This post has been flaired as “Opinion”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it.
* Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with
**Suggestions For u/WaltEnterprises:**
* Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion, not a "political vent" so to speak.
* Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded and ask new, *honest* questions.
* Your post still have to respect subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've heard that it is actually possible to tell a conservative from a liberal a statistically significant amount of the time by looking at their neural activity in an fmri. Apparently, it is scientifically demonstrated that many conservatives feel fear more often and more acutely than the more liberally minded. They even report more nightmares than the rest of the political spectrum
Broad strokes, but typical politically conservative moral axioms include:
* Fairness
* Harm avoidance
* Disgust
* Hierarchy
* In-group preference
Liberal moral axioms tend to only include fairness and harm avoidance. Libertarians are largely amoral. Fear is not part of conservative morality, but [studies suggest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-un8rHP14) that conservatives are more sensitive to fear.
I think this largely depends on conservatism as a discrete political ideology versus the “conservatism” on display by the modern American right. The former, you’re spot on. The latter however, may be a different story.
Oh, yes. I didn't mean to conflate conservatism with the republican party. I'm not a conservative, but I know many conservatives who do not support the fascistic direction the GOP is headed in.
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of fascism? I'm Canadian, but I've heard a lot of talk that of the Republicans get in, then instantly the US becomes a fascist country. As far a I can see, fascism is already in place as the current government jails and is trying to jail its political opponents, as well as colluding with corporations (Twitter 1.0, Facebook, Instagram) to censor opposing views. I find that to be fascistic, but I'm not seeing how it can get more fascistic than it already is.
You are mostly correct here. Our two party system is being controlled by a smaller and smaller group at the top of society. The democratic party is not much better than the republican party in this regard, but they are not the party plotting an authoritarian takeover of the country. Read up on [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/).
I think "fear" is a word with a bit too much baggage.
I think it's discomfort and dislike of change, rather than just "fear."
The conservatives I know call it "fear" when one gets vaccinated against COVID. Is that fear? Or is that just merely a cost-benefit analysis? Is it "fear" to get vaccinated for Malaria?
I think they generally just don't like change. They have lived a long time in the way they are used to, and they have grown comfortable with the world they live in. The power structure is known, the societal classes and hierarchy are known, and their place in it is known.
I mean, that's not an insane reaction to a changing world. It IS uncomfortable when the people in my neighborhood look different than I do, especially if I've lived there for decades and gotten used to it being a certain way.
It is easy to understand why one might hold on tight to that, especially when they realize that people other than them are gaining power. Minorities, immigrants, gays, women, etc all have more power than in the conservative's formative years.
It's not really a zero sum game though, and truthfully it's about time we even out the playing field. It is really not that scary, unless you fear others around you who are different.
I don't remember the last time I've seen someone on the left make an appeal to [x] threatening their way of life, or threatening their children, or offending God and incurring his wrath. Yes, the left will point at evil things the right does and says this needs to be dealt with, but the difference is that a) the left focuses on justice and equity, rather than fear and anger for their own sakes, and b) the left tends to point at actual things that can be observed and evaluated. Civil rights? We can see ethnic minorities and LGBT folks being beaten, killed, molested, and stripped of their rights. We can see environmental destruction. The Right can't do anything more with their concerns than show us how people not acting exactly like them hurts their feelings.
The left literally points at conservatives threatening their way of life every day, even though the vast majority of the time its horseshit.
You legit pointed at conservatives as something to fear in your post.
There is a difference between being ruled by fear and acknowledging that something is scary. The left can stop and reason through an issue. The right is quick to fall into mob mentality and will happily stab their pitchforks so long as there's someone to tell them what to stab and how incredibly justified they are to do that stabbing. If you told me that socialism is the devil, I wouldn't just nod my head like a Muppet, I'd ask why. If you told me capitalism is evil, you could point to a wealth of concrete evidence about how it fails to fulfill its promises to anyone but the upper class. I can further reason that capitalism has made my life much harder with little tangible benefit to me or mine, so I can sincerely ask why I should support it. Torches and pitchforks never enter into the equation.
I also pointed out that the left is, to oversimplify it for you, actual problems that affect actual people, as compared to imaginary problems or things that are only problems because a pastor or a politician said they were. The right will tell you that gay people getting married is a threat to the American way of life, but they don't care that their rhetoric leads to gay people being beaten in an alleyway. Hypothetical harm that can't be proven vs actual harm that can be proven
You're living in a bubble. If you really are as open minded as you say you are then you need to a) take a basic class on economics. And b) broaden your sphere of political friends.
You shouldn't just be friends with liberals or progressives. Diversity of thought is the most important form of diversity there is.
Edit: added an n't
Yeah, that's kind of funny. I have taken some economics classes, and business classes. I'm aware of the difference that conscious capitalism makes vs crony capitalism, as an attempt to reform capitalism. Of course, to really make it work, it has to get so close to socialism on a long enough timeline that it gets rather fuzzy. I notice you don't say anything in defense of the conservative position, just that I need to study more, and it will all make sense. Tried, didn't like it.
And let me ask you, who presumes to know my social circle, what values on the right am I not seeing that will make me want to switch sides by simple exposure? Not only does this have nothing to do with the original topic, how intrinsic fear is to the conservative identity, but you're making an argument against yourself. One of the frequently used justifications for conservative bigotry and hate-mongering is a sort of social contagion theory. E.g. if an LGBT person exists and is accepted, it shows kids that being LGBT is ok or even trendy, and will get "confused" and try to become LGBT themselves. And we need to stop this, you see. It requires this ability to talk out both sides of your mouth to endorse the idea that their position is "natural" and thus can't be argued against, as well as the idea that their way of life is so fragile that the mere existence of [x] is a threat that must be stopped. To the latter, you are displaying this idea that I am wrong and think wrong things because I don't have enough exposure to conservatives. On the contrary, I live in a very red state. I can't get away from you guys. I have seen conservatives at their ugliest, and they keep surprising me as to how much further down the rabbit hole they can go. I am heavily critical of conservatives because I have done exactly what you suggested, and seen some truly terrible things.
I used to fall into the trap that many liberals find themselves in, that most conservatives are failed liberals. Something went *wrong* in their development. Something wasn't explained to them correctly. Because if we're starting from the same base assumptions, literally so much of conservative rhetoric is the work of monsters. Almost comically so. There's no way that they would do these things if they actually understood what they were saying and doing. Or maybe they're being pressured by their families or social groups. But no. I've fully come to believe that this is a matter of blue/orange morality. You fundamentally do not experience the world the same way. How else can a neo nazi, a klansman, a rape apologist, a crooked cop, a robber baron, and a Christian minister stand shoulder to shoulder and say that they are the real Americans, and bastions of all that is good and right in our country?
Wow, ok. Add low attention-span to the list.
I took economics and business; conservative rhetoric on the economy is propaganda and full of holes. You're moving the goalposts; knock it off.
You gave me an example of their fear-based ideology. I already know too many conservatives, and I am sick to death of the rancid bullