8 ms·

Token HN conservative here. If you ever get curious about the conservative moment please don't hesitate to email me. There's a lot of interesting debate going o

Token HN conservative here. If you ever get curious about the conservative moment please don't hesitate to email me. There's a lot of interesting debate going on in the Bay Area, but it's sort of subterranean for obvious reasons.

swirepe 8y ago
I'm not in the bay area, but I'm curious about the conservative movement.
- deltateam 8y ago
  I'm in the bay area, where the "anti-conservative" movement is prevalent which means not considering anything that is against the "anti-conservative" party line. many things aren't considered on their merits simply because the conservative face has done or said things they disagree with even though it is completely unrelated to lawmaking or anything congress would even consider. any dissent is seen as support for the current administration. any dissent is seen as TACIT consent for race-based discrimination, xenophobia, and gender based assault and inequality. any dissent elevates you to being the spokesperson of everything they hate. I understand why. Everyone's entire political party needs to operate as a unit to swing power in their favor. but it is so one dimensional that many people reject it, since there always is a gradient for each separate issue. conservative in this context doesn't mean anti-progressive, or risk averse, or traditional. it is just a political grouping, but in the bay area it means even slightly considering the merit behind a not-democrat party proposal.
  - smt88 8y ago
    How does conservative not mean anti-progressive? They're opposites by definition, aren't they? I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. This is also how history books divide political forces when describing past societies.
    - deltateam 8y ago
      > I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. but thats what we are talking about, thats what context means its as fluid as any variable name you add to a program, in this case that variable's name is conservative.
      - smt88 8y ago
        I meant that in all contexts, conservative and progressive are antonyms, not just in colloquial usage.
        deltateam 8y ago
        right, we got that and that's wrong. if your observation became "hey that party self-identifies with the wrong word and maybe there is a historical reason for this" then yes, that is correct
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Because in reality, people and politics are a complex matrix of thousands of issues and not a simple left-or-right slider.
      - smt88 8y ago
        Language doesn't always capture complexity, but we're arguing about definitions, not about whether they apply wholly to any one person. They do certainly apply wholly to ideas, though.
  - s2g 8y ago
    I agree that it's ridiculous, since even considering a "conservative" idea makes you the enemy. But if you vote republican, I do very much agree with the first 2 points.
    - deltateam 8y ago
      > But if you vote republican, I do very much agree with the first 2 points. which is funny because now all sides, of two, think each other as fascists. democrats think republicans are fascist because the lack of reprimanding against insensitive ideas, while the republicans continue to promote bigotry with no focus on civil rights republicans think democrats are fascist because democrats want to reprimand any voters that don't vote democrat and didn't waste their vote on a non-republican party all while nobody actually does what fascists actually did
umanwizard 8y ago
This is basically totally unrelated to the comment it's replying to.
- malchow 8y ago
  I think it's quite related to the curiosity about the decision mix in this Sup Ct case. But congratulations for Interneting today. You were needlessly crass from a safe distance. Hooray!
  - smt88 8y ago
    Your comment could have included a bit more of a logical segue. It came across fairly off-topic to me, too. HN generally downvotes or splits off OT discussions, which might be the reason someone thought to mention it.
ryanobjc 8y ago
I mean, small wonder. Look at what was being done in the conservative name recently: separated kids in cages. That’s a hard legacy to justify. I also think that the libertarian brand has been tarnished. I think it’s become associated with “justifications why you don’t have to care about anyone (except the free market)” With these as your moral brothers, I can see how it would be hard to be out in a state often called the LEFT coast - who’s progressive politics are decades old. I’m curious as to what’s next for conservatives who reject human cruelty and actually care about their fellow citizens, country, and human beings.
- Covzire 8y ago
  Seperating kids in cages and wrapping them in foil was an Obama era photo that the NYT "mistook" for a current one.
  - chc 8y ago
    You seem to be conflating an act and a photo. There are first-hand reports from members of Congress who have verified that what the poster above described is taking place.
    - alfredallan1 8y ago
      Yes, it is happening now. The point is that it was also happening under Obama (I don’t know the scale of it though), so it is unfair to blame just the Donald for it, while Barry gets a free pass. At least Trump did reverse his stance on splitting families up, as a token, if nothing more.
      - chc 8y ago
        I don't see how that's the point at all. There are many, many awful things that have happened in the past. It's still completely fair to blame people who are doing awful things now. I'm not trying to accuse you of bad faith, but in practice, bringing up past injustices by people who are no longer in power seems like little more than a distraction unless you're suggesting a way we can redress them now.
alfredallan1 8y ago
I’m less liberal than many, but I’m curious how the conservative movement feels issues like climate change and clean oceans and clean air, or even net neutrality ought to be dealt with, if not by govt regulation. Or is the line of thinking that only those rich enough to buy face masks, and have climate controlled mansions with private beaches may enjoy those things.. Maybe this is entirely orthogonal to this thread, so maybe there could be a separate HN thread just for this discussion? I welcome your suggestion and am wholly on board but I really don’t think individually emailing you is the most productive method to have, what is in fact, a wide ranging discussion with multiple participants.
- malchow 8y ago
  This is getting OT, but I think there is a mimetic and performative nature to any discussion larger than, say, four people that means you can never get serious as a group (or on a web forum). In any event would love to hear from you.
  - alfredallan1 8y ago
    Yes, this is both generally relevant, but specifically OT. Hope the mods split it off. There is indeed a performative aspect to a broad discussion, but it offers the advantage of raising broad based issues that just might not occur to an individual in a limited closed session. While HN is not immune to the cons of online communities, I feel a generally civil tone, free of political snark, or heavy biases can be maintained.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The result of the conservativism and libertarian things you mention are not properly considered. It results in what is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. As personal profit and selfishness takes a greater precedence than the wellbeing of the public, the commons must suffer tragedy.
  - alfredallan1 8y ago
    It is indeed true that selfish motives take precedence - in the minds/deliberations of those that stand to profit. But isn’t a govt formed of the elected representatives, who are in office just to represent the interests of the commons?
forapurpose 8y ago
> sort of subterranean for obvious reasons It's not obvious to me. What I see is the pedantic cynical rhetorical appeal to victimization, which makes me think they are a movement of propaganda techniques and not ideas. (And victimization is an incredible claim for a political group that controls both houses of the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and in ~33 of 50 states the entire legislature and executive branch. And they have two leading news outlets, Fox and the WSJ, as their mouthpieces.) My impression is that they don't care about truth or outcomes or even conservatism (as they support Trump, who violates many of their loudly proclaimed principles), only power, and that they have no moral restraint; lies and manipulation are favored tools. I'd be interested in conservative ideas, but I've found no source for those.

