- 29,337
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Conservatism
- Thread starter HenrySwanson
- 1,569 comments
- 91,357 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,613
- Mile High City
Yup, it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that they don't actually care about their stated cause and are using it as a cover for a different cause - being that they hate the middle class. Blocking roads to raise awareness to just how many people feel strongly about an issue, and forcing people to think about that issue, is a longstanding technique that has been used for protests of many different kinds of causes, including right-wing issues. I can't really comment to how effective it is, but it is common.
The idea that all of these causes are actually phony, and are just people who hate the middle class, is deeply paranoid and rooted in absolutely zero evidence of any kind. They march with signs (for all kinds of things, including classically and modern conservative issues). To ignore the signs, the chants, and their own statements, and just assume that they hate the middle-class, is absurd.
The guy in the video actually derided the protesters for being middle class, and one assumes this is where many protesters come from - the middle class. If you're rich you protest with your money. If you're poor, you generally cannot afford to take off work and protest. The people that march are people with a little luxury but not an astounding amount of luxury.
Edit:
For reference, my old post here is on point: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-934#post-13285344
Last edited:
- 99
- United States
Danoff
Premium
- 33,613
- Mile High City
You clearly do not know anything about me. I think you have made the false assumption that because I pointed out your conspiracy theory or because I said that we need to function as a society to combat climate change that I am a "climate activist", like the people marching the streets.
This is just lazy and sloppy. You're grafting stuff onto me that makes no sense, and which I have not advocated and which I have no interest in attempting to defend.
I'm also really curious how this is in any way responsive to the issues with your previous posts. You obviously advocated for a conspiracy theory which crumbles upon even the slightest consideration. Rather than attempt to investigate that, bolster it, or acknowledge its problems, you have quickly moved on to a rather silly attempt to cast me as some sort of hypocrite. As if me being a hypocrite (or not) would in any way make your conspiracy theory hold more water.
- 573
- France
- SUTempest
I'm gonna regret posting in this thread but man I felt I had to... Just because the climate already does change naturally doesn't mean it isn't also being changed artificially. Yes, they are both "change of climate," but when we talk about "climate change" we're usually talking about "humanity's artificial changes on climate," and they have nothing to do with natural changes.
Either Arthur-A genuinely isn't capable of differentiating between the two, or doesn't care to and prefers focusing his attention on imaginary "activists;" one thing I'd like to point out is no two pro-environment organizations completely agree with one another and run the full spectrum of scope and legitimacy, from those who advocate peacefully to switching to greener sources of energy... to radical elements and ecoterrorists (one of which very recently died, funny that).
To pretend environmental activism is a homogenous group and not the giant spectrum of actual opinions, stances, and degrees of activism it actually is, is extremely ignorant.
Either Arthur-A genuinely isn't capable of differentiating between the two, or doesn't care to and prefers focusing his attention on imaginary "activists;" one thing I'd like to point out is no two pro-environment organizations completely agree with one another and run the full spectrum of scope and legitimacy, from those who advocate peacefully to switching to greener sources of energy... to radical elements and ecoterrorists (one of which very recently died, funny that).
To pretend environmental activism is a homogenous group and not the giant spectrum of actual opinions, stances, and degrees of activism it actually is, is extremely ignorant.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,613
- Mile High City
I made it to 0:17 into the video before I wrote this guy off as a propagandist. Here's how the video goes:
"In order to supposedly save the planet, the government of Ireland is considering a new proposal that would kill of as many as 200,000 dairy cows over the next three years. You heard that right, the official narrative in Europe has gotten to the point where cows are seen as such a problem..."
17 seconds before we shift from Ireland (one country) considering a proposal that (who knows why) would kill as many as 200,000 cows (or as few as how many?), is instantly substituted as "the official narrative in Europe".
How is a single country considering a single proposal "the official narrative" or indicative of "the official narrative" of anything at all. The idea that there even is an "official narrative in Europe" is a conspiracy theory itself. If you can't spot this stuff, you need to take a hard look in the mirror at how carefully you're processing your media intake. 17 seconds is all it takes to dismiss this crap.
Edit:
For giggles, I kept watching. It doesn't get any better.
Last edited:
- 573
- France
- SUTempest
I, too, can find a video essay made by tiny YouTube channels to support my viewpoint that Pastageddon is coming and the heat death of the universe will happen on June 2, 2027, and will be caused by God's very own failing pizza oven.
It would be a very concerning thing. If only it weren't completely made up or full of nice-sounding arguments that don't pass muster.
Really, though.
I live in Europe. There is no "official European narrative." Each of the 27 member-states are led by people that each represent a different political leaning or affiliation, and they run the full spectrum from right-wing conservatives to liberal-socialists to various definitions of center-right coalitions. Member-states squabble with one another all the time, to say nothing of each country's very different political and cultural approaches on just about anything, let alone the environment. Even the U.S. does the whole federation thing better than we ever will.
An "official European narrative?" What a joke. Come down to France, I will personally show you there are as many viewpoints as there are regions in this country.
Why should I take any of this seriously? This is silly. Everything about these arguments is silly.
It would be a very concerning thing. If only it weren't completely made up or full of nice-sounding arguments that don't pass muster.
Really, though.
I live in Europe. There is no "official European narrative." Each of the 27 member-states are led by people that each represent a different political leaning or affiliation, and they run the full spectrum from right-wing conservatives to liberal-socialists to various definitions of center-right coalitions. Member-states squabble with one another all the time, to say nothing of each country's very different political and cultural approaches on just about anything, let alone the environment. Even the U.S. does the whole federation thing better than we ever will.
An "official European narrative?" What a joke. Come down to France, I will personally show you there are as many viewpoints as there are regions in this country.
Why should I take any of this seriously? This is silly. Everything about these arguments is silly.
