Conservatism

[HenrySwanson]

 

[UKMikey]

The tl;dr of this appears to be that there are more crusty cons than longevous lefties because of their political group's higher degree of self-interest.

As for this guy's "counterargument", it only holds up if one considers Pelosi and Schiff to be extreme left rather than less right of centre than Trump:

 

[Danoff]

I've only moved left as I've gotten older.

 

[merseyxshore]

My story arc was wishy washy lefty liberal 15 - 25, dirty centrist 26 - 29, and finally chad hard left 30 - 36 (today)

 

[Biggles]

I've only moved left as I've gotten older.

I've noticed. 🤔 Intelligence and curiosity gradually winning out over youthful indoctrination.

Let's face it, political views - like religious ones - are largely a result of upbringing and environment rather than rational intellectual analysis. I guess, with "conservatism", it's also associated with self-interest, although ironically, for many right wing voters, conservative economic policies don't actually coincide with their own self-interests.

 

[UKMikey]

My own personal bias notwithstanding, I suspect it's a mixture of the bottom left and bottom right quadrants of Cipolla's chart.

Specifically, those in the bottom right taking advantage of the bottom lefters so that the rest of us suffer as well.



Perhaps Mr. T said it best:

 

[Joey D]

I've gotten more conservative as I've made more money and needed to pay more in taxes. I wouldn't say I fit with the definition of modern American Conservatism though since I think modern American Conservatism is just half-assed fascism if fascism was implemented by stupid people. Like, I don't care if two people of the same sex marry, if a woman chooses to get an abortion, if Walmart sells sex toys, if drag queens want to put on a show, or if there are LGBT books in my kid's school. Those are all non-issues for me.

Basically, the older I've gotten the more I want the government to 🤬 off and get out of my life. Just leave me alone and let me keep the money I work for.

I've also found myself less and less thinking the two major parties in the US are worth anything. While they have their differences, I find myself believing more and more they are more or less the same. Sure their ideas are different, but at their heart, both the Democrats and Republicans are run by ultra-wealthy people who don't give a damn about the average American. They both also fleece people out of money under the guise that they're working for them or will take up some cause when really they don't care to, all they want is money. And what really pisses me off is how politicians no longer work together but instead block anything proposed by the other side. All this does is screw over Americans since nothing gets done. We really need politicians that don't just care about themselves or getting reelected and actually do something for a change. If you do something and it's well received, people are going to vote you back in.

 

[Danoff]

I've noticed. 🤔 Intelligence and curiosity gradually winning out over youthful indoctrination.

I try to learn from experiences.

I've gotten more conservative as I've made more money and needed to pay more in taxes.

I've found the opposite. But I think it requires a lot of money to reach the inflection point there.

And what really pisses me off is how politicians no longer work together but instead block anything proposed by the other side

It's hard to work with someone like MGT, Trump, or DeSantis. We need people to elect more sensible representatives for this to work.

 

[TexRex]

Mental. Illness.

 

[Danoff]

Mental. Illness.

One of my kids watched Hocus Pocus 2 today, a movie which features a brief drag halloween contest. I assume the authorities are on their way to arrest me or something.

 

[TexRex]

One of my kids watched Hocus Pocus 2 today, a movie which features a brief drag halloween contest. I assume the authorities are on their way to arrest me or something.

Okay, groomer.

 

[TexRex]

This was a really good piece.

The Fight Over Kids at Drag Shows Is a Classic Moral Panic

Florida Gov. DeSantis and his administration threaten a venue for letting minors attend a sexualized holiday cabaret performance with their parents.

reason.com

Of course, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration would contribute to the latest Christmas-themed targeting of drag queens as some existential threat.

The state's Department of Business and Professional Regulation sent a letter Wednesday to the Orlando Philharmonic Plaza Foundation in Orlando, Florida, because their venue was hosting A Drag Queen Christmas, a touring stage production crossing the country that's been around for eight years.

