Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-25-2018, 11:49 AM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
Conservatives: Do you believe in social progress?

When we look back on the history books, we see that we have mistreated a lot of folks. Women haven't been treated equally, people of color haven't been treated fairly. Gay, lesbian and transgendered people haven't been treated fairly. Through a modern lens, a lot of what we have done in the past has been unfair towards minority groups. As a Conservative in 2018 USA, do you believe that in the year 2018 we have made all the useful social progress that we are going to make? Or even, that we should revert to a time in the past where things were "better"?
  #2  
Old 12-25-2018, 01:30 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,054
This sounds like a push poll, along the lines of "Do you favor clean water and air?" but I'll give it a try:

Equality is great, of course, but people's definition of equality skew widely. Equal treatment or equal outcome? Because, increasingly, there are people who take it to mean the latter rather than the former.

Should women and minorities have the right to vote, etc? Absolutely. Should they be given an **advantage** that others do not have? No. With affirmative action, there are many black and Hispanic students being given a boost that whites and Asians do not have. Should women be paid the same as men? Sure - if the work, experience, seniority, hazards, hardship are the same.

Also, there are many people today who confuse equal rights with equal characteristics. Women should have the same rights as men, but that does not for one moment mean that they share the same characteristics as men.
  #3  
Old 12-25-2018, 02:49 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
I think the advance of individual rights in the US - for minorities, women, and gays - has been a good thing.

I'm now worried about the nuclear family & about the drug epidemic that has actually lowered the expected US lifespan during the last few years. And this is a tough nut to crack. About the family, the illegitimacy rate is very high in the US. This brings many problems with it, including poverty & criminality:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/7...nic-immigrants

The opioid epidemic & associated deaths are also worrisome:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/healt...cdc/index.html

So, while we've made social progress in some hugely important areas, we have other areas where things have become worse.

Note: I'm not a conservative, but a moderate who used to vote Republican. So, I piped up.

Last edited by survinga; 12-25-2018 at 02:53 PM.
  #4  
Old 12-25-2018, 03:52 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
"Illegitimacy" is only a problem because we have made it so. There's no reason we couldn't have a social and political system—with good public transportation, free health care, free child care, free education, and provision for other basic needs—that would largely wipe out any disadvantages suffered by a child as a result of "illegitimacy."

The nuclear family is also an artificial construct that has been a norm for only a tiny fraction of civilized humanity. It's not something we need to provide for greater freedom and equal distribution of resources.
  #5  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:06 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
"Illegitimacy" is only a problem because we have made it so. There's no reason we couldn't have a social and political system—with good public transportation, free health care, free child care, free education, and provision for other basic needs—that would largely wipe out any disadvantages suffered by a child as a result of "illegitimacy."

The nuclear family is also an artificial construct that has been a norm for only a tiny fraction of civilized humanity. It's not something we need to provide for greater freedom and equal distribution of resources.
This. The only reason children are punished for not being born to a 2-parent family is because we decided punish them for it.
  #6  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:21 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
"Illegitimacy" is only a problem because we have made it so. There's no reason we couldn't have a social and political system—with good public transportation, free health care, free child care, free education, and provision for other basic needs—that would largely wipe out any disadvantages suffered by a child as a result of "illegitimacy."

The nuclear family is also an artificial construct that has been a norm for only a tiny fraction of civilized humanity. It's not something we need to provide for greater freedom and equal distribution of resources.
What you're saying is basically that the State would take the role of private families. It would be responsible for taking care of people. "cradle to grave". Furthermore, see, this means that rich private (mostly white) families won't be able to take care of their kids in as much luxury as they otherwise could because the heavy taxes to pay for all this would take away much of the money needed. And it would mean that many people we currently allow to languish in ignorance and poverty because they aren't white and christian or in some cases even speak the same language would benefit from a small amount of this money.

Moreover, it means that parents who fail to provide for their children don't have their children punished with a menial role in society all their lives. The children "deserve" to be poor.

Just saying, think this through. Conservatives don't want these things, not because they are too stupid to see the benefits, they don't want them because they believe in certain "principles" they want to apply to everyone else.

Such principles are things like :

a. Breaking the law is evil
b. Not being married when you have children is evil
c. Sex before marriage is evil
d. Not have a decent job and a good income means you're a fuckup, it is all your fault
e. Being born homosexual is evil
f. Being born black or brown is a character flaw

And so on. Evil should be punished.
  #7  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:36 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What you're saying is basically that the State would take the role of private families. It would be responsible for taking care of people. "cradle to grave".
I think I get what you're doing here, but really I'll just respond to this part. What the state would be doing is creating a baseline that allows everyone the opportunity to succeed without having to struggle for the most basic needs for survival. That would still allow those who apply themselves to succeed, and society would benefit from the productivity of everyone, regardless of their background.

Quote:
Moreover, it means that parents who fail to provide for their children don't have their children punished with a menial role in society all their lives. The children "deserve" to be poor.
Well, I suppose that if I were arguing with someone who really believed this, I would switch to a utilitarian argument. What kind of environment do you want to live in? One in which the people around are saved from desperation and are empowered to achieve what they are able and motivated to achieve or in which you are surrounded by the desperate and resentful, requiring you to spend much of your resources protecting yourself from them?
  #8  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:43 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
When we look back on the history books, we see that we have mistreated a lot of folks. Women haven't been treated equally, people of color haven't been treated fairly. Gay, lesbian and transgendered people haven't been treated fairly. Through a modern lens, a lot of what we have done in the past has been unfair towards minority groups. As a Conservative in 2018 USA, do you believe that in the year 2018 we have made all the useful social progress that we are going to make? Or even, that we should revert to a time in the past where things were "better"?
An interesting question. I'd call it a strawman because you're trying to set up pins to knock down. But since you're trying to tar a group of voters for past sins I'll answer with a question. I know the anwer but I want you to look it up. Who was the first black Congressman and what party was he in and what year did it take place. Then look up the second black Congressman. Repeat the process. Let us all know how many were voted in before the next party managed it and note the years all this took place. Let me get you started: Senators Congressman

Then look up which party created the KKK to stop voters from electing black people to Congress. Note the timeline above.

And finally, which party kept a high ranking former member of the KKK in Office until he died of old age.

This is the answer to your question of oppression by a political party.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 12-25-2018 at 04:44 PM.
  #9  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:50 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
This is the answer to your question of oppression by a political party.
Seriously there ought to be some kind of board rule about anybody with a join date more than 30 minutes ago who pretends not to know about the Southern Strategy
where the Republicans decided to attract all the racists from the Democratic party, successfully completed the strategy, and still hew to it today.

Do seriously not know this? Are you pretending not to know it? Is it because you'd rather not know it?
  #10  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:53 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,342
Blalron used the terms conservative and progressive. Just because those terms now relate to Republican and Democrat respectively, doesn't mean they always did.

mc
  #11  
Old 12-25-2018, 04:55 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I think I get what you're doing here, but really I'll just respond to this part. What the state would be doing is creating a baseline that allows everyone the opportunity to succeed without having to struggle for the most basic needs for survival. That would still allow those who apply themselves to succeed, and society would benefit from the productivity of everyone, regardless of their background.

Well, I suppose that if I were arguing with someone who really believed this, I would switch to a utilitarian argument. What kind of environment do you want to live in? One in which the people around are saved from desperation and are empowered to achieve what they are able and motivated to achieve or in which you are surrounded by the desperate and resentful, requiring you to spend much of your resources protecting yourself from them?
Conservatives want to live in gated communities and have the right to amass their own private arsenals. They (demanded and got) the legal right to gun down people who make them feel threatened without facing charges for the murder. They want more police and mass incarceration and 3 strikes and you're out. That is, instead of helping the poor, they primarily desire that the poor who act out and who don't simply eke out the meager existence they are permitted to be jailed forever or shot.

Their primary arguments against your ideas are:

a. The government is inefficient and corrupt. If you were to tax every American heavily and poor the money into helping the poor, would fail to do so in any meaningful way.

b. The poor are lazy. Giving them stuff will just encourage them to be more lazy.

c. The poor breed like rabbits and can't control their rates of reproduction. Due to the math of exponential growth, if you don't starve them of resources, you're just creating a bigger problem. (this, unfortunately, is one of those arguments that is both abhorrent and yet I cannot deny the math on it checks out)
  #12  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:04 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Through a modern lens, a lot of what we have done in the past has been unfair towards minority groups.
Not just them. Look at history and you'll see that it's anyone different.

Quote:
As a Conservative in 2018 USA,
I'm not a conservative and I'm not in the USA, but I suggest you take a longer-term view through your lens and see that the whole of history is the story of humanity becoming better. The introductions of religion, slavery, laws, currency, philosophy, and so on.

