Conservatives are afraid.

Junkyard Tom

I was just doing a bit of reading about Starship Troopers and the satire in it was completely missed by critics at the time.



theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive

I mean how much of a dumbass movie critic would you have to be to not get it?

Cordell

rgodard80a wrote: »

Sounds like a mildly racist attack on Americans there.

It's called microaggression.

southstar

Pepefrogok wrote: »

But we are more beautiful!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/01/27/science-says-conservatives-are-hotter-than-liberals/amp/

This is backed up by looking at any protest/screem at the sky session! Mabey that's what we are scared off! That our women will put a pile of weight on and start dying their hair multiple colours?

Here is a nice science based video to help explain!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jNkg78D5iqI

it would beat turning into that smug arse hole Katie Hopkins..

Hande hoche!

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I was just doing a bit of reading about Starship Troopers and the satire in it was completely missed by critics at the time.



theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive

I mean how much of a dumbass movie critic would you have to be to not get it?

The Nazi style uniforms were a bit of a give away.

Billy86

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

A liberal is just a conservative that has not been mugged yet.

Meaning a conservative is just a liberal who can't look after or defend themselves. Explains the strong man leader fetish in some circles.

ancapailldorcha

Billy86 wrote: »

Meaning a conservative is just a liberal who can't look after or defend themselves. Explains the strong man leader fetish in some circles.

Not to mention the enduring victimhood-complex and incessant whining.

Donnielighto

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The only reason for wanting things to remain the same is the fear that they will get worse if changed. If you suspected change would improve things you'd be all for it, if you though it would make no difference you wouldn't care either way.

If you are all for change, or not bothered one way or the other you, are liberal by definition.

Therefore conservatives are by definition afraid. Remove that fear and they default to liberal.

You can't be a liberal who wants to conserve, and you can't be a conservative who wants to liberalise. They are oxymorons.

Edit - Sorry, just seen my typo.

I meant to say if you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be a conservative, not that you would!

Are liberals afraid things will get worse of action isn't taken? Who has not fears for society and the world in general ffs?

DEFTLEFTHAND

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts, conservatives become liberals, liberals become conservative and a lot of people simply stay put in the middle.

Do ye see many conservatives becoming liberals though? Isn't it more common for it to be the other way round.

sbsquarepants

conorhal wrote: »

Has it possibly occured to you that something might be conserved because it is something that is valued and appreciated or considered a common good rather than something retained for fear of changing it?

Doesn't make any sense. Even if something is considered a common good, the only reason for not changing it, would be if you fear that the change could be a disimprovement.
Why not make things even better if you think you can?

Donnielighto wrote: »

Are liberals afraid things will get worse of action isn't taken?

No, not necessarily. Change by it's nature involves risk, there is no such thing as a perfect prediction.
I'd class liberalism as "live and let live". Conservatism as "you live, how I live". One outlook accepts risk as an inevitable consequence of equality, the other just seeks to avoid it altogether.

Manach

Some of us are just spawned Conservative.

pemay

Liberals skew younger, conservatives skew older.

Therefore liberals are naïve, grow through maturity, and become conservative.

Younger conservatives are just way ahead of the game. And older liberals?.....oh boy, theres no hope for them!

Or

When you're younger you don't realise what you have going for you, you dismiss it out of hand, its all a great free for all that you take for granted. Then as you grow up and you start to feel the very real limitations of the world and how dangerous and unforgiving it can be.....you cop on, slowly but surely!

You can say its being afraid, in just the same way you can say youre "afraid" of losing your job, "afraid" of losing the money you've worked for, "afraid" of losing such a great environment (country, education, community etc) you've enjoyed and want your children to enjoy too. Its simply preservation.

But preservatives doesn't have the same ring as conservative!

Billy86

pemay wrote: »

Liberals skew younger, conservatives skew older.

Therefore liberals are naïve, grow through maturity, and become conservative.

Younger conservatives are just way ahead of the game. And older liberals?.....oh boy, theres no hope for them!

