What's the point of being conservative?

[Jewcrew]

A tricky situation of their own making. There were numerous instances of the British encouraging the Palestine Arabs to attack Jews and giving Arab instigators of violence a free pass while cracking down on the Jewish defense organization. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ate.html#6

They only took control of it after the Ottoman Empire fell. The situation was tense already. The British had promised Palestine to the Arabs too, before the Balfour Declaration, in return for helping them defeat the Ottomans. They had to choose who they were going to give it to. Also, they probably quite liked the Arabs over the Jews after this.

Didn't even bother reading the link, did you?

The King David Hotel bombing was in 1946. The British were instigating violence against Jews as early as 1920. The King David Hotel bombing only happened due to the British violently oppressing the Jewish inhabitants, putting post-war survivors of the Shoah in labour camps (the difference from a concentration camp? They couldn't kill you), instigating Arab violence against Jews, arresting members of the Jewish defense organizations that were protecting their people from Arab attacks... the list of British crimes goes on.

The King David Hotel bombing, on the other hand, was actually a legitimate military target given Britain's de facto state of war with the Jewish inhabitants. It housed British Military Command. Since it was a military target in a civilian building, civilian casualties were the responsibility of the British (this is in the Geneva Conventions). It was in retaliation for arbitrary arrest of more than 2500 Jews across the Mandate and British immigration policies that condemned thousands to die at the hands of Hitler. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ate.html#8

Edit: And no, no nation of "Palestine" was ever promised to the Arabs. However, the original mandate also included what is today Jordan, and Jordan was offered to the Palestine Arabs, who rejected it. This is why Jordan is today over 80% Palestinian Arab, yet controlled by Hashemites. The Palestinian Arabs rejected opportunities for their own nation with the creation of Jordan, the rejection of the partition plan in 1948, their rejection of Israel's offer in 2000 and a rejection in 2008. Four times, they've rejected receiving a nation. Every time the international community shrank the amount of land being promised to the Jews, the Jewish leadership accepted the new proposal. The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected it every single time. That should tell you something.

[Ad Nihilo]

There are plenty of lower-class morons that have little to no comprehension of the social reality they inhabit, and will have conservative tendencies because of the way they were brought up, or whatever. And it is these people who fuel the electoral success of conservative and reactionary parties, in Western Democracies.

Actually, it is quite the opposite . . . at least in the United States.

The Republican Party, which is conservative, consistently wins the votes of those who are more wealthy and college educated. In an average general election for the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1984), 49 percent of Republican voters have graduated from college while only 47 percent of Democrats have such degrees. The strongest supporters of the Democratic Party are those who have not graduated from high school (three percent of the American population); this demographic votes for the Democratic Party 61 percent to 39 percent.

Looking at U.S. House of Representatives elections:

• In every election since 1992, the Democrats have won the vote of those from families with annual incomes of less than $30,000.
  
• Since 1982, people from families with annual incomes from $30,000 to $49,999 have voted for the Democrats ten times and the Republicans three times.
  
• Since 1982, people from families with annual incomes of $50,000 or more have vote for the Republicans thirteen times and the Democrats one time.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/07/weekinreview/20101107-detailed-exitpolls.html

In the United States at least, the electoral success of the conservative party is fueled by upper-middle class and college educated voters.

The electoral success of the primary left-wing party is fueled by the working class, which is less likely to be college educated.

So far correct.

You are wrong that "lower-class morons" vote for conservatives, and you show a left-wing elitism and disparage those who are more likely to vote for your side.

Oh and now you've gone and completely missed the point.

The fact that the left-wing vote is driven by the lower classes while the conservative vote is driven by the upper classes is not only empirically demonstrated, it is what you would expect. Now look at the number of voters that are in each and every income category. You have very few who make a lot of money. And you have a fucktonne of people who are in the lower income percentiles. If everyone voted in keeping with their socio-economic status, there would be a LOT more people voting for the left-wing party. But there aren't. Because on top of all the higher-income people who vote conservative in keeping with their interest, there are also a lot of lower-income people who vote conservative against their interest. And then the conservative parties come into power, and cut the taxes on the wealthy, and cut the public services that the lower-income people depend on most.

So the demographic that is lower class and votes conservative is actively voting against their interests. Therefore they are morons.

See how badly you've missed the point?

[Inyourfaceistan]

The fact that the left-wing vote is driven by the lower classes while the conservative vote is driven by the upper classes is not only empirically demonstrated, it is what you would expect. Now look at the number of voters that are in each and every income category. You have very few who make a lot of money. And you have a fucktonne of people who are in the lower income percentiles. If everyone voted in keeping with their socio-economic status, there would be a LOT more people voting for the left-wing party. But there aren't. Because on top of all the higher-income people who vote conservative in keeping with their interest, there are also a lot of lower-income people who vote conservative against their interest. And then the conservative parties come into power, and cut the taxes on the wealthy, and cut the public services that the lower-income people depend on most.

So the demographic that is lower class and votes conservative is actively voting against their interests. Therefore they are morons.

See how badly you've missed the point?

How is voting conservative against our interest?

