• 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.

Question on Conservative Mindset

Chanakya said:
I was only trying to explain my take on why, for example, some people might consider gay marriages to be a dilution of their own marriage (which kind of view people do express).
Click to expand...

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.
 
I don't think that, at all! I think I made that very clear.

But yes, given the kinds of things people of a conservative bent sometimes believe -- especially re. religion -- that kind of opinion might well follow. And true enough, of those who do hold such opinions, most -- in my experience -- do tend to be conservative in their politics.
 
Chanakya said:
I don't think that, at all! I think I made that very clear.

But yes, given the kinds of things people of a conservative bent sometimes believe -- especially re. religion -- that kind of opinion might well follow. And true enough, of those who do hold such opinions, most -- in my experience -- do tend to be conservative in their politics.
Click to expand...

As much as I am being irritating in my repetitiveness

Question on Conservative Mindset
Click to expand...
 
Seems the older you are, the more of a stake you have on the status quo.

This might make sense in the fiscal debate.
 
cullennz said:
As much as I am being irritating in my repetitiveness
Click to expand...

I take your point. Calling it "conservative mindset" does imply -- absent further nuance in discussion -- that that mindset is exclusively conservative. It might also -- but not necessarily -- imply that conservatives are generally of that mindset.

But the OP has indeed provided that nuance, that qualification, subsequently, haven't they? They did say they didn't mean to refer to conservatives as such.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
See your problem with this statement is that their are quite a few in the LGBT community who are conservative
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you mistakenly inferred that I was referring to every single conservative, ironically to force fit it into a lazy black hat/white hat metaphor. Of course there are gay Republicans. Of course there are straight conservatives who violently oppose gay conversion therapy.

ETA: Just to underline the point of the previous post: Conservatives opposed to converting homosexuals are more consistent with the spirit of their ideology's generally pro-nature outlook. Meanwhile, liberals opposed go against their "people can change" disposition.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
Your problem is that you mistakenly inferred that I was referring to every single conservative, ironically to force fit it into a lazy black hat/white hat metaphor. Of course there are gay Republicans. Of course there are straight conservatives who violently oppose gay conversion therapy.

ETA: Just to underline the point of the previous post: Conservatives opposed to converting homosexuals are more consistent with the spirit of their ideology's generally pro-nature outlook. Meanwhile, liberals opposed go against their "people can change" disposition.
Click to expand...

Yes

And there are non-conservatives who believe in gay conversion therapy.
 
Magrat said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think that for conservatives, the thing they think they're being deprived of is the past. They just want things to go back to the way they were. Heck, I'm 48 and there are times when I would kill to spend a week being 10 again.

The problem with nostalgia is that it's usually wrong. Things were never the way they're remembered. And even back then (whener "then" was), people bemoaned the fact that things weren't the same as they were before.

Conservatism, to me, seems like a very sad, very lonely way to live. The predominant feeling is one of loss (or fear of loss) all the time.

But, then, I'm a progressive, so I really don't know what they're thinking.
 
Loss Leader said:
I think that for conservatives, the thing they think they're being deprived of is the past. They just want things to go back to the way they were. Heck, I'm 48 and there are times when I would kill to spend a week being 10 again.

The problem with nostalgia is that it's usually wrong. Things were never the way they're remembered. And even back then (whener "then" was), people bemoaned the fact that things weren't the same as they were before.

Conservatism, to me, seems like a very sad, very lonely way to live. The predominant feeling is one of loss (or fear of loss) all the time.

But, then, I'm a progressive, so I really don't know what they're thinking.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, but that is again too broad

There are plenty of lefty greeny people who want us all to give up cars, motorways, walk every where, wear hemp clothing and eat nothing but lentils and tofu, like she is 1380
 
Ahhh...fairly typical. A question about why conservatives think what they think becomes a thread for a bunch of not very conservative people saying, for all practical purposes, they think that way because they are a bunch of jerks and losers.

Well, I'm not a conservative, either, but I think I understand the actual answer about why they say those things. I don't agree with it in many cases, and in some cases, it makes absolutely no sense, but I think that saying that some people have "special rights" is not 100% ridiculous in every case.


Basically, for many conservatives, that allegation, that some groups are getting extra rights, has become a mindless talking point, repeated blindly without comprehension by the speakers. However, its origins are at least slightly more sensible. I will try to explain the origins of the idea, and then talk about how it is often used today.


It comes from various civil rights protection laws, and the different way they affect the protected classes versus straight, white, males. Suppose your boss doesn't like you, and he fires you. Well, if you are a straight white male, you pretty much need a new job. However, if you are a member of a protected class, you might be able to sue, claiming that you were not fired for job performance reasons, but because you were black, or female, or gay. Likewise with hiring decisions. A straight white male who doesn't get a job after an interview had better line up a new interview, but a member of a protected class has a much better shot at filing a grievance with the EEOC.


Back in the days when race based hiring quotas were a real thing, it was actually the case that a certain number of jobs were set aside for black people, regardless of qualifications. That was seen as a special privilege for black people.


I don't buy into that way of thinking, but I understand it. I'm among those who think that a certain degree of protection is required simply because the evidence shows that, without them, many, many, employers would refuse to hire or refuse to promote blacks, or women, or whatever protected minorities there were. The extra protections are just a levelling mechanism. However, if a white person sees a black person get a job that the white person was seeking, he might believe that the black person got the job even though the black person was less qualified.


Those are the "special rights" that members of protected classes allegedly have. Hiring quotas are not very common at all these days, so that's not very applicable, but protected class members have the right to sue for discrimination. It is believed, by many, that this creates extra privileges for women and minorities that are not available to white men.

To my way of thinking, that doesn't seem to really work out in practice. I tend to think that even with the protections in place, there still seems to be a lot of discrimination, and white males don't exactly seem oppressed, but that's the way some people think.

Now, applying that to gay marriage doesn't make any sense at all to me. I understand some of the arguments against gay marriage, but saying it creates some sort of special rights for gay people is something I can't even wrap my head around to explain. I conclude that the speakers in those cases really don't even understand the "special rights" argument in any of the cases where it could at least conceivably be applicable. It has just become a mindless parroting. Whenever rights are extended to any other group, there are some people who simply roll out the old mantra that all legislation that protects minorities or extends rights to minorities must be granting them special rights. There's no way to explain it based on the actual meanings of the words involved, but the speakers aren't really thinking about what they are saying. They're just repeating some words that have been rendered meaningless through overuse.
 
novaphile said:
Neither of these quotes seem to address your claim.

I've never met a green in my life, nor heard of one, who wants us to walk everywhere.

Do you agree to withdraw your ridiculous claim?

I'd love to know what your beef is with hemp. Perhaps that is for another topic.
Click to expand...

Lol

I don't have a problem with hemp

Just threw that one in as a joke as I meet a few people saying we should replace our dairy industry with hemp farms.

Are you saying those two examples aren't anti-cars and motor ways, as you must be reading something different to me

"The party’s commitment to getting people out of cars and on to public transport, or bicycles, is central to its principal aim of reversing global warming."
 
cullennz said:
Lol

I don't have a problem with hemp

Just threw that one in as a joke as I meet a few people saying we should replace our dairy industry with hemp farms.

Are you saying those two examples aren't anti-cars and motor ways, as you must be reading something different to me

"The party’s commitment to getting people out of cars and on to public transport, or bicycles, is central to its principal aim of reversing global warming."
Click to expand...

Being for public transport isn't expecting people to walk everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom