Can a Socialist be Social Conservative ?

[Communal concils]

bad ideals according to you. I generally think things should be more complex.

And just how exactly is supporting basic liberties and rights childish, pray tell? How I exactly are only your ideas in any way complex?

Well, I simply think that certain rights contradict each other. For example, many societies support slavery. there were laws that guaranteed the rights of owners to own slaves, but the enslave has to listen to the commands of their master. another example is that certain societies allow sexual abuse, it is freedom to the attacker but not the victim. Rights are constructs, like all human ideals that are not physical. They can be twisted and reshaped into different forms.
My views are complex because I think of the possible result of what I am advocating. I think of how different people are affected, and I don't expect everything to go my way. I also believe that there isn't a black and white morality, and I believe that many issues can not be supported or rejected because it sounds good or bad. It all depends on consequences, I am a consequentialist.

[Sa Annaeia]

Wanting to ban non-reproductive sex is not in any way "pragmatic"; it's about as hardline as you can possibly get.

My justification is simply that people aren't educated in controlling themselves, or are taught correctly in using their bodies. I don't support it because I can, nor do I support it because "Things are disgusting, but I believe there is a benefit that can be achieve from it.

You want to ban WHAT? Seriously, that's just part of human nature. The point of Socialism isn't to turn people into robots, luxury is one of the STRONGEST arguments FOR Socialism. Once people's basic needs are taken care of, likely in part due to liberal use of automation, we can to amazing things. Or we can just sit around in our underpants. That's a perfectly legit option

[Communal concils]

My justification is simply that people aren't educated in controlling themselves, or are taught correctly in using their bodies.

"Correct" from your point of view that sex is only for reproduction...

So you take back your claim about being "pragmatic" then?

I don't support it because I can, nor do I support it because "Things are disgusting, but I believe there is a benefit that can be achieve from it.

Makes no sense. Rephrase please.

1. Funny.

2. I support such ideals because I think benefits can come for it. Of course, not for those that feel scared, but rather for groups and cultural norms.

[Highever]

And just how exactly is supporting basic liberties and rights childish, pray tell? How I exactly are only your ideas in any way complex?

Well, I simply think that certain rights contradict each other. For example, many societies support slavery. there were laws that guaranteed the rights of owners to own slaves, but the enslave has to listen to the commands of their master. another example is that certain societies allow sexual abuse, it is freedom to the attacker but not the victim. Rights are constructs, like all human ideals that are not physical. They can be twisted and reshaped into different forms.
My views are complex because I think of the possible result of what I am advocating. I think of how different people are affected, and I don't expect everything to go my way. I also believe that there isn't a black and white morality, and I believe that many issues can not be supported or rejected because it sounds good or bad. It all depends on consequences, I am a consequentialist.

You....realize that social libertarians dont advocate for slavery or abusive based solely on "freedom" right? Or are you somehow saying that because abuse and slavery exist in some places that civil liberties are bad?

And you're basically saying you are super duper complex and smart because you think of how your ideas would affect people? And this somehow is not something anyone else thinks about?

[Highever]

My justification is simply that people aren't educated in controlling themselves, or are taught correctly in using their bodies. I don't support it because I can, nor do I support it because "Things are disgusting, but I believe there is a benefit that can be achieve from it.

You want to ban WHAT? Seriously, that's just part of human nature. The point of Socialism isn't to turn people into robots, luxury is one of the STRONGEST arguments FOR Socialism. Once people's basic needs are taken care of, likely in part due to liberal use of automation, we can to amazing things. Or we can just sit around in our underpants. That's a perfectly legit option

In a CC thread when their views on sex come up

Me:

[Minachia]

Isn't that what Nazbols and Mussolini-type Fascists are? Or, for that matter, every regime that ever called itself Communist?

[The New California Republic]

1. Funny.

You could actually try to respond to what I said, instead of this pointless remark that does fuck all.

2. I support such ideals because I think benefits can come for it. Of course, not for those that feel scared, but rather for groups and cultural norms.

Try rephrasing again please, it is still just a complete word salad.

[Nakena]

Isn't that what Nazbols and Mussolini-type Fascists are? Or, for that matter, every regime that ever called itself Communist?

