4 ms·
No, it is exactly the correct label. The states doing this are conservative, and the politicians passing this legislation are conservative, and they will all st
by olliej 4y ago
No, it is exactly the correct label. The states doing this are conservative, and the politicians passing this legislation are conservative, and they will all state this explicitly.
What you are trying is "no true scotsman".
But more to the point: if the "conservative" party, "conservative" politicians, and "conservative" voters are all saying "ban speech we don't like", "ban books we don't like", "ban history we don't like", "ban medical procedures we don't like", "criminalize and ban LGBT people we don't like", "ban criticizing conservative politicians", then that is what "conservative" means.
- mindslight 4y agoNo, I'm really not trying to do "no true scotsman". I'm pointing out that they're getting a pass by being labeled "conservative", as if they're merely trying to resist or slow down change. What they're actually trying to do is create drastic changes. Moldbug spelled this out, calling conservatism a doomed strategy and separating himself from it with his own label of "Reaction". I voted for Biden in 2020 (my first time voting for a major party candidate in a national election), and consider this a solidly conservative choice - in the true sense of the word. The misleading labeling has a fall out effect of screwing up the whole zeitgeist. For starters, the mainstream media (that they endlessly shout the label "leftist" about) is actually (still) conservative, as it (still) fundamentally serves the entrenched pools of capital its owned by or plays golf with.
- olliej 4y agoNo, what defines "conservative" politics is the policies of conservative parties, politicians, and voters _now_ not what you think it meant 50 or 100 years ago.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoThis is a really dumb reasoning. If the "Pro Apples" party voted to ban apples, would that be the metric by which we defined Pro Apples?
- krapp 4y agoIt would be more valid than insisting they can't possibly be against apples, despite their blatant anti-apple policies and constant drumbeat of anti-apple propaganda, because that isn't what "Pro Apples" means.
- kevviiinn 4y agoI wonder what pro life means. Do they support life that already exists? Oh no, not that life. Just the theoretical life
- olliej 4y ago> If the "Pro Apples" party voted to ban apples, would that be the metric by which we defined Pro Apples? Yes. This already happens: There are people, religions, and political parties who claim to be, and are reported on as, "pro life", yet consistently take the position that life is secondary to their religious beliefs.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoThe fact that you do this or others do this does not make it reasonable or authoritatively true. If the conservative party votes for more government control we best not defer to it but rather call them out on it.
- olliej 4y agoThe core of every “conservative” political party in the US is that the government gets to choose who is and who is not a person. Who does and does not have bodily autonomy. What specific version of what specific religion is legal, and that if you have those beliefs you can force your beliefs on anyone else, and discriminate against anyone you want. So how about you drop this BS “conservatism” is not about government control when the core and original and still core tenet of “conservatism” is that not all people are equal, and that not all people should have the same rights, and it has been forever.