The letter warns the venue that they have "reason to believe that this drag show is of a sexual nature, involving the exposure or exhibition of sexual organs, simulated sexual activity, and/or the sexualization of children's stories." The department says it has "become aware" that the show has been marketed to and attended by children. The agency warns that the drag show may be considered a "public nuisance" if minors are allowed to attend, provided that any of these claims of sexual activity are true. Thus, the venue could have its license revoked. "In short, if you allow children to attend the Drag Fans drag show at your facility," the letter warns, "you are putting your license in jeopardy." The letter concludes that if the venue allows minors in at all, "the Department will take any and all actions available to make sure you do not pose a threat to minors in the future." (Emphasis added.)

Note that this letter doesn't actually say that there is any nudity or simulated sexual activity at this show, only that the department believes there is. It probably consulted this Twitter thread by Tayler Hansen, who provides images and clips of the show from its stop in Austin, Texas. A Drag Queen Christmas is a pretty raunchy show in the way that's familiar to anybody who has watched drag performances. But the only "nudity" found in Hansen's clips and images is a pair of absolutely fake boobs being worn by a drag queen. There is a lot of overtly sexualized behavior and gyrating from people who are not actually naked or having sex.

Essentially, this is a Madonna concert, circa her Blonde Ambition World Tour days. Madonna, of course, is famously beloved by gay men and drag queens in particular for her wild looks and deliberately sexualized persona. She was threatened with arrest in Toronto back in 1990 for simulating masturbation during her live performance of "Like a Virgin," though police eventually backed down. There was a moral panic then that children exposed to Madonna's antics were being sexualized at a young age. Funny how some things don't change.

If I had small children, I probably would not take them to this show. But what's clear from Hansen's clips is that several parents did, voluntarily, and seemed to know that this was going to happen. The website Florida Politics notes that while the company says that "all ages" are welcome at the show, it also notes that local regulations may vary. At some venues, minors must be accompanied by an adult in order to attend (which was the case at the Austin show in Hansen's clips). At others, minors are banned entirely.

It doesn't appear that there's actual nudity in the show. And the amount of sexualization would put it at maybe an R rating if it were a movie. What we have here is a lot of screaming and politicization about families making entertainment decisions other adults do not like. This is, flat out, a moral panic.

When I wrote last week about the targeting of these shows, some of the feedback I received insisted that while there's perhaps some anti-LGBT politics at play here, there is a legitimate problem with letting kids attend these shows and that it contributes to their early sexualization. This is not a moral panic, some insist. There is a limit to the "parents' rights" argument, and this all crosses a line. Parents should not be allowed to take their kids to live drag shows.

To that, I say, by looking at the behavior here and the public response to it, we can see that, just as with Madonna, this is a moral panic.

People are exaggerating what is actually happening. I would definitely agree with anybody who says the show's content is sexualized. But, the claims of nudity and simulated sex at these shows are very exaggerated to make it seem like children are encountering the same things that you might see at a strip club. In fact, in the threatening letter from Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation, officials point to a Florida court case that authorized shutting down businesses for violating lewdness statutes. But the example it uses, Hoskins v. Dept. of Business Regulation, is a case involving women providing lap dances to patrons at a strip club. That doesn't appear to be happening in the clips Hansen gathered.

Now, this is not to say that something similar hasn't or won't happen at a drag show. I would not be surprised to find out that one or more drag queens out there did cross the line when children were present, displaying nudity or more explicit sexual simulation. But a hallmark of a moral panic is the belief that violations are much more common than they are. We see this with the moral panic over stranger child abduction and sex trafficking. As Lenore Skenazy has regularly documented for Reason, a child's actual risk of being abducted or sexually trafficked is completely out of alignment with the perceived risk. And the overprotectiveness that stems from these misaligned fears is not harmless. The moral panic about child abduction has led to overpolicing and threats to parents from the government. Take note, then, of DeSantis calling for the investigation of parents who bring their kids to drag shows.

New laws are demanded even though existing laws are sufficient. Florida has laws about nudity and lewdness, and the department's letter references them. But then it threateningly warns against allowing any minors into the show regardless of the content, period.

Lawmakers have been proposing legislation that essentially treats drag shows as lewd conduct, regardless of any sort of nudity or sexual activity. In Texas, a state lawmaker introduced a bill that classifies any sort of drag performance as "sexually oriented" regardless of the content. Simply wearing clothing of the opposite sex in a performance is suddenly sexual. It's a bonkers proposal with any number of potential enforcement problems, but that's something that happens with a moral panic. Because the moral panic exaggerates what's actually happening, the "solutions" proposed are extremely broad and can cause additional harms rather than prevent them. (We're still struggling to undo the absurdly high prison sentences we've saddled drug users and dealers with because of our moral panic in the 1980s and 1990s over crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine.)

Politicians are happy to sow fear in others in order to advance their careers. DeSantis has made it clear that he's happy to perpetuate the culture war, treating those with progressive politics as public enemies and fighting against the "woke" crowd, going so far as to endorse and encourage laws that clearly violate the First Amendment, all for the purpose of cultivating and benefitting from the moral panic.

Similarly, the attack on this same drag show in St. Louis was launched by a local politician who is considering a run for governor. And a state politician in Knoxville, Tennessee, was all over the drag show there. The show in Orlando did take place Wednesday night, and the local Fox affiliate showed up to interview both protesters and opponents who stood outside with signs and rainbow flags. One state representative, Anna Eskamani (D–Orlando), was there and accused the DeSantis administration of attempting to "intimidate and cancel drag shows."

Again, Madonna and the moral panics of pop and rap music of the 1980s and early 1990s come to mind. Florida is the state that attempted to ban 2 Live Crew from selling a rap album by deeming it obscene, until the group won the battle in court. When we look back at those days, it may all seem absurd. Gen Xers did not grow up to be any more sexualized or out-of-control than the baby boomers.

Claiming that drag shows are different is a subjective evaluation based on how a person feels about exposure to drag performances. It is an attempt to force one group of people's parental choices on the collective. And the mindless tossing around of the word "groomer" is just an epithet designed to shut down opposition on the belief that nobody wants to be accused of supporting child sexual abuse. It's a reminder of back during the 1970s through the 1990s when anybody who was not heterosexual was regularly accused of trying to recruit kids. Moral panics about gay people interacting with children are hardly new.

We have laws about minors and nudity and sexually explicit live performances. And we have parents to make decisions for stuff that falls just on the legal side of that line. That's how it has been for the longest of times, and drag queens don't change that calculus. If you don't want your children to see this stuff, don't take them. Leave everybody else alone.

Predictably, the Twitter post that Reason put out to promote the piece has generated substantial conservative outrage, really from those the piece itself is addressing.



Also predictable is the prevalence of responses that conflate drag shows with children in attendance with pedophilia.

 

[Danoff]

Also predictable is the prevalence of responses that conflate drag shows with children in attendance with pedophilia.

What on Earth is the link there? If I had to guess (and I don't but I guess I'm going to), I'd guess that pedophilia is less prevalent among male drag performers than among men in general.

 

[TexRex]

What on Earth is the link there? If I had to guess (and I don't but I guess I'm going to), I'd guess that pedophilia is less prevalent among male drag performers than among men in general.

There is no rational link. It's recycled "homosexuals are pedophiles" (whereby "pedophiles" refers to child sexual predators, though the two are very different things) rhetoric, and it clearly works on the idiot base.

 

[Imari]

What on Earth is the link there? If I had to guess (and I don't but I guess I'm going to), I'd guess that pedophilia is less prevalent among male drag performers than among men in general.

Panic about sex, panic about children, therefore pedophilia. The whole thing is non-rational to start with, so looking for rationality in their arguments is always going to fall flat.

...whereby "pedophiles" refers to child sexual predators, though the two are very different things...

The whole "pedophile" = "child rapist" thing is so set in stone now that you put yourself at serious risk even bringing up that there is a distinction.

To be fair, there are whole groups of people that also assume that all straight men go around barely managing to restrain themselves from raping every adult woman they see as well (and God forbid she be wearing tight clothes or acting in a promiscuous manner...!), so at least that's consistent.

 

[TexRex]

The whole "pedophile" = "child rapist" thing is so set in stone now that you put yourself at serious risk even bringing up that there is a distinction.

I've gotten pushback, especially because I don't condemn pedophilia. Why should I? I don't understand it, but I recognize that it's thought alone. Acting on those thoughts by perpetrating acts of sexual assault against minors by whom consent isn't recognized by law is something I absolutely condemn, however.

The link between the two certainly complicates matters. For instance...

My experience in talking to people about paedophilia is that there's no notable difference in attitude between people that would generally be described as liberals and people that would generally be described as conservatives. The last "liberal" I had a conversation about it with ended the chat with a semi-enraged "No, it's sick, and they're not born that way". I noted how close that was to how homosexuality is viewed by people that are given the "conservative" tag. If more "liberals" actually become liberal we might get somewhere in regards to these poor people afflicted with something they had no agency in.

...can you fault "people that would generally be described as liberals" for being duped by messaging that links them and doesn't allow for recognition that the two are distinct without pushback?

I mean...yeah, to some extent. Ignorance isn't an excuse. They certainly don't deserve all of the blame because of messaging by those addressing the subject in bad faith.

Still, I maintain conflation of the two, be it deliberate or out of ignorance, is conservative in nature, even if it may be "liberals" conflating them.

 

[Imari]

I've gotten pushback, especially because I don't condemn pedophilia. Why should I? I don't understand it, but I recognize that it's thought alone. Acting on those thoughts by perpetrating acts of sexual assault against minors by whom consent isn't recognized by law is something I absolutely condemn, however.

The link between the two certainly complicates matters. For instance...

...can you fault "people that would generally be described as liberals" for being duped by messaging that links them and doesn't allow for recognition that the two are distinct without pushback?

I mean...yeah, to some extent. Ignorance isn't an excuse. They certainly don't deserve all of the blame because of messaging by those addressing the subject in bad faith.

Still, I maintain conflation of the two, be it deliberate or out of ignorance, is conservative in nature, even if it may be "liberals" conflating them.

I agree with your stance. People should be judged on their actions, not their genetics and what it might predispose them to.

I think a lot of the public perception stems from the moral panic aspects that were certainly very strong through at least the 80's and 90's, and never really went away. A bit like how terrorists were a big moral panic in the 00's, but it's still super easy to stoke old fears with very little rational basis because all the foundational work is already done for people who lived through 9/11 and the following years.

I think the difference when it comes to conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are working on politics of fear at the moment, and so it's another tool for them to use to try and scare people into submission to their agenda. Vote for us, or the Democrats will legalise raping children in theatres.

Liberals mostly appeal to the positive changes that can be made, so even though they might think the same way about pedophiles they're not using the belief as weapon to further their agenda beyond the most fundamental "child rape bad", which pretty much everyone whose opinion matters is in agreement about.

 

[TexRex]

A bit like how terrorists were a big moral panic in the 00's, but it's still super easy to stoke old fears with very little rational basis because all the foundational work is already done for people who lived through 9/11 and the following years.

I think you may be able to strike from the list of those who may be manipulated by this in particular just about anyone who has been required to remove their shoes in the airport.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Saw a pithy comment under an article about the Speaker situation in the US:

"Conservatism is a moral and intellectual vaccum"

Hard to disagree at this moment....