Yea boi

[The New California Republic]

You want to ban WHAT? Seriously, that's just part of human nature. The point of Socialism isn't to turn people into robots, luxury is one of the STRONGEST arguments FOR Socialism. Once people's basic needs are taken care of, likely in part due to liberal use of automation, we can to amazing things. Or we can just sit around in our underpants. That's a perfectly legit option

In a CC thread when their views on sex come up

Me:

Ikr? I enjoy seeing the reactions in a twisted sort of way.

[Communal concils]

Free expression and Imagination can come in too much forms. Cannibals , rapist and sadist have imagination and Free expression. I'm sure that they shouldn't be allowed to express those behaviors. Remember that all societies have their deviants.

Except your society pretty much relegates every single human being as a "deviant" based on simple emotions and "childish things" like happiness and basic human rights.

Rights are constructs, they can be reshaped and morphed into different forms. There are different forms of rights, there are different ideals of happiness.

[The New California Republic]

Except your society pretty much relegates every single human being as a "deviant" based on simple emotions and "childish things" like happiness and basic human rights.

Rights are constructs, they can be reshaped and morphed into different forms. There are different forms of rights, there are different ideals of happiness.

A response that amounts to "things are different and can change" is no real response at all.

[Highever]

Except your society pretty much relegates every single human being as a "deviant" based on simple emotions and "childish things" like happiness and basic human rights.

Rights are constructs, they can be reshaped and morphed into different forms. There are different forms of rights, there are different ideals of happiness.

Except you're not reshaping or morphing them you're taking a blowtorch and sledgehammer to them and getting rid of them entirely.

[Communal concils]

Well, I simply think that certain rights contradict each other. For example, many societies support slavery. there were laws that guaranteed the rights of owners to own slaves, but the enslave has to listen to the commands of their master. another example is that certain societies allow sexual abuse, it is freedom to the attacker but not the victim. Rights are constructs, like all human ideals that are not physical. They can be twisted and reshaped into different forms.
My views are complex because I think of the possible result of what I am advocating. I think of how different people are affected, and I don't expect everything to go my way. I also believe that there isn't a black and white morality, and I believe that many issues can not be supported or rejected because it sounds good or bad. It all depends on consequences, I am a consequentialist.

You....realize that social libertarians dont advocate for slavery or abusive based solely on "freedom" right? Or are you somehow saying that because abuse and slavery exist in some places that civil liberties are bad?

And you're basically saying you are super duper complex and smart because you think of how your ideas would affect people? And this somehow is not something anyone else thinks about?

1. I am saying that different "Rights" and "Freedoms" contradict. However, I there are many libertarians that would allow this. Not because they they think it's good, but because the society they want to create would allow for contradictions in freedom . Anarchist for example, now that a person that seizes the property of another is against the victims will. They see rape and abuse as bad, but their society would simply allow it. Either that, or they create a mob society that tramples it's own propose ideals.

2. I simply said that I am complex because I don't put my beliefs under idealism. I expect such ideals to be practiced differently, to be flexible, and I don't believe in my views for the sake of it or for a simplistic form of moral absolutism.

[Philjia]

Socially conservative values are often presented as being beneficial to the collective and creating a strong community, in contrast to the emphasis placed on individuals by liberal social values, so one who supports socialism as a means to create a strong community driven or institutionally controlled society may be socially conservative on those grounds.

[Communal concils]

Rights are constructs, they can be reshaped and morphed into different forms. There are different forms of rights, there are different ideals of happiness.

Except you're not reshaping or morphing them you're taking a blowtorch and sledgehammer to them and getting rid of them entirely.

Yes, you are correct. However, I believe that new rights should be created to replace them, and they should be morphed into different forms

[The New California Republic]

Anarchist for example [...] They see rape and abuse as bad, but their society would simply allow it.

Patently untrue. You clearly have no idea what anarchism is.

[Communal concils]

Socially conservative values are often presented as being beneficial to the collective and creating a strong community, in contrast to the emphasis placed on individuals by liberal social values, so one who supports socialism as a means to create a strong community driven or institutionally controlled society may be socially conservative on those grounds.

I agree with this statement.

[Communal concils]

Rights are constructs, they can be reshaped and morphed into different forms. There are different forms of rights, there are different ideals of happiness.

A response that amounts to "things are different and can change" is no real response at all.

And how is your comment a really response? Is there actual value in it ?

[The New California Republic]

Except you're not reshaping or morphing them you're taking a blowtorch and sledgehammer to them and getting rid of them entirely.

