Are conservative parties hateful?

[Telconi]

Yes, like taxes and gun control are for liberals.

Income tax? That's literally genocide.

Taxes exist that aren't income tax, y'know.

[Odreria]

Yes, like taxes and gun control are for liberals.

Liberals do not hate the wealthy, they need them.

Just because I want to redistribute the belongings of the wealthy and hunt them down with seal team 6 if they attempt to leave the country does not mean I hate them.
Struggle sessions = tough love.

[Sanghyeok]

let's see, there was stalin who criminalized homosexuality in the soviet union, the nazi party pre-'34 was pretty left wing demanding socialization of industry, abolition of the military-industrial complex, and wide social nets while still at least kicking out jews, and it's not exactly fun times in the ol' vz for anyone, but in times of financial burden tolerance toward others goes right down the drain.

Stalin was a totalitarian.

Do you have evidence for the pre-1934/hitler NSDAP?

Many parties in the west hated Jews at the time.

Others hating Jews is not an excuse to hate Jews- and I do condemn the activities of certain left wing organisations towards the Jewish people. Also, the Nazi party pre-34 was hardly a left wing party.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Not intrinsically... humans on the other hand...

[Albrenia]

Taxation and gun control aren't hateful either, btw.

[Odreria]

Income tax? That's literally genocide.

Taxes exist that aren't income tax, y'know.

Those other genocides aren't as big though.

[Celritannia]

Stalin was a totalitarian.

Do you have evidence for the pre-1934/hitler NSDAP?

Many parties in the west hated Jews at the time.

Others hating Jews is not an excuse to hate Jews- and I do condemn the activities of certain left wing organisations towards the Jewish people. Also, the Nazi party pre-34 was hardly a left wing party.

I agree, but my comment was more the fact we can't judge the past through modern lenses

[Sanghyeok]

Income tax? That's literally genocide.

Taxes exist that aren't income tax, y'know.

Because forcing a certain amount of people to pay taxes is a hate crime, much like telling people that "illegal immigrants" should be sent out of the country?

[Telconi]

Yes, like taxes and gun control are for liberals.

Liberals do not hate the wealthy, they need them.

Not all taxes are wealth based, as a matter of fact many tax schemes disproportionately effect the poor. Like stamp taxes on cigarettes, fuel taxes, taxes on junk food, etc.

[Jajarjava]

By the Burkean definition (Burke is the guy who coined the word conservatism), the parties you mention are NOT conservative.

In Burke's view, they are reactionaries: one variety of extremism that conservatism should be opposed to.

[Muralos]

Ooh. It's on, haha.

As for targeting business owners and wealthy people... I think politicians in the United States have not been pushing hatred against them as much as certain regulations (tax rates, workers' protections, other economic things that admittedly I don't know much about), and these regulations are built to not inconvenience them too much. The goal is to build broad support for such things. Sort of like "You can do your thing, but we ask like a concession to protect [this group]."

I don't think we are going in a direction where business owners and the wealthy will be full on hated to where violence ensues and they are stripped of important rights. Same applies to religious people and gun owners, actually.

And... as I see it, hatred of religious people is not a primary attribute of liberal parties; however, exasperation about homophobia, transphobia, and restrictions on LGBT+ people is. Also, as I see it, hatred of gun owners is also not a thing, but frustration about gun violence certainly is. Perhaps there are individuals/ordinary citizens who find it fun to stereotype and disparage these groups, but it has not been a form of hate, as far as I can see. Of course, things could change and I could be proven wrong.

Liberals don't hate the wealthy, since that's where their money comes from. It's one thing they have in common with conservatives.

Lol. That sounds very cynical... I would hope not all the money that liberals have is from the wealthy/the [i]extremely[i] wealthy...

but I mean, I don't think hatred of the wealthy should be desired. Privately, I think it makes sense for people to view extreme wealth as unnecessary and perhaps more than a bit distasteful... and regulations make sense too. but a baseline respect of wealthy people should exist... perhaps not when they have done something truly objectionable though (and ik that is a subjective term but I think we have consensus on what things those would be)

[Kiu Ghesik]

By the Burkean definition (Burke is the guy who coined the word conservatism), the parties you mention are NOT conservative.

In Burke's view, they are reactionaries: one variety of extremism that conservatism should be opposed to.

This. These people aren't conservative. They aren't resisting the change of a status quo, they're actively attempting to shift it back to a previous position.

[Telconi]

Taxation and gun control aren't hateful either, btw.

Putting people in jail for engaging in a harmless act they are intrinsically inclined towards is hateful, rather it's gay folks marrying, or isolated rural folks buying a suitable rifle.

[The Grand Golden State]

Except it's quite clear that conservative parties are indeed interesting in targeting LGBT people.

And liberal parties are intent on targeting religious people, gun owners, business owners, wealthy people, etc.

Why are these views not hateful?

Liberals don't hate these people, they hate the ideas & policies they support. Nor do they target them, in fact I'd argue that major liberal parties are also controlled by wealthy business owners who just have different interests than the wealthy business owners who support conservative parties, i.e. Warren Buffet and George Soros vs Charles Koch and Robert Murdoch, for some examples. As for religious people, they don't also "target" or hate them, liberals just support progressive social policies which religious people are opposed to leading to liberals criticizing their religious views as justification for religion. However, the vast majority of liberals believe in freedom of religion and the right to practice your own religion as long as it does not infringe on other's rights. Similar thing for gun owners, liberals don't hate them, in fact there's a lot of liberals who own guns themselves, its just that many liberals don't believe things like bump stock or being able to pull up to a gun show and buy a gun without any background checks aren't really necessary, and the NRA & conservative propaganda machine painted these beliefs as "Liberals wanna take away all ur guns!" when in reality most liberals are in favor of the 2nd amendment, they just want some (understandable) limitations on guns.

Yeah there's probably some extremist leftists out there who genuinely hate these people and wanna make them suffer or whatever, but they're a very small minority compared to the amount of conservatives who hate others on racial or religious grounds who'd I'd argue are the vast majority of neocons and sizable amount of traditional conservatives. I mean c'mon, would you rather be gay black guy in rural Arkansas, or a rich Christian New York City? And how many times has a liberal killed someone because they own guns, are rich, or are Christian vs the amount of times conservatives lynched someone for their race or sexuality? And before you bring up Stalin or some other communist country, I'm exclusively talking about recent American politics here, not some authoritarian tinpot dictator who dresses himself in leftist iconography.

[Albrenia]

Taxation and gun control aren't hateful either, btw.

Putting people in jail for engaging in a harmless act they are intrinsically inclined towards is hateful, rather it's gay folks marrying, or isolated rural folks buying a suitable rifle.

Uhm... you can be intrinsically inclined towards gun ownership?

[Broader Confederate States]

let's see, there was stalin who criminalized homosexuality in the soviet union, the nazi party pre-'34 was pretty left wing demanding socialization of industry, abolition of the military-industrial complex, and wide social nets while still at least kicking out jews, and it's not exactly fun times in the ol' vz for anyone, but in times of financial burden tolerance toward others goes right down the drain.

You got any current examples or not?

what is the current best case example of socialism we right now have, cuba? it took them until 2018 to vote to think about legalizing same sex marriage, conversion therapy is still legal, and the government censored a kiss because both its participants were male.

[Sanghyeok]

By the Burkean definition (Burke is the guy who coined the word conservatism), the parties you mention are NOT conservative.

In Burke's view, they are reactionaries: one variety of extremism that conservatism should be opposed to.

Thank you for your definition. However, given that those reactionaries have entered the mainstream "conservative" parties, I think it is still appropriate to use.

[Telconi]

And liberal parties are intent on targeting religious people, gun owners, business owners, wealthy people, etc.

Why are these views not hateful?

Liberals don't hate these people, they hate the ideas & policies they support. Nor do they target them, in fact I'd argue that major liberal parties are also controlled by wealthy business owners who just have different interests than the wealthy business owners who support conservative parties, i.e. Warren Buffet and George Soros vs Charles Koch and Robert Murdoch, for some examples. As for religious people, they don't also "target" or hate them, liberals just support progressive social policies which religious people are opposed to leading to liberals criticizing their religious views as justification for religion. However, the vast majority of liberals believe in freedom of religion and the right to practice your own religion as long as it does not infringe on other's rights. Similar thing for gun owners, liberals don't hate them, in fact there's a lot of liberals who own guns themselves, its just that many liberals don't believe things like bump stock or being able to pull up to a gun show and buy a gun without any background checks aren't really necessary, and the NRA & conservative propaganda machine painted these beliefs as "Liberals wanna take away all ur guns!" when in reality most liberals are in favor of the 2nd amendment, they just want some (understandable) limitations on guns.

Yeah there's probably some extremist leftists out there who genuinely hate these people and wanna make them suffer or whatever, but they're a very small minority compared to the amount of conservatives who hate others on racial or religious grounds who'd I'd argue are the vast majority of neocons and sizable amount of traditional conservatives. I mean c'mon, would you rather be black or gay in rural Arkansas or New York City? And how many times has a liberal killed someone because they own guns, are rich, or are Christian vs the amount of times conservatives lynched someone for their race or sexuality? And before you bring up Stalin or some other communist country, I'm exclusively talking about recent American politics here, not some authoritarian tinpot dictator who dresses himself in leftist iconography.

*shrug* one man's reasonable limitations are another man's hate.

[Odreria]

Liberals don't hate the wealthy, since that's where their money comes from. It's one thing they have in common with conservatives.

Lol. That sounds very cynical... I would hope not all the money that liberals have is from the wealthy/the [i]extremely[i] wealthy...

but I mean, I don't think hatred of the wealthy should be desired. Privately, I think it makes sense for people to view extreme wealth as unnecessary and perhaps more than a bit distasteful... and regulations make sense too. but a baseline respect of wealthy people should exist... perhaps not when they have done something truly objectionable though (and ik that is a subjective term but I think we have consensus on what things those would be)

I'm fine with people getting as rich if they earn it. People shouldn't become wealthy by extracting surplus value or inheriting money, but if somebody works as a brain surgeon their whole life it's fair that they will have a lot more money than most other people.

[Celritannia]

You got any current examples or not?

what is the current best case example of socialism we right now have, cuba? it took them until 2018 to vote to think about legalizing same sex marriage, conversion therapy is still legal, and the government censored a kiss because both its participants were male.

As compared to the many Islamic countries of the world where Homosexuality is punishable by death.

[Telconi]

Putting people in jail for engaging in a harmless act they are intrinsically inclined towards is hateful, rather it's gay folks marrying, or isolated rural folks buying a suitable rifle.

Uhm... you can be intrinsically inclined towards gun ownership?

Yes.

[Odreria]

Putting people in jail for engaging in a harmless act they are intrinsically inclined towards is hateful, rather it's gay folks marrying, or isolated rural folks buying a suitable rifle.

Uhm... you can be intrinsically inclined towards gun ownership?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis

[VlaRiSsiA]

Leftists don't want to strip LGBT people of their rights, or sterilise refugees.

let's see, there was stalin who criminalized homosexuality in the soviet union, the nazi party pre-'34 was pretty left wing demanding socialization of industry, abolition of the military-industrial complex, and wide social nets while still at least kicking out jews, and it's not exactly fun times in the ol' vz for anyone, but in times of financial burden tolerance toward others goes right down the drain.

Stalin was rather socially conservative. He was economically left but still socially right(the closest thing to modern day nazbols)

The Nazis pre-1934 was rather broad in ideology. There were economically left leaning members like Strasser, and economically right leaning like Hitler and Himmler. The entire party was culturally far-right and went further right after the night of the long knives. The fact that there were socialists in the party prior to Hitler’s rise doesn’t make leftism in itself responsible for the anti-semitism. In fact, the racism increased massively when Hitler purged the left-leaning aspects of the party.

[Sanghyeok]

Lol. That sounds very cynical... I would hope not all the money that liberals have is from the wealthy/the [i]extremely[i] wealthy...

but I mean, I don't think hatred of the wealthy should be desired. Privately, I think it makes sense for people to view extreme wealth as unnecessary and perhaps more than a bit distasteful... and regulations make sense too. but a baseline respect of wealthy people should exist... perhaps not when they have done something truly objectionable though (and ik that is a subjective term but I think we have consensus on what things those would be)

I'm fine with people getting as rich if they earn it. People shouldn't become wealthy by extracting surplus value or inheriting money, but if somebody works as a brain surgeon their whole life it's fair that they will have a lot more money than most other people.

I would disagree to some extent- but then I'd be considered far left in the US, so I don't represent the mainstream at all.

[Page]

Liberals don't hate the wealthy, since that's where their money comes from. It's one thing they have in common with conservatives.

Lol. That sounds very cynical... I would hope not all the money that liberals have is from the wealthy/the [i]extremely[i] wealthy...

but I mean, I don't think hatred of the wealthy should be desired. Privately, I think it makes sense for people to view extreme wealth as unnecessary and perhaps more than a bit distasteful... and regulations make sense too. but a baseline respect of wealthy people should exist... perhaps not when they have done something truly objectionable though (and ik that is a subjective term but I think we have consensus on what things those would be)

I don't think we should hate the wealthy but I want our society to progress to a point where the people no longer consent to the accumulation of inordinate wealth. Imagine a 5 year old kid on a playground who says "this is my slide, no one else is allowed to use it" but the other kids just laugh at him and go on the slide. We would simply decline to recognize private property anymore (we would still recognize personal property which is an entirely different thing).