 

[shadow0460]

In the US the Republican party bumbles around and infights too much to get anything done when they have the chance. I think the Democrats do the same to an extent. They stick their noses into my life and their hands into my wallet a little too often for my taste. Both parties are horribly corrupt, but their constituents just follow them blindly. Whatever their leaders say, the go around repeating like a parrot...and we all know GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I'm independent. My views are a mix, about 60% conservative and 40% liberal. I swore an oath to defend the USA and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will die on that hill if need be, even if I don't fully agree with what our Constitution says.
That said, hey, ya'll Democrats. Here's a 787b, an x2019, an R18, a Porsche 919, and a few other group 1 cars. You Republicans get over here too. Everyone pick a car and let's go race!

 

[Danoff]

They stick their noses into my life and their hands into my wallet a little too often for my taste.

Regarding the wallet, in my experience, many of the people that make this complaint do not even actually pay for their portion of government. Federally I have a whole thread on the subject. I've been a little lax on updating the numbers in recent years, but here's a breakdown from 2019. Keep in mind that there has been some inflation since then. If you do cover your share of the federal budget, consider other times in your life when you might not have, or later in life when you might not in the future. I have some sympathy for this argument, since I cover the fair share of a number of people, but often people vote for big spending (especially conservatives seem to), and don't actually pay much.

If you swore and oath to defend the USA and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, you have likely worked for the US Federal government in some capacity. That means that you've likely been the recipient of the US government putting its hands into the wallet of others. Kindof strange for you to complain about it then.

Regarding sticking their nose in your life, I wonder what exactly you're upset about. If it's the overturning of Roe v. Wade that you're upset about, enabling state governments to stick their nose into the lives and medical decisions of thousands of women, I'm right there with you.

 

[UKMikey]

That said, hey, ya'll Democrats. Here's a 787b, an x2019, an R18, a Porsche 919, and a few other group 1 cars. You Republicans get over here too. Everyone pick a car and let's go race!

Wow, that Andrew Tate car haul was bigger than I thought.

 

[TexRex]

"No but I'm only right-wing now because the left has moved so far to the left of me."




Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[McLaren]

Say Elon's for "freedom of speech" 1 more time. I dare ya, I double dare ya. Say "freedom of speech" 1 more goddamn time.

 

[UKMikey]

Say Elon's for "freedom of speech" 1 more time. I dare ya, I double dare ya. Say "freedom of speech" 1 more goddamn time.

He just don't dig on swine, that's all.

Elon: "Oh man, I shot Twitter in the face..."

 

[TexRex]

Say Elon's for "freedom of speech" 1 more time. I dare ya, I double dare ya. Say "freedom of speech" 1 more goddamn time.

I love this gif.

 

[Keef]

Regarding the wallet, in my experience, many of the people that make this complaint do not even actually pay for their portion of government.

Depending on where you're at in the country, suburbs may or may not have a particular political lean. Here in the Midwest it's a mix and the bottom line is we're almost all addicted to single-family homes. And frankly I want it to stay that way, although the economic bones of the system needs to change.

 

[Danoff]

Depending on where you're at in the country, suburbs may or may not have a particular political lean. Here in the Midwest it's a mix and the bottom line is we're almost all addicted to single-family homes. And frankly I want it to stay that way, although the economic bones of the system needs to change.

Here in Denver the city seems to be moving toward denser neighborhoods. But a lot of them still maintain the single-family home.

Some people still really want their quarter acre, or even half acre, like our parents' parents' used to have. But I think a lot of people actually really enjoy the "McMansion" style more than having a giant yard.

In Iowa, I was shocked to see giant wealthy neighborhoods with giant back yards that each had a $10k play structure in the back for kids. I look down a row of back yards between houses and it's just play structure, play structure, play structure, play structure, play structure, play structure. My first thought was... how do these people not have a park? The same thing applies to a LOT of what people actually want a yard for. You want a pool? Neighborhood park with a pool. You want a play structure? Neighborhood park with a play structure. You get the idea. With the right neighborhood planning you end up with really great social areas without the amazingly wasteful structure of a million copied back yards each with the same unused equipment.

Anyway, my point was that you can get fairly high density while maintaining free-standing single-family homes. Sure, it's not as dense as it could be, but it preserves the most important aspects.

