Simonbob
Well-known member
To which, I only add "In America", because in Australia, like many places around the world? Conserved nothing.
Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
To which, I only add "In America", because in Australia, like many places around the world? Conserved nothing.
LindyAF
Well-known member
See, the thing here is that the shit that has been compromised and surrendered on can’t be said out loud or used in examples like this, because conservatives have compromised so thoroughly that they now consider holding the stances that most normal people held on the issues to be immoral.
For instance, when the supreme court legislated against restrictions on miscegenation and miscegenation marriage in Loving v. Virginia, IIRC those on the Right (in particular, those on the court who dissented) warned that this would lead to a slippery slope to the legalization of bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and sodomy. Much like sodomy marriage, miscegenation marriage was extremely unpopular with the general public at the time, and it’s legalization required the courts to impose it rather than the legislature. It even remained extremely unpopular for decades afterward.
However, when the Right was making slippery slope arguments against sodomy marriage- arguing that it would lead to bestiality, incest, and necrophilia, the Right could not draw the connection back to miscegenation, (which from a purely logical perspective, strengthens the argument), because by the point sodomy marriage became a point of open contention, conservative has compromised on the issue.
Since I know that example is going to get blowback (for the same reason it is correct) I think we could say this happened again with sodomy and sodomy marriage. When sodomy was legalized, those on the court who dissented warned this was a slippery slope to sodomy marriage, bestiality, incest, and necrophilia. They were indisputably right that it was a slippery slope to sodomy marriage. But by the time the issue had shifted to sodomy marriage, many public figures in the conservative movement had compromised on the legalization or sodomy.
I think this issue is also muddled by the act that RINOs generally will call themselves “conservatives.” For instance, there are definitely people calling themselves “conservative” who have endorsed or given favorable coverage to Bruce Jenner, a male weirdo in a dress who had a habit of stealing his ten year old daughter’s clothes.
On the slippery slope in general FWIW I think after transexuals it’s “non-binaries” and after that it’s “polyamory” (which the left is already starting to defend) rather than this massive jump to stuff nobody defends (yet).
Edit: Oh and also prostitution legalization will get a push “i.e. sex worker” stuff. Expect the eternal lolberts to stab us in the back on these issues.
Last edited:
Wow, didn't realize you were racist as well. That's good to know.
LindyAF
Well-known member
Wow, I’m [left wing buzzword]. Can you imagine? And in the current year, too.
Regardless, I made no actual value statements about whether or not miscegenation should or shouldn’t be legalized. I elected to use the currently politically incorrect term miscegenation in order to properly mirror the use of the currently politically incorrect term sodomy.
By definition any example where “conservatives” have largely or totally compromised or adopted what was formally a left wing position will be something where pointing this out gets you labeled something-ist, or something-phobic.
I have no doubt that “conservatives” in a decade or two, if they continue to lose ground in these issues at the current rate, would reject anyone drawing a line between sodomy marriage and say, legalization of polygamy (probably under a name like “polyamory marriage”) as “homophobic.” This doesn’t change the facts, any more than you calling me names changes that what I said in the paragraph you quoted were all true factual statements.
Regardless, I made no actual value statements about whether or not miscegenation should or shouldn’t be legalized. I elected to use the currently politically incorrect term miscegenation in order to properly mirror the use of the currently politically incorrect term sodomy.
By definition any example where “conservatives” have largely or totally compromised or adopted what was formally a left wing position will be something where pointing this out gets you labeled something-ist, or something-phobic.
I have no doubt that “conservatives” in a decade or two, if they continue to lose ground in these issues at the current rate, would reject anyone drawing a line between sodomy marriage and say, legalization of polygamy (probably under a name like “polyamory marriage”) as “homophobic.” This doesn’t change the facts, any more than you calling me names changes that what I said in the paragraph you quoted were all true factual statements.
Last edited:
You brought it up as being a slippery slope to the same things you and others have been saying gay marriage is a slippery slope to. Seems like a value statement to me.
The key is to have guiding principles. Libertarians haven't moved much since the 1970s (our original platform had marriage equality). The Republicans and to a lesser extent conservatives suffer because of being a collection of different groups with different goals, so they get pulled, and only get some of what they want. And the priority isn't LGBT marriage (for good reason, that's a losing proposition, even republican's now favor it), but Religious Liberty (quite gettable, see Utah for an example compromise bill on LGBT discrimination 'rights' being balanced against Religious liberty), freedom of speech, and abortion.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
...You know, it's funny, because last I recall, it was the left, not the right, that was staunchly against miscegenation back when that was still a legal argument?
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the right was as well, but this is back when the Democrats were honest about being racists.
Isn't it though? What argument can one make against the ones you don't like but not the other ones? Well, I guess if the moral/legal arguments were being made on Christian ones, church doctrine explicitly condemns gay marriage in a way it does not explicitly condemn interracial marriage, but none of this is built on observance of Christian doctrine, its based on theories of fairness.
Its more or less the exact same arguments one makes for why the government can't ban interracial marriages as for why it can't ban gay marriage or, soon I'm sure, polyamorous marriage. Its uncomfortable what he's saying, but I don't see how he's wrong. I mean, if he was a leftist laying out the exact same arguments, but about how it was a good thing that the logic of allowing interracial marriage also demanded allowing gay marriage. I suspect you might be objecting to the framing of the argument, rather than the argument itself.
I think he is laying out something a lot of conservatives have to deal with: being right doesn't matter.
Conservative: X will lead to Y.
Leftist: No, X will not lead to Y, Y is bad and we don't want that.
20 Years later after X has lead to Y.
Conservative: X lead to Y.
Leftist: Of course X lead to Y, and that's a good thing.
This assumption that putting yourself into ever weaker positions makes you stronger seems, odd.
Right loses half its power.
Right tries to negotiate to keep its remaining half.
"why would we allow you anything? Bake the Cake Bigot, you've already conceded every important moral argument".
Once you've conceded the marriage question, you've already preventively conceded the religious liberty question.
But, I'm sure the libertarian party will stick to its guns of compromise and meeting half way with the communists by dragging the conservatives over to the communist side.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
The extreme of always capitulating to the demands of the regressive left isn't a good thing, but neither is the extreme of never conceding anything. Like it or not, society consists of people with competing ideals and interests that must find a way to coexist, or they will eventually attempt to destroy one another.
Yeah, I am probably a bit overly grumpy up above. Disillusionment with Libertarianism still hurts occasionally I guess. I think the problem is that one side sort of wants to co-exist, the other side wants to destroy everyone else. Its built into communism. Its inherently a totalitarian ideology, and will assert its totalitarian impulse when given the chance. I fear Islam may have similar impulses.
One way cease fire, is, well, surrender. I'm not sure the Christians have gained, well, anything compromising. I'm barely Christian, but they're current state is sad. The Christians gained the most by being their most unreasonable, and martyring themselves over the question of if there was one god. That helped conquer the Roman Empire.
I fear that the way things work is that whoever is least tolerant and accommodating just crushes everyone else who is willing to compromise on things. Part of the lefts strength is they pretty much never concede anything. They have their agenda, and will beat you until you comply.
That's why the Libertarians come across as such snakes: they're solution to the republicans always seems to be, if the Republicans give up any principles or power they have now, either directly to the communists, or just placed out in the open, that the communists won't abuse that power, or immediately seize that power once its up for grabs.
The libertarian solutions generally amount to transfering power from the right to the left, to trust that the left won't use its power.
Until one of them rams a reef. Or a container ship. Or gets rammed by the two I mentioned before.
Or suffers a massive fire that guts the entire ship.
Or get pulled under by a giant squid that smelt their woke shit from miles away.
The risks are endless on the Seven Seas.
Carriers are also our strongest ships. if they somehow ram another ship they are going to do more damage to the other ship
What about the Kraken?
Or the fire? Like the one that gutted that Wasp class amphib ship.
LindyAF
Well-known member
"Republican" and "Democrat" =/= conservative and liberal or right and left wing. The majority opinion in Loving v. Virginia was written by Earl Warren, whose court was generally considered to be one of the most activist and liberal supreme courts of all time. (Although I misremembered that there was a dissent - there was not. I believe the statement I attributed to the dissent may have been made by someone critical of the result at the time, and I mistakenly attributed it to a dissent) Per wikipedia, they were supported by Robert F. Kennedy and the ACLU. These are not exactly right wing people or organizations.
I'm generally of the opinion that while it was less clear cut that democrats sometimes like to pretend, the democrats were not always clearly left of the republicans but rather became so.
I'd say that a more accurate exchange would be
Conservative: X will lead to Y and Z.
Leftist: No, X will not lead to Y, Y is bad and we don't want that.
20 years later
Conservative: Y will lead to Z.
Leftist: What, like X led to Y?
Conservative: No, of course X didn't lead to Y. X is good, how could it lead to Y? Actually, you were the one who opposed X.
...don't you ID as a leftist? And aren't you in favor of legalizing incest or something? I'm not sure I should treat this argument as good faith.
This is a false dichotomy though, and essentially a left-wing framing, that the Right's political choices can be described in the areas it concedes to the left. Rather, the Right should be working for changes which benefit the Historic American Nation and are inimical to the left.
Last edited:
Carriers are a lot more sacred for the fire aspect. They will do what ever to put fires out. Fire guard exists for a reason.
And the kraken? Just launch some fighters to take it out.
Or the rest of the task force
Bassoe
Well-known member
But it'd be more expensive for the elite to create a society which wasn't terrible than to create drugs so the plebeians didn't care that they lived in a terrible society.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
But it'd be more expensive for the elite to create a society which wasn't terrible than to create drugs so the plebeians didn't care that they lived in a terrible society.
The elite don't create society. They just try (and often succeed) to control it.
