What "Conservative Values" aren't based on bigotry?

No. Apparently you “don’t got the context, thanks.”

I asked him no such thing.

This is a lot of vitriol and pain you’re expressing just at the possibility of contrary facts. There is plenty of obnoxious and rude posts directed at conservatives, in this thread and others, but all I’m doing here is disagreeing with you and citing facts and history as the basis for my disagreement.

It’s okay to disagree, even with conservative viewpoints.

But you don’t seem to be in a mindset in which disagreement is possible. In sorry for whatever it is that’s causing you such pain and heartache. Best wishes to you and your family. It’s gonna be okay.

It was actually UltraVires, IIRC, that asked about the definitive of bigotry. But everything else above sounds right.

You are certainly free to disagree and discuss conservative viewpoints. arguing that they are founded in bigotry, is not that.

You are not causing me any pain or vitriol, just a sense of distaste.

I haven’t argued that conservative principles are founded in bigotry. Just because I post in this thread doesn’t mean I agree with every part of it.

We disagreed about the history of the government shutdown from the beginning of the year. I still think you’re incorrect on the facts, and I cited the history that I think backs up my argument. You abandoned the discussion as soon as I proved you wrong (from my perspective, at least).

But that’s not what’s happening in this thread at all. People aren’t judging the Republican party by the randos and lunatics at the bottom of the pyramid. We’re judging them by the randos and lunatics that Republicans consistently pick to be their leaders through a Democratic process. Judging the Democrats because Trump was a Democrat is, indeed, dumb and wrong - as you tried to demonstrate earlier. Judging Republicans because they elected Trump to be their leader is not remotely the same thing. Nobody can stop a person from declaring allegiance to a political party. Everyone in the Republican party had the opportunity to stop Trump from becoming the leader of their party. Not enough of them cared to try, and the ones who did try, fell into line behind him as soon as they saw which way the wind was blowing. There’s virtually no one in the Republican party who is willing to criticize Trump. The only ones who do… are the randos who nobody can stop from calling themselves Republicans. In other words, precisely the people we should not be using to judge the party as a whole.

“Not agreeing with Scylla” is not the same as “Not understanding different points of view.” You have your view of conservatism. It is not definitive, or controlling, and very little of it comports with what I’ve seen from the Republican party at any point in my life. I don’t think you actually understand what modern American conservatism is. I think you have an idea of what you *want *it to be, and you aren’t able to discern the differences between what you want it to be, and what it actually is.

It’s a messageboard. Describing anything that happens here in terms of “courage” is a fucking joke.

I’ve done that. It’s a big part of why I hold Republicans in so much contempt.

How did that work out for you?

Criticizing someone for their political beliefs is not comparable to criticizing someone for their race.

Criticizing someone for their political beliefs is also not comparable to criticizing someone for their gender.

Yes, genuinely sorry for confusing you with UltraVires.

Everything else I wrote stands.

Lower taxes for the rich has already been mentioned. There’s an argument that it’s bigoted, but I (and I think most other posters) were fine with classing it as not.

“Less government spending” is not a conservative value, as it directly contradicts “a large military that participates in overseas wars”. You can’t both be in favor of expanding the largest single thing the government spends money on and claim to be in favor of ‘less government spending’ at the same time. This is also contradicted by conservative’s stance on healthcare, as the various UHC proposals actually end up with LESS government spending than the current mess of a system. And further contradicted by current situations like the profitable concentration camps on the southern border, where they’re happy to spend $770/person/day of government money to a private company for insane and immoral profit.

“More personal responsibility” is not a conservative value, as is demonstrated in this very thread where conservatives refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of the laws and policies they push. There’s also a significant trend amongst conservatives to claim sole credit for things they didn’t actually do alone, like business people who use family money, tax money, tax-supported infrastructure, and a tax-educated workforce to make a fortune but claim to be self-made. On a broader scale, support for corporate bailouts and corporate welfare, opposition to prosecuting rich people for crimes (most notably Trump), opposition to holding police accountable for murdering civilians, opposition to prosecuting high profile rapists, and many more things contradict this ‘value’.