Last edited:
- 2,534
- United Kingdom
I used this as a primer (last year I believe):
The Netherlands’ Farm Crisis, Explained – Atlantic Sentinel
atlanticsentinel.com
Has the picture changed?
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,114
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’ on the House Floor
A feud has been boiling between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert for months. It finally reached a new level on Wednesday.
www.thedailybeast.com
I didn't even know which thread best fits, but I'll park it here.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,478
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
The Beast keeps asking me to set up a membership before I can read this article so I found an archived link.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’ on the House Floor
A feud has been boiling between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert for months. It finally reached a new level on Wednesday.www.thedailybeast.com
I didn't even know which thread best fits, but I'll park it here.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’ on the House Floor
A feud has been boiling between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert for months. It finally reached a new level on Wednesday.
web.archive.org
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,197
- Texas
Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’ on the House Floor
A feud has been boiling between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert for months. It finally reached a new level on Wednesday.www.thedailybeast.com
I didn't even know which thread best fits, but I'll park it here.
- 29,452
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Ah.
Right, so connie bitch Hawley represented corporation Hobby Lobby to defend its religious rights. Of course as a connie bitch, Hawley lacks principles.
Corporations are just associations of individuals. Because individuals have rights, associations and therefore corporations also must.
[Edit to add] lol. This bitch is so broken.
Resecting religious freedom, which necessarily includes freedom from religion, is not "persecution."
I said this before, but if beliefs are sincerely held, a student will find a minute for religious exercise in a manner that doesn't violate the rights of others. That may mean sacrificing time that would otherwise be used for something fun, like recess, but that's a choice that one is free to make for themself if their beliefs are sincerely held.
I particularly appreciate your implicit allegation of hypocrisy in bringing up deforestation in Brazil to attack advocacy (when inappropriate means of advocacy is right there, and you indeed address it) of which you disapprove, especially as connie bitch Bolsonaro enabled drastically increased rate of deforestation.
Right, so connie bitch Hawley represented corporation Hobby Lobby to defend its religious rights. Of course as a connie bitch, Hawley lacks principles.
Corporations are just associations of individuals. Because individuals have rights, associations and therefore corporations also must.
[Edit to add] lol. This bitch is so broken.
Resecting religious freedom, which necessarily includes freedom from religion, is not "persecution."
I said this before, but if beliefs are sincerely held, a student will find a minute for religious exercise in a manner that doesn't violate the rights of others. That may mean sacrificing time that would otherwise be used for something fun, like recess, but that's a choice that one is free to make for themself if their beliefs are sincerely held.
Really, truly amazing job further validating my position that conservatism is mental illness. I recognize that "American" may not apply in your case and indeed that "American" may not be the only flavor of conservatism that is so maligned, but "American" is the flavor of conservatism with which I'm most familiar.
I particularly appreciate your implicit allegation of hypocrisy in bringing up deforestation in Brazil to attack advocacy (when inappropriate means of advocacy is right there, and you indeed address it) of which you disapprove, especially as connie bitch Bolsonaro enabled drastically increased rate of deforestation.
Last edited:
- 142
- NTufnel
I've been away from the forum for several years and just started playing GT again. I was a lifelong Republican until the Trumpers chipped away the last vestiges of "they're not all bad, it's mostly the politicians..." Is embarrassing to have ever been one now. Glad to see this forum isn't a big Nazi echo chamber.
By the way, I found that quitting drinking really made conservative ideas sound stupid as hell. Maybe that's why they're all so worked up about Bud Light. 😆
By the way, I found that quitting drinking really made conservative ideas sound stupid as hell. Maybe that's why they're all so worked up about Bud Light. 😆
- 29,452
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I drink and a lot of them, especially the social conservative positions, still sound stupid as hell. Correlation does not indicate causation.
Quitter.
- 142
- NTufnel
- 29,452
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
In all sincerity, good for you. I don't and won't smoke anything, but I do enjoy a good drink.
- 142
- NTufnel
- 29,452
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
The bitchfit in opposition to advocacy for reducing anthropogenic detriment to the environment isn't centrism. It's conservative in nature. It's about maintaining the status quo and opposing change.
Do some go about that advocacy inappropriately? Absolutely. Those vermin that splatter paint on classical art in order to gain attention immediately spring to mind, and frankly that act strains the notion of advocacy. It's about getting attention first and any message that may follow But that's not what this one's bitchfit was centered on. Do note the breathtaking inanity that was the assertion that some "stone" causes climate change.
Now one who holds a conservative view may not hold others, as I've elaborated on before, but holding one satisfies any reasonable requirement to refer to it as conservatism for the purpose of discussion on that particular topic.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,197
- Texas
What I meant, was I usually find anyone trying to declare a sort of "both sides" argument ("both so-called conservatives and progressives are equally stupid", " some of the ideas from both sides") is one that comes off as an enlightened centrist, but which as you said, is actually still conservative in nature.
Continuing to try and find some sort of equal balance between the two is still preaching conservatism without wanting to admit it. There's not an equal balance, 1 side is clearly well behind the times & reluctance towards any positive change if it affects them.
Pound for pound on policy/ideas, progressive ideology is far more beneficial to society than conservative; it's in their name, to keep things as they want as they are b/c it benefits them, no matter how stupid the subject. Zero emissions is a solid example, it benefits all of us, but conservatives think it means taking away their over-sized, under-used pickups & therefore, that's bad. So, they make up scenarios based on purposefully misconstrued information like, "Global warming, but it's cold in May" type bullocks. Or what our idiot former President & my dumb ass governor think about wind mills.
They ignore that zero emission supporters do know it is not without fault. But, it's a step in a direction to better our planet for society than continuing to act as if fossil fuels are an infinite resource and not worth detracting from in any form.
Last edited:
