LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Lord Sovereign]

What's necessary is presenting a totally different worldview, a complete rejection of liberalism. Weeds have to be pulled up by their roots.

So, baby out with the bathwater because the radicals went too far? This is the exact same logic that was used to destroy organised religion in the west. Horseshoe theory is not a meme.

 

[Bacle]

So, baby out with the bathwater because the radicals went too far? This is the exact same logic that was used to destroy organised religion in the west. Horseshoe theory is not a meme.

Exactly.

The regressive Right cannot accept that Leftism and liberalism aren't the same things, and want anything left of center purged. Just as the regressive Left want them to conflagrate Leftism and liberalism, to keep the Right from allying with classical liberals who thing the Left has gone too far, which makes it easier to purge anyone the Left cannot force to submit.

They also cannot grock that trying to paint every ideology, worldview, and ethical code as a 'religion' blinds them to the nuanced and subtle realities of how people these days actually think. They are so religiously driven themselves, they cannot accept people can have view and ideologies that are not 'religions'.

This is why the Left is able to successfully paint a lot of the Right as bible thumpers who want to turn the US into an effective theocracy and force their regressive right version of SJW bullshit on the rest of us.

This is why the US desperately needs a third party, to give us options besides trying to continuously try to fit everyone under an outmoded 'You are either a liberal or a conservative' paradigm.

 

[LindyAF]

This is the exact same logic that was used to destroy organised religion in the west.

Not really? It's what Dawkins-types used to argue against it but I don't think they played a significant role in it's decline. In the US membership decline is most severe among mainstream protestant denominations IIRC, whereas it's least severe among evangelical ones.

I'm biased, obviously, but I think the facts fit better with the narrative that much of Christianity compromised enough with liberalism (which had already borrowed from Christianity, tbf) that for the mainstream it stopped differentiating itself enough to justify itself to people. Maybe the situation is different in Europe but IIRC religious decline there had already set in well before those people.

In Europe particularly the World Wars and dominance of communism, particularly among the intelligentsia probably played a significant role.

 

[almostinsane]

Regarding homosexuals and conservatives, I know that there are homosexuals who may be red-pilled considering the craziness of the Left and the fact that conservatives generally don't want to roll back gay marriage.

However, based in the actions of the loudest voices among them, I maintain a certain cynicism in that regard. Where were the lesbians where little girls were told they were really boys for liking trucks and sports? Where were the gays where little boys were told they were girls for being slightly effiminate?

The movement to define gender as a social construct and its terrible damage to children is done in their name. And most either stay silent, pay lip service, or outright support it.

Then there is the significant amount of gay people willing to punish their fellow citizens for thought crimes. The minute they gained power, it became less about "live-and-let live" and more about retribution and forced affirming of homosexuality.

I would welcome any gay person who is willing to subscribe to the idea that healthy disagreement is the American norm, but I see so few.

 

[Abhorsen]

However, based in the actions of the loudest voices among them, I maintain a certain cynicism in that regard. Where were the lesbians where little girls were told they were really boys for liking trucks and sports? Where were the gays where little boys were told they were girls for being slightly effiminate?

So there was a double problem here. First, gays were used to being gay not being a changing characteristic, and it took/takes a while to realize that gender identity is more fluid (people absolutely just snap out of gender dysphoria at certain ages, for example). We had campaigned on the idea that being gay isn't a choice for so long, LGBTs didn't realize that the T part sorta is a choice, especially with the non-binary bullshit. Also, the massive flood of manipulated kids is very new as well. This wasn't a thing 10 years ago.

Now that it is being realized, though, there are definitely gays protesting against this, and being attacked by the woke for doing so. Arielle Scarcella is a great example of this. She's incredibly sex positive, but started realizing what was happening, then left the left. Dave Rubin is another example, as is Blair White. I'm an example. There's a bunch, but just as conservative people tend not to be the loud voices on social media and protest, so do the more right leaning LGBTs.

The movement to define gender as a social construct and its terrible damage to children is done in their name. And most either stay silent, pay lip service, or outright support it.

Then there is the significant amount of gay people willing to punish their fellow citizens for thought crimes. The minute they gained power, it became less about "live-and-let live" and more about retribution and forced affirming of homosexuality.

I would welcome any gay person who is willing to subscribe to the idea that healthy disagreement is the American norm, but I see so few.

I would say that it's not just gay people willing to punish others for thought crimes, its the left (which does include gay people). People on the left then use the most 'oppressed' class it contains as a shield to critique others, even if they aren't members of that class. It's like white liberals calling everything racist, but now it's straight liberals doing the same.

 

[LindyAF]

They also cannot grock that trying to paint every ideology, worldview, and ethical code as a 'religion' blinds them to the nuanced and subtle realities of how people these days actually think. They are so religiously driven themselves, they cannot accept people can have view and ideologies that are not 'religions'.

I have made zero religious argument in this thread, nor do I think I have said anything is like a religion, although I may have done so in passing, and I might have said that religious people exist in the context of making an argument about the electoral cost-benefit. But if this is a response to me I think you are pattern-matching to an argument I am not making.

This is why the Left is able to successfully paint a lot of the Right as bible thumpers who want to turn the US into an effective theocracy and force their regressive right version of SJW bullshit on the rest of us.

I thought this when you made that earlier comment about how you used to think of the Right-wing "American Taliban" and didn't say anything, but I have no clue why you keep bragging that you used to agree with left-wing propaganda against the right. Do you think they don't propagandize against you, now? IIRC You're a Trump supporter who thinks there was electoral fraud.

This is why the US desperately needs a third party, to give us options besides trying to continuously try to fit everyone under an outmoded 'You are either a liberal or a conservative' paradigm.

I mean any third party would be either a breakaway party of moderates would be heavily NeverTrumper system-truster types, which wouldn't fit you well. And any breakaway right populist or nationalist party would have to draw heavily from harder right social-cons, which doesn't really sound like it'd be your cup of tea either.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

.

Of course, weirdness is not criminality and non-criminals should not be treated like criminals. So while I do think certain people should probably be restricted from roles of authority over children, I don't agree with @The Immortal Watch Dog prescription. (Also, I think it would hurt the "dumb trans-trender kid" and "discord grooming victim" components of the population in a way I don't think is reasonable).

96% of those de-transition when you get then away from their groomers and the degenerate school counselors and chronic abusers with degrees that brain wash them into mutilating themselves.

During the lockdowns last year more children detransitioned and rejected the social pressure and brain washing than ever before. Most of those kids no longer wish to even physically attend school such is their hatred for their captors.

I do not know why you would assume I want those people chained. Those kids are national heroes. They should be protected and given every available resource to recover what was lost from them.

I care more about the ones who remain what they are. They are statistically the biggest threat to the safety of minors outside of opiods.

Edit- people.keep repeating Salon talking points. Transgender people in general have this problem and part of that is the issue with self identification

You can pearl clutch all you want but that demographic is what it is and any attempts to confront are met with social terrorism and slander on behalf of them.

 

[FriedCFour]

... but [rant]. Fine. What's your evidence in support of that?

It’s inherent to it. Fathers and mothers aren’t the same and perform different roles in raising children. I also just don’t trust studies and fucking hate the “do you have a study to support that claim” mentality of the cult of expertise. So yeah, I know this is going to get a bunch of replies with the studies that say “oh no difference at all!” But I really couldn’t care less.

 

[Bacle]

I have made zero religious argument in this thread, nor do I think I have said anything is like a religion, although I may have done so in passing, and I might have said that religious people exist in the context of making an argument about the electoral cost-benefit. But if this is a response to me I think you are pattern-matching to an argument I am not making.

None of what I said was a reply to you, it was a reply to the person I quoted, and a general observation about political horseshoe theory.

I thought this when you made that earlier comment about how you used to think of the Right-wing "American Taliban" and didn't say anything, but I have no clue why you keep bragging that you used to agree with left-wing propaganda against the right. Do you think they don't propagandize against you, now? IIRC You're a Trump supporter who thinks there was electoral fraud.

Except until Trump, I saw no one on the Right, on the national stage, who made me think they wanted anything other than to cut taxes, keep their guns, protect the unborn, and force Christian dogma as law any way they could.

Trump changed my view of the Right, along with some others, who instead of trying to make the Right about Christian dogma, instead appealed via protecting the Constitution from Far-Left radicals.

But since Trump was robbed of his win, I've been seeing a massive upswing in regressive right people wanting to double down on their fringe views, thinking "we didn't get enough hardcore social con vote, and that's why Trump isn't in the White House". Which completely ignores the election fraud issues in favor of purity spiral politics.

And not everything negative the Left says about the Right is a lie or propaganda, either.