We're getting better; it's just taking longer than we thought.
  #13  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:23 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
c. The poor breed like rabbits and can't control their rates of reproduction. Due to the math of exponential growth, if you don't starve them of resources, you're just creating a bigger problem. (this, unfortunately, is one of those arguments that is both abhorrent and yet I cannot deny the math on it checks out)
Absent actually showing the math, I'm guessing you haven't actually checked the math because you don't actually find it abhorrent.
  #14  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:32 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
c. The poor breed like rabbits and can't control their rates of reproduction. Due to the math of exponential growth, if you don't starve them of resources, you're just creating a bigger problem. (this, unfortunately, is one of those arguments that is both abhorrent and yet I cannot deny the math on it checks out)
The less uncertainty people face overall, the fewer children they tend to have. What statistics make you think otherwise?
  #15  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:51 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This sounds like a push poll, along the lines of "Do you favor clean water and air?" but I'll give it a try:

Equality is great, of course, but people's definition of equality skew widely. Equal treatment or equal outcome? Because, increasingly, there are people who take it to mean the latter rather than the former.

Should women and minorities have the right to vote, etc? Absolutely. Should they be given an **advantage** that others do not have? No. With affirmative action, there are many black and Hispanic students being given a boost that whites and Asians do not have. Should women be paid the same as men? Sure - if the work, experience, seniority, hazards, hardship are the same.
It is not a matter of trying to equalize outcomes, but to give people equal opportunities.

One of the problems with trying to determine what equal opportunity means is that there are many, many variables involved to try to sort through.

So, sometimes, people look to the outcomes, and if they see that a particular demographic consistently gets lower outcomes, then the look to the increase the opportunities, to try to even things out.

So, when you say that we are trying to equalize the outcomes, you are not 100% wrong, just 98%, in that no, that is not what we are doing, that is not what we are trying to do, and that is not the philosophy or mentality that we operate under, no matter how often the right wing propaganda that you listened to tells you so.

However, as to that 2% that you are correct on, yes, we do notice that outcomes between different demographic groups do have much larger disparities than mere chance or fortune should allow, so we do look into how to change that.

What is more difficult, IMHO, than trying to find the best ways to give people an equal playing field, is trying to convince people that they do get advantages by the unequal playing field.

Quote:
Also, there are many people today who confuse equal rights with equal characteristics. Women should have the same rights as men, but that does not for one moment mean that they share the same characteristics as men.
True, and the right wing likes to throw that in there in order to try to distract from the effects of the societal and institutional discrimination that they support.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 12-25-2018 at 05:51 PM. Reason: formatting
  #16  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:57 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
An interesting question. I'd call it a strawman because you're trying to set up pins to knock down. But since you're trying to tar a group of voters for past sins I'll answer with a question. I know the anwer but I want you to look it up. Who was the first black Congressman and what party was he in and what year did it take place. Then look up the second black Congressman. Repeat the process. Let us all know how many were voted in before the next party managed it and note the years all this took place. Let me get you started: Senators Congressman

Then look up which party created the KKK to stop voters from electing black people to Congress. Note the timeline above.

And finally, which party kept a high ranking former member of the KKK in Office until he died of old age.

This is the answer to your question of oppression by a political party.
Oh, I had no idea that the republican party was the party of Lincoln. Not many people know that, I've heard. [/s]

Sad, sad, sad times that they have fallen on though, what with having a Nazi sympathizer as the leader of their party.

Since you were so educational with your links just now, can you please explain what happened to change the party that freed the slaves to become the party that runs on racism?
  #17  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:59 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Yes there are differences between people, but as we are all human beings, our similarities far outweigh our differences.

And it’s no mystery why those who seem to harp on the differences are the ones generally benefiting from unfair advantages.

And for purposes of policy, it matters less what might be the characteristics of a woman as compared to a man but that a woman not be hindered from making choices or claiming opportunities based on someone else’s opinion or assumption of what her characteristics are or should be.

Last edited by Acsenray; 12-25-2018 at 06:00 PM.
  #18  
Old 12-25-2018, 07:22 PM
Ancient Erudite Ancient Erudite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
When we look back on the history books, we see that we have mistreated a lot of folks. Women haven't been treated equally, people of color haven't been treated fairly. Gay, lesbian and transgendered people haven't been treated fairly. Through a modern lens, a lot of what we have done in the past has been unfair towards minority groups. As a Conservative in 2018 USA, do you believe that in the year 2018 we have made all the useful social progress that we are going to make? Or even, that we should revert to a time in the past where things were "better"?

I think this question is poorly phrased as it implies Conservatives are not for social progress. For example, if we look at the history books, it was the Democrats who mostly opposed process on the civil rights bills. If we look at communist movements they were from the left and smothered what we would call our bill of rights. Such facts would imply it its the left, not the right who is anti-social progress.