“Less government control of your lives” is not a conservative value. Abortion, War on Drugs, bathroom laws, opposition to civil rights, expansion and militiarization of law enforcement (both traditional police and new agencies like ICE) have all been mentioned and all demonstrate that conservatives encourage greater government control of people’s lives. The US has the highest rate of incarceration of any first world country, and conservatives consistently favor being ‘tough on crime’, there’s no way to square that with ‘less government control of your lives’.

“Traditional values” is expressly and uncompromisingly bigoted in multiple ways. There’s usually a lot of racism, there’s definitely opposition to treating lgbt people as human, and a host of other unpleasantness in whatever ‘traditional values’ boil down to when you get past the sound bite.

Also note that the people who supposedly hold traditional values dear, especially family values, hate and decry the president who regularly goes to church, had a stable wife and family, has no credible allegations of sexual assault and does not make sexual comments about his own children, but love and acclaim the president who has multiple divorces, a trophy wife who has posed nude, who brags about sexual assault, and who makes sexual comments about his own children. Don’t try to paint ‘traditional values’ as anything remotely positive when it is apparently summarized as “A black guy is just plain bad for a family, period, but a rich white guy can do whatever he wants.”

When you are opposed to giving human rights to groups of humans based on how they were born, you’re being a bigot. The littering example is obviously absurd. If you’re opposed to trans rights, you’re a bigot, plain and simple.

There comes a time, for a follower of the credo of personal responsibility, when in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they accept responsibility for being wrong.

One would think this would be a double imperative if those views impact other lives, limiting their freedoms, but surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to matter to them at all.

So you’re saying that anybody who endorses asking for non-bigoted conservative positions, then applies real-world evidence to claims about said positions is ‘partisan’ and not acting in ‘good faith’? I think your definition of ‘good faith’ is that people have to ignore the history of what conservatives have been doing in this country for the last few decades (and especially the last few years), and accept patently untrue statements as fact.

I do admit that I don’t have respect for people who’s ‘traditional values’ include outright racism and the denial of human rights to people - if you think me and my friends should not be allowed to live, I definitely do not respect that. I also don’t respect people who’s opinion is that a child rape victim should be forced to bear her rapists baby and engage with him over custody for the next 18 years, or to force a woman to carry a non-viable pregnancy to term (an aboslutely ghoulish but real conservative value Texas Forced This Woman to Deliver a Stillborn Baby), or the position that discussing the actual consequences of such laws with real-world examples is ‘too extreme’. But I think it is definitely in good faith to ask someone to provide examples and contrast said examples with actual facts.

For decades I’ve heard from conservatives that they are the ones who make decisions based on the real world, who hold people accountable for their choices, and who judge people based on their actions. But somehow when I take those lessons to heart and apply them, I’m a terrible, terrible person.

To be fair, I think most conservatives willingly place different values on the armed forces and the rest of government.
Yes, they are both from the government but one is seen as needful. The other is seen as intrusive.

And here we get to the point (it actually happened way sooner) that the liberals get to decide what and how to define conservative values, simply because you can’t or don’t see it.

Most conservatives would agree with that list (as do I), what they don’t agree with is your characteristics of them.

The real world where everyone pulls themselves up by their bootstraps…makes choices that are wholesome and Christian…and whose actions aren’t libertine.

Which specific parts are a mischaracterization?

I think most liberals understand that conservatives put the military into a different category of “big government spending” than they do any other sort of government expenditure.

We just don’t buy conservative reasoning as to why they’re different.

*characterization

It’s a poor, presumptive and bigoted statement. The majority of taxes are paid by the wealthy as a necessary fact of math. Saying “lower taxes for the rich” is to suggest that benefitting the rich and not the poor is the goal, or that they are somehow morally against cutting poor people a break. It’s a dick thing to say. If You are in favor of a social security raise and I say “pantastic is in favor of giving more government benefits to white people,” that’s a true statement because white people get social security. It’s also a dick move and a mischaracterization if your intent. So no, if you don’t Want to be bigoted, don’t say it.