I reckon it's often less about people changing with age and more about the world around them doing so over time.

Hande hoche!

Manach wrote: »

Some of us are just spawned Conservative.

The Uruk Hai were just misunderstood.

Pepefrogok

southstar wrote: »

it would beat turning into that smug arse hole Katie Hopkins..

A beautiful lady for her age and medical problems she fought through.

pemay

Billy86 wrote: »

I reckon it's often less about people changing with age and more about the world around them doing so over time.

Yeah that makes sense.

I'm sure your comprehension of the world was the same at age 4, 9, 18, 23 etc

You didn't learn anything, for sure, its the world that changes, and not the person. Yep!!

biko

Billy86

pemay wrote: »

Yeah that makes sense.

I'm sure your comprehension of the world was the same at age 4, 9, 18, 23 etc

You didn't learn anything, for sure, its the world that changes, and not the person. Yep!!

It does make sense, thanks! You seem to have drawn a conclusion that I said nobody changes, which wasn't what I was getting at - you have also made the error of only bringing it up to age 23, at which point people are still far more likely to be on the liberal side of things. On top of that, at four I had no political opinion, did I?

But given that when I was four it was illegal for out current Taoiseach to practice his sexuality, well let's run with that all the same...

When I was four in 1990; it was still legal to rape your wife in Ireland by the word of all, homosexuality was in many ways illegal, women weren't allowed in some of the local pubs around where I lived (which was in Dublin), divorce was not an option in Ireland, we were one of the most homogenous nations in all of Europe, and Ireland was both very religious and a poor nation.

Fast forward to when I was nine in 1995, raping your wife was now illegal, homosexual acts as best I know were all legalised/decriminalised, divorce had just been voted on in favour of (by the narrowest of margins), the country was looking much better on the economic front but had yet to really start booming, and we were in the midst of a torrent of church sex abuse scandals that were doing massive damage to their reputation and standing in society. We had seen a few Balkan migrants and were seeing numbers increase a bit across the board if I am correct, but there were just three black kids in my whole school - and that was more than in any of my friends other primary schools around the neighbourhood.

Now we fast forward to 2004 when I was 18 - religion had become barely an afterthought for most younger people at this time, we were in the middle of an economic boom we were sure would never end, homosexuality was far, far more normalised than it had been before but there were still issues with a small spate of attacks on gay people/gay bars around that time *though the pride parades, which didn't even exist in 1990 and were only made official in 1995, were not attracting thousands), and gay marriage wasn't even an afterthought nor was abortion. We had had a large influx of immigrants from the continent, Asia and Africa primarily but it was still very rare to see children of colour with Irish accents.

Jump ahead again to 2018 and we're back in a boom of sorts after an insanely huge struggle in the meantime, many Irish people my age no longer live in the country in no small part due to that (though a good few are returning lately), we have become the first country in the world to democratically vote in favour of gay marriage (if you could tell that to someone in the early 90s, and that it would pass in all but one district, and would only lose there by 2%...), pride weekend it treated more as a general festival of sorts that all ages and genders get involved in, and if I'm correct gay bars are even struggling to keep afloat in more recent times due to their patrons not feeling so uncomfortable in 'straight' establishments with each other. I walk back through the park from work near a few schools and quite regularly see groups of 4-5 of them without a single white child amongst them, with the kids being brown/black/Asian. A taxi man randomly told me a funny story about how he used to be able to go into any pub or club in the country and pick up almost any woman he wanted as the exotic black foreigner... whereas today he's barely able to get a taxi afterwards himself. And now we're a few months off facing a referendum on abortion.

So yeah, I think it's fair to say the world around us in Ireland has changed an awful, awful lot since I was four. And I would wager it has changed more than the average person's view who was 30 in 1990 and is 57/58 today would have. And by 2045 I'm quite sure it will have changed more than I will between now at 31 and then at the end of my 50s.

seamus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I mean how much of a dumbass movie critic would you have to be to not get it?

I'm actually amazed that one critic saw the satire in Robocop - which was a quite subtle critique of the failings of the military-industrial complex, the privatisation of government functions and the direct links between corporate and organised crime - but managed to miss the satire in Starship Troopers, which was completely in-your-face.

Chrongen

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Everybody’s afraid of something. Liberals are afraid of climate change. And Russia. Conservatives used to be afraid of Russia but are now not afraid of either Russia or climate change. Lesbians are a fear point.

Conservatives are deathly afraid of the thought that somebody somewhere might be enjoying themselves.

Pepefrogok

Chrongen wrote: »

Conservatives are deathly afraid of the thought that somebody somewhere might be enjoying themselves.

I think I speak for all conservative people when I say we have no problem with the hot lesbians!

sbsquarepants

I would also like to offer the full support of the liberals.


See, we aren't so different after all:D

Cordell

And we, the normal people, support them as well!!!

sbsquarepants

I always view with instant suspicion, anyone who uses a phrase like us normal people:rolleyes:

I'm keeping my eye on you cordell!

Cordell

plenty of hot lesbians out there to keep your eyes on, don't waste them on me

McTigs

pemay wrote: »

Liberals skew younger, conservatives skew older.

Therefore liberals are naïve, grow through maturity, and become conservative.

Younger conservatives are just way ahead of the game. And older liberals?.....oh boy, theres no hope for them!

Or

When you're younger you don't realise what you have going for you, you dismiss it out of hand, its all a great free for all that you take for granted. Then as you grow up and you start to feel the very real limitations of the world and how dangerous and unforgiving it can be.....you cop on, slowly but surely!

You can say its being afraid, in just the same way you can say youre "afraid" of losing your job, "afraid" of losing the money you've worked for, "afraid" of losing such a great environment (country, education, community etc) you've enjoyed and want your children to enjoy too. Its simply preservation.

But preservatives doesn't have the same ring as conservative!

or it could be argued that conservatism seeps in as the mind slows down and is less willing to maintain a progressive outlook.

To suggest that conservatism is the result of wisdom acquired by passing years is utter nonsense. It's far more likely that conservatism in older age is the result of lazier thinking in a mindset that has allowed itself to be twarted by cynicism. It's acop out really.

To me there is nothing more brilliant than an old liberal.... they took the more difficult road of remaining open minded in spite of what life through at them.

Chrongen

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I think I speak for all conservative people when I say we have no problem with the hot lesbians!

So looks are all you care about? Your ideology crumbles when it clashes with something you find attractive? Shows how principled you are, punchy.

RobertKK

People of all views change opinions over time.
Some with conservative views become more liberal.
Some with liberal views become more conservative.

People are always involving in their views over time and they swing in all directions.

conorhal

Chrongen wrote: »

So looks are all you care about? Your ideology crumbles when it clashes with something you find attractive? Shows how principled you are, punchy.

And they like to characterize conservatives as 'bitter, humourless, spiteful, censorious and inflexible'.... truely the world has turned on it's head these days..

Pepefrogok

Chrongen wrote: »

So looks are all you care about?

I like my lesbians hot! What can I tell ya?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Chrongen wrote: »

So looks are all you care about?

I like my lesbians hot! What can I tell ya?

Well, if that's what you base your political views on...

Klinkhammer

Billy86 wrote: »

women weren't allowed in some of the local pubs around where I lived (which was in Dublin)

If we were going to conserve anything from our dark and troubled past it should have been the Bar and Lounge system.

sbsquarepants

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I like my lesbians hot! What can I tell ya?

Hot lesbians are my favourite kind of lesbian.

I know we're not supposed to discriminate these days on grounds of race, gender and so on. But hotness is still fair game for a bit of the auld favouritism - I prefer hot to not hot and I won't be moved on that!

Pepefrogok

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, if that's what you base your political views on...

Wait, what? No no no, that is just my view on lesbians! You are confused.

Pepefrogok

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hot lesbians are my favourite kind of lesbian.

