LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Obligatory mention that American Conservatism is not about 'preserving the status quo,' it's about 'conserving the founding values of the nation.'
The Political Problem of Pornography
- Thread starter The Name of Love
- Start date
Obligatory mention that American Conservatism is not about 'preserving the status quo,' it's about 'conserving the founding values of the nation.'
You seemed to have missed them basically trying to redo segregation under the guise of woke shit.
It’s not regressive though, because this isn’t segregation, and it’s not the same. The things they do are extremely progressive and basically unheard of. They utilize out group bias rather than in group bias, globalization and intentional importation of the masses of the third world. It’s not regressive in the slightest. Hell, they aren’t segregating, they are destroying decent and largely white neighborhoods intentionally by building section 8 housing in them. They are continuing to import the worlds masses and encourage and support whites becoming a minority in their own country. They actively seek policy, and have for decades, to destroy any and all de facto segregation of white neighborhoods barring the ultra wealthy locations.
All carrot, 'no stick' in Biden's affordable housing plan
The housing component of the president's massive infrastructure proposal envisions communities voluntarily changing regulations to compete for new pots of money to support growth.
www.google.com
Last edited:
That’s nonsense. Political conservatism is not about that at all.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Unless the two of you think that the "founding values" aren't still the bulk of the status quo, when the basis of popular objection is, again, re-institution of demographic caste bullshit and reviving censorship of "obscenity"/totally-not!blasphemy, then then you're not really contradicting the point.
Seriously. What does it mean to "conserve", in relation to "progress" or "regress"?
There's also the whole mess of how the "founding values" have actually changed as they're ever more thoroughly boiled down to Libertarianism via the Constitution, with basically every last other thing being up for grabs. When it started, the "founding values" very much included rather blatant prosthylitizing of Christianity, they just didn't feel it appropriate to let church and state authority overlap, and now... Yeah...
Read up on basic conservative political theory. Start with someone like Edmund Burke. The status quo has fuck all to do with founding values also.
Libertarianism and their connection to founding values is a blatant lie created by exceedingly manipulative people. Modern libertarianism shares very little with the foundation of America.
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I think that may actually be one big reason why modern conservatives are so ineffectual. The left has been winning battles, dominating institutions, and changing society for a century and the supposed right is more than happy to defend the status quo that the left has created.
If the right is going to actually stand for anything, we can’t just preserve the leftist dominance of the modern world, we have to change it to - or back - to something healthier.
Or perhaps the Right can adapt and evolve to deal with the modern world and modern political realities, instead of trying to turn back the clock or refight battles it has already lost.
As Nick Fury said in the first Avengers "We deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be."
Learn to live with and deal with the world as is, instead of constantly trying to move society back decades to centuries.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Well, there is no going back that is true. The future in the only way forward, and the right needs to be open not to emulate the left but to acknowledge the changing world and to accommodate it.
Ultimately, we should stand for our values regardless of whether or not those values involve preventing, hastening, or reversing change.
"Guyze, we should totally abandon all your principles and values, and replace them with the democrat's to poach their votes!"
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
we probably need to admit we certaintly aren't friends or that we are in each others best interest. Being united in hate can only do so much.
In what way have I done so? I've only responded to what you've said, and I'm still not clear on what your actual argument/end game is exactly. All I can do is be clear on my position, which is that I am anti-censorship on general principal, and trying the Helen Lovejoy argument is most definitely not going to win me over. Quite the opposite, actually.
Actually I started calling them that because they've been working to undo the work of actual progressives, who bled and died for things like being able to be treated equally under the law. Instead they are fighting for a return to racial segregation and the like. Seems pretty regressive to me. And at least initially, it really got under their skin, too. Just like calling them moral crusaders. Because they are.
Remember, he is in no position to lecture anyone on what is regressive or progressive.
Last edited:
Just like a lefty, screeching and hollering that this guy has these ideas and not even bothering to debate them but because they aren’t socially leftwing enough for you that automatically makes them wrong and evil and you can dismiss everything someone says because of your bad faith interpretation of a bunch of quotes. Could you kindly shut the fuck up if you are going to act like that? You really are quite terrible at the whole “free speech market place of ideas” thing.
What else is utterly hilarious is that a lot of what you quote from me is much more similar to the founding fathers you so love and adore, and you can say “oh, well, they had some flaws but they are great men with great ideas!” And yet, someone else comes along and says anything remotely close to that, and they are instantly evil and everything else they say and believe can just be ignored and dismissed. How do you go through life with this NPC level of cognitive dissonance?
Last edited:
Shit, I'd forgotten Fried is a slavery apologist on top of everything else.
I mean between this obsession he has with trying to refight the battles over porn and gay marriage is bad enough, but damn. And you brought receipts for everything he said, too.
He's like a walking, talking advert for why the Left has as much ammo against the Right as they do, and embodies a lot of what drives moderates and the center away from the Right.
I’m just too based, what else can I say?
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Actually, "regressive" means "degenerate". And when you look at it, Progressives truly are regressives: they are regressing the society and humanity to its less evolved, more animalistic state: a state with no culture, no morals and no restrictions on the instinctive / emotional behaviour (such as rape, free sex and so on). At the same time, they are pretending to "progress" the society to a "more advanced" state. So basically, by calling the Regressives, you are merely calling them out on their bullshit.
Of course, as @FriedCFour points out, they also do some things that have never been done due to how insane they are, so they are far worse than being merely regressive / deconstructive.
Modern Right are actually Centrist...
Gentlemen, the thread topic here is pornography, it's impact on society, legal status, why that legal status should/should not change, etc. You are drifting seriously off topic and some of the last few posts are close to if not past the limits of acceptable conduct. Knock it off.