 

[Keef]

Here in Denver the city seems to be moving toward denser neighborhoods. But a lot of them still maintain the single-family home.

Some people still really want their quarter acre, or even half acre, like our parents' parents' used to have. But I think a lot of people actually really enjoy the "McMansion" style more than having a giant yard.

In Iowa, I was shocked to see giant wealthy neighborhoods with giant back yards that each had a $10k play structure in the back for kids. I look down a row of back yards between houses and it's just play structure, play structure, play structure, play structure, play structure, play structure. My first thought was... how do these people not have a park? The same thing applies to a LOT of what people actually want a yard for. You want a pool? Neighborhood park with a pool. You want a play structure? Neighborhood park with a play structure. You get the idea. With the right neighborhood planning you end up with really great social areas without the amazingly wasteful structure of a million copied back yards each with the same unused equipment.

Anyway, my point was that you can get fairly high density while maintaining free-standing single-family homes. Sure, it's not as dense as it could be, but it preserves the most important aspects.

I'm familiar with those relatively dense single-family house neighborhoods you speak of and from my countless hours of Google Maps I'd say they are considerably more common out West than here in the Midwest. I mention the west because all those cities are growing like wildfire so these new neighborhoods are easy to spot, but I think it's more to do with land value than anything else. People want their house but a decent plot of land is crazy expensive. Those dense developments have been a staple in Canada for decades and they almost exclusively build super dense neigborhoods of relatively small houses.

In the Dayton and Columbus area for example I'd say that virtually all new house developments have enough room for some sort of in-ground pool in the back yard although it may take up the entire space. Even the most dense new developments that don't have room for a pool are only what I'd call medium-density compared to the crap they pull out west. Here's an example of something most Midwesterners consider virtually unlivable, although somebody seems to be buying them, probably old people. There's a West Coast-style extremely dense development directly north of there and even those have enough grass to walk in.

We also have the ability to infill old decrepit areas which is less common in newer cities. And in a small-medium city like Dayton the infill is not particularly dense, instead mirroring the type of neighborhood that existed previously. The market for density just doesn't exist at this size of city.

Imagine what could happen in Detroit. They're infilling the downtown area nicely but outside of that there are countless emptying blocks, some of them completely empty. The opportunity exists for anything from those dense urban neighborhoods to 1/4 acre lots to wealthy downtowners deciding to buy an entire city block so they can live close to downtown instead of driving an hour from the burbs. That latter idea sounds quite nice to me. Imagine being a downtown executive and just buying this entire block and building a lovely forested cabin inside it. Although that leads back to the problem of one house not paying enough tax to be surrounded by streets and sewers.

 

[Biggles]

Land value is what drives housing prices. I have friends in Denver who just competed a $1 million renovation on a house - a small 950 sq ft house - they originally purchased (about 16 years ago) for around $327,000. Similarly, friends in Toronto did a million dollar renovation a few years ago on a house they had purchased about 16 years previously for around $350,000. These renos (basically doubling the floor space) were justified by the huge increase in the value of land in those areas. Conversely, I have clients living in Cleveland and Detroit who bought their properties 25 years ago and have seen no appreciation in value over that period.

The Greater Toronto area & Ontario in general have had among the most inflated property prices in the world. Since the market peaked in February of this year prices have been dropping rapidly. Many areas have seen a 20% - 25% drop in prices in the last 10 months. It seems like parts of the US are now following suit. Opinions are mixed over whether this "correction" will continue into a more extreme "crash" in the coming year. Even after a 25% correction, prices are still well over where they were pre-pandemic.

Here's a house that just came on the market locally that has deeply impressed me. In a style I would call Pompous Faux Historical, it is a 4,540 sq ft house with every possible mod con. It's in a new small "sub-division" with similarly large houses ... but all on tiny lots. I'm fascinated to see who might shell out so much money to buy a house like that, with practically no outdoor space or privacy.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25083629/28-cottage-street-niagara-on-the-lake