choices, i see people accusing others of supporting this or that, but that’s based on assumptions gleaned from the way you express yourself
edit
in fact, the best example is probably the poster that claims to be a socially liberal centrist that only participates in discussions on lame wedge issue distractions from a right wing viewpoint that always gets mad no one believes they’re a liberal centrist
I'm not referring to incivility directed at people on this forum. I'm referring to the misanthropic, dehumanizing, merciless rhetoric referring to anyone and everyone suspected of voting the other way.
There's the problem though. If you want to get the guy who votes maga to stop voting maga and you start with maga is racist, well, that's not going to help. There's some good evidence that the way to change folks minds is by starting by getting them to see you as being on there side. That doesn't mean you have to become MAGA, but find the things with the individual you can agree on first.
There's that Black guy that had converted a bunch of Klansmen. That's all he did, become friends with Klansmen and eventually they figure out how stupid racism is.
Lots of empathy and compassion for the Master Race, zero empathy and compassion for the International Jew. Where's the moral good in privileging one group and oppressing another, on the basis of race?
I'd argue that empathy and compassion applied without prejudice is a moral good. I'd say that empathy and compassion that reserved for some and denied to others is not, on the basis of race or politics or religion, is not.
The compassion for the Master Race is the good bit, no? Assuming that is actually compassion and empathy. It would be even worse to make things bad for everybody. Hitler apparently loved dogs as well and was supposedly a vegetarian, but we don’t say those things are bad purely because Hitler did it. That would be pure Godwin!
The bad bit is the dehumanization and extermination of the Jews, the disabled, the homosexuals and the Roma, the invasion of neighbours and plunging the world into a catastrophic war which killed millions. That’s usually what negative comparisons to the Nazis are meant to invoke.
So apart from an attempt to say liberals are really Nazis, which your clumsy analogy appears to attempt, you could just say that sure, it is good to have empathy with members of your tribe, but it is only really a principle if it goes beyond that.
However, confusingly, smartcooky and others seem to be arguing that the empathy for non-tribal members is the problem!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