I know we're not supposed to discriminate these days on grounds of race, gender and so on. But hotness is still fair game for a bit of the auld favouritism - I prefer hot to not hot and I won't be moved on that!

Won't be long until your challenged on it friend! The liberal set are already trying to guilt people who don't want relations of a pokey pokey nature with gentleladys who had done previously been a fellow!

JohnMc1

seenitall wrote: »

Conservatives are always afraid. Isn't that the whole point of being a conservative?

Who wants thing banned because they might hurt someone's feelings? Newsflash it ain't Conservatives.

Billy86

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who wants thing banned because they might hurt someone's feelings? Newsflash it ain't Conservatives.

Mosques, non-Christian religions in public life, abortions, contraception, porn, grown men kneeling down... and that's just getting started.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JohnMc1 wrote: »

seenitall wrote: »

Conservatives are always afraid. Isn't that the whole point of being a conservative?

Who wants thing banned because they might hurt someone's feelings? Newsflash it ain't Conservatives.

It's not liberals either. Snowflakes know no political leaning.

Case in point: when the abortion referendum happens, how many liberals do you think will vote for continuing the ban?

Klinkhammer

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who wants thing banned because they might hurt someone's feelings? Newsflash it ain't Conservatives.

Like drugs, gays, foreigners... I think you will find it is conservatives.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Never surprises me when conservatives attack liberals, they rarely actually attack liberal policies (or only attack the broad extreme ones)...

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Won't be long until your challenged on it friend! The liberal set are already trying to guilt people who don't want relations of a pokey pokey nature with gentleladys who had done previously been a fellow!

Kinda making my point for me now...

Sand

If the thread demonstrates anything, its that conservative and liberal are meaningless as political terms. Particularly outside the US where the terms are used to refer to fairly specific groups.

dr.fuzzenstein

There is a bit of fear involved.
To my mind conservatives are all about money and control. You want to protect what's yours, keep up the status quo and make sure that your gated community stays white or at least affluent. Since you can't discriminate against color these days, you can discriminate with money to keep the riff-raff out of your area as well as your restaurants and bars. It means to set yourself apart from the masses, to send a signal that says loud and clear "I am so much richer and better than you!". (said in a Harry Enfield voice)
The idea is to keep the gravy train rolling and to have a cosy little clique between politics and big business and influence the law so that the judiciary is on your side. Once you have that, the police and army are pretty much in your pocket.
For that it is very important to keep the smelly masses in check and keep them just poor enough that just about all they have will be spent on rent, food, transport, bills, taxes, healthcare, childcare and after they've worked and paid taxes for over 40 years, care for the elderly.
For that you need to keep costs high, wages low and cut back on any social benefits. To the rich it makes no difference if they have care paid for by the state or if they pay a few thousand bucks a month, but to a lower to middle class family having a family member in specialised care for up to 10 years, it can wipe out the entire savings and property that family has. So they stay put where they belong and have to spend decades building it all up again.
There are of course many low-rent conservatives who subscribe to these ideals because they are hoping that a few scraps of the table will fall their way, very Renfield-esque.
You say that a liberal is a liberal until he gets mugged. A conservative is a conservative until he gets fired.

Liberals aren't monsters. They're people who said wouldn't it be nice if we could share the wealth more equally, pay the poor shmocks a bit more and have the moneybags earn a tiny bit less? Do banks and stockmarkets really need to make and pocket trillions for doing, well, nothing? Other than exploiting the producer of course and make sure he gets the least amount possible, just about keeping him above the water? After all they are useless parasites who produce absolutely nothing except more money for themselves and nothing else. Ticks and tapeworms.
There are endless trillions flowing through the world and from what I can see that money is used for absolutely nothing positive. All that does is make numbers appear on a balance sheet. Whoopdee-fcuking-dooda.
It is as useful as tits on a fish. Sometimes it does get used for bombing poor people in poor countries.

