What's the point of being conservative?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

It's incomplete, isn't it?
Or... Oh...

God CM just get to the point.

Nationalism wasn't the main cause for the 20th century Great Wars. It might be for the Balkans, but...they're Balkans. For countries like France, Prussia/Germany, etc., nationalism is really irrelevant. It's more about economic and political issues such as wanting more land.

Nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon anyway.

And glad NSG is staying on topic.

[Norstal]

God CM just get to the point.

Nationalism wasn't the main cause for the 20th century Great Wars. It might be for the Balkans, but...they're Balkans. For countries like France, Prussia/Germany, etc., nationalism is really irrelevant. It's more about economic and political issues such as wanting more land.

Nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon anyway.

And glad NSG is staying on topic.

People need to stop associating nationalism with the right-wing or conservatism. One can be nationalistic and be very liberal.

Like moi.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon anyway.

And glad NSG is staying on topic.

People need to stop associating nationalism with the right-wing or conservatism. One can be nationalistic and be very liberal.

Like moi.

The Chinese Indonesian is expressing his American nationalism by using French.

Another normal day on NSG.

[Norsklow]

People need to stop associating nationalism with the right-wing or conservatism. One can be nationalistic and be very liberal.

Like moi.

The Chinese Indonesian is expressing his American nationalism by using French.

Another normal day on NSG.

It's a Miss Piggy quotation. Muppet show and all that.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

The Chinese Indonesian is expressing his American nationalism by using French.

Another normal day on NSG.

It's a Miss Piggy quotation. Muppet show and all that.

I do not understand that reference.

[Norsklow]

It's a Miss Piggy quotation. Muppet show and all that.

I do not understand that reference.

Sorry. I should have known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Piggy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 078%29.jpg

She says mooooooooi when making a seductive gesture. When she is trying to get on with the green feller, the director of the show she is performing in.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I do not understand that reference.

Sorry. I should have known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Piggy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 078%29.jpg

What does this have to do with what I said?

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

Support from Chick-fil-A when they join the Tea Party.

[Norsklow]

Sorry. I should have known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Piggy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 078%29.jpg

What does this have to do with what I said?

I tried to explain the Moi.
c/p does take time....

[Nightkill the Emperor]

What does this have to do with what I said?

I tried to explain the Moi.
c/p does take time....

I don't think Norstal was thinking of the Muppets when he borrowed French pronouns.

[Norstal]

I tried to explain the Moi.
c/p does take time....

I don't think Norstal was thinking of the Muppets when he borrowed French pronouns.

And I'm glad NSG stays on topic.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I don't think Norstal was thinking of the Muppets when he borrowed French pronouns.

And I'm glad NSG stays on topic.

Clearly the Muppets are part of the left wing American socialism movement.

[Trotskylvania]

Romantic idealism keeps sneaking here in this thread.

Conservative and liberal aren't just ideologies floating around with no basis in reality. They reflect, at least in part, the concrete socioeconomic interests of different factions in society.

[Norsklow]

Romantic idealism keeps sneaking here in this thread.

Conservative and liberal aren't just ideologies floating around with no basis in reality. They reflect, at least in part, the concrete socioeconomic interests of different factions in society.

At least? Nothing more than.

[Inyourfaceistan]

After discussing how there are so many left-wingers on NSG, I want to ask another question to you guys. If liberals and progressives always win in the long run (which I noticed very quickly when studying history), what's the point of being conservative on any issue, if you're going to lose anyways?

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm an American, and I'm considered liberal in the US but very conservative by Europeans, and while on this site I've always felt this sense of guilt that whenever I take a stance that the leftists on NSG disagree with, I feel like I'm standing on the wrong side of history and that I'm holding back human progress.

More questions to consider for the progressives on this site: What, in your mind, will or should society eventually evolve to? What is the progressive ideal? Is it possible to attain something close to it, given reality and human nature? Can human nature as a whole be changed and if so, what should it be? I want well informed answers- I've already been alternately praised to the sky and called barbaric and cruel by the same people on different threads because I didn't always agree with the self-described progressive views of the majority of NSGers.

#1) just because the Internet where us college-dwelling ideologues reign supreme is full of lefties, dosent mean the majority of the world is (scales varying from country to country)

#2) just because your inevitably going to loose dosent mean you can't go out fighting.

#3) does it occur to anyone what's conservative today was progressive 300 years ago?

[Radiatia]

This question really depends on your definition of conservative.

I'm very similar to you by the way: Socially liberal by US standards, and socially conservative by European standards, although "socially Conservative" should really be called "socially authoritarian".

However if we take the true definition of the phrase, that is the whole Progressive vs Conservative dichotomy ("liberal" shouldn't even enter this), then presumably a Conservative is merely someone opposed to change.

Therefore in that regard the point of being Conservative is to oppose progress for the sake of progress, which is a great position to have: Sometimes certain changes need to be opposed (for example, in my opinion the economic reforms of the 1980s weren't as good an idea as people seemed to think they were - that is a form of change I would have opposed and thus I was 'conservative' on that issue - interestingly where I come from the economic reforms of the 80s were undertaken by Progressive parties, as opposed to the northern hemisphere where it was the doing of the British Conservatives and the American Republicans.).

