trunkage said:
Can anyone play this game?
Generally a Conservative thinks that the current system is the best system. They cite the evidence that it exists through thousands of years of trail and error (and removal of bad ideas.) It has been proven true and effective and generally, they are right.
Thus, in their eyes, any changes could bring the whole house of cards down. Progressive, with their 'changes' threaten humanity. Any change is a threat, thus Conservatives are generally defensive when it comes to any change.
The biggest mistake people make is that Progressives are actually Conservatives on 90% of issues. They, generally, want to do small changes to the system. Most progressives arent against democracy but are wanting to do small changes like banning gerrymandering or 'fixing' who gets to vote.
But when they are continually blocked, they find more extreme examples acceptable. Eg. Ecoterrorism lead from dealing with Climate Change continually being blocked in Congress. Which might be a weird example, as it's actually two different Conservative ideologies bumping heads. So, maybe the Hong Kong riots at the moment.
I think all this is pretty well said. I'd say those thousands of years were a lot less trial than error until the last few centuries, but that's just drilling down specifics. The only other thing I'd be picky about is describing the current system as the best system, rather than the best system that we have for this moment. I absolutely believe that things will get better moving into the future, advancing technology guarantees that things will change whether the government does it or not, it'd be silly to think we have the best answers.
Conservatives also don't take into account bad actors (posers, pretending to be Conservative.) These poser say things like, "why do we have to make room/ put uo with minorities?" This makes Conservatives conflicted. They know that Rights are equal for all, that's a huge part of the system they like. But this comment is pointing to what must be a lack of equality. 'Americans should get jobs first' definitely seems reasonable but it breaks all forms of equality. They justify it and this allows posers to lead the narrative. University taking into account socioeconomic issues means that whites and Asians are being treated poorly. Anyone getting a job over a white guy must be 'Affirmative Action' gone wrong. Because, you know, there is no chance that a non-white might be better at the job.
It's also problematic because there definitely has been improvements in treatment of minorities. But that gets mixed up with everything is fixed, which is isn't true.
Well, bad actors are bad. There are bad actors in all things. If American conservatives are uniquely weak to the persuasion of bad actors at the moment, I would suggest it's because there aren't many "good actors" to be persuaded by. The cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has been almost entirely dominated by liberals. Celebrities championed liberal causes, professors taught liberal viewpoints, and until very recently, if you were looking for a right-wing role model, you had a handful of options found only on AM radio and half were bad actors. But hey, other Republicans have finally found the internet, hopefully we can reclaim some lost sheep. I fear my generation is lost for good, I don't necessarily blame them, it's hard to give conservatism a second chance when the first chance you gave it led to Alex Jones. But I think Gen Z has a better chance of getting their act together.
As to your claiming that you were giving an opportunity to defend a Democratic Socialist. You did this by attacking said ideology. Then you wonder why Progressives are defensive. You personally, are always attacking someone. You might not be aware that you are doing this, hence me stating it here. Because I don't find Conseratives always combative. But, usually, I find particular ones really combatative. I assume they don't realise what they are doing. I usually don't point it out, but I'll give it a shot once here. If you are being attacked regularly, there might be a reason.
I mean, I'm here because I like that this place offers me a fountain of opposition. I'm not shy about that. My experiences in other places with other people are very different than here, much less combative unless you count the time I told my sister that Brett Kavanaugh isn't a rapist.
But like, me being combative wasn't the issue of this thread. I got involved here for questioning the suggestion that the NRA loves government with Republicans are president. It became a kerfuffle because I suggested that Ted Nugent is terrible but probably doesn't actually want people to carry guns around to shoot any Democrats they happen to run into. This turned into the declaration that Republicans are always defending everything Republicans say no matter what and wont compromise or consider the other perspective (nevermind that I literally called that Nugent statement "vile", it's apparently gaslighting to think a public figure isn't advocating hunting opponents for sport). So when a long list of complaints about conservatives and Republicans was thrown at me, I thought it prudent not to systematically defend every point and be accused of doing exactly what they were complaining about conservatives doing. And in response, I got "well that's not really what I wanted to talk about." What am I supposed to say to "I hate that Republicans defend their vile... here's a list of things I think are vile... please defend them now." I don't think it was meant to be a trap, but it's like the old "when did you stop cheating on your wife?" There is no right answer. It's like, of course you experience a lot of conservatives defending things you don't like, you're demanding it of me.
Kwak said:
Attacking indefensible ideology that either increases or ignores the suffering in the world is what a decent human should do. (though I'm not that, but I have a continued interest in trying to be)
It's not ignoring suffering to continue the same policies. Sometimes continuing to do exactly what you're doing over a course of time is what you need to solve a problem. You don't have water your plants once and then they flower, it takes time and repeated care to make progress. You don't diet for one day and see results, it takes time and patience. No policy is going to fix an issue like gender income gaps overnight. You can't just write a law that says women must be paid the same and instantly solve the problem, because that law has existed since 1963. But there is far more than nothing being done in America to close that gap and improve working conditions for women, and they're showing results, and that gap is nearly gone for people in their mid twenties, the overall gap being dragged apart by like 50 year olds, who aren't about to start their career over in something more lucrative. All indicators suggest to me that if we keep doing what we're doing, the next generation of working people won't have a gender pay gap to speak of. It's not ignoring suffering to hold the course.
Saelune said:
Children are in terrible conditions and are dying from it, this is objective fact. So either you are ok with that, or you are not ok with that.
I know they're in horrible conditions and dying, I'm not disputing that. That's not CBPs fault. Some children have died trying to reach the border. Some have gotten sick on the way and died after reaching the border. If they make it to border patrol safely, they essentially turn themselves into the police, and then wait at the border patrol facility for as short a time as possible until being handed over to HHS who are qualified to care for the children, and unfortunately some of them caught the flu while with CBP and died of the flu. CBP didn't torture these children. They didn't kill them. They're not supposed to be childcare facilities. Children dying is a tragedy, and we should of course try to prevent tragedies, but you are so far out of line to suggest that the people who asylum seekers go to for refuge are torturing and killing children because they caught the flu at CBP.