Yes, you are correct. However, I believe that new rights should be created to replace them, and they should be morphed into different forms

And what new right, pray tell, would fill the gap left by your ban on non-reproductive sex?

[Highever]

You....realize that social libertarians dont advocate for slavery or abusive based solely on "freedom" right? Or are you somehow saying that because abuse and slavery exist in some places that civil liberties are bad?

And you're basically saying you are super duper complex and smart because you think of how your ideas would affect people? And this somehow is not something anyone else thinks about?

1. I am saying that different "Rights" and "Freedoms" contradict. However, I there are many libertarians that would allow this. Not because they they think it's good, but because the society they want to create would allow for contradictions in freedom . Anarchist for example, now that a person that seizes the property of another is against the victims will. They see rape and abuse as bad, but their society would simply allow it. Either that, or they create a mob society that tramples it's own propose ideals.

2. I simply said that I am complex because I don't put my beliefs under idealism. I expect such ideals to be practiced differently, to be flexible, and I don't believe in my views for the sake of it or for a simplistic form of moral absolutism.

You do realize that's why laws exist right? And that not all who value civil liberties are total anarchists? The general consensus is that rights end where others begin, and therefore if what you are doing infringes on others rights or security it isnt acceptable. Its not really all that hard to comprehend.

Yes because wanting people to have civil liberties is idealist and impractical but wanting to stop everyone from having emotions and having sex is a practical and complex belief. It seems to me you are just straw manning in an attempt to discredit social liberalism rather than actually making any reasonable argument against it.

[Highever]

Except you're not reshaping or morphing them you're taking a blowtorch and sledgehammer to them and getting rid of them entirely.

Yes, you are correct. However, I believe that new rights should be created to replace them, and they should be morphed into different forms

So then your original comment about just changing existing rights is BS by your own admittance.

And how exactly are you going to replace rights after taking away pretty much every reasonable right under the sun?

[The New California Republic]

A response that amounts to "things are different and can change" is no real response at all.

And how is your comment a really response? Is there actual value in it ?

"NO U" in other words? Wow.

[US-SSR]

Can you be a State Socialist a la Stalin, a traditional labor union adherent or leader, or a Social Democrat and be a "social conservative?" Sure.

Can you believe workers should control the means of production; that the proper program of socialism is not to reform capitalism but to replace it; and that society should be organized for the benefit of those who produce its wealth rather than for the benefit of their exploiters, and also believe:

- people should be prevented from living, loving and pursuing their own happiness as they see fit;

- people should be prevented from moving wherever they choose to move in the world;

- society should be forced to spend its scarce resources on armies and police forces, most of which are used to repress dissent and/or extract resources from others;

- robber barons should be permitted to despoil the planet in fulfillment of their personal greed?

No. No, you can't.

[Bienenhalde]

I suppose you have some valid points. But supporting hierarchy does not necessitate agreement with the laissez-faire and individualist beliefs underlying the modern capitalist system. I prefer a more collectivist economic system that would focus on collaboration rather than competition, and emphasize the common good over individualism.

Of course but in this context we're talking about people who subscribe to left-wing ideologies such as socialists. The egalitarian nature of socialism contradicts the hierarchical nature of social conservatism.

Well, I know that many socialist philosophies like Marxism insist on the importance of egalitarianism. But if I criticize capitalism and individualism, some people will call me a "socialist" regardless of my support for hierarchy. Is it even worth the trouble to fight against the "socialist" label? Or would it be better perhaps to embrace it, like Bismarck and Spengler did?

[Communal concils]

Anarchist for example [...] They see rape and abuse as bad, but their society would simply allow it.

Patently untrue. You clearly have no idea what anarchism is.

I know what Anarchism is , I was once one. It is a political "Theory" that sees the state as unjustified, evil, bad scary or mean. It also thinks that all suppose "Unjustified" Hierarchy is bad. So anarchist support the creation of a "voluntary " and non-coercive society.

They range form the lazy anarcho-communist, too the edgy egoist anarchist, too the very queer queer anarchist, to anarcho-primitivist, to the anarcha-feminist and the anarcho-capitalist. It's the only ideology that deserves the term "Snowflake", as you can make up your own special and unique variant.

My favorite is National-Anarchism combined with a bit of anarcho-Trans-Human-Chauvinist stateless Communism.