Your transition from liberalism to conservatism

[Quintium]

I was raised in a very sheltered environment by a lot of progressive-left people. I always had at least two people with me every time I visited the real world outside of my sleepy town, and I was taught that the people who were aggressive and rude there were just victims of society. I went to an all-white school (though, to be fair, there were some East Asians there) where I was taught that every problem every minority had was a result of oppression and poverty and strictly nothing else. When the school was forced to mention that one particular minority had extreme rates of schizophrenia and mental retardation due to inbreeding, they were reluctant to mention that even though it had been determined by geneticists. I was also taught that Europeans were guilty of everything wrong in the world since the Crusades.

Then I entered university, and with that I entered the real world. I took a bus to university instead of a car with a driver just for me. I entered the real world, where the people I was taught were the oppressed working class bragged about the government money they were receiving. I saw the single mothers with five or six children and another on the way, with absolutely no sense of responsibility. For the first time in my life, I had to speak to ordinary muslims - and I realised they were not at all tolerant, or peaceful, or hardworking. I saw that my fellow students had absolutely no sense of responsibility, and used their student grants to buy fancy clothes and alcohol and attend parties.

Those things really did shape my political views. From afar, I would have agreed that minorities had problems due to oppression, racism and poverty. But having encountered too many of them already, I can't believe that anymore. From afar, I would have agreed that students really needed grants for their education. But having encountered too many of them spending it on fun stuff already, I can't see why they need taxpayer money for that. From afar, I would have agreed that those single mothers needed support and financial help. But having encountered too many of them just having children for the sake of it - knowing the taxpayers would pay for those kids - I think they should be left to their own devices and their children should be taken from them if they fail to take care of them.

What didn't help either was that I was raised without facts and figures, since those were only really made public after 2006. Since then, we've had some very interesting reports that really confirmed that what I was taught was ideological drivel, and what I learned corresponded with those facts and figures.

[Wikkiwallana]

More accurately, the asshole author avatar of a hypocritical, equally assholish bitch who claimed that altruism was a mental illness.

Care to elaborate a little, also what kind of conservative were you, out of curiousity.

A person who believed altruism was a mental illness being a bitch needs elaboration?
Which term do you need defined, bitch, altruism, or mental illness?

[Khadgar]

I was raised in a very sheltered environment by a lot of progressive-left people. I always had at least two people with me every time I visited the real world outside of my sleepy town, and I was taught that the people who were aggressive and rude there were just victims of society. I went to an all-white school (though, to be fair, there were some East Asians there) where I was taught that every problem every minority had was a result of oppression and poverty and strictly nothing else. When the school was forced to mention that one particular minority had extreme rates of schizophrenia and mental retardation due to inbreeding, they were reluctant to mention that even though it had been determined by geneticists. I was also taught that Europeans were guilty of everything wrong in the world since the Crusades.

Then I entered university, and with that I entered the real world. I took a bus to university instead of a car with a driver just for me. I entered the real world, where the people I was taught were the oppressed working class bragged about the government money they were receiving. I saw the single mothers with five or six children and another on the way, with absolutely no sense of responsibility. For the first time in my life, I had to speak to ordinary muslims - and I realised they were not at all tolerant, or peaceful, or hardworking. I saw that my fellow students had absolutely no sense of responsibility, and used their student grants to buy fancy clothes and alcohol and attend parties.

Those things really did shape my political views. From afar, I would have agreed that minorities had problems due to oppression, racism and poverty. But having encountered too many of them already, I can't believe that anymore. From afar, I would have agreed that students really needed grants for their education. But having encountered too many of them spending it on fun stuff already, I can't see why they need taxpayer money for that. From afar, I would have agreed that those single mothers needed support and financial help. But having encountered too many of them just having children for the sake of it - knowing the taxpayers would pay for those kids - I think they should be left to their own devices and their children should be taken from them if they fail to take care of them.

What didn't help either was that I was raised without facts and figures, since those were only really made public after 2006. Since then, we've had some very interesting reports that really confirmed that what I was taught was ideological drivel, and what I learned corresponded with those facts and figures.

I don't believe a word of that.

[Quintium]

I don't believe a word of that.

That is your choice. These are, to my best knowledge, the things that made me shift from the far-left to the right of the political spectrum.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't believe a word of that.

That is your choice. These are, to my best knowledge, the things that made me shift from the far-left to the right of the political spectrum.

My question is: how far to the right did you move?

I was a solid far right before being exposed to college ideas and other, less privileged people, and I shifted my views from a solid right to a more left-centered approach because of it.

In other words: while I do believe SOME people are genuinely being treated unfair somewhere, I just think most of the time is something they did or did not do. While I believe worrying about welfare is a good thing, I don't think people who are lazy necessarily deserve it nor people who are abusing the system. While I do think civil rights are a wonderful thing, I certainly respect opposition, and I am a bit skeptical of TOO much liberalism. And while I do think grants and loans for college are marvelous to have, I think spending them away on useless things shouldn't be tolerated, or at least be used to pay for education first and then either save it or spend it.

The single mothers' thing. I have to disagree with you on that. Some women do use child support welfare properly. I know a veteran with a daughter and she [the vet] is going to college with grants and scholarships thanks to her G.I bill to get an awesome degree in International Business. I just think it depends on the case that we can make such generalizations, but yet we shouldn't overgeneralize and realize there are people who do abuse of these things.

[Quintium]

My question is: how far to the right did you move?

Quite far. Seeing people I pay for wasting their lives, having a dozen children and raising them to be intolerant, I'm all in favour of a complete stop of immigration for all who do not have some form of higher education, and I'm in favour of a responsibility-based welfare system. That means you get welfare if you're not at fault for your own condition. If you have five children by three different fathers, or if you refuse to look for work, or if you get a useless degree and spend your days moaning that you're entitled to a job, you should get nothing. I'm also against housing subsidies, and in favour of a much more repressive police force to deal with the people who refuse to help themselves through legal means.

Basically: the government should only help those who live responsibly and have fallen on hard times beyond their own fault.

I was a solid far right before being exposed to college ideas and other, less privileged people, and I shifted my views from a solid right to a more left-centered approach because of it.

I suppose it works the other way for you. Whatever floats your boat!

In other words: while I do believe SOME people are genuinely being treated unfair somewhere, I just think most of the time is something they did or did not do. While I believe worrying about welfare is a good thing, I don't think people who are lazy necessarily deserve it nor people who are abusing the system. While I do think civil rights are a wonderful thing, I certainly respect opposition, and I am a bit skeptical of TOO much liberalism.

Well, this is surprisingly close to what I believe.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe a word of that.

That is your choice. These are, to my best knowledge, the things that made me shift from the far-left to the right of the political spectrum.

Which is unfortunate, because it means you've made a drastic ideological change based on a bunch of propaganda and bullshit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quite far. Seeing people I pay for wasting their lives, having a dozen children and raising them to be intolerant, I'm all in favour of a complete stop of immigration for all who do not have some form of higher education, and I'm in favour of a responsibility-based welfare system. That means you get welfare if you're not at fault for your own condition. If you have five children by three different fathers, or if you refuse to look for work, or if you get a useless degree and spend your days moaning that you're entitled to a job, you should get nothing. I'm also against housing subsidies, and in favour of a much more repressive police force to deal with the people who refuse to help themselves through legal means.

I don't think we should tolerate intolerance nor people wasting their lives. I am in favor of some sort of immigration for all, but to not tolerate the intolerant masses. I too have noticed some of my fellow people (I am in the US) are quite intolerant of others, and that doesn't fly with me. While I respect everyone equally and I would never teach my own children intolerance, I get upset when someone is cruel towards other races or classes of people either with thought or actions.

And I agree in the case of a degree and jobs. I am a History major (and no it is not useless ) and yet I have found a job which pays decently (it's not 40,000 a year, but hell, it'll do I guess ) and I am having plans of building up my own company in the future. So yes, not everyone with a degree, regardless of its usefulness in the market, thinks about it the same way I do agree though, people whine too much about being entitled to a job instead of looking for it.

The repressive police force, well... that can be debatable

Basically: the government should only help those who live responsibly and have fallen on hard times beyond their own fault.

I can see where you're coming from, and I totally agree with this one. People who do not have control over their circumstances should be helped. But people who abuse the system should be nipped out.

