The Trump Presidency

[Frogacuda]

I could really care less than less about "nuance".

I was responding to your blanket stereotyping statement that applies to probably a hundred million or more people with an equally stereotypical statement. See how that works?

Honestly, it's not a stereotype, I'd argue it's the defining feature of American Conservativism since at least Hoover.

It's not always expressed that stupidly (but usually is), but the disinterest in systemic/collective reform and the misapplication of individualism to groups is more or less the thing that makes a conservative a conservative.

It's the only constant in conservativism. Everything else is negotiable. It's something you do on the regular as we and we've gotten into it plenty of times. At this point I just have to say prove me wrong.

[haohmaru]

Honestly, it's not a stereotype, I'd argue it's the defining feature of American Conservativism since at least Hoover.

It's not always expressed that stupidly, but the disinterest in systemic/collective reform and the misapplication of individualism is more or less the thing that makes a conservative a conservative.

It's the only constant. It's something you do on the regular as we and we've gotten into it plenty of times. At this point I just have to say prove me wrong.

Valuing individual freedoms, and rights, can coexist with collective reform. It has for generations. Because we disagree on what those collective reforms should be doesn't make your opinion "right" or mine "wrong". There are different approaches to different problems and there can be multiple solutions - if one doesn't fall within what your perception is of what the correct choice is then it's still simply a matter of opinion. Yours.

Each side has points of view that have merit. That should be the starting point of dialogue - but that's something that will never happen in this political construct with the way it is. Everything is hyper-partisan, hypocrisy, rhetoric, and just plain foul in all things government. Until we fix THAT, the collective reforms that you or I might like to see will never happen.

[Calliander]

Can I dissect that, actually?

Aren't we all just trying to be right? To convince someone of how correct we are? If someone says, "Fucking looters, burning down their own cities! They should try protesting peacefully," and I say, "Fuck that, they don't own anything in those cities! Look how you idiots reacted to the kneeling," there's no reconciling there. Neither of us is going to convince the other. We're not going to listen to one another, irrespective of left/right, because we're in a pre-contemplative zone. Our minds are set.

We're only going to sway people who are in a contemplative zone. And I don't know about you all, but for me, initial reactions/tone/word choice let me know if that's the case. Example:

"It's shameful about all these riots and the looting. I wish they would protest peacefully."

That's a person I can have a discussion with.

"I know it felt disrespectful to our troops but wasn't Colin Kaepernick trying to protest peacefully?"

That's a person you can have a discussion with.

Like, I pretty much know everyone's leanings on here so if I make a sweeping statement you (should) know I'm being a smartass and trying to get a reaction. And I get the impression that's how we all operate on here. Does that make any sense or am I being obtuse?

[Frogacuda]

Valuing individual freedoms, and rights, can coexist with collective reform.

Absolutely, and that dynamic is the great thing about the American experiment. But it often results as a compromise between the two sides, rather than either one having the whole picture, and with polarization as bad as it is, that dynamic seems to have broken down.

Because we disagree on what those collective reforms should be doesn't make your opinion "right" or mine "wrong".

No, not at all. But dismissing the notion of systemic reform outright, while speaking about groups as if they're individuals is, in fact, a simple fallacy and objectively wrong. And that's something that is basically universal in the way conservatives speak about social issues. Social security is collapsing? You should have saved. Crime rate is going up? Raise your kids right. Racism is limiting opportunities? Just be a model minority. Social mobility is plummeting? Work harder and make more money.

And if you're speaking to an individual person about how to overcome systemic issues, it can make sense to talk like this, but the problem is when people speak like this about groups or in response to discussions of policy, and all conservatives do this to some extent. Tell me I'm wrong about that.

Each side has points of view that have merit.

Absolutely. Viewing the world through a purely collectivist lens inevitably leads to horrible compromises to individual freedom. My point is not that individualism has no place, my point is that conservatives have difficulty distinguishing where it does and doesn't apply. Individualism is powerless to solve issues that are clearly systemic.

[Doc Holliday]

Does anyone know if Josh is in CHAZ?

https://twitter.com/julio_rosas11/st...43408724520962

[BonusKun]

I'm sorry, explain to me the nuance I missed in "Don't commit crimes".

Meaning don't do stuff that's against the law. Things your parents should teach you that will get you put in jail if you do them. Like I don't know... robbing, assault, stealing, murder, a number of things you know is wrong but you still decide to do it then you act like you're a victim when you get caught. It has nothing to do with being conservative.

It's just should be common sense frog. You could argue that some people have it harder then others and you'd be right but in the end it's your choice to commit crimes. Myself I'd prefer not to get locked up because I did something I know would get my ass in trouble.

That whole "We Demand" shit I read is just awful. Reform should happen with the police which I'm sure we agree upon but yeah no. This isn't the way it's going to happen. Too many people aren't going to give up that kind of power without a fight.

[Frogacuda]

Meaning don't do stuff that's against the law. Things your parents should teach you that will get you put in jail if you do them. Like I don't know... robbing, assault, stealing, murder, a number of things you know is wrong but you still decide to do it then you act like you're a victim when you get caught. It has nothing to do with being conservative.

I would argue that talking to a group as if its an individual, foregoing a discussion about macro-level social issues and just shouting at clouds in this way does, in fact, have a lot to do with being a conservative.

You don't seem to understand the difference between discussing how one person acts and a trend that spans an entire population. You speak like they're the same thing. It's a way of disengaging from any meaningful conversation about what should be done, so you can just sit on your sofa and complain like Archie Bunker. That's the central tenet of modern American conservativism.

It sure as shit isn't a belief in states rights or small government of fiscal conservativism or family values, or anything else anyone ever pretended. Those have all been exposed as highly negotiable. Nope, it's the individualist's fallacy. That's the thing that makes you a conservative.

[Doc Holliday]

Frog has a point, when a large percentage of a population wants to buy, sell drugs, take cars, rape women and loot Wal-marts. The problem is not the individual crime, but the laws which make it a crime that needs to be abolished.

[Frogacuda]

Frog has a point, when a large percentage of a population wants to buy, sell drugs, take cars, rape women and loot Wal-marts. The problem is not the individual crime, but the laws which make it a crime that needs to be abolished.

No, but if statistical trends, for example, show an increase in rapes over a period of time, and we want to discuss why that is, "People are just too rapey nowadays, and they need to stop" is not an answer. Broad trends distributed across large swaths of the population are always the product of systemic or large-scale influences. Talking about them like it's one dude is always stupid. Obviously the rapist is bad and accountable for his actions, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about why there are more of them and what to do about it.

But this is precisely how conservatives talk about every fucking thing. Go up to any conservative and talk about the fact that social mobility has fallen 70% in the last 40 years or so, how fewer people are able to succeed and there are less opportunities. Invariably you will hear some anecdotal bullshit about how "I was able to work myself up" or "My dad came here with two cents and a dream," or "Bill Gates did it and so can you." Shit about maximizing your individual opportunity, while ignoring the systemic issues limiting the amount of opportunity distributed across the entire population. Any effort to discuss an issue affecting the population at large is regarded as if it's a personal grievance.

I know you know exactly what I'm talking about, I see this literally every single day.

[Doc Holliday]

Conservatives need to go back to talking about family values. Not in a judgmental, “that’s degenerate” way, but a matter of fact, a single mother can’t raise multiple children alone, so those kids turn to gangs, way.

And that’s not the only factor, school districts need a Federally backed minimum funding, education needs to be incentivized for kids to go, meaning jobs are there when they get out, banks need incentives to invest in small business, all things that establish wealth in a community.

All that is vacant, then the public expects the cops to clean up the mess.