Conservatism

Do you have kids? You might be surprised at what kids do and when.
No kids, no. But do have a 4 and half year old nephew who lives here and did work in a nursery as well as being a tutor for a few years so I'd (usually) say I'm not surprised at what kids can get up to. It's well known that kids play with their genitals early in life, and it wasn't even that shocking when my partner's (who's a teacher in a London primary school) colleague said her Year One students (5-6 year olds) were watching Squid Game....but when I see that the show was billed as suitable for 5 year olds....I dunno. Thoughts just ran to:

ff69cf02-233b-4273-9db2-773c93516320_text.gif
 
Last edited:
A brief but spectacular take.



And here it is transcribed for ease of reading, edited only to remove "page markers" (of which the second is curiously absent--apparently a mistake in numbering them).

Conservatives feel “censored” on Twitter bc they have an eternal victim complex combined with abhorrent views that their own bubbles have convinced them are much more popular than they actually are. They will never acknowledge that reality, so someone MUST be “censoring” them.

“Free speech” for conservatives is really about permission to air their abhorrent views without social repercussions. They can’t handle the reality of how incongruous their opinions are to society as a whole, so they have to construct victim narratives to explain it.

More cynically, the “censorship” victim narrative also seeks to legitimize things like outright bigotry as valid opinions that are only being cast in a negative light by malicious political opponents. If they get platforms to allow bigotry bc “free speech,” it normalizes it.

Ask people “should platforms allow harassment with racial/homophobic/anti-trans slurs?” and most people say no. But reframe the question as “should platforms be censoring political ideas?” and most people say no. The right is hammering at the second one to wear down the first.

The Musks & Rogans of the world don’t give off the appearance of outright far-right bigotry, they’re just “free speech advocates,” reasonable guys who are just fed up with all the “wokeness.” Appealing to white guys who say “I’m not racist, I’m just sick of hearing about it!”

Convince those white guys that the mild changes society is asking them to adjust to are actually part of a political attack on “free speech,” and that feels good to them, it means they don’t have to feel like they’re wrong for wanting to say “f*g” on Twitch or whatever.

It’s so much easier to see yourself as a victim than to accept that maybe you should change. So suddenly you have a bunch of white guys advocating for the party of racist bigots without having to acknowledge that. “I don’t agree with THAT, I just don’t support censorship.”
 
[EDIT] @TexRex: OK, I'll bite. Why the 🤔?
I think I was pondering the implications of Musk setting up a factory there, because I don't believe this to be a straight anti-EV issue. That George Soros owns Rivian (he doesn't, but facts don't matter) is likely to be the greater concern.
 
Last edited:
Imagine looking at all the problems the country is facing and thinking "Drag Queens are the top priority!"

DeSantis is so anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-anything that's remotely outside the realm of the picture-perfect hetero normal person that I'm surprised it hasn't come out that he's ultra gay. It seems like any time a politician is so anti-anything they are almost certainly doing it themselves.
 
Imagine looking at all the problems the country is facing and thinking "Drag Queens are the top priority!"

DeSantis is so anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-anything that's remotely outside the realm of the picture-perfect hetero normal person that I'm surprised it hasn't come out that he's ultra gay. It seems like any time a politician is so anti-anything they are almost certainly doing it themselves.
As @TexRex rightly points out, "every accusation is a confession."
 
Tell me you have never been to a drag show without telling me you have never been to a drag show.
 
I found this thread on Twitter by a former Republican talking about the core Republican message. I've transcribed the entire thread. It's a bit of a read, but I think it's worth it.


This is a thread on Republican messaging. The press doesn’t want to have a direct conversation with you about this. So as a former Republican who is now a consistent Democratic voter, I will. Thread.

Here is the Republican message on everything of importance:

1. They can tell people what to do.

2. You cannot tell them what to do.

This often gets mistaken for hypocrisy, there’s an additional layer of complexity to this (later in the thread), but this is the basic formula.

You've watched the Republican Party champion the idea of "freedom" while you have also watched the same party openly assault various freedoms, like the freedom to vote, freedom to choose, freedom to marry who you want and so on.

If this has been a source of confusion, then your assessments of what Republicans mean by “freedom” were likely too generous. Here’s what they mean:

1. The freedom to tell people what to do.

2. Freedom from being told what to do.

When Republicans talk about valuing “freedom”, they’re speaking of it in the sense that only people like them should ultimately possess it.