Progress, after all, is a point of view. I don't think either liberals or conservatives want to go back to the 1930s

If you ask a conservative, I think he or she is for natural progress that does not impede his or her beliefs. They are most likely against social engineering and quotas for what the liberals might view as progress as it takes away from someone else.
  #19  
Old 12-25-2018, 07:23 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
"Illegitimacy" is only a problem because we have made it so. There's no reason we couldn't have a social and political system—with good public transportation, free health care, free child care, free education, and provision for other basic needs—that would largely wipe out any disadvantages suffered by a child as a result of "illegitimacy."

The nuclear family is also an artificial construct that has been a norm for only a tiny fraction of civilized humanity. It's not something we need to provide for greater freedom and equal distribution of resources.
The nuclear family being the building block of western civilization for hundreds of years is not bad for a johnny-come-lately artificial construct. And poverty is higher for single-parent homes in the US & Europe. We have poverty programs, just like Europe. But those programs don't overcome the association of illegitimacy with poverty.

https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/medi...-cysr-2011.pdf

Children in single-mother families have extremely high poverty
rates — in all countries and in all country clusters. The marketincome child poverty rate varies from 72%, on average, in the Anglophone countries (with a stunningly high rate of nearly 81% in Ireland), to 60–62% in the Eastern European and Continental countries,
and 52–55% in Latin American and Nordic countries. The most favorable rate across the 20 countries, still a markedly high 47%, is reported
in Denmark. Using the market-income standard, the greater poverty
risk associated with living with a single mother is especially marked
in the Continental countries — where, on average, children in
single-mother families are about six times as likely to be poor as are
children in two-parent families. Remarkably, in the Netherlands, the
market-income poverty rate among the children of single mothers
is nearly nine times the poverty rate among children who live with
two parents.
Taxes and transfers, of course, reduce child poverty across all
family types. Yet, even with post-tax-and-transfer income, family
structure still matters a great deal. Disposable-income poverty is
nearly everywhere lowest among children in two-parent families.

Among these children, the risk of poverty is highest (nearly 30%) in
the Latin American cluster, followed by the Anglophone and Eastern
European countries (10–11%), the Continental group (8%), and the
Nordic countries (a much lower 3%). The children of single mothers,
compared to the children of two parents, are (on average) three to
four as likely to be poor in each of the country clusters — with the exception of the Latin America group where they are only slightly more
likely to be poor.
  #20  
Old 12-25-2018, 07:41 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
The nuclear family being the building block of western civilization for hundreds of years
What we understand today as the "nuclear family" is a man a woman and their children together. That is not a model that has been idealized or common for more than a few decades.

Families were considered in much broader terms as western civilization flourished—grandparents, aunts, uncles, adoptees, wards, attached serving folk. And all those people had close connections throughout their community to create networks of support. Marriages were often unstable—husbands or wives left for new lovers or were unreliable because of alcoholism. They were replaced by informal replacements—"maiden aunts" and "confirmed bachelors." Children stayed with their parents and grandparents throughout their lives. Grandparents substituted for unreliable parents.

This was a generous, flexible system of family, not at all like the mean, anaemic concept of a nuclear family rooted in false nostalgia for the 1950s.

Quote:
is not bad for a johnny-come-lately artificial construct. And poverty is higher for single-parent homes in the US & Europe. We have poverty programs, just like Europe. But those programs don't overcome the association of illegitimacy with poverty.
Again, none of this has anything to do with any natural, inherent characteristic of "illegitimacy" but only the deliberately small-minded social institutions we have built to punish it.
  #21  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:04 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I know the anwer but I want you to look it up. Who was the first black Congressman and what party was he in and what year did it take place. Then look up the second black Congressman. Repeat the process. Let us all know how many were voted in before the next party managed it and note the years all this took place. Let me get you started: ...
This is the answer to your question of oppression by a political party.

King Edward III the Confessor was not the same man as King Edward III of Windsor.
Lipton Tea is not the same company as Lipton Law.
Broadway in San Francisco is not the same street as New York's Broadway.
The American Football League is not the same as the American League of Major League Baseball.
I'll assume you don't need a cite for any of these.

The Republican Party of the 19th century is not the same party as the Republican Party of the 21st century.
Did you really not know this? Or, did you think that by pretending to be ignorant you could fool someone?
  #22  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:12 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
What we understand today as the "nuclear family" is a man a woman and their children together. That is not a model that has been idealized or common for more than a few decades.

Families were considered in much broader terms as western civilization flourished—grandparents, aunts, uncles, adoptees, wards, attached serving folk. And all those people had close connections throughout their community to create networks of support. Marriages were often unstable—husbands or wives left for new lovers or were unreliable because of alcoholism. They were replaced by informal replacements—"maiden aunts" and "confirmed bachelors." Children stayed with their parents and grandparents throughout their lives. Grandparents substituted for unreliable parents.

