Reveal Your Uncool Conservative Beliefs Here

"no shirt/no shoes = no service" seems pretty common

sorry m8 youve taken off more garments thans good for you m8

has sir maybe been stripping elsewhere tonight before sir arrived here hmmm?

lmao

i refused to serve somebody the other day because he's the guy who invariably leaves a huge dump in the toilet and then hangs around outside keeping an eye on the bathroom door waiting for reactions. cut him a fuckofalot more slack than i woulda cut sarah huckabee sanders i assure you.

lol

What about a labret?

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SardonicRadiantKusimanse-max-1mb.gif

Least worrisome of this category but still a little worrisome.

i refused to serve somebody the other day because he's the guy who invariably leaves a huge dump in the toilet and then hangs around outside keeping an eye on the bathroom door waiting for reactions. cut him a fuckofalot more slack than i woulda cut sarah huckabee sanders i assure you.

― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:18 PM (fifty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My uncool conservative belief is that this person should be caged like an ape.

Actually, that's unfair. I don't believe apes should be caged. Just that guy.

This isn't really a "belief" so much as an unresolved question or doubt, but I'm not sure whether the left has a coherent take on immigration. I don't really think open borders are feasible (I guess that part is a belief), and short of that I don't understand what the left "ask" or goal is on immigration beyond just opposing abhorrent policies like family separation.

Also, I find arguments like "no one is illegal on stolen land" to be evasive and disingenuous. That argument only has weight in the abstract. In reality no one seems to be interested in reintegrating california and texas into mexico or in ceding the United States to native american tribes to what does that actually mean?

I'm not sure whether anyone has a coherent take on immigration

I get what you're saying, man alive.

Of course you will find open borders enthusiasts here (and elsewhere on the left). But it's not like the only rhetorical spaces are "turmpian evil" and "open borders":

- expanded legal immigration
- more permissive asylum policy
- more temporary worker programs
- in the meantime, no detention of asylum seekers
- for fuck's sake, reunite the people separated so far

We also need a sane way to deal with the millions of people who are already living and working here, keeping our economy afloat with their underpaid labor.

oh yeah and

- speedier resolution of asylum claims
- expedited processes for families traveling together
- support, not demonization, of unaccompanied minors
- speedy path to citizenship for undocumented persons without criminal records

That's a bunch of things that aren't open borders or even -gasp- amnesty.

xp also Moodles otm

those all sound good

we should also do amnesty tho

Also by “open borders” most non-anarchists like myself probably mean something like “legal permanent residence on arrival for anyone who asks who isn’t a violent criminal, also amnesty”

Not like landfall citizenship.

what if that means 100 million new arrivals?

ppl say they want speedier resolution of asylum claims ime they say they want speedy approval of asylum claims

s'like death penalty appeals so tis

ime what they want is, obv

100 million more ppl sounds fine, who cares, we have lots of cities that need upzoning

oh im ok with it personally but just saying

God imagine you'm living peacefully in North America and then suddenly all these foreigners turn up uninvited

Multiculturalism gone mad... in the 17th century.

thrilling point lads

No point at all, just thinking how terrible it would be

I mean i know we've got colonialism sorted, thx

The history of colonialism offers a rich vein of things to talk & think about. It's a perennial cartoon: Native Americans stand on the shore seeing ships fulla pilgrims or whatever and saying "if we refuse to educate their children, maybe they'll leave" etc.

But overstressing the precedent has rhetorical risks. Some right-wing choad who thinks he's clever is eventually going to say "yeah and look how that turned out - genocide and displacement, just what we want to avoid."

It remains (perhaps depressingly) the case that many/most current immigrants are arriving not to conquer and enslave but to clean toilets, pick crops, mow lawns....

Darragh, point taken. That said, if one holds my point #2 (vastly more permissive asylum policy) together with #6 (speedier adjudication) I would hope you get the same thing: speedier approval, right?

the tension man alive points out is prob a real thing, even our boy denmark is super creepy about migrants. i favour open borders idealistically on both utilitarian and ethical grounds but in practice the real constraint on immigration is the political backlash it creates in the host country

When Rokhaia Naassan gives birth in the coming days, she and her baby boy will enter a new category in the eyes of Danish law. Because she lives in a low-income immigrant neighborhood described by the government as a “ghetto,” Rokhaia will be what the Danish newspapers call a “ghetto parent” and he will be a “ghetto child.”

Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.

Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

wild

you need spaces for people in housing, transit, schools, you need social services, you need businesses to serve them, there actually are logical reasons for controlling at a minimum the pace of immigration

wouldn't it be more humane to provide transportation for everyone to whatever country they want to go to, instead of treating as exception those who suffer through horrifying trips to get to the places they want to go to? that would entail giving everyone all over the world the choice of where to live, paid for by the countries they want to go to.

yes but y'know I worry we're making this the cool fully automated luxury gay space communism thread and not the uncool conservative opinions thread now

meant my post as more a rabbit–duck illusion kinda thing tbh

Okay so where is the cool fully automated gay space communism thread? Is it a 77 thing?

you need spaces for people in housing, transit, schools, you need social services, you need businesses to serve them

these are arguments for controlling the birth rate

population is growing much slower in say the UK now than it was in the C19th

You're right about there needing to be infrastructure etc., but it's worth noting that there's plenty of room.

http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/maps/US%20Population%20density,%202010%20570x361.png

I think an advocate of dramatically increased legal immigration could say that the housing, transit, schools, social services are a little bit of a "if you build it, they will come" situation, as well as chicken/egg. I mean, in 1887 none of those things existed in Oklahoma. Didn't take long.

Also: Making housing, transit, schools, and social services happen? Sounds like, um, I dunno, JOBS. Which I thought conservatives liked.

The following facts remain stubbornly adjacent:

- The places with the most room are the most conservative and least receptive to immigrants.
- New arrivals are much more comfortable going to the most populous places (with good reason!).
- That said, having new immigrants transform (dare I say, settle?) a rural region - making it more populous, dynamic, and diverse - would be great for them both if it were welcomed bilaterally.

I don't have good answers for those questions - or, at least, not suited to this thread.

Popular methods at modernizing gender in language are an inconsistent mess aiming in all directions at once and only monolinguals think that there are no reasons to criticize those methods except deliberately wanting to exclude people.

a lot of what's framed as the "refugee problem" or the "immigrant problem" is actually a xenophobia problem - this is most apparent in america but it's true everywhere and i'm amused at people who think countries should "moderate" their immigration policies to placate xenophobes, as if such a thing were possible. that's not to say there aren't serious legitimate problems that come with mass numbers of displaced persons, but those numbers, particularly as the effects of climate change take hold, are going to increase rather than decrease. people need to make their peace with mass societal disruption, with mass death, or, more likely, with both.

Is that really a conservative belief?

i thought we decided this was the luxury gay space communism thread

conservatives don't have "beliefs", only prejudices

"conservatives don't have "beliefs", only prejudices"

I think this is a fascist belief, but I don't know if it's conservative or liberal

It's a fact

of all the reductive dichotomies we can sort the world into, "people who worry for the souls of their enemies" and "people who don't" is one of them

Never wear a belt with a waistcoat, ffs

I think this is a fascist belief, but I don't know if it's conservative or liberal

― droit au butt (Euler)

yeah i know i'm ignoring all of the Principled Conservatives who have columns in the New York Times