[Nordengrund]

Oh and now you've gone and completely missed the point.

The fact that the left-wing vote is driven by the lower classes while the conservative vote is driven by the upper classes is not only empirically demonstrated, it is what you would expect. Now look at the number of voters that are in each and every income category. You have very few who make a lot of money. And you have a fucktonne of people who are in the lower income percentiles. If everyone voted in keeping with their socio-economic status, there would be a LOT more people voting for the left-wing party. But there aren't. Because on top of all the higher-income people who vote conservative in keeping with their interest, there are also a lot of lower-income people who vote conservative against their interest. And then the conservative parties come into power, and cut the taxes on the wealthy, and cut the public services that the lower-income people depend on most.

So the demographic that is lower class and votes conservative is actively voting against their interests. Therefore they are morons.

See how badly you've missed the point?[/quote]

Then why do liberals preach that they believe in tolerance but then tear apart people who oppose them or do not agree with their beliefs?

[Not Safe For Work]

Then why do liberals preach that they believe in tolerance but then tear apart people who oppose them or do not agree with their beliefs?

It's a false equivalence to pretend that not tolerating intolerance is the same as the intolerance.

[The Reasonable]

The attempted reforms of the left are almost never gradual.

Going more slowly = making fewer mistakes.

Perhaps. On the other hand, sometimes it's worth the risk.

e.g. America's hellhole healthcare system. Sure, taking decades to get there means making fewer mistakes - but in the meantime millions of people die unnecessarily.

The French Revolution. The Soviet Union. My own homeland, China. See how well they turned out as soon as revolutionaries took power. China was a fortunate case- they slowed down with their change and now they're doing a lot better.

To the rest of you: I've learned a pretty important lesson from this thread, which I started 3 days ago but now seems like a lifetime. Conservatives aren't necessarily people wanting to hold back human progress...unless they're the nutjobs you see in the likes of the Tea Party. The left wing has good ideas...but not 100%, and they need time to test them out. All of human society is an experimental trial...they're experimenting on themselves to see what forms the most productive and happy society. There needs to be a balance but there needs to be a balance of rational people on both sides arguing each issue on their merits and not because it's tradition or because it's "a change for the better".

For me though, I'll continue being a moderate, because I believe that change is necessary but not that quickly and that not everything the progressives want is feasible.

[Calimera I]

What's the point of being Liberal?
It's just were you believe in.

[Ad Nihilo]

The fact that the left-wing vote is driven by the lower classes while the conservative vote is driven by the upper classes is not only empirically demonstrated, it is what you would expect. Now look at the number of voters that are in each and every income category. You have very few who make a lot of money. And you have a fucktonne of people who are in the lower income percentiles. If everyone voted in keeping with their socio-economic status, there would be a LOT more people voting for the left-wing party. But there aren't. Because on top of all the higher-income people who vote conservative in keeping with their interest, there are also a lot of lower-income people who vote conservative against their interest. And then the conservative parties come into power, and cut the taxes on the wealthy, and cut the public services that the lower-income people depend on most.

So the demographic that is lower class and votes conservative is actively voting against their interests. Therefore they are morons.

See how badly you've missed the point?

How is voting conservative against our interest?

I take it you've just butted into this thread without reading any of the previous pages? The short summary of the argument I have put forward in numerous posts here is that a conservative attitude seeks to conserve a status quo. The status quo has a set of power relations that are for the benefit of those who are upper class in it, to the detriment of the lower class in it. E.g. a conservative movement will seek to perpetuate and entrench a system of production where a very small number of capitalists can make a profit out of the labour that they rent from others. Those who lose out in this system are those who are in the lower class in it. Yet if they vote conservative, they vote for a party that quite explicitly seeks to perpetuate a system that disadvantages them, and usually quite explicitly also seeks to entrench the privileges of the upper classes, by, for example, looking to cut things such as public expenditure on the healthcare and education of the lower classes in order to cut taxes for the upper classes.

[Ad Nihilo]

Then why do liberals preach that they believe in tolerance but then tear apart people who oppose them or do not agree with their beliefs?

1) I'm not a liberal.

2) There is no inconsistency between preaching tolerance and berating you for claiming that 2+2=5.

Tolerance and free speech means that you are allowed to say shit without anyone sending you to prison. But it doesn't therefore follow that we have to respect what you have to say. You have the right to your opinion and everyone else has the right to refute every piece of inane bullshit that may slip out of your mouth. Indeed that's the whole point of having a free society - to talk shit over and figure out truth (or the best approximation of truth that we can get at).

And don't confuse beliefs with values. If you value things like freedom or equality or whatever, tolerance means that you have to agree to disagree with others which differ in their values. But beliefs are propositions that are usually liable to being true or false. And if your beliefs are demonstrably false it would be retarded to expect that anyone should "tolerate" them. In fact, you'd hope that they would try and educate you.

[Castille de Italia]

If you want to be right, you'll want to be conservative...

I hope that comment is taken humorously and not in a more literal sense.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

The attempted reforms of the left are almost never gradual.

Going more slowly = making fewer mistakes.

