5 ms·

> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. I think this is a far more useful inqui

> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies. What viewpoints, indeed? Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphrasing heavily): 1. "I'm afraid the government will take away my right to own guns, which is enshrined in the second amendment to allow citizens to overthrow an unjust government." 2. "I'm worried that the current political correct climate will infringe upon my right to free speech, enshrined in the first amendment." 3. "I don't want my church, which is against homosexuality, to be forced to marry gay couples." 4. "I don't want 'confused men' to be in the same restroom as my underage daughters." These are just the most recent examples I can think of. Generally, I find that most of what I hear these days falls into two categories: Fear, and thinly-veiled contempt for people who are different. If there are other conservative viewpoints that I'm not hearing, I'm happy to correct my ignorance. That being said, I find the very idea that the entire spectrum of human imagination can be compressed to 1 bit of information (left or right wing) is deeply insulting and, if true, one hell of an indictment of our species.

tntn 9y ago
Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."
- majormajor 9y ago
  Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner. That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa. Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
  - tntn 9y ago
    You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage. Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
    - majormajor 9y ago
      Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit. And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc. tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
      - Veelox 9y ago

tntn 9y ago

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

majormajor 9y ago
Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner. That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.
- Veelox 9y ago
  I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa. Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
- tntn 9y ago
  You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage. Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit. And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc. tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
    - Veelox 9y ago