rolling explaining conservatism

divided we fall for it

"You said that part of that is that this is what freedom looks like. But is the major decrease in the number of people — according to the CBO — who will have health insurance, is it freedom or is it that some people will no longer be able to afford health insurance under your plan? What they’re saying is that this [a 64-year old making less than $27,000 a year will pay $14,600 a year for health insurance instead of the $1,700 they pay now under President Barack Obama’s law] isn’t freedom, this isn’t people voluntarily deciding not to have health insurance. It’s that your plan makes it unaffordable for people."

"We’re not going to make people buy something that’s so expensive that they can’t afford, that the market is not going to offer. And so where I dispute that comparison is it suggests that we’re going to have the same kinds of plans being offered in 10 years that Obamacare would otherwise offer.The person in their 50s or 60s does have additional health care costs than, say, a person in their 20s and 30s. You’re right in saying — and we agree — we believe we should have even more assistance and that’s one of the things we’re looking at for that person in their 50s and 60s."

“So, you’re going to change the plan?"

“That is among the things we’re looking at doing, yes. And the point I would say is, we’re going to let people buy what they want to buy. We’re going to have more plans being offered, more choice and competition.”

“We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good. And Meals on Wheels sounds great.”

_________

"Are you surprised?”

“Yeah. Because he was told ― I was under the influence that he was going to help us.”

“What would you say to him to convince him not to cut this program?”

“What if it was your momma?”

Based on the last few days, conservatism means this amazing (?) quartet of tweets:

https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/843115966477164544

https://twitter.com/Gavin_McInnes/status/843245641316864000

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/843602974610022404

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/843626371830206464

Stood right in some dogtruth

have you ever stood in another person's truth

I don't like that she's pro-choice but I'm not going to be a baby about it.

uh, he is gavin mcinnes

Does he always look crosseyed?

The altright.com "Pro-Life Temptation" article is ... something else.

Forgot we had this thread from the Bush era: What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

But mostly I came here to post this quote from LGM / http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/05/party-ideas-tm-2

The whole party is just a racket justifying the most upward redistribution of wealth that can pass Congress, justified with asinine back-of-a-cocktail-napkin crap.

"On the other hand, had Hillary cheated her way to presidency, we'd be fighting 2 or 3 wars at this point. Only by Trump's deft use of unpredictability have we kept one step ahead of the enemies who wish to do us harm on our soil, so they lash out at our unprepared allies as a result."

protecting privilege, increasing existing privilege, and violent, hateful spite against anybody who might think they're better than them

feel like all the most virulent strains are substantially rooted in resenting smart kids in grade school

sorry for being boring and obvious though

http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/

the ultimate conservative is tom buchanan, idle rich, openly racist, cheating on his wife. he's who the patriots in galt gulch want to be

xp. a good counter-example to tombot's post - that guy was definitely a bullied "smart kid" in school

wow that was some amazingly shallow clickbait. thanks for sharing.

lol if u needed evidence its thesis is true reread this thread

someone made a book out of an ilx thread again?

i just dont see how ppl can buy into conservatism without a fundamental lack of empathy for those less fortunate than themselves

yes that's the problem. you can't even model a person who has empathy for others and comes to conservative conclusions about how best to express that empathy.

I have seen that argument made over and over again and I still think it's bullshit. I know what conservatives THINK their values are; I just happen to believe they're wrong.

And in any case it doesn't matter. Even if your belief in your values (freedom, order, justice, tradition, family, or whatever) is utterly pure and sincere, your support for policies that fuck over the downtrodden is still vile. The end result is that those who most need help and protection - the poor, the vulnerable, the sick, communities of color - are left mercy to violent winds. No amount of reading William F. Buckley or whatever is going to make me forget or ignore that. Sorry not sorry.

the whole conservative belief that big government aid encourages dependency and saps ppl's dignity and that ppl need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps -- this is not some bullshit they're making up to cover up for "protecting privilege, increasing existing privilege, and violent, hateful spite against anybody who might think they're better than them." this is what they believe.

and they are delusional

and you don't have to apologize to me. it's just good to know what ppl you disagree w/ actually believe and not just what your judgement of the consequences of those beliefs are. you can see conservatives do the same thing when they model liberal thinking. they often ime (tho more often than liberals if that article above is to be believed) just cite their own least favorable interpretation of the motivations and consequences of liberal ideology.

