The Meaning of Conservative

[Phox]

Awhile back, I was in a discussion with Death (if any of you remember her), and we were discussing liberal/conservative values.

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

And I said: "No, it really isn't."

You see, the word conservative has drifted a long way from meaning one who seeks to maintain the status quo.

I won't go into the political theory too much, but what Americans associate with "Conservatism" isn't what Edmund Burke would.

First, there's the "pro-lifers". What a misnomer that is. They are anti-abortion, on the surface. Okay, whatever. However, most of their reasoning is because their church tells them that abortion is wrong. Well, the Bible says that "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him" (Exodus 21:22). The passage continues "But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25). So... that suggests that  fetus is not, as they like to claim, regarded as a "full" person. These very same people are also fairly generally okay with the death penalty, against gun control,  and against government sponsored welfare and healthcare, especially things like WIC and other programs that aid women with children. "Pro-life", eh?

The "smaller government" crowd doesn't quite mean that either. What they mean, of course, is less taxes and welfare, unless they benefit from it. ("Keep the government out of my Medicare", anyone?) And of course, there's that tricky line in the Constitution, you know, the one about establishing the Constitution in order to do several important things including "promote the general Welfare"? Yeah, the Preamble, they call it. The one we had to memorize like 900 times in school? Yeah...

It seems that being a "conservative" in the U.S. in the 21st century means being either a religious nutjob, a sociopath, or an anti-Constitutionalist. Or all of the above.

[Freeky]

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

I don't understand her reasoning.  Do you think you could tell me what she meant?  Because I see where city-states could be better than a huge empire, in fact I'd like to see  Tucson become independent from MURRKAFUCKYEAHRRR (it'll never happen, but still.)

[Phox]

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

I don't understand her reasoning.  Do you think you could tell me what she meant?  Because I see where city-states could be better than a huge empire, in fact I'd like to see  Tucson become independent from MURRKAFUCKYEAHRRR (it'll never happen, but still.)

What she meant is that it's the idea of "smaller government", I think. (Which it actually isn't, of course. It's a different form of government, using a smaller population as a base, but not necessarily any less willing to spend money on various programs.)

ETA: Spacing issue.

[Freeky]

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

I don't understand her reasoning.  Do you think you could tell me what she meant?  Because I see where city-states could be better than a huge empire, in fact I'd like to see  Tucson become independent from MURRKAFUCKYEAHRRR (it'll never happen, but still.)

What she meant is that it's the idea of "smaller government", I think. (Which it actually isn't, of course. It's a different form of government, using a smaller population as a base, but not necessarily any less willing to spend money on various programs.)

ETA: Spacing issue.

Yeah, if that's the case, I don't think she really understood what you were saying. 

[Phox]

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

I don't understand her reasoning.  Do you think you could tell me what she meant?  Because I see where city-states could be better than a huge empire, in fact I'd like to see  Tucson become independent from MURRKAFUCKYEAHRRR (it'll never happen, but still.)

What she meant is that it's the idea of "smaller government", I think. (Which it actually isn't, of course. It's a different form of government, using a smaller population as a base, but not necessarily any less willing to spend money on various programs.)

ETA: Spacing issue.

Yeah, if that's the case, I don't think she really understood what you were saying. 

That's the problem. I don't think many people do understand. It's all "smaller government" and "states rights" and "the federal government is BAD." With no real reasons for WHY they believe that. The short answer is they believe it because that's what they are told.

[Freeky]

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

I don't understand her reasoning.  Do you think you could tell me what she meant?  Because I see where city-states could be better than a huge empire, in fact I'd like to see  Tucson become independent from MURRKAFUCKYEAHRRR (it'll never happen, but still.)

What she meant is that it's the idea of "smaller government", I think. (Which it actually isn't, of course. It's a different form of government, using a smaller population as a base, but not necessarily any less willing to spend money on various programs.)

ETA: Spacing issue.

Yeah, if that's the case, I don't think she really understood what you were saying. 

That's the problem. I don't think many people do understand. It's all "smaller government" and "states rights" and "the federal government is BAD." With no real reasons for WHY they believe that. The short answer is they believe it because that's what they are told.

Thinking is hard work.  There isn't snark there, it actually is hard.  People, particularly Americans, are against hard work if they have to do it (outside of work hours that is).  That's what the TV Voices are for, to tell people what they think.  And once they, the people, know what to think, they can turn on something that just eats up between thirty minutes and an hour.   And then it can be time to turn on something else that takes up another thirty minutes to an hour.  And so on and so forth until it is time to sleep.

[Phox]

The primary details elude me, but at some point, I stated that I supported independent city-states with populations below 20,000.

She responded with: "Well, that's conservative!"