So with this in mind, let’s examine some of our political issues with an emphasis on who is telling who what to do. And hopefully there will be no ambiguity about what the Republican Party message is ever again.

Let’s start with the COVID-19 pandemic. We were told by experts in infectious diseases that to control the spread of the pandemic, we had to socially distance, mask, and get vaccinated. So, in a general sense, we were being told what to do. Guess who had a big problem with that.

All Republicans saw were certain people trying to tell them what to do, which was enough of a reason to make it their chief priority to insist that they will not be told what to do. Even though what they were told to do could save lives, including their own.

As you can see, this is a very stunning commitment to refusing to be told what to do. So much so that it is not in fact “pro-life.” But Republicans will nevertheless claim to be the “pro-life” party. That is because they recognize “pro-life” can be used to tell people what to do.

The reason they say they are “pro-life” when they are trying to tell women what to do with their bodies is not out of genuine concern for human life, but because they recognize that in this position, they can tell women what to do with their bodies.

That’s why when you use that same appeal—“pro-life”—when you ask Republicans to do something about gun violence in schools, it doesn’t work. Because you are now in the position of telling Republicans what to do. That’s precisely why they don’t want to do anything about it.

Anyway, gun violence in schools is not a problem, but their children having to wear masks in schools is. Because somebody is telling their children what to do. Dead children don’t bother them, but telling their children what to do? Only they should do that.

They claim to be for “small government”, but that really means a government that tells them what to do should be as small as possible. But when the Republican Party recognizes it has an opportunity to tell people what to do, the government required for that tends to be large.

The reason Republicans are so focused on the border isn’t because they care about border security, it’s because they recognize it as the most glaring example of when they can tell other people what to do. That's why it’s their favorite issue. You want in? Too bad. Get out.

If Republicans could do this in every social space—tell the people who aren’t like them too bad, get the **** out—I’m here to assure that would be something resembling their ideal society.

Now, there are economic policies that we’ve proposed that we can demonstrate would be of obvious benefit to even Republican voters. So how do Republicans leaders kill potential support for these policies? Make the issue about who is telling who what to do.

They focus on the fact that Democrats may raise taxes. Even when it’s painfully obvious that Democrats aren’t going to raise taxes on everyone (or on very few people), what’s important here is that Democrats are the people telling certain people what to do.

If you want to know why Republicans can easily be talked out of proposals from the Democratic Party that are shown to be of benefit to them, it is precisely because they have to entertain the idea of Democrats telling certain people what to do.

What you didn’t understand from the very beginning is that Democrats should not ultimately be in the position to tell anyone what to do. Only Republicans should be in the position to tell people what to do.

On the issue of climate change, a lot of them don’t regard it as a serious issue to the extent that they think it is a hoax. This is because when you tell Republicans to do something for the sake of the planet, you are still ultimately telling them to what to do.

Furthermore, you are conceiving the planet as a thing that all human beings should have to share. I am here to assure you that the GOP’s main concern with the planet is to ensure that they don’t have to share it.

Now here’s where things get interesting: when you explain to Republicans you want them to do something and explain it’s on the basis of benefitting other people. Now you have really crossed a line. Not only did you tell them what to do, you told them to consider others.

The whole point of an arrangement where you can tell people what to do, but you can’t be told what to do, is precisely to avoid having to consider others. This is why this is their ideal arrangement: so they don’t have to do that.

As you can see, this is a very toxic relationship with the idea of who can tell who what to do. So much so that it seems like the entire point is to conceive of a “right” kind of people who can tell other people what to do without being told what to do. Yep, that’s the point.

So let’s add one more component to the system for who tells who what to do:

1. There are “right” human beings and there are "wrong" ones.

2. The “right” ones get to tell the “wrong” ones what to do.

3. The “wrong” ones do not tell the “right” ones what to do.

As you can see, I've just been talking about white male supremacy and the accompanying caste system structure it enforces all along. And I'm talking about this because the message of the Republican Party is that they quite like it.

But I realize that we are operating in an environment where white male supremacy is so entrenched that the press can’t even conceive of the Republican Party’s agenda of sorting the “right” human beings from the “wrong” ones as maybe presenting a “messaging problem.”

This is because the press has chosen to accommodate the Republican Party in a very specific way:

1. It normalizes the Republican agenda.

2. It normalizes framing the responsibility for stopping that agenda as ultimately being on Democrats.

Think about it: white supremacy is not allowed to be viewed as a “messaging problem.” Even when it’s a threat to democracy. Because if it’s a “messaging problem”, to Republicans, that sounds you're telling them that's a problem they have to solve.