This was a generous, flexible system of family, not at all like the mean, anaemic concept of a nuclear family rooted in false nostalgia for the 1950s.



Again, none of this has anything to do with any natural, inherent characteristic of "illegitimacy" but only the deliberately small-minded social institutions we have built to punish it.
I'm aware that extended families were extremely important for a long time, and that children even born to a married mom-and-dad can have a rough time of it if one or both of the parents is a piece of dirt. But the vast norm was always a married mom & dad having the kids. What we've seen over the last few decades is an explosion of illegitimate births across the industrialized world. And there is a cost associated with this. We can have taxpayer-funded poverty programs to help these kids. I'm fine with that. But in almost all countries, increased illegitimacy is associated with more poverty, regardless of how much money we throw at it. It's a problem.

Last edited by survinga; 12-25-2018 at 08:13 PM.
  #23  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:19 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
What we've seen over the last few decades is an explosion of illegitimate births across the industrialized world. And there is a cost associated with this.
This costs is not some inevitability inherent in the idea of illegitimacy. Illegitimacy itself is a manufactured notion that has no natural connection to costs or successes. It has to do with a society that first conceives of illegitimacy as an idea and second structures itself to make illegitimacy a disadvantage.

We are all of a species that individually come into existence when two matched members fuck. That's it. illegitimacy or legitimacy is a fiction that impoverishes each of us individually as collectively as a people. It's a nothing that we have chosen to punish ourselves with.

Note that for the privileged can have serial marriages, nominally making all issue "legitimate," but essentially being no morally different in character than the poor whose behavior is essentially identical.

Quote:
We can have taxpayer-funded poverty programs to help these kids. I'm fine with that.
"Taxpayer-funded poverty programs" is a nothing when addressing fundamental societal problems. Our society should be built so that illegitimacy as a concept is a null.

Quote:
But in almost all countries, increased illegitimacy is associated with more poverty, regardless of how much money we throw at it. It's a problem.
This is a relic of a diseased system, not some fundamental truth.

Last edited by Acsenray; 12-25-2018 at 08:21 PM.
  #24  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:27 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
This costs is not some inevitability inherent in the idea of illegitimacy. Illegitimacy itself is a manufactured notion that has no natural connection to costs or successes. It has to do with a society that first conceives of illegitimacy as an idea and second structures itself to make illegitimacy a disadvantage.

We are all of a species that individually come into existence when two matched members fuck. That's it. illegitimacy or legitimacy is a fiction that impoverishes each of us individually as collectively as a people. It's a nothing that we have chosen to punish ourselves with.

Note that for the privileged can have serial marriages, nominally making all issue "legitimate," but essentially being no morally different in character than the poor whose behavior is essentially identical.



"Taxpayer-funded poverty programs" is a nothing when addressing fundamental societal problems. Our society should be built so that illegitimacy as a concept is a null.



This is a relic of a diseased system, not some fundamental truth.
That's all a bunch of babble which allows you to avoid the economic reality of illegitimacy.
  #25  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:30 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Not to mention that illegitimacy as it is measured among the non-wealthy is an effect, a consequence, of social and economic policy, not an independent factor.
  #26  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:33 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
That's all a bunch of babble which allows you to avoid the economic reality of illegitimacy.
While you can just quote statistics that have no root in cause or effect. You find blame for the manufactured concept of illegitimacy because you want to stain others with the guilt of a crime. So then you can distract us from policies that actually have some basis in human concern.
  #27  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:39 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You find blame for the manufactured concept of illegitimacy because you want to stain others with the guilt of a crime.
That's complete bullshit. This is a thread on social progress, and this is one area which has gotten worse in the US. You can dodge and duck the reality all you want. I care more about the situation these children are in than you.
  #28  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:41 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
No, really, conservatism is all about allowing the privileged to maintain their privilege while behaving exactly as everyone else does. They fuck whom they want, they cheat, rape, steal. And nothing touches them, because they benefit from conceptual fictions like "legitimacy" that protect their ability to hoard resources.

But anyone else, they behave just as the people at the top, no better and no worse, but their small trespasses are not forgiven, not to mention the large. A ticket for walking in the wrong place from the Ferguson, Missouri, police can send them into a spiral of ruin. Illegitimacy becomes a mark of doom, though it is nothing but the absence of a piece of paper and the lack of money to obtain divorces.

It's all a pageant to hide the ball.
  #29  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:44 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
No, really, conservatism is all about allowing the privileged to maintain their privilege while behaving exactly as everyone else does. They fuck whom they want, they cheat, rape, steal. And nothing touches them, because they benefit from conceptual fictions like "legitimacy" that protect their ability to hoard resources.