I think it's fair to say that any variety of empathy which extends no further than your loved ones and people in your community who look and think like you isn't actually empathy but an amazing simulation thereof.

less often* i mean in that parenthetical

e pluribus unum bitches

like surely you know they say the same exact things about you right? a little epistemic humility might be useful here.

those beliefs are informed by privilege even if not consciously

fuck that. i've never shown such political bad judgment as to vote for george w bush or donald fucking trump. they owe me an apology

This excellent contenderizer post from a while back deserves greater airing:

> progressives often cluck about the manipulation of poor conservatives, implying that they're mooncalf rubes too dumb to know when they're voting against their own interests. this seems wrongheaded on a number of levels. for one thing, it presumes that such interests can be measured objectively. they can't. the conservatives in question likely stack their towers of relative value quite differently than most progressives. it's also condescending and plays into a well-established conservative narrative, one which holds that the american left is a coalition built cynically on graft, on stealing from the common pot in order to buy the votes of the destitute & lazy. viewed through that lens, the refusal to be so bought, even when one is genuinely needy, becomes a point of pride.

> ― The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Saturday, March 18, 2017 11:00 PM (three months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It remains a good corrective to the "lol dumb right-wingers be manipulated into voting against their interests" narrative. So at least THAT bit needs correcting.

But again, if a policy is racist, supporting it for what you think are non-racist reasons is still shitty in the extreme.

mordy i don't know what superior authority you believe yourself to be arguing from but fwiw i think you are wrong here

the whole conservative belief that big government aid encourages dependency and saps ppl's dignity

for example, this seems to me one of the more brazen and obvious hollow rationalizations that gets thrown around. what are you so confident this is genuine as to use it as your example? note i did exclude the "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" part because ppl do really fall in love with this self aggrandizing fantasy.

"protecting privilege, increasing existing privilege, and violent, hateful spite against anybody who might think they're better than them."

If you think this isn't what they believe, maybe look at what some people are saying about the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire?

Yeah don't really care whether it's genuinely held or not.

Both because it is provably wrong (in the sense that conservatives who speak of "bootstraps" are 99.9% white dudes who benefited from oodles of privilege they may not be aware of) and because the public policies emanating from it are enormously, demonstrably destructive.

that was xp to the above about dependency

anyone who seriously believes in 'bootstraps' past the age of 16, when the rich kids get new cars, is as silly as someone who believes in santa claus or the great pumpkin. trump can have those fools. trump voters are waaaaay outnumbered in the grand scheme. dems should concentrate on appealing to them and motivating non-voters instead of 'figuring out' trump voters and trying to flip them imho

for example, this seems to me one of the more brazen and obvious hollow rationalizations that gets thrown around. what are you so confident this is genuine as to use it as your example?

bc i believe in the principle in a general sense. i think that getting something for nothing is humiliating and unenjoyable and that everyone wants to work to earn their way. no one wants to be on government aid bc it's a mostly shameful thing for most ppl. despite that i support a robust social safety net bc i think that we need to support ppl who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves and bc i think we're all in this together etc etc but i believe the principle conservatives rely upon here is sincere bc it's an extremely relatable principle!

except those people voted for a guy who inherited $200,000,000 for nothing. logic fails that profound are healthier to just walk away from than reason with

Feel like that's one major thing that defines conservatism: others may see the value in the availability of options they may not personally endorse or agree with, while conservatives want to see the world molded to their particular worldview.

One may grant that it's a relatable principle, but believe that the way it is carried out in a policy arena is destructive.

There's nothing noble about the way drug tests for welfare recipients disproportionately stigmatize and harm poor people of color, while steering massive bailouts to banks without asking their executives to pee in a cup.

others may see the value in the availability of options they may not personally endorse or agree with

i think conservatives would laugh at the idea that this describes liberalism fwiw

Well, and I don't even know that I would use that as a descriptor of liberals across the board, but it certainly doesn't seem to describe conservatism.

mordy i think you using your own (non-conservative) reasoning/feelings to explain the sincerity of the conservative position is misunderstanding in m/l the same way you are accusing others in the thread of doing

i suspect i know and speak to more conservatives irl than almost anyone on ilx fwiw

like surely you know they say the same exact things about you right? a little epistemic humility might be useful here.

Well, because this board does not have 500 threads devoted to conservative bile-spewing and angry projection and badly drawn right-wing cartoons, so I never oh wait

i don't have exact numbers but i'd guess a majority of my synagogue went for trump. ppl i eat lunch with every week, pray w/, learn w/, and discuss politics w/

hillary won my county like 80% - 20%. fuck trump voters

i suspect i know and speak to more conservatives irl than almost anyone on ilx fwiw

― Mordy, Friday, June 23, 2017 1:54 PM (thirty-six seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

im a white dude from texas, so probably not

Depends where in Texas you live