Of course there is a war going on on social media. We have Renfield Conservatives against Snowflake Libtards, both of them spewing hateful bile and ignorant comments at each other. And each year each side gets more and more entrenched and extreme in their views.
It is divide and conquer in action. With the advent of bot armies that you can hire to boost your won ignorant point of view (and make Trump appear popular) it has become absolutely pointless to try and make a reasoned argument on social media, it just gets drowned in the sh*t storm.
The end-result is billionaires sitting in their lounge-chairs sipping cocktails in a villa that costs the trade deficit of a small African nation or a club where a meal and a few cocktails cost more than my car.
These people don't watch TV or post on social media, they make the content and then relax while we fight. And then watch us monkeys dance for them.
It's the next step to the American dream where anyone can achieve anything and if they don't, it's because they are stupid and/or lazy.
Does a single person really need to own several billion? What good does it do anyone if the top 1% in the US control nearly 40% of the money?

sbsquarepants

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Won't be long until your challenged on it friend! The liberal set are already trying to guilt people who don't want relations of a pokey pokey nature with gentleladys who had done previously been a fellow!

Eh, there'll be separate bathrooms for these "people" I hope?

I'm not quite sure why, but it must be important to separate our bodily waste on strict gender grounds, it just must be! Says so in the bible (probably:D)

mariaalice

Its make no difference to the very wealthy who have the money to insulate themselves for reality.

If it began to affect the middle class in any significant way then there would be a real push against it not a twitter storm.

For example some journalists were being interviewed for a current affairs program all were quintessential middle class not one of them seem to be aware of the irony of it, now imagine if the program was required to have producers and presenters of a more balanced background that would mean one of the middle class presenters would have to go in favour of someone from a working class background and or different ethnicity. The middle classes slice of the cake would diminish in favour of others in society.

dr.fuzzenstein

mariaalice wrote: »

Its make no difference to the very wealthy who have the money to insulate themselves for reality.

If it began to affect the middle class in any significant way then there would be a real push against it not a twitter storm.

For example some journalists were being interviewed for a current affairs program all were quintessential middle class not one of them seem to be aware of the irony of it, now imagine if the program was required to have producers and presenter of a more balanced background that would mean one of the middle class presenters would have to go in favour of someone from a working class background and or different ethnicity. The middle classes slice of the cake would diminish in favour of others in society.

That is the perception. The real problem is that the very rich will get more and more by paing less and less.
Pay less to the producer, the worker, charge more for the endproduct, pay less taxes (Trump's tax cut a classic example), cut out safety or environmental regulations and reduce the quality/quantity of te product.
Not for any other reason than "profit maximisation".
It used to be that you sold a product and calculated a margin for it.
Nowadays you sell a profit and see how much you can squeeze everyone except for yourself, so the margin is not set, but will be the absolute maximum the market will bear.
Then give the impression that times are tough and watch them all run around like ants fighting over the crumbs while you just made another few million.

sheesh

this thread is bulshirt without defining what you mean by liberal and conservative.

A lot of people seem to be talking about the US version of being Conservative which is quiet broad (Financial conservative -> loony religious conservative),

Liberal in a US context is also quiet broad.

conservative and liberal also mean something different in Europe.

edit: Sorry someone beat me to this comment

animaal

Sand wrote: »

If the thread demonstrates anything, its that conservative and liberal are meaningless as political terms. Particularly outside the US where the terms are used to refer to fairly specific groups.

Yes!

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are now just labels that have little connection to the actual meanings of those words. All the more so when people throw concepts like left-wing/right-wing under the same conservative/liberal umbrellas.

Gay marriage is now established in this country. Some people would like it to remain so. Others would like the law changed. Which are the conservatives?

Can a person be conservative and liberal at the same time? I may want a change to the law, but executed in a slow and cautious manner - keeping an eye on the outcomes. I'm taking a conservative approach to the change in the law.

When terms like conservative and liberal are thrown around, it's usually done with a large serving of smugness and shows a one-dimensional view of the world.

dr.fuzzenstein

animaal wrote: »

Yes!