Thats not what conservatives do. Conservatives take society BACK.

No, those are reactionaries.

[Saluterre]

Thats not what conservatives do. Conservatives take society BACK.

No, those are reactionaries.

I.E. Modern American "conservatives."

[Ad Nihilo]

No, those are reactionaries.

I.E. Modern American "conservatives."

Well a lot of the confusion and talking past each other that happens in these threads is actually a result of the fact that in the Anglo-saxon sphere, since Reagan and Thatcher, right wing parties that call themselves Conservative or identify themselves as conservative, are actually far more radical (in the reactionary direction) than the left-wing parties are (in the progressive direction). That is why right-wingers giving arguments of the kind "tried and tested traditions" are talking out of their arse. The market fundamentalism espoused by right-wing parties in the last 30 years, on the back of Monetarist economic theory may have some vague similarities with classical liberalism but was a new phenomenon.

[Phocidaea]

Q: What's the point of being conservative?

A: There's a few points:

1. To ruin other peoples' fun. (c.f. "Pornography should be illegal")
2. To ensure that heterosexual Christian white males run the Western world for eternity. (c.f. "Defense of Marriage", "Legitimate Rape")
3. To piss off progressives/liberals. (c.f. "FOX News")
4. To provide a subject for jokes from more-enlightened individuals (c.f. "Tea Party")

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

For me though, I'll continue being a moderate, because I believe that change is necessary but not that quickly and that not everything the progressives want is feasible.

there's no such thing as a moderate. You believe in a certain way of behaving and in another context it could look extreme. At least have the courage of your convictions and dont wimp out pretending your answer is some kind of best of both worlds, because it isnt its a very specific politics.

[The Reasonable]

For me though, I'll continue being a moderate, because I believe that change is necessary but not that quickly and that not everything the progressives want is feasible.

there's no such thing as a moderate. You believe in a certain way of behaving and in another context it could look extreme. At least have the courage of your convictions and dont wimp out pretending your answer is some kind of best of both worlds, because it isnt its a very specific politics.

My specific political views are all over the place- some are liberal, others conservative, and that all depends on where I am, and on those I have firm beliefs. They just don't belong in a coherent ideology.

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

there's no such thing as a moderate. You believe in a certain way of behaving and in another context it could look extreme. At least have the courage of your convictions and dont wimp out pretending your answer is some kind of best of both worlds, because it isnt its a very specific politics.

My specific political views are all over the place- some are liberal, others conservative, and that all depends on where I am, and on those I have firm beliefs. They just don't belong in a coherent ideology.

you sound like a liberal to me.

[The Reasonable]

My specific political views are all over the place- some are liberal, others conservative, and that all depends on where I am, and on those I have firm beliefs. They just don't belong in a coherent ideology.

you sound like a liberal to me.

Based on what? Which variant? And that's what I'm considered in the US, but to NSG? To Europeans? I'm not sure.

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

you sound like a liberal to me.

Which variant? And that's what I'm considered in the US, but to NSG? To Europeans? I'm not sure.

I dont know the specifics but you happily fit into the broad church of liberalism. Secondly when one uses liberal to refer to people who support the ideology of liberalism, it does'nt matter if you're in the U.S, Europe or talking on NSG, one still means this

[Augarundus]

Because they support the ancien regime?

[The Reasonable]

Which variant? And that's what I'm considered in the US, but to NSG? To Europeans? I'm not sure.[/quote

I dont know the specifics but you happily fit into the broad church of liberalism. Secondly when using liberal to refer to people who support the ideology of liberalism, it does'nt matter if you're in the U.S, Europe or talking on NSG, I still mean this

I'll abide by that. What makes you say that though? And I get the impression that the majority of NSG is farther to the left than me.

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

Which variant? And that's what I'm considered in the US, but to NSG? To Europeans? I'm not sure.[/quote

I dont know the specifics but you happily fit into the broad church of liberalism. Secondly when using liberal to refer to people who support the ideology of liberalism, it does'nt matter if you're in the U.S, Europe or talking on NSG, I still mean this

I'll abide by that. What makes you say that though? And I get the impression that the majority of NSG is farther to the left than me.

probably true but thats because they're not liberals, they're socialists.

[The Reasonable]

I'll abide by that. What makes you say that though? And I get the impression that the majority of NSG is farther to the left than me.

probably true but thats because they're not liberals, they're socialists.

And what makes you think I'm a liberal, not a conservative or socialist? And yes, I got that impression. I'm often caught between the socialist majority on this site and the shrill libertarian/conservative minority.

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

probably true but thats because they're not liberals, they're socialists.

And what makes you think I'm a liberal, not a conservative or socialist? And yes, I got that impression. I'm often caught between the socialist majority on this site and the shrill libertarian/conservative minority.

Because from what you've written you don't believe in worker's democratic control of the means of production, so you're not a socialist. I dont feel confident enough in my knowledge to make the distinction between conservative and liberal. But I just feel liberal makes more sense.

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

[
I'm often caught between the socialist majority on this site and the shrill libertarian/conservative minority.

isn't everyone