I suppose it works the other way for you. Whatever floats your boat!

Hahah xD well, I was a harsh person in my youth in my ideals (in my teenage years), coming from strict parents and an even stricter and abusive grandmother

Well, this is surprisingly close to what I believe.

And well, yea, I mean, realism is realism. Although it's not good to overgeneralize in some instances I do believe each case is not the same, and I think too many people tend to lose that along the way, that there are exceptions to every rule, and that we can't really judge someone without knowing their background first.

[Quintium]

Which is unfortunate, because it means you've made a drastic ideological change based on a bunch of propaganda and bullshit.

Actually, what I was fed in secondary school was a load of propaganda and bullshit. When I entered the real world and started debating people who disagreed with me, I found that I could not reasonably - only emotionally - detach myself from what they were saying. The words of conservatives and libertarians I could increasingly link to reality; the words of the liberals and socialists who had raised me were increasingly only a theoretical, moral thing. Being pragmatic, I made the shift to the camp that addresses reality and not morality.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which is unfortunate, because it means you've made a drastic ideological change based on a bunch of propaganda and bullshit.

Actually, what I was fed in secondary school was a load of propaganda and bullshit. When I entered the real world and started debating people who disagreed with me, I found that I could not reasonably - only emotionally - detach myself from what they were saying. The words of conservatives and libertarians I could increasingly link to reality; the words of the liberals and socialists who had raised me were increasingly only a theoretical, moral thing. Being pragmatic, I made the shift to the camp that addresses reality and not morality.

Well, I am pragmatic too in my approaches in life, but I certainly do believe that morality has a place in our lives. Mostly because morals and values are what makes us who we are. And who cares about secondary school? once I realized my teachers had an agenda on their education and were fairly incompetent in their subject matter for my taste I decided to read more than pay attention to them.

Although that could be also the fact that I am of a rational mindset being of a personality camp who thinks more than what it does and implements ideas and experiments rather than drive myself through pure action, so I tend to easily spot bullshit and I go read to corroborate my suspicions. In other words you really have to know what you're talking about with me because I could call your bullshit any minute, although I wouldn't do it because I'm fairly polite too

[Khadgar]

I don't believe a word of that.

That is your choice. These are, to my best knowledge, the things that made me shift from the far-left to the right of the political spectrum.

No I think those things could change your views, I just don't believe that it's true. You see you apparently grew up in some kind of bizarre caricature of extreme liberalism that I don't think exists anywhere in the physical universe.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which is unfortunate, because it means you've made a drastic ideological change based on a bunch of propaganda and bullshit.

Actually, what I was fed in secondary school was a load of propaganda and bullshit. When I entered the real world and started debating people who disagreed with me, I found that I could not reasonably - only emotionally - detach myself from what they were saying. The words of conservatives and libertarians I could increasingly link to reality; the words of the liberals and socialists who had raised me were increasingly only a theoretical, moral thing. Being pragmatic, I made the shift to the camp that addresses reality and not morality.

No you didn't. For example - your anecdote about girls popping out babies as a kind of cottage business - which is basically this generations retelling of Reagan's great 'welfare queen' lie. And worse - everyone knew it was a lie back then, and the people telling the lie now, know it's a lie now.

You want to talk reality? People with no money and no safety net will starve, or they'll survive. And some will starve and some will survive. And if you give them no alternatives, history tells us that they survive through two chief mechanisms - crime, and bloody, bloody revolt.

That's the cold reality. Here in the US we have a population of 300+ million, and we're rapidly refocusing on about half of that (ask Romney, his 47% comment cost him his ass). The conservative thing to do, is to avoid crime and bloody, bloody revolt - because if things get bad enough, you think the cost of foodstamps is high, wait until you're paying for the cost of 150 million people spilling blood in the streets.

[Cosara]

It happened along with my transition from Atheism to Theism.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No you didn't. For example - your anecdote about girls popping out babies as a kind of cottage business - which is basically this generations retelling of Reagan's great 'welfare queen' lie. And worse - everyone knew it was a lie back then, and the people telling the lie now, know it's a lie now.