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are now just labels that have little connection to the actual meanings of those words. All the more so when people throw concepts like left-wing/right-wing under the same conservative/liberal umbrellas.

Gay marriage is now established in this country. Some people would like it to remain so. Others would like the law changed. Which are the conservatives?

Can a person be conservative and liberal at the same time? I may want a change to the law, but executed in a slow and cautious manner - keeping an eye on the outcomes. I'm taking a conservative approach to the change in the law.

When terms like conservative and liberal are thrown around, it's usually done with a large serving of smugness and shows a one-dimensional view of the world.

Yes, liberals are notoriously homophobic.

animaal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, liberals are notoriously homophobic.

Apologies, my point may have been too subtle. Or maybe I'm missing yours.

If being conservative means having a reluctance to change, then wouldn't that mean that those in favour of gay marriage are now the conservatives with regard to that question?

In reality, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are being used to identify similar-minded folk, and can be assigned a random collection of values. It's a slightly more up-to-date way of differentiating "them" from "us". Our tribe versus their tribe. The good people in this parish versus the awful neighbouring parish.

dr.fuzzenstein

animaal wrote: »

Apologies, my point may have been too subtle. Or maybe I'm missing yours.

If being conservative means having a reluctance to change, then wouldn't that mean that those in favour of gay marriage are now the conservatives with regard to that question?

In reality, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are being used to identify similar-minded folk, and can be assigned a random collection of values. It's a slightly more up-to-date way of differentiating "them" from "us". Our tribe versus their tribe. The good people in this parish versus the awful neighbouring parish.

Would not see it that way.
A conservative (to me at least) is someone who believes in family, work and church. Family being a man, a woman and children. Man works, woman preferably stays at home, children go to school. The family being a strong unit and there's nothing wrong with that. Usually Republican (in the US anyway), active in his community and church, what you would call a pillar of society.
This type of person might view anything that doesn't fit in with this with suspicion. So single people (after a certain age), single mothers (The Horror!), gays, man stays at home, wife works, unmarried couples and anyone who isn't the short-back and sides type.
Seriously? Who are the conservatives? No, it's not a random collection of values.
A liberal might be almost indistinguishable from the above, but is someone who might have slightly more open views on foreigners, gays, women's rights, abortion, contraception, lead a lifestyle outside the nuclear family and be more of a mindset that wealth should be spread out more equally.
I do agree that this is not black and white. There are more shades of grey than anything else. Maybe it's becoming less meaningful, but they still exist though.
You will find more people who describe themselves as liberal on the side of pro-choice, equal rights, living wages for workers, free trade, environemtal protectionism and you will find more conservatives on the side of pro-life, traditional gender roles and against minimum wage, not fond of unions and pretty much against any kind of environmentalism or trade restrictions unless we're talking about import duties to favour domestic businesses.

I think you may approach this from an Irish point of view. Whilst I would view Ireland as a conservative country (i.e. having MAJOR hangups on church, sex, drugs, alcohol and anything that is a bit too wild and colorful), there isn't that political divide you find in other countries.
In Germany you have CDU (conservative) and SPD (more worker's party), you know about Tories and Labor and of course Republicans and Democrats.
You will find this divide in almost any western country.
There just isn't that same divide in Ireland, which is divided between FF and FG and after 25 years I cannot for the life of me figure out the difference.

PopePalpatine

animaal wrote: »

Apologies, my point may have been too subtle. Or maybe I'm missing yours.

If being conservative means having a reluctance to change, then wouldn't that mean that those in favour of gay marriage are now the conservatives with regard to that question?

In reality, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are being used to identify similar-minded folk, and can be assigned a random collection of values. It's a slightly more up-to-date way of differentiating "them" from "us". Our tribe versus their tribe. The good people in this parish versus the awful neighbouring parish.

Agreed, the "liberal/conservative" dichotomy wouldn't suit in states where marriage equality has been enacted. "Reactionary" would be a more suitable term to describe those who want to revoke that...but it's not exactly a conducive term to winning people over.