swirepe 8y ago

I'm not in the bay area, but I'm curious about the conservative movement.

deltateam 8y ago
I'm in the bay area, where the "anti-conservative" movement is prevalent which means not considering anything that is against the "anti-conservative" party line. many things aren't considered on their merits simply because the conservative face has done or said things they disagree with even though it is completely unrelated to lawmaking or anything congress would even consider. any dissent is seen as support for the current administration. any dissent is seen as TACIT consent for race-based discrimination, xenophobia, and gender based assault and inequality. any dissent elevates you to being the spokesperson of everything they hate. I understand why. Everyone's entire political party needs to operate as a unit to swing power in their favor. but it is so one dimensional that many people reject it, since there always is a gradient for each separate issue. conservative in this context doesn't mean anti-progressive, or risk averse, or traditional. it is just a political grouping, but in the bay area it means even slightly considering the merit behind a not-democrat party proposal.
- smt88 8y ago
  How does conservative not mean anti-progressive? They're opposites by definition, aren't they? I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. This is also how history books divide political forces when describing past societies.
  - deltateam 8y ago
    > I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. but thats what we are talking about, thats what context means its as fluid as any variable name you add to a program, in this case that variable's name is conservative.
    - smt88 8y ago
      I meant that in all contexts, conservative and progressive are antonyms, not just in colloquial usage.
      - deltateam 8y ago
        right, we got that and that's wrong. if your observation became "hey that party self-identifies with the wrong word and maybe there is a historical reason for this" then yes, that is correct
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Because in reality, people and politics are a complex matrix of thousands of issues and not a simple left-or-right slider.
    - smt88 8y ago
      Language doesn't always capture complexity, but we're arguing about definitions, not about whether they apply wholly to any one person. They do certainly apply wholly to ideas, though.
- s2g 8y ago
  I agree that it's ridiculous, since even considering a "conservative" idea makes you the enemy. But if you vote republican, I do very much agree with the first 2 points.
  - deltateam 8y ago
    > But if you vote republican, I do very much agree with the first 2 points. which is funny because now all sides, of two, think each other as fascists. democrats think republicans are fascist because the lack of reprimanding against insensitive ideas, while the republicans continue to promote bigotry with no focus on civil rights republicans think democrats are fascist because democrats want to reprimand any voters that don't vote democrat and didn't waste their vote on a non-republican party all while nobody actually does what fascists actually did

umanwizard 8y ago

This is basically totally unrelated to the comment it's replying to.