You want to talk reality? People with no money and no safety net will starve, or they'll survive. And some will starve and some will survive. And if you give them no alternatives, history tells us that they survive through two chief mechanisms - crime, and bloody, bloody revolt.

That's the cold reality. Here in the US we have a population of 300+ million, and we're rapidly refocusing on about half of that (ask Romney, his 47% comment cost him his ass). The conservative thing to do, is to avoid crime and bloody, bloody revolt - because if things get bad enough, you think the cost of foodstamps is high, wait until you're paying for the cost of 150 million people spilling blood in the streets.

Well, people popping out business as a kind of cottage business I mean I KNOW many women DON'T want to have babies (obviously they know it's painful, plus, who the hell would want to have a kid when they are not ready?! At most some women would want to push child support on the fathers, but that's about it). How in the hell is popping out babies profitable I wonder? lol

The crime rate, coming from a nation that doesn't have a safety net yes, crime would be increased or we would see a revolution.

And hell no I don't want to pay for revolution. I would rather pay for welfare and a safety net rather than see the US fall into the likes of Central America where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and everyone is scared because gangs have overran the region and crime is high because they have to survive. Capitalist economies without safety net are as much of a failure as centralized economies based on welfare and without any competition (like pure communism and pure socialism).

EDIT: I realize Nicaragua and Costa Rica are relatively safe in the CA zone, but El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are not.

[Quintium]

No you didn't. For example - your anecdote about girls popping out babies as a kind of cottage business - which is basically this generations retelling of Reagan's great 'welfare queen' lie. And worse - everyone knew it was a lie back then, and the people telling the lie now, know it's a lie now.

It's not a lie. In this country, and everywhere, more and more children are growing up in this situation. And actually, having children you can't afford to take care of is profitable. Aside from indirect welfare increases, which include the right to a house with garden paid for by the state, and free health care for those children, they can get up to €273 per child every three months in direct payments from the state. In addition, the state funds most of the costs of professional childcare, meaning the state pays for someone to take care of your child during the day.

You want to talk reality? People with no money and no safety net will starve, or they'll survive. And some will starve and some will survive. And if you give them no alternatives, history tells us that they survive through two chief mechanisms - crime, and bloody, bloody revolt.

It's not about whether or not a safety net exists. Actually, I'm all in favour of a safety net - but it should be just that. A safety net, not a hammock. I live in a country where the safety net includes alternative medicine, free housing, free or heavily-subsidised health care, welfare payments that often stack up above minimum wage, a state-subsidised artist class, state-subsidised cultural festivals for every minority, free public transport for many people and cheap public transport for most, pensions even for those who haven't worked a day in their lives, and much more. That's where I'd draw the line. Welfare shouldn't be an end in itself, it should be a means to an end. That end should be financial self-sufficiency and a net contribution to society whenever possible.

And if people - though a majority here wants cuts in those frivolous fields - want to revolt over things like art subsidies and child benefits, then we'll just laugh at them and turn the riot police on them. It's never been any worse than that since the 1980s, and we've had massive budget cuts since then.

[Divair]

I was raised in a very sheltered environment by a lot of progressive-left people. I always had at least two people with me every time I visited the real world outside of my sleepy town, and I was taught that the people who were aggressive and rude there were just victims of society. I went to an all-white school (though, to be fair, there were some East Asians there) where I was taught that every problem every minority had was a result of oppression and poverty and strictly nothing else. When the school was forced to mention that one particular minority had extreme rates of schizophrenia and mental retardation due to inbreeding, they were reluctant to mention that even though it had been determined by geneticists. I was also taught that Europeans were guilty of everything wrong in the world since the Crusades.

Then I entered university, and with that I entered the real world. I took a bus to university instead of a car with a driver just for me. I entered the real world, where the people I was taught were the oppressed working class bragged about the government money they were receiving. I saw the single mothers with five or six children and another on the way, with absolutely no sense of responsibility. For the first time in my life, I had to speak to ordinary muslims - and I realised they were not at all tolerant, or peaceful, or hardworking. I saw that my fellow students had absolutely no sense of responsibility, and used their student grants to buy fancy clothes and alcohol and attend parties.