But anyone else, they behave just as the people at the top, no better and no worse, but their small trespasses are not forgiven, not to mention the large. A ticket for walking in the wrong place from the Ferguson, Missouri, police can send them into a spiral of ruin. Illegitimacy becomes a mark of doom, though it is nothing but the absence of a piece of paper and the lack of money to obtain divorces.

It's all a pageant to hide the ball.
OK, man. Enjoy your planet.
  #30  
Old 12-25-2018, 08:54 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,500
Yeah, and you can cover your eyes with bullshit-colored glasses in the form of concepts like illegitimacy to avoid doing anything real to eliminate privilege and injustice.
  #31  
Old 12-26-2018, 05:26 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Families were considered in much broader terms as western civilization flourished—grandparents, aunts, uncles, adoptees, wards, attached serving folk.
Granted, but they were all based around the core concept of the family of the man (the provider), the woman (the nurturer), and the children (the next generation). Yes, others could substitute for those roles but the roles remained.
  #32  
Old 12-26-2018, 09:15 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
...For example, if we look at the history books, it was the Democrats who mostly opposed process on the civil rights bills. ...
The OP didn't mention Democrats or Republicans. Were those Democrats you're thinking of conservative or liberal? When the Dixiecrats become Republican, did they instantly switch from liberal to conservative? But, wait, Republicans are liberal because they freed the slaves -- are they still liberal? It's a mystery.

To the OP, I'm not a conservative, so I don't feel qualified to really answer the question. My impression is that, historically, conservatives wanted to slow down social progress, but not necessarily move it backwards -- they wanted slow, conservative progress. My impression of conservatives today is that they want to take America back to when it was "great" in their mind, maybe the 1950s? That's not really conservative, it's reactionary. For example, you can see this in the Southern Baptists where they (recently?) stated that women should be subservient to men (maybe they've changed that by now, I don't know) -- that's not conservative, it's reactionary. Also, the various White Supremacist groups who call themselves "conservative" are really reactionary.
  #33  
Old 12-26-2018, 11:20 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
... As a Conservative in 2018 USA, do you believe that in the year 2018 we have made all the useful social progress that we are going to make? ...
No. For a couple of examples, I hope that in the coming years / decades the rights of the unborn will see greater protection in our laws, and government-sponsored discrimination against Asians will end.
  #34  
Old 12-26-2018, 11:39 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
No, really, conservatism is all about allowing the privileged to maintain their privilege while behaving exactly as everyone else does. They fuck whom they want, they cheat, rape, steal
Yeah, I know. I was tempted to post as a conservative just to add an endorsement of cheating, rape and theft.*

*You forgot genocide.
  #35  
Old 12-26-2018, 12:45 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
The OP didn't mention Democrats or Republicans. Were those Democrats you're thinking of conservative or liberal? When the Dixiecrats become Republican, did they instantly switch from liberal to conservative? But, wait, Republicans are liberal because they freed the slaves -- are they still liberal? It's a mystery.

To the OP, I'm not a conservative, so I don't feel qualified to really answer the question. My impression is that, historically, conservatives wanted to slow down social progress, but not necessarily move it backwards -- they wanted slow, conservative progress. My impression of conservatives today is that they want to take America back to when it was "great" in their mind, maybe the 1950s? That's not really conservative, it's reactionary. For example, you can see this in the Southern Baptists where they (recently?) stated that women should be subservient to men (maybe they've changed that by now, I don't know) -- that's not conservative, it's reactionary. Also, the various White Supremacist groups who call themselves "conservative" are really reactionary.
RitterSport, I find this to be an extremely insightful and enlightening post. Thank you.

To tell the truth, I'm not sure I even know what a conservative is in our present-day American context since the term has meant vastly different things in different times and places.
  #36  
Old 12-26-2018, 02:26 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
When we look back on the history books, we see that we have mistreated a lot of folks. Women haven't been treated equally, people of color haven't been treated fairly. Gay, lesbian and transgendered people haven't been treated fairly. Through a modern lens, a lot of what we have done in the past has been unfair towards minority groups. As a Conservative in 2018 USA, do you believe that in the year 2018 we have made all the useful social progress that we are going to make? Or even, that we should revert to a time in the past where things were "better"?
Libertarian here, not conservative, but I have some conservative views and I read conservative sources so I actually understand how conservatives think better than most people who are posting in this thread.

Asking about "progress" is pointless. As Chesterton said, "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." In case anyone doesn't understand the point, that means: it's only meaningful to measure progress as the movement towards some goal. Without agreement on what the goal is, any statement about "progress" is meaningless. The people who babble constantly about the need for "progress" never tell us what goal they're progressing towards.