malchow 8y ago
I think it's quite related to the curiosity about the decision mix in this Sup Ct case. But congratulations for Interneting today. You were needlessly crass from a safe distance. Hooray!
- smt88 8y ago
  Your comment could have included a bit more of a logical segue. It came across fairly off-topic to me, too. HN generally downvotes or splits off OT discussions, which might be the reason someone thought to mention it.

ryanobjc 8y ago

I mean, small wonder. Look at what was being done in the conservative name recently: separated kids in cages. That’s a hard legacy to justify. I also think that the libertarian brand has been tarnished. I think it’s become associated with “justifications why you don’t have to care about anyone (except the free market)” With these as your moral brothers, I can see how it would be hard to be out in a state often called the LEFT coast - who’s progressive politics are decades old. I’m curious as to what’s next for conservatives who reject human cruelty and actually care about their fellow citizens, country, and human beings.

Covzire 8y ago
Seperating kids in cages and wrapping them in foil was an Obama era photo that the NYT "mistook" for a current one.
- chc 8y ago
  You seem to be conflating an act and a photo. There are first-hand reports from members of Congress who have verified that what the poster above described is taking place.
  - alfredallan1 8y ago
    Yes, it is happening now. The point is that it was also happening under Obama (I don’t know the scale of it though), so it is unfair to blame just the Donald for it, while Barry gets a free pass. At least Trump did reverse his stance on splitting families up, as a token, if nothing more.
    - chc 8y ago
      I don't see how that's the point at all. There are many, many awful things that have happened in the past. It's still completely fair to blame people who are doing awful things now. I'm not trying to accuse you of bad faith, but in practice, bringing up past injustices by people who are no longer in power seems like little more than a distraction unless you're suggesting a way we can redress them now.

alfredallan1 8y ago

I’m less liberal than many, but I’m curious how the conservative movement feels issues like climate change and clean oceans and clean air, or even net neutrality ought to be dealt with, if not by govt regulation. Or is the line of thinking that only those rich enough to buy face masks, and have climate controlled mansions with private beaches may enjoy those things.. Maybe this is entirely orthogonal to this thread, so maybe there could be a separate HN thread just for this discussion? I welcome your suggestion and am wholly on board but I really don’t think individually emailing you is the most productive method to have, what is in fact, a wide ranging discussion with multiple participants.

malchow 8y ago
This is getting OT, but I think there is a mimetic and performative nature to any discussion larger than, say, four people that means you can never get serious as a group (or on a web forum). In any event would love to hear from you.
- alfredallan1 8y ago
  Yes, this is both generally relevant, but specifically OT. Hope the mods split it off. There is indeed a performative aspect to a broad discussion, but it offers the advantage of raising broad based issues that just might not occur to an individual in a limited closed session. While HN is not immune to the cons of online communities, I feel a generally civil tone, free of political snark, or heavy biases can be maintained.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
The result of the conservativism and libertarian things you mention are not properly considered. It results in what is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. As personal profit and selfishness takes a greater precedence than the wellbeing of the public, the commons must suffer tragedy.
- alfredallan1 8y ago
  It is indeed true that selfish motives take precedence - in the minds/deliberations of those that stand to profit. But isn’t a govt formed of the elected representatives, who are in office just to represent the interests of the commons?

forapurpose 8y ago

> sort of subterranean for obvious reasons It's not obvious to me. What I see is the pedantic cynical rhetorical appeal to victimization, which makes me think they are a movement of propaganda techniques and not ideas. (And victimization is an incredible claim for a political group that controls both houses of the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and in ~33 of 50 states the entire legislature and executive branch. And they have two leading news outlets, Fox and the WSJ, as their mouthpieces.) My impression is that they don't care about truth or outcomes or even conservatism (as they support Trump, who violates many of their loudly proclaimed principles), only power, and that they have no moral restraint; lies and manipulation are favored tools. I'd be interested in conservative ideas, but I've found no source for those.