Those things really did shape my political views. From afar, I would have agreed that minorities had problems due to oppression, racism and poverty. But having encountered too many of them already, I can't believe that anymore. From afar, I would have agreed that students really needed grants for their education. But having encountered too many of them spending it on fun stuff already, I can't see why they need taxpayer money for that. From afar, I would have agreed that those single mothers needed support and financial help. But having encountered too many of them just having children for the sake of it - knowing the taxpayers would pay for those kids - I think they should be left to their own devices and their children should be taken from them if they fail to take care of them.

What didn't help either was that I was raised without facts and figures, since those were only really made public after 2006. Since then, we've had some very interesting reports that really confirmed that what I was taught was ideological drivel, and what I learned corresponded with those facts and figures.

I don't believe a word of that.

Going to have to agree with you.

[Grave_n_idle]

No you didn't. For example - your anecdote about girls popping out babies as a kind of cottage business - which is basically this generations retelling of Reagan's great 'welfare queen' lie. And worse - everyone knew it was a lie back then, and the people telling the lie now, know it's a lie now.

It's not a lie. In this country, and everywhere, more and more children are growing up in this situation. And actually, having children you can't afford to take care of is profitable. Aside from indirect welfare increases, which include the right to a house with garden paid for by the state, and free health care for those children, they can get up to €273 per child every three months in direct payments from the state. In addition, the state funds most of the costs of professional childcare, meaning the state pays for someone to take care of your child during the day.

You want to talk reality? People with no money and no safety net will starve, or they'll survive. And some will starve and some will survive. And if you give them no alternatives, history tells us that they survive through two chief mechanisms - crime, and bloody, bloody revolt.

It's not about whether or not a safety net exists. Actually, I'm all in favour of a safety net - but it should be just that. A safety net, not a hammock. I live in a country where the safety net includes alternative medicine, free housing, free or heavily-subsidised health care, welfare payments that often stack up above minimum wage, a state-subsidised artist class, state-subsidised cultural festivals for every minority, free public transport for many people and cheap public transport for most, pensions even for those who haven't worked a day in their lives, and much more. That's where I'd draw the line. Welfare shouldn't be an end in itself, it should be a means to an end. That end should be financial self-sufficiency and a net contribution to society whenever possible.

And if people - though a majority here wants cuts in those frivolous fields - want to revolt over things like art subsidies and child benefits, then we'll just laugh at them and turn the riot police on them. It's never been any worse than that since the 1980s, and we've had massive budget cuts since then.

Where you live sounds wonderful. I think I'm moving there.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's not a lie. In this country, and everywhere, more and more children are growing up in this situation. And actually, having children you can't afford to take care of is profitable. Aside from indirect welfare increases, which include the right to a house with garden paid for by the state, and free health care for those children, they can get up to €273 per child every three months in direct payments from the state. In addition, the state funds most of the costs of professional childcare, meaning the state pays for someone to take care of your child during the day.

It's not about whether or not a safety net exists. Actually, I'm all in favour of a safety net - but it should be just that. A safety net, not a hammock. I live in a country where the safety net includes alternative medicine, free housing, free or heavily-subsidised health care, welfare payments that often stack up above minimum wage, a state-subsidised artist class, state-subsidised cultural festivals for every minority, free public transport for many people and cheap public transport for most, pensions even for those who haven't worked a day in their lives, and much more. That's where I'd draw the line. Welfare shouldn't be an end in itself, it should be a means to an end. That end should be financial self-sufficiency and a net contribution to society whenever possible.

And if people - though a majority here wants cuts in those frivolous fields - want to revolt over things like art subsidies and child benefits, then we'll just laugh at them and turn the riot police on them. It's never been any worse than that since the 1980s, and we've had massive budget cuts since then.

I see you use Euros as a figure. Do you live in England or one of the European Nations?

[Divair]

It's not a lie. In this country, and everywhere, more and more children are growing up in this situation. And actually, having children you can't afford to take care of is profitable. Aside from indirect welfare increases, which include the right to a house with garden paid for by the state, and free health care for those children, they can get up to €273 per child every three months in direct payments from the state. In addition, the state funds most of the costs of professional childcare, meaning the state pays for someone to take care of your child during the day.