Anyway, I made this thread mostly because I realize that the press has a "messaging problem." Namely, in the sense that they seem extremely averse to explicitly identifying the message of the Republican Party. It's called white male supremacy. Thanks for reading.
 
Depressingly true. However, it is necessary to compare how conservatism works in other countries too - the differences and the similarities. In other countries there are similar class divisions - similar tensions between the elites & the proletariat. Only in the US has race played such a prominent role. Racism, in the form of xenophobic hatred of Mexican migrants was the opening play in Trump's bid for the Presidency. The most consistent topics on the Fox News commentary boards remain "open borders" & BLM rioters. Slavery was a foundational consideration in the forming of the US political system & the legacy of that reality continues to impact politics to the present day.
 
Depressingly true. However, it is necessary to compare how conservatism works in other countries too - the differences and the similarities. In other countries there are similar class divisions - similar tensions between the elites & the proletariat. Only in the US has race played such a prominent role. Racism, in the form of xenophobic hatred of Mexican migrants was the opening play in Trump's bid for the Presidency. The most consistent topics on the Fox News commentary boards remain "open borders" & BLM rioters. Slavery was a foundational consideration in the forming of the US political system & the legacy of that reality continues to impact politics to the present day.
There is a "new conservatism" afoot in the US wherein Hispanic and Black voters become increasingly Republican. The 2022 mid-term elections will tell the truth of this story, if any.

For my own part, my money pays no attention to party, but goes to the candidate I think offers the best hopes for peace and prosperity. Over the decades, I have contributed thousands to people like Perot, Nader, Johnson, Stein and more recently, Gabbard.
 
There is a "new conservatism" afoot in the US wherein Hispanic and Black voters become increasingly Republican. The 2022 mid-term elections will tell the truth of this story, if any.

For my own part, my money pays no attention to party, but goes to the candidate I think offers the best hopes for peace and prosperity. Over the decades, I have contributed thousands to people like Perot, Nader, Johnson, Stein and more recently, Gabbard.
This is why the US is in desperate need of a semi-viable 3rd party, like the Lib Dems in the UK. Not a party that is realistically going to win outright, but has enough commonsense policies to take voters from the right and left when the balance of power has shifted too far one way and need readjusting to the centre. There are enough potential swing voters and people who are just feed up with both the blues and the reds so don't vote at all to vote for a reasonable 3rd party.
 
Ah.



To be fair, it's better than that Trump-endorsed rat ****er televangelist who just lost his bid to run as a Republican candidate for the House in South Carolina who says LGBT people should be executed by the government. The piece of **** still managed just shy of a quarter of the Republican primary vote because this is what Republicans are. They're all just shades of ****ing garbage.
 
Counterpoint, parents who let their children listen to and/or watch Candace Owens are unqualified to have children.
By her statement though, she also stupidly says that they have some qualifications (underqualified as opposed to unqualified).
 
To be fair, it's better than that Trump-endorsed rat *er televangelist who just lost his bid to run as a Republican candidate for the House in South Carolina who says LGBT people should be executed by the government. The piece of * still managed just shy of a quarter of the Republican primary vote because this is what Republicans are. They're all just shades of ****ing garbage.
Do you mean Burns? Newsweek says even Trump wouldn't endorse that murderous hate preacher.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean Burns? Newsweek says even Trump wouldn't endorse that murderous hate preacher.
My mistake. I think I probably saw "pro-Trump" and misinterpreted it as "Trump-backed." Still, the ****-heel mustered 23.8% of Republican primary voters.
 
My mistake. I think I probably saw "pro-Trump" and misinterpreted it as "Trump-backed." Still, the ****-heel mustered 23.8% of Republican primary voters.
Probably the bottom 23.8%.
 
This is what they are. These right trash mother****ers aren't human. They're ****ing vermin.

FVelzO2UYAEK4Fo.jpg

FVeVg1nWYAADZpJ.jpg


My thoughts immediately turn to this:

I think it's the self-censorship people don't like, and with that people may feel "social progress" occurs without free debate.
...

Possibly the most hilariously pathetic ****ing thing I've ever seen typed out.
 
Rufo seems like a twenty-first century Karl Rove; not just an evil mofo but one who's arrogant enough to plot against his innocent fellow countrymen in broad daylight, content that most people don't seem to care enough to call him out on it.
 
Back