However if you consider yourself ideologically Conservative, then presumably you wish to oppose change on all accounts and maybe even revert things to a previous state, which is not a wise position to take - and it will leave you on the wrong side of history as you will find yourself opposing several very good ideas in your ideological quest to avoid change, and you will often find yourself undoing advances, or advocating the undoing of advances that have been made to improve society.

Likewise, although I usually consider myself to be a Progressive, one should not be ideologically Progressive and someone who advocates constant change for the sake of Progression.

A balance is necessary, and it would be most prudent to avoid such labels and simply decide whether you are progressive on one issue and desire change, or if you are conservative and feel it is fine the way it is, or was.

I hope that this at least somewhat makes sense as I'm once again writing in a rush.

[Trotskylvania]

Romantic idealism keeps sneaking here in this thread.

Conservative and liberal aren't just ideologies floating around with no basis in reality. They reflect, at least in part, the concrete socioeconomic interests of different factions in society.

At least? Nothing more than.

When I say that, people accuse me of being a vulgar Marxian determinist.

[Silent Majority]

Romantic idealism keeps sneaking here in this thread.

Conservative and liberal aren't just ideologies floating around with no basis in reality. They reflect, at least in part, the concrete socioeconomic interests of different factions in society.

At least? Nothing more than.

I don't see how social conservatism would be considered a socioeconomic interest of the wealthy.

[Norsklow]

At least? Nothing more than.

When I say that, people accuse me of being a vulgar Marxian determinist.

I know,I know.
But I am the vulgar petit-bourgeois determinist.

So I did the honours on behalf of Determinism.

[Norsklow]

At least? Nothing more than.

I don't see how social conservatism would be considered a socioeconomic interest of the wealthy.

What's the last time you saw a Republican repeal Roe v Wade?

[The Reasonable]

This question really depends on your definition of conservative.

I'm very similar to you by the way: Socially liberal by US standards, and socially conservative by European standards, although "socially Conservative" should really be called "socially authoritarian".

However if we take the true definition of the phrase, that is the whole Progressive vs Conservative dichotomy ("liberal" shouldn't even enter this), then presumably a Conservative is merely someone opposed to change.

Therefore in that regard the point of being Conservative is to oppose progress for the sake of progress, which is a great position to have: Sometimes certain changes need to be opposed (for example, in my opinion the economic reforms of the 1980s weren't as good an idea as people seemed to think they were - that is a form of change I would have opposed and thus I was 'conservative' on that issue - interestingly where I come from the economic reforms of the 80s were undertaken by Progressive parties, as opposed to the northern hemisphere where it was the doing of the British Conservatives and the American Republicans.).

However if you consider yourself ideologically Conservative, then presumably you wish to oppose change on all accounts and maybe even revert things to a previous state, which is not a wise position to take - and it will leave you on the wrong side of history as you will find yourself opposing several very good ideas in your ideological quest to avoid change, and you will often find yourself undoing advances, or advocating the undoing of advances that have been made to improve society.

Likewise, although I usually consider myself to be a Progressive, one should not be ideologically Progressive and someone who advocates constant change for the sake of Progression.

A balance is necessary, and it would be most prudent to avoid such labels and simply decide whether you are progressive on one issue and desire change, or if you are conservative and feel it is fine the way it is, or was.

I hope that this at least somewhat makes sense as I'm once again writing in a rush.

You've helped me more than anyone on this thread. And I'm using American definitions again...I'm sorry. Essentially, I have libertarian social views and center-left economic views relative to America, but that is pretty far to the right compared to all the social democrats and such around here. And I feel like I'm on the wrong side of history primarily because of those social democrats who made their respective European (+Australia/Canada/NZ) countries much happier than the States despite policies that simply sound like they'd be ripe for abuse, like cradle-to-grave welfare or soft sentencing for criminals.

Essentially, I agree with the progressive idea of wanting to improve society and helping society work, but it just seems like some of them put a little too much trust on the supposed innate goodness, compassion, and altruism of human beings. I would really like a progressive society...which takes strong measures to prevent abuse of the system.

[Silent Majority]

I don't see how social conservatism would be considered a socioeconomic interest of the wealthy.

What's the last time you saw a Republican repeal Roe v Wade?

Fair enough. And I suppose pandering to certain interests to get votes would be in their interest.

[Norsklow]

What's the last time you saw a Republican repeal Roe v Wade?

Fair enough. And I suppose pandering to certain interests to get votes would be in their interest.

I never said that! I didn't! I didn't! I didn't!

[Sanctus Pacis]

This thread makes me sad.

>Conservatives try to honestly answer the question
>Liberals go buttmad and call them stupid, etc.

There are exceptions, but still, calm yer tits guys.

[Silent Majority]

Fair enough. And I suppose pandering to certain interests to get votes would be in their interest.

I never said that! I didn't! I didn't! I didn't!

Perhaps I worded it wrong then. I never intended to imply you did.