It's not about whether or not a safety net exists. Actually, I'm all in favour of a safety net - but it should be just that. A safety net, not a hammock. I live in a country where the safety net includes alternative medicine, free housing, free or heavily-subsidised health care, welfare payments that often stack up above minimum wage, a state-subsidised artist class, state-subsidised cultural festivals for every minority, free public transport for many people and cheap public transport for most, pensions even for those who haven't worked a day in their lives, and much more. That's where I'd draw the line. Welfare shouldn't be an end in itself, it should be a means to an end. That end should be financial self-sufficiency and a net contribution to society whenever possible.

And if people - though a majority here wants cuts in those frivolous fields - want to revolt over things like art subsidies and child benefits, then we'll just laugh at them and turn the riot police on them. It's never been any worse than that since the 1980s, and we've had massive budget cuts since then.

Where you live sounds wonderful. I think I'm moving there.

Plot twist: North Korea.

[Quintium]

I see you use Euros as a figure. Do you live in England or one of the European Nations?

They don't use monopoly money in England. Continental Europe, the Netherlands, Zuid-Holland, urban area.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's not a lie. In this country, and everywhere, more and more children are growing up in this situation. And actually, having children you can't afford to take care of is profitable. Aside from indirect welfare increases, which include the right to a house with garden paid for by the state, and free health care for those children, they can get up to €273 per child every three months in direct payments from the state. In addition, the state funds most of the costs of professional childcare, meaning the state pays for someone to take care of your child during the day.

It's not about whether or not a safety net exists. Actually, I'm all in favour of a safety net - but it should be just that. A safety net, not a hammock. I live in a country where the safety net includes alternative medicine, free housing, free or heavily-subsidised health care, welfare payments that often stack up above minimum wage, a state-subsidised artist class, state-subsidised cultural festivals for every minority, free public transport for many people and cheap public transport for most, pensions even for those who haven't worked a day in their lives, and much more. That's where I'd draw the line. Welfare shouldn't be an end in itself, it should be a means to an end. That end should be financial self-sufficiency and a net contribution to society whenever possible.

And if people - though a majority here wants cuts in those frivolous fields - want to revolt over things like art subsidies and child benefits, then we'll just laugh at them and turn the riot police on them. It's never been any worse than that since the 1980s, and we've had massive budget cuts since then.

I see you use Euros as a figure. Do you live in England or one of the European Nations?

If it's supposed to be England, it'd be a ridiculously strawman-ish version.

[Khadgar]

It's not a lie. In this country, and everywhere, more and more children are growing up in this situation. And actually, having children you can't afford to take care of is profitable. Aside from indirect welfare increases, which include the right to a house with garden paid for by the state, and free health care for those children, they can get up to €273 per child every three months in direct payments from the state. In addition, the state funds most of the costs of professional childcare, meaning the state pays for someone to take care of your child during the day.

They get 91 euros a month per child, and you think this is an income source? Wait, you said "up to" so, what's the average? Holy shit you must have really low cost of living.

Where do you live?!

[Grave_n_idle]

I see you use Euros as a figure. Do you live in England or one of the European Nations?

They don't use monopoly money in England. Continental Europe, the Netherlands, Zuid-Holland, urban area.

In all seriousness, I'm going to go google this now, it sounds like paradise.

Those who want to get ahead can get ahead because they're not competing with people who are desperately clamouring for work they don't want... what a joy!

[Chinese Regions]

The Axis has rotated 90 degrees.

[Quintium]

Where you live sounds wonderful. I think I'm moving there.

Did I mention the tax rates? If you decide to work or study something useful, you'll give away much more than half of your income in taxes one way or another. If you own a home, you're punished for that with some extra local taxes that can be several hundreds a year, as well as 'sewer access taxes' and taxes on energy and probably the highest fuel tax in the world, and a massive vehicle tax, and taxes on companies that are eventually pushed onto consumers and make this place hideously expensive to buy anything. We're pretty much the only country that has the worst of both worlds - a cruel income tax and a cruel tax on everything you buy.

Those who want to get ahead can get ahead because they're not competing with people who are desperately clamouring for work they don't want... what a joy!

Yeah, there you go. If you want to work, you'll be the one complaining.