I don't understand her reasoning.  Do you think you could tell me what she meant?  Because I see where city-states could be better than a huge empire, in fact I'd like to see  Tucson become independent from MURRKAFUCKYEAHRRR (it'll never happen, but still.)

What she meant is that it's the idea of "smaller government", I think. (Which it actually isn't, of course. It's a different form of government, using a smaller population as a base, but not necessarily any less willing to spend money on various programs.)

ETA: Spacing issue.

Yeah, if that's the case, I don't think she really understood what you were saying. 

That's the problem. I don't think many people do understand. It's all "smaller government" and "states rights" and "the federal government is BAD." With no real reasons for WHY they believe that. The short answer is they believe it because that's what they are told.

Thinking is hard work.  There isn't snark there, it actually is hard.  People, particularly Americans, are against hard work if they have to do it (outside of work hours that is).  That's what the TV Voices are for, to tell people what they think.  And once they, the people, know what to think, they can turn on something that just eats up between thirty minutes and an hour.   And then it can be time to turn on something else that takes up another thirty minutes to an hour.  And so on and so forth until it is time to sleep.

Agreed. But that's a major problem. After all, we have to deal with this lack of thought.

[Freeky]

Yep, its pretty bad.  But you can't really teach people how to think if they don't want to.  If they do want to know how to think, though, they have to be shown how thinking works.  Its a skill like any other, and harder than most.

[Juana]

Oh my god, yes. And it's hard to teach, too. Some people get it right off the bat, but ime, most don't, even when it's not sheer laziness. I'm not entirely sure why.

[Freeky]

Oh my god, yes. And it's hard to teach, too. Some people get it right off the bat, but ime, most don't, even when it's not sheer laziness. I'm not entirely sure why.

Maybe sometimes is a defeatist attitude?

Back when I was still a sheeple, which wasn't too terribly long ago, I just agreed with everything I heard, except for the really really repugnant shit, on the basis that they may or may not have a point, it was possible whoever was talking had a clue, and I most certainly didn't and wouldn't know how to form an opinion of my own even if I did, so I had best keep my mouth shut and let other people do the talking.  

I don't remember when I knew how to think, but I did, and then I understood math better, too.

[sotesla4]

Being a conservative in 21st century USA means never having to apologize for your gross oversimplifications of how the world does and should work

[Phox]

Yep, its pretty bad.  But you can't really teach people how to think if they don't want to.  If they do want to know how to think, though, they have to be shown how thinking works.  Its a skill like any other, and harder than most.

True, true. If people don't want to know how to think, there's nothing that can be done. What's worse though, is the people who think they do, but are either malicious or stupid, and get people to follow in their line of thinking because of it.

[Freeky]

Yep, its pretty bad.  But you can't really teach people how to think if they don't want to.  If they do want to know how to think, though, they have to be shown how thinking works.  Its a skill like any other, and harder than most.

True, true. If people don't want to know how to think, there's nothing that can be done. What's worse though, is the people who think they do, but are either malicious or stupid, and get people to follow in their line of thinking because of it.

Definitely.  But they're in the same crowd as the people who don't want to know how to think, IME.

[Juana]

Oh my god, yes. And it's hard to teach, too. Some people get it right off the bat, but ime, most don't, even when it's not sheer laziness. I'm not entirely sure why.

Maybe sometimes is a defeatist attitude?

Back when I was still a sheeple, which wasn't too terribly long ago, I just agreed with everything I heard, except for the really really repugnant shit, on the basis that they may or may not have a point, it was possible whoever was talking had a clue, and I most certainly didn't and wouldn't know how to form an opinion of my own even if I did, so I had best keep my mouth shut and let other people do the talking.  

I don't remember when I knew how to think, but I did, and then I understood math better, too.

Possibly, for some. IME, it seemed like they just didn't get it. They knew what was wrong, but no amount of teaching (revising how I taught it, breaking it down with them, etc.) seemed to get it through.

[Adios]

Oh my god, yes. And it's hard to teach, too. Some people get it right off the bat, but ime, most don't, even when it's not sheer laziness. I'm not entirely sure why.

Maybe sometimes is a defeatist attitude?

Back when I was still a sheeple, which wasn't too terribly long ago, I just agreed with everything I heard, except for the really really repugnant shit, on the basis that they may or may not have a point, it was possible whoever was talking had a clue, and I most certainly didn't and wouldn't know how to form an opinion of my own even if I did, so I had best keep my mouth shut and let other people do the talking.  

I don't remember when I knew how to think, but I did, and then I understood math better, too.

Possibly, for some. IME, it seemed like they just didn't get it. They knew what was wrong, but no amount of teaching (revising how I taught it, breaking it down with them, etc.) seemed to get it through.

Sometimes all you can do is plant seeds, others may come after and water them.