The actual conservative value here is not “Less Spending.” It is actually “Limited Government.”
They often go hand in hand, but not always, do it is an important distinction. The first purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. During WWII, or times of crisis that might mean almost infinite spending. Military and border security are prioritized because if you can’t defend yourself or keep your borders you don’t necessarily get to stay a country very long. There is no contradiction on military spending or border protection, as that is the first purpose of government and if it can’t do that, it can’t do anything.

The military is not “the single largest thing” the government spends money on. In 2018, military spending accounted for 12%. Healthcare was 23%, pensions 19%, education 15%,

Personal Responsibility is indeed a conservative value. You have mistaken what this means. Allow me to explain. If someone is in favor of a grossly discriminatory law, that is not a violation of the value of “personal responsibility.” All that personal responsibility means is that you are supposed to strive to take care of yourself so that others don’t have to take care of you. It is an admonishment to avoid moral hazard. That’s it. You’ve confused personal responsibility for something else.

This is “Limited Government” again. There are certain things the government and other things it should not. Police and prisons and border protection are all things conservatives tend to feel a limited government should be doing. Protecting the lives of it’s citizens is another. Many conservatives feel that an unborn child is a human being and has a right to life. The government has a responsible to protect that life, just as it does to protect yours. Drugs, bathroom laws, and the appropriateness of specific civil rights are issues best handled individually.

Respect for traditional values is also a conservative value. Conservatives have a bit of a schism within their ranks on how they feel about this. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism put forth relatively agnostic reasons for this respect. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch, and before you tear a fence down, you need to know why it was put up. Goldwater was very strong on the equality of man and civil rights. He argued for and is responsible for the integration of the army. He fought for gay rights before it was a thing. He did this because respect for the individual is a traditional value. Enlightenment values are the traditional values under which western civilization thrived, and Goldwater, who founded conservatism was a big believer in these values, and most conservatives also profess that they are important.

What you probably take issue with are religious values being inflicted upon society as mandated. “Social Conservatives” are those that believe in the traditional judeo-Christian values, as foundations of society, an that the government needs to protect them. This is a sticky wicket because if we start to get abstract their seem to be some for which this is the case, but there is no doubt that the intolerant religious who wish to inflict their religious values on the rest of society have found a home in The Republican Party and in conservatism, even when it contradicts such conservative values as sovereignty of the individual and limited government. So, I would agree that this a failing in modern conservatism.

This is not a blanket endorsement of “expansion of civil rights” by me. I think the left can get wiggy and go too far. I think affirmative action makes the mistake of assuming that individuals of a group all have the same experience. There is a case going to court in Canada where a trans woman (biological male) is suing a beauty salon because the women there refused to wax the trans woman’s testicles. I am not sure that forcing the women to wax balls is a good idea.

You are confusing Republican with conservative. But politics making for strange bed fellows is not a new concept. I respect Obama personally. I disrespect Trump and think his character is horrendous. I voted for Hillary (though it was close.). I will likely vote for Trump not because of any moral example he embodies, but because the policies of his administration are better than the ones being proposed by his opponents.

I generally agree with this, but I need to reserve the right to disagree on a case by case basis based on what specifically you mean by “how they were born” and what “civil right” you are referring to. With that proviso I tend to be live and let live.


Your post was not directed at me but I chose to respond because it didn’t seem to me that conservative values were being represented fairly or accurately.

If only somebody would start a thread giving conservatives a chance to explain what conservative values aren’t based on bigotry.

Nope, again, Trump is embracing the idiot ball regarding policies too.

If I started a thread giving little Nemo chance to explain why he wasn’t a bigot, you would probably be offended at the presumption that you were a bigot, consider the well poisoned, and consider the thread started in bad faith.

Probably the moderators would consider it improper and move it to the pit. Probably it would be met with scorn for it’s obvious bigotry.

If I started a thread that asked “what Jewish values aren’t based on money grubbing” or any of a host of similar titles it would probably be shut down, or moved to the pit. On this board, with these moderators and this population of posters offensive bigotry is allowed as long as it is directed at conservatives.

Weak.

Meh, so it says the one that claimed that there was no audience, well there was, and with evidence too.

And that example was not weak, considering that Trump’s coalition against dealing with the climate issue was joined by Syria and Nicaragua, and even they decided to stop belonging to that stupid league.