6 ms·

The claim that conservatism is rooted in an inability to process reality is a misrepresentation. The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual prefe

by kubb 1y ago

The claim that conservatism is rooted in an inability to process reality is a misrepresentation. The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. The danger arises when this instinct is hijacked by a rigid ideology that resists truth and seeks control rather than continuity. Which is, you know, what the American right is doing.

mschuster91 1y ago
> The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. ... which inevitably breaks down when fundamental assumptions become disproven. And that's the point. Many "moderate" Conservatives still believe in the "trickle down" economy theory or that government debt is inherently bad and a government's budget needs to be balanced. Both have been proven time and time again to be not just wrong, but outright disastrous in their consequences, and yet Germany voted that ideology into chancellorship, not to mention what is currently going on in the US.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > government debt is inherently bad and a government's budget needs to be balanced We're going to find out if that is true or not.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    For heavens sake WE ALREADY HAVE FOUND THAT OUT. Look at Germany: 16 years of austerity policy have left our infrastructure so thoroughly compromised it literally falls apart - we were damn lucky that that bridge collapse in Dresden end of last year didn't kill anyone! And even in the US you see it with every presidential change: Democrat governments cut services and expenditures because the last Republican cut taxes for the wealthy, the frustration leads to people vote for Republicans who introduce yet another round of billionaire tax cuts and blow up the government debt by untold billions of dollars, rinse and repeat.
- detourdog 1y ago
  I can't even tell what the current ideology of the US is. The current thought seems to be that debt doesn't matter but social programs are waste. So we must run up deficits while reducing spending. The US seems to be combining the worst of both ideologies. I can't imagine what happens next.
  - Hikikomori 1y ago
    Not much room to cut taxes for the rich without increasing the deficit which they've said must go down, so their great solution is to cut welfare programs to give a tax cut for the rich.
    - detourdog 1y ago
      That is not my confusion. My confusion is that they are labeled conservative.
      - Hikikomori 1y ago
        It's the two Santa's since Reagan. Whenever Dems have power it's always about being fiscally responsible and not raising taxes. When they are they just ignore what they say and spend like a drunken Santa while cutting taxes for the rich.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        The current usage of the term "conservative" is just a fig leaf to hide the less-palatable aims of a radical fundamentalist agenda aimed at attacking most modern aspects of our society. Go find any definition of conservatism written by traditional conservative intellectuals, and you will find Trumpists are directly opposed to most of it. Basically, conservatives got increasingly angry (because things inevitably do change), so they decided to give up on conservatism and flip the table instead. One intellectual upstream of Trumpism is the writings of Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin), who laid out how mere conservatism wasn't enough because "Cthulhu swims left" still, and coined his philosophy "reactionary". This also ties into one of the commonly-described dynamics of fascism - invoking an idea of some imagined idyllic past, as a reason that the current society needs to be attacked and destroyed. I had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election until Biden 2020 and Harris 2024. I consider those solidly actually-conservative votes, and partially attribute them to my getting older and more actually-conservative.
LordDragonfang 1y ago
Staunch adherence to the familiar in a changing world is dangerous in-and-of itself. It is inherently anti-science. And "order" doesn't fully capture it either, because the concept it gestures at can be more accurately described as "hierarchy" - as Kirk puts it, "a conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions". In other words, everyone has a proper place in society, with some above and others below, and any attempts to remove that hierarchy are moral wrongs which require the transgressors to be put back in their place. You can see how that core belief is intrinsically dangerous, and how nearly every controversial conservative belief about social classes falls out of it. (It's also worth noting that this explains why conservatism's earliest champions were supporters of the aristocracy, and also why conservatism is more beloved by the old-money wealthy than move-fast-and-break-things new-money tech.)
- itsoktocry 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    >in a world where half of all published "science" is fake or fraudulent (and dominated by leftists), See here is the thing- you don't know this is true. You never actually went and looked at the science or verified how much of it is fake. And yet, at the same time, you benefited from this science when its convenient to you because you probably don't realize that a medication or something you are using came from left leaning university. This is what I mean by being out of touch with reality.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      Sigh. Stop. I read the parent's post and his concerns are not without merit. << See here is the thing- you don't know this is true. You never actually went and looked at the science or verified how much of it is fake. Technically speaking, neither do you unless you went over said data yourself. That said, some people did[2] and found that a good chunk of current studies can't be replicated. What does that say about the state of said science? Does it support your position? Does it support parent's post? << something you are using came from left leaning university. The problem is not with left leaning or even right leaning. It is with people who blindly proclaim "Science!", but, at best, are an equivalent of annoying fanboys and, at worst, dilettantes, who feel compelled to use power of the state to squash people, who, in their mind, undermine their POV[1]. << This is what I mean by being out of touch with reality. And somehow, just to top it all off, they feel superior. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
turnsout 1y ago
> The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. Yeah, that actually is an inability to process reality. Stuff changes, and things have never been stable or orderly.
- itsoktocry 1y ago
  Not every change is good, so we should be cautious. That's also a cornerstone of conservatism.
  - jason_oster 1y ago
    Not every status quo is good.
  - JCattheATM 1y ago
    Fear is quite distinct from caution, conservatism consistently seems to be defined by the former and not the latter.
ActorNightly 1y ago
[flagged]
- unclad5968 1y ago
  > The issue is, you will never ever see me as being correct because in your brain you are incapable of realizing that you are wrong. The insanity and narcissism in this statement must be satire right? The idea that you're right and anyone who doesn't see that is clearly just incapable of recognizing they are wrong seems hypocritical at best and the same line of thinking that has lead to some lovely historical movements at worst.

by kubb 1y ago

mschuster91 1y ago

> The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. ... which inevitably breaks down when fundamental assumptions become disproven. And that's the point. Many "moderate" Conservatives still believe in the "trickle down" economy theory or that government debt is inherently bad and a government's budget needs to be balanced. Both have been proven time and time again to be not just wrong, but outright disastrous in their consequences, and yet Germany voted that ideology into chancellorship, not to mention what is currently going on in the US.

