LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
For extremely different reasons and purposes, and with what I mean, why are they akin to a religion, but you aren’t? Because from my perspective it seems like one is a religion centered around a cult of liberty, and the other a cult of equality. I think human beings need and gravitate towards religion, and when you try to erase that you just end up with something that fills the exact same role and same thing but often with more problems than the religion had in the first place. I also don’t think they hate the enlightenment as much as you think. You can trace much of what they believe directly to Rousseau after all, and I personally don’t hate the enlightenment. I quite like Hobbes. The enlightenment was not one track or remotely uniform.With what? The regressive left certainly doesn't believe in liberty or equality, and they actively attack the enlightenment. So they are kindred spirits with you in a way.
Last edited:
Horseshoe theory strikes again, and the evidence just keeps mounting that it comes down to a certain type of personality.With what? The regressive left certainly doesn't believe in liberty or equality, and they actively attack the enlightenment. So they are kindred spirits with you in a way.
Because dollars to donuts, a lot of Bible Thumpers would be pushing Marxist theory if they had been born in a family with a different political alignment. The Auth-Left and Auth-Right are the ends of the horseshoe, and hate when people point it out.
And there’s a good chance you’d be a Marxist if you were born to hardline Soviets. That’s how families and raising a human being work lol.
You're wrong on both counts there. I shouldn't even have to explain how the regressive left doesn't believe in equality. They are very cult-like in their actions, but their dogmatism is based more on their idea of "intersectionalism" and "the personal is political" identity politics, and absolute adherance to it, even as the party line constantly changes. Referring to libertarians as a religion/cult based on liberty is laughable, but it does just go to show how entrenched your viewpoint on religion is and how it puts blinders on you, which the rest of what you said goes on to illustrate.
They literally attack it at every opportunity. It is the basis for Western civilization post-dark age, and for them Western civilization is evil.
It’s equality above all else. Every last font and focus is on inequalities and how they must be corrected and how each and every one is a product of some inequality of society or of government.
post-dark age? What the hell are you talking about? The medieval era, the Renaissance, you think all of that was a dark age? You think a bunch of philosophers with wildly different ideas were the basis of all western civilization?
Elaborate. Why is it laughable? Why are you not dogmatic? I’d also say that’s hardly a blinder, but me reflecting on when I WAS a libertarian and would be making damn near every argument you’ve made here, with the same mindset and same set of beliefs. You haven’t said a single thing here I wouldn’t have once said at some point, and in reflection back it seemed to me as if I substituted political theory and the concept of liberty and the founding fathers and all of that for a God. What’s weird to me is that you think all your opponents are in effect religious, whether pseudo or actually so, but yet you are somehow immune to this and it’s a joke to even think about that as a possibility.
Last edited:
LindyAF
Well-known member
TR, and really most non-socialist historical figures would be so far right compared to modern moderates that they'd be over the horizon.
I don't hate moderates, nor do I think I've been nasty. I just think they're misguided, and it doesn't have any staying power.
Yeah, I had a typo that unfortunately changed the meaning, here, I meant to say it was clear Trump wasn't exactly a religious guy. But, eh, Trump did press the social conservative position on the LGBT issue fronts that were being debated when he was president, namely, the military and bathroom stuff.
Trump's coalition was heavily GOP voters. His break was with the GOP establishment. As we've talked about previously, among LGBT Trump underperformed Republicans in 2016. He overperformed in 2020, but I think you've indicated you're disinclined to use those results. Granted, this doesn't prove that opposition to gay marriage was a majority position among Trump voters, but I'd actually be pretty surprised if Trump voters opposed gay marriage less on average than, say, GOP voters in general during 2016 and 2020. If you've got data that says otherwise, I'm curious.
That would have to be a Never-Trumper party. This project probably wouldn't interest Manchin or his constituency. Outside of his brand, moderates of the democrat party are fanatically anti-Trump and would have nothing to do with him. It might interest someone like Gabbard, but moderate dems hate her, it's the anti-war left that still somewhat likes her. In order to appeal to moderates the party would have to reject anything that hinted at "right wing conspiracy theories," or electoral fraud in the 2020 election. The "moderate" wing of the GOP was the ant-Trump wing. You could tell by how much democratic donor money they got.
Its worth noting those juvenile elephants went from literal Rhino murdering necrophiles to well adjusted young men the moment an old boy showed up and set them right.
Hell of 180 that.
That's just the rhetoric they use to justify their bullshit to people who ought to know better. Their actions show that they clearly believe that some should be "more equal" than others.
The medieval era is generally referred to as the Dark Ages, because they really did represent that in a lot of ways.
Because the closest I would ever come to forcing others to obey my ideology would be to simply enforce the idea that they have to play nice with others. I am perfectly okay with others believing differently as long as they don't try to force those beliefs on others.
Because where it comes to you and others like you, it's just a reflection of your own outlook rather than of reality. It's akin to how the leftists accuse others of being doing things that they themselves are guilty of.
Which would be exactly what I'm getting at (or were you unaware of his Progressive Party?). This is also why I refuse to call the regressive left liberal or progressive. They constantly play word games and appropriate names for themselves which they think make them look better.
You have certainly indicated that you believe we enable the other side.
As like, pure political propaganda.
do you want your ideology legislated? You clearly want to enforce it here.
you still aren’t explaining how one is and one isn’t. Thats
I mean, it’s still the basis though. It’s not the rhetoric, it’s the driving force. It’s why it’s able to gain ground, because of perceived or real inequalities and wanting these all eradicated. It gets to the point that it’s at because inequality is inherent, natural, and very often good and in order to fulfill this idea of equality you need to take things further and further.That's just the rhetoric they use to justify their bullshit to people who ought to know better. Their actions show that they clearly believe that some should be "more equal" than others.
There is some of that, but when you compare them to what came before, and what came after.
Most of us aren't wannabee tyrant monarchists after all.And really what your entire argument comes down to is "NO U" while ignoring everything else that differentiates mt ideology from yours. My ideology is about extending greater freedom to as many people as possible, and yours is about turning back the clock, so accusing me of being the same as you is just pathetic.
No, it really is just rhetoric. Again, actions speak much louder than words. These are pro-segregationists who want to judge people based on things like race and sex, which is another thing they have in common with you, I guess. The reason they have gained ground is due to well-meaning idiots and chickenshits who are too worried about being called racist or sexist.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
So you are literally in a position of 'because you believe in God, your ideology is not acceptable grounds for public policy,' and 'Because I do not believe in god, my ideology is acceptable grounds for public policy'?
If that is not the case, please explain to me how it is not.
What's the sitch?
Well-known member
They imported Bull elephants, which solved the problem. The Matriarchs(female elder leaders) weren't fixing that.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Studies aren't the only source of evidence. I want something that you think should be sufficient to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you. Please note that this would rule out arguments based on a religious faith that I do not share with you.
Do you have anything that you think should convince someone who doesn't already agree with you?
Well, remember, Bacle wants to decouple the non-hetero alliance from trans stuff, so the bathroom stuff and trans stuff wouldn't bother him. I didn't closely follow Trump's administration's actions on that front but I don't recall much in the way of headlines mad about LGBT stuff that wasn't trans stuff. Other than when he gutted some HIV/AIDS governmental organization(s) but that could have been coincidental.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Our god’s bigger than your god,
Nicer than your god, wahoooo!
Exciting-er than your god, wahoooo!
Cleaner than your god, wahoooo!
More groovy than your god, wahoooo!
Sexier than your god, wahoooo!
More superior than your god, wahoooo
this seems to be what this whole thread is boiling down to.
Yeah they were specifically straightened out by older men.
Almost like, highly intelligent mammals need dads in their lives despite what screeching feminazis say
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
That seems a satirical if somewhat accurate take on the thread.
The thing is we are actually better off dealing with bible thumpers then marxists, christians are bound by a codified system of ethics that helps restrain that kind of personality and try to push it into constructive ends. Looking at the worlds great faiths it seems like most of them do at least a semi decent job of taking certain controlling personality types and restraining bad behavior and focusing them into good or at least neutral ends.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I feel like any attempt to question that claim would necessarily lead to a derail.
Prince Ire
Section XIII
You mean how life expectancy skyrocketed with the collapse of the Roman Empire, or how the end of the middle ages and the transition to the Early Modern period was accompanied by an increase in the scale of warfare, less protection for civilians during wars, etc.? And I think you'll find absolutism more common both before and after the middle ages than during them?There is some of that, but when you compare them to what came before, and what came after.