Like trying to get the Right on board with environmental issues (where they could provide a great counter to the Far-Left radicals who taken over the topic) has been like pulling teeth, because so many just see any environmental issue as a 'watermelon' situation and don't care to learn about it in any great detail.

I mean any third party would be either a breakaway party of moderates would be heavily NeverTrumper system-truster types, which wouldn't fit you well. And any breakaway right populist or nationalist party would have to draw heavily from harder right social-cons, which doesn't really sound like it'd be your cup of tea either.

You are wrong that a break away party on the Right would need to rely heavily on hard right social cons; infact a break away party is more likely to represent the center of the political spectrum, and not have the baggage the other two parties carry in their institutional inertia.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

It’s inherent to it. Fathers and mothers aren’t the same and perform different roles in raising children. I also just don’t trust studies and fucking hate the “do you have a study to support that claim” mentality of the cult of expertise. So yeah, I know this is going to get a bunch of replies with the studies that say “oh no difference at all!” But I really couldn’t care less.

Hell, we can see that in the world of fauna in Africa, where people had to deal with elephant youths that assaulted animals and people and generally behaved like arseholes. It was only when they imported older elephants in that said youths stopped acting like vicious teenagers, because said matriarch showed them to act like an adult and punish them when they did not.

 

[LordsFire]

Exactly.

The regressive Right cannot accept that Leftism and liberalism aren't the same things, and want anything left of center purged. Just as the regressive Left want them to conflagrate Leftism and liberalism, to keep the Right from allying with classical liberals who thing the Left has gone too far, which makes it easier to purge anyone the Left cannot force to submit.

They also cannot grock that trying to paint every ideology, worldview, and ethical code as a 'religion' blinds them to the nuanced and subtle realities of how people these days actually think. They are so religiously driven themselves, they cannot accept people can have view and ideologies that are not 'religions'.

You know, I think part of the problem here is definitional.

How do you define 'religion'?

 

[Bacle]

You know, I think part of the problem here is definitional.

How do you define 'religion'?

Well, usually a religion has some supernatural/spiritual component to it; that's the easiest way to differentiate out if something is a 'religion', or simply a secular philosophy.

 

[LordsFire]

Well, usually a religion has some supernatural/spiritual component to it; that's the easiest way to differentiate out if something is a 'religion', or simply a secular philosophy.

So it's literally just 'believes in the supernatural' that distinguishes it to you?

 

[LindyAF]

Except until Trump, I saw no one on the Right, on the national stage, who made me think they wanted anything other than to cut taxes, keep their guns, protect the unborn, and force Christian dogma as law any way they could.

Just how much of this do you actually disagree with, except your dislike of Christianity (or Christian dogma)? I assume from your language here that you at least don't support abortion, at least.

Trump changed my view of the Right, along with some others, who instead of trying to make the Right about Christian dogma, instead appealed via protecting the Constitution from Far-Left radicals.

That was hardly a new argument. The tea party, for instance, fucking loved talking about the constitution. My memory of arguments along this line only go back to like the bush era (I'm young and don't remember clinton at all), but I'm pretty sure conservatives have been appealing to the constitution and protecting it from far-left radicals ever since there have been far-left radicals.

And although I'm pretty sure everyone knew that Trump was exactly a religious guy, he was hardly averse to appealing to Christianity either.

Edit: Should say "I'm pretty sure everyone knew that Trump wasn't exactly a religious guy."

But since Trump was robbed of his win, I've been seeing a massive upswing in regressive right people wanting to double down on their fringe views, thinking "we didn't get enough hardcore social con vote, and that's why Trump isn't in the White House". Which completely ignores the election fraud issues in favor of purity spiral politics.

You keep calling views that have never been fringe and are actually currently the majority position on the right, fringe. Saying it a bunch and wishing it was true doesn't make it true. If you'd like you can call them "views I think will be fringe in the future." That aside, you and I probably don't travel in the same circles IRL or online outside of The Sietch, so we might not be seeing the same things, but I don't really think this was accurate. The dissident right upswing started on the tail end of the obama / during the 2016 election cycle.

You are wrong that a break away party on the Right would need to rely heavily on hard right social cons; infact a break away party is more likely to represent the center of the political spectrum, and not have the baggage the other two parties carry in their institutional inertia.

I addressed that possibility too, a moderate NeverTrump system-truster "alliance of the center against the fringes" deal. And I guess there's already the Libertarian Party, which are generally socially liberal. But any form of nationalist or populist party would be trying to appeal to people as "to the Right of the GOP establishment," and be to the right of the GOP on most social issues (immigration, guns, etc.) so it would naturally attract social cons. Therefore it'd almost certainly end up in at least the same place the GOP was during Trump, where marriage as one man and one woman is still on the platform, even if it's de-emphasized and not the #1 issue.

 

[Captain X]

Whether you call it a 'religion,' a 'ideology,' a 'worldview,' or whatever else, it is directly equivalent to a religion.

This is just entirely a rationalization on your part. Words do mean things. This is part of the problem I have with leftists as well, honestly. So, no, I'm not religious, and you trying to claim otherwise is just an attempt to play the "you're just like me" game. The difference is, as a secularist, how I define the separation clause is that basically the government can't play favorites, which is why it's hilarious in some ways that religious types like yourself are basically asserting that this somehow represents oppression. This is right up there with the notion that the government keeping you from oppressing others somehow represents oppression of you. It's absurd. This is the reason religious people get looked at as irrational by people like myself.

Are communists or wokeists akin to a religion as @Abhorsen said? This is hardly something that only I do or only my side does. Very often secular left wing ideologies are called a religion by secular right libertarians to discredit them, despite them both being rooted in what is supposedly not religious. What I find weird is that when secular libertarians look at these other secular ideologies, they often say “these guys are like a religion” to discredit them, once again leaving them as the only ideology that is uniquely good, and that they tend to conflate literally all other politics together as the same and as bad in the same way except for their own. I say that it is religious because human beings are naturally religious. It’s something we come to again, among pretty much all civilizations.

We do this because there actually is a comparison there. The leftists may not be religious, but they are certainly dogmatic and act in the same manner as some religions. Personally I'd compare them to $cientology, what with their proclivity for stalking and doxxing. Also it really pisses them off to get compared to religious people. In any case, there really are a lot of points of comparison between the regressive left and the regressive right, as I keep bringing up from time to time.

Mind, I'm not attacking religion in general, as I actually have respect for the more positive aspects of it, it's just the extremists I really have a problem with, particularly when they try to force their morality on others. Otherwise, if you want to just sit in your homes and churches and constantly whine about how wicked everyone else is, I'm content to just ignore you.

Sure, bud. So do you consider yourself, then if you're so concerned with not being one of those spooky regressives? Progressive?

Maybe in the same sense as TR was. Actually I'd really love to reform the Progressive Party with the Bull Moose as its symbol, just to piss off the crowd that likes to call themselves Progressive.

Yes. My position is informed by the fact that I do not think we can balance midway down the slippery slope. I think your discount, watered-down liberalism is simply outcompeted by the harder, more extreme strain. Conservatism as liberalism going the speed limit is an ideology for the designated losers of the current paradigm. I think in order to construct a movement capable of resisting the aspects of liberalism that everyone here disagrees, and even what most liberals currently disagree with, accepting their premises and then just fiddling a bit with the conclusions is insufficient. What's necessary is presenting a totally different worldview, a complete rejection of liberalism. Weeds have to be pulled up by their roots.

Which pretty well just proves my point. Both sides hate moderates because they see us as enabling the other side.

 

[Captain X]

However, based in the actions of the loudest voices among them, I maintain a certain cynicism in that regard. Where were the lesbians where little girls were told they were really boys for liking trucks and sports? Where were the gays where little boys were told they were girls for being slightly effiminate?

That's actually exactly the viewpoint I have, and was one of the reasons I was banging heads with the "social justice" types fairly early on - because I do not hold to this idea of stereotypes. I very much believe people should be whatever they desire to be without giving any consideration to what some stereotype or traditional gender role might say. The regressive left, on the other hand, fully embraces stereotypes, and instead just makes up new genders so every random person has a stereotype that fits them, and in fact are entirely defined by them.

 

[LordsFire]

This is just entirely a rationalization on your part. Words do mean things. This is part of the problem I have with leftists as well, honestly. So, no, I'm not religious, and you trying to claim otherwise is just an attempt to play the "you're just like me" game. The difference is, as a secularist, how I define the separation clause is that basically the government can't play favorites, which is why it's hilarious in some ways that religious types like yourself are basically asserting that this somehow represents oppression. This is right up there with the notion that the government keeping you from oppressing others somehow represents oppression of you. It's absurd. This is the reason religious people get looked at as irrational by people like myself.

"You people who believe in God aren't allowed to be involved in government, unless in all ways you act like you actually don't."

Yeah. That's not repression at all.

 

[Captain X]

That is a compete misrepresentation of what I said. It speaks to what I was talking about in terms of not being able to oppress others being seen as oppression, though.

 

[Bacle]

So it's literally just 'believes in the supernatural' that distinguishes it to you?

Pretty much.

Just how much of this do you actually disagree with, except your dislike of Christianity (or Christian dogma)? I assume from your language here that you at least don't support abortion, at least.

I am not someone obseesed with cutting taxes, because I understand taxes aren't theft, they pay for the roads, bridges, schools, airports and all the other infrastructure we need to have a functional society.

I'm all for cutting government pork, and making sure taxes are used wisely, but not for cutting taxes just to cut them.

And I do support gun and the pro-life movement, but am not onboard with Christian dogma trying to be made into law, as so many paleo-cons seem to want.

That was hardly a new argument. The tea party, for instance, fucking loved talking about the constitution. My memory of arguments along this line only go back to like the bush era (I'm young and don't remember clinton at all), but I'm pretty sure conservatives have been appealing to the constitution and protecting it from far-left radicals ever since there have been far-left radicals.

And although I'm pretty sure everyone knew that Trump was exactly a religious guy, he was hardly averse to appealing to Christianity either.

When the Tea Party was coming into power, I was still a on the Dems side, because that was also the time when Bush lied to get us into Iraq and I was not feelingly very patriotic or interested in listening to stuff about to the GOPs inner fight at that time.

As for Trump and Christianity, he very much appealed to them, but you'll notice he never even came close to talking about repealing same-sex marriage or trying to roll back LGB stuff. In fact he fought to decriminalize homosexuality across the world, and had the first gay cabinet member.

So however religious Trump is, he is not so hardcore as to think advocating some of the anti-LGB positions I've seen in this thread is remotely a good idea or socially acceptable by many on the Right.

You keep calling views that have never been fringe and are actually currently the majority position on the right, fringe. Saying it a bunch and wishing it was true doesn't make it true. If you'd like you can call them "views I think will be fringe in the future." That aside, you and I probably don't travel in the same circles IRL or online outside of The Sietch, so we might not be seeing the same things, but I don't really think this was accurate. The dissident right upswing started on the tail end of the obama / during the 2016 election cycle.

They are fringe, within the coalition Trump built, and that coalition is more than just the GOP members you keep acting like are the majority. They are a slim majority inside the GOP, and Trump's base is more than just the GOP.

I addressed that possibility too, a moderate NeverTrump system-truster "alliance of the center against the fringes" deal. And I guess there's already the Libertarian Party, which are generally socially liberal. But any form of nationalist or populist party would be trying to appeal to people as "to the Right of the GOP establishment," and be to the right of the GOP on most social issues (immigration, guns, etc.) so it would naturally attract social cons. Therefore it'd almost certainly end up in at least the same place the GOP was during Trump, where marriage as one man and one woman is still on the platform, even if it's de-emphasized and not the #1 issue.

You keep acting like a third party has to be a 'Never-Trumper' party, or 'system-trusters', when a real, useful third party would be designed to take the center and moderates from both parties.

Trump should make the Patriot Party to do this, instead of continuing to deal with the Swamp Rats and RINOs in the GOP/RNC establishment.

However, it appears for now that the GOP base has scared some of the GOP establishment into line backing Trump, when they realized he could form a viable third party if he left the GOP.

And I still think Trump would better serve the nation making that Patriot Party, rather than continiung to try to work with the same Swamp Rats and RINOs who sabotaged his first term. As long as we are stuck in a two party system, political polarization will only get worse, and leave fewer people with a real voice.

 

[FriedCFour]

We do this because there actually is a comparison there. The leftists may not be religious, but they are certainly dogmatic and act in the same manner as some religions.

And you see no similarity at all with things like liberty, equality and the enlightenment, things like that?

Mind, I'm not attacking religion in general, as I actually have respect for the more positive aspects of it, it's just the extremists I really have a problem with, particularly when they try to force their morality on others.

I don’t see it as forcing my morality, but pushing back against the morality imposed by liberalism and progressivism to subvert the traditional systems and culture of the west. Either way someone is forcing morality here.