WalterBright 1y ago
> government debt is inherently bad and a government's budget needs to be balanced We're going to find out if that is true or not.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  For heavens sake WE ALREADY HAVE FOUND THAT OUT. Look at Germany: 16 years of austerity policy have left our infrastructure so thoroughly compromised it literally falls apart - we were damn lucky that that bridge collapse in Dresden end of last year didn't kill anyone! And even in the US you see it with every presidential change: Democrat governments cut services and expenditures because the last Republican cut taxes for the wealthy, the frustration leads to people vote for Republicans who introduce yet another round of billionaire tax cuts and blow up the government debt by untold billions of dollars, rinse and repeat.
detourdog 1y ago
I can't even tell what the current ideology of the US is. The current thought seems to be that debt doesn't matter but social programs are waste. So we must run up deficits while reducing spending. The US seems to be combining the worst of both ideologies. I can't imagine what happens next.
- Hikikomori 1y ago
  Not much room to cut taxes for the rich without increasing the deficit which they've said must go down, so their great solution is to cut welfare programs to give a tax cut for the rich.
  - detourdog 1y ago
    That is not my confusion. My confusion is that they are labeled conservative.
    - Hikikomori 1y ago
      It's the two Santa's since Reagan. Whenever Dems have power it's always about being fiscally responsible and not raising taxes. When they are they just ignore what they say and spend like a drunken Santa while cutting taxes for the rich.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      The current usage of the term "conservative" is just a fig leaf to hide the less-palatable aims of a radical fundamentalist agenda aimed at attacking most modern aspects of our society. Go find any definition of conservatism written by traditional conservative intellectuals, and you will find Trumpists are directly opposed to most of it. Basically, conservatives got increasingly angry (because things inevitably do change), so they decided to give up on conservatism and flip the table instead. One intellectual upstream of Trumpism is the writings of Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin), who laid out how mere conservatism wasn't enough because "Cthulhu swims left" still, and coined his philosophy "reactionary". This also ties into one of the commonly-described dynamics of fascism - invoking an idea of some imagined idyllic past, as a reason that the current society needs to be attacked and destroyed. I had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election until Biden 2020 and Harris 2024. I consider those solidly actually-conservative votes, and partially attribute them to my getting older and more actually-conservative.

LordDragonfang 1y ago

Staunch adherence to the familiar in a changing world is dangerous in-and-of itself. It is inherently anti-science. And "order" doesn't fully capture it either, because the concept it gestures at can be more accurately described as "hierarchy" - as Kirk puts it, "a conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions". In other words, everyone has a proper place in society, with some above and others below, and any attempts to remove that hierarchy are moral wrongs which require the transgressors to be put back in their place. You can see how that core belief is intrinsically dangerous, and how nearly every controversial conservative belief about social classes falls out of it. (It's also worth noting that this explains why conservatism's earliest champions were supporters of the aristocracy, and also why conservatism is more beloved by the old-money wealthy than move-fast-and-break-things new-money tech.)

itsoktocry 1y ago
[flagged]
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  >in a world where half of all published "science" is fake or fraudulent (and dominated by leftists), See here is the thing- you don't know this is true. You never actually went and looked at the science or verified how much of it is fake. And yet, at the same time, you benefited from this science when its convenient to you because you probably don't realize that a medication or something you are using came from left leaning university. This is what I mean by being out of touch with reality.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    Sigh. Stop. I read the parent's post and his concerns are not without merit. << See here is the thing- you don't know this is true. You never actually went and looked at the science or verified how much of it is fake. Technically speaking, neither do you unless you went over said data yourself. That said, some people did[2] and found that a good chunk of current studies can't be replicated. What does that say about the state of said science? Does it support your position? Does it support parent's post? << something you are using came from left leaning university. The problem is not with left leaning or even right leaning. It is with people who blindly proclaim "Science!", but, at best, are an equivalent of annoying fanboys and, at worst, dilettantes, who feel compelled to use power of the state to squash people, who, in their mind, undermine their POV[1]. << This is what I mean by being out of touch with reality. And somehow, just to top it all off, they feel superior. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

turnsout 1y ago

> The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. Yeah, that actually is an inability to process reality. Stuff changes, and things have never been stable or orderly.

itsoktocry 1y ago
Not every change is good, so we should be cautious. That's also a cornerstone of conservatism.
- jason_oster 1y ago
  Not every status quo is good.
- JCattheATM 1y ago
  Fear is quite distinct from caution, conservatism consistently seems to be defined by the former and not the latter.

ActorNightly 1y ago

[flagged]

unclad5968 1y ago
> The issue is, you will never ever see me as being correct because in your brain you are incapable of realizing that you are wrong. The insanity and narcissism in this statement must be satire right? The idea that you're right and anyone who doesn't see that is clearly just incapable of recognizing they are wrong seems hypocritical at best and the same line of thinking that has lead to some lovely historical movements at worst.