For libertarians the goal is always freedom. In some areas, America now provides more freedom than in earlier generations. Yay! In other areas, America now provides less freedom than in earlier generations. Boo!

Let's say you're a man who wants to smoke marijuana and have sex with other men. In 1900 the marijuana was legal and the sex with other men was illegal. In 2018 the sex with other men is legal and the marijuana is illegal (in most places). Increase in freedom? Decrease in freedom? Depends on your priorities.

So-called progressives are able to have massive blind spots about the cases where freedom has gone downhill. The most obvious one is what we call "mass incarceration", i.e. the fact that on any given day, millions of Americans are in prison, and millions more are in jail, or awaiting trial, or on probation, or otherwise getting cycled through the law enforcement system. This is because of legislation that progressives, in most cases, have supported. In the 1950's, when America was great, slides rules were all the rage, and Leave it to Beaver was cutting-edge entertainment, imprisonment rates were much lower. But then again, though few people remember it much today, in the 50's we had a vast mental health system consisting of enormous asylums and mental health hospitals. It was a very progressive system, run and staffed by scientific people bringing a forward-looking approach to mental health care. And it involved millions of people being kidnapped and imprisoned against their will and subjected to horrifying tortures such as electroshock, but that's scarcely worth mentioning.
  #37  
Old 12-26-2018, 03:23 PM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
An interesting question. I'd call it a strawman because you're trying to set up pins to knock down. But since you're trying to tar a group of voters for past sins I'll answer with a question. I know the anwer but I want you to look it up. Who was the first black Congressman and what party was he in and what year did it take place. Then look up the second black Congressman. Repeat the process. Let us all know how many were voted in before the next party managed it and note the years all this took place. Let me get you started: Senators Congressman

Then look up which party created the KKK to stop voters from electing black people to Congress. Note the timeline above.

And finally, which party kept a high ranking former member of the KKK in Office until he died of old age.

This is the answer to your question of oppression by a political party.
Why is Robert Byrd always trotted out in these type of discussions ? The reason that his party "kept him in office till he died of old age" was that he personally progressed in his views as the times changed. When he died he was praised by the NAACP and attacked by those who refused to follow him in making progress in their own personal views. Here is an article that will explain his story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.0345d16a3876

What I find sad is that there are so few examples of people like him in recent history. Instead of repenting and trying to atone for their regressive views the way Byrd did, most of his contemporaries just switched parties and continued being racist (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, David Duke, and so on).
  #38  
Old 12-27-2018, 08:47 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
RitterSport, I find this to be an extremely insightful and enlightening post. Thank you.
...
Aw, shucks.
  #39  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:03 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
The OP didn't mention Democrats or Republicans. Were those Democrats you're thinking of conservative or liberal? When the Dixiecrats become Republican, did they instantly switch from liberal to conservative? But, wait, Republicans are liberal because they freed the slaves -- are they still liberal? It's a mystery.

To the OP, I'm not a conservative, so I don't feel qualified to really answer the question. My impression is that, historically, conservatives wanted to slow down social progress, but not necessarily move it backwards -- they wanted slow, conservative progress. My impression of conservatives today is that they want to take America back to when it was "great" in their mind, maybe the 1950s? That's not really conservative, it's reactionary. For example, you can see this in the Southern Baptists where they (recently?) stated that women should be subservient to men (maybe they've changed that by now, I don't know) -- that's not conservative, it's reactionary. Also, the various White Supremacist groups who call themselves "conservative" are really reactionary.
This is a good reminder of how the label of "conservative" is abused. I don't consider Donald Trump or anything he represents as conservative.
  #40  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:21 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
This is a good reminder of how the label of "conservative" is abused. I don't consider Donald Trump or anything he represents as conservative.
He's the head of the republican party, so are you saying that you do not consider republicans to be conservative?

Is there anyone that you would consider to be conservative, or are all the true scotsmen extinct now?
  #41  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:24 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
He's the head of the republican party
Ronna McDaniel might take issue with that statement.
  #42  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:35 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
This is a good reminder of how the label of "conservative" is abused. I don't consider Donald Trump or anything he represents as conservative.
You might not consider Trump conservative, but when it came time to vote most voters who consider themselves conservatives voted for Trump.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 12-27-2018 at 11:35 AM.
  #43  
Old 12-27-2018, 12:48 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Ronna McDaniel might take issue with that statement.
Why would the chair of the RNC have a problem with the president being the head of the party?

Are you under the very mistaken impression that the chair of the national committee is the head of the party for some reason? I guarantee you that she would not make that mistake, and if you made that assertion to her, she would be correcting you.

Quote:
The President, currently Donald Trump, becomes the de facto leader of the party they represent once elected,
  #44  
Old 12-27-2018, 12:54 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Why would the chair of the RNC have a problem with the president being the head of the party?

Are you under the very mistaken impression that the chair of the national committee is the head of the party for some reason? I guarantee you that she would not make that mistake, and if you made that assertion to her, she would be correcting you.
I was under that mistaken impression. Donald Trump as "dear party leader", scary thought.
  #45  
Old 12-27-2018, 05:49 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
If you ask a conservative, I think he or she is for natural progress that does not impede his or her beliefs. They are most likely against social engineering and quotas for what the liberals might view as progress as it takes away from someone else.
What is "natural progress," exactly?

Beyond impeding their beliefs, conservatives seem to be all for progress which doesn't cost them social, financial, or political status.

Keep in mind that "social progress" to a conservative is not necessarily what liberals would view as progress--re-criminalizing abortion, for instance, would be seen by most conservatives as progress. If we're talking about "social progress" as liberals see it, then I'd say most conservatives are all for it...as long as it happened so long ago that it's become a social norm and is no longer seen as a threat, such as women's suffrage.
  #46  
Old 12-27-2018, 07:17 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. For a couple of examples, I hope that in the coming years / decades the rights of the unborn will see greater protection in our laws, and government-sponsored discrimination against Asians will end.
Interesting. Another way of saying that is that in your opinion the "rights" of a zygote or embryo -- which in the opinion of medical ethicists who inform the ethics and standards of clinical practice is neither human nor sentient -- are far more important than the rights of a woman to self-determination and control over her own body. You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to conclude that the answer to the key OP question, "Do you believe in social progress?", in your case is a very definite "no".

And I'm not sure what you're on about with respect to "government-sponsored discrimination against Asians". The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was abolished in 1943, perhaps while you weren't looking. The new boogeymen today are Mexicans, Central Americans, Muslims, and well-tanned types from "shithole countries". This particular demographic is benefiting from so much "social progress" from the conservatives currently in power that their kids are dying in detention camps.
  #47  
Old 12-27-2018, 07:48 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Seriously there ought to be some kind of board rule about anybody with a join date more than 30 minutes ago who pretends not to know about the Southern Strategy
where the Republicans decided to attract all the racists from the Democratic party, successfully completed the strategy, and still hew to it today.
Do seriously not know this? Are you pretending not to know it? Is it because you'd rather not know it?
WOW, you just hand waved away the KKK and 100 years of brutal oppression that occured after the Civil war. A war started by Democrats to preserve slavery. You then try to pawn your dirty laundry off on Republicans as if George Wallace and segregation never existed in the 60's.

When the Democratic party couldn't sustain segregation they created indentured voter servitude using long term welfare as a hook. The damage it caused to the fabric of society will continue for generations to come.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #48  
Old 12-27-2018, 10:12 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
WOW, you just hand waved away the KKK and 100 years of brutal oppression that occured after the Civil war. A war started by Democrats to preserve slavery. You then try to pawn your dirty laundry off on Republicans as if George Wallace and segregation never existed in the 60's.

When the Democratic party couldn't sustain segregation they created indentured voter servitude using long term welfare as a hook. The damage it caused to the fabric of society will continue for generations to come.
The Democrats were the party of white supremacists until about the 60s. Then they embraced Civil Rights and millions of white supremacists were suddenly without a party to support. The Republican party filled that vacuum and made efforts to rhetorically appeal to those millions of white supremacists, which is why white Southern voters switched from majority Democratic support to majority Republican support over the subsequent decades.

It's no coincidence that the switch of white Southerners to supporting Republicans happened at the same time as black Americans heavily shifted to supporting the Democratic party.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-27-2018 at 10:13 PM.
  #49  
Old 12-27-2018, 10:42 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
... I think it's safe to conclude that the answer to the key OP question, "Do you believe in social progress?", in your case is a very definite "no". ...
You are wrong, but this post is a good example of a point made earlier in this thread that liberals and conservatives disagree about what changes represent "social progress".
  #50  
Old 12-27-2018, 10:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
A related question to the OP is the following -- why did American conservatives resist so strongly expanding rights and improved treatment (i.e. voting rights, desegregation, fighting housing and financial discrimination like redlining, fighting employment discrimination, etc.) for women, black people, LGBT people, and other minority groups in America? For conservatives, do you accept that the positions of most American conservatives at the time those issues were strongly disputed (including LGBT rights today) was morally wrong, and if so, how do you ensure that you don't continue those and related prejudices of your conservative forebears?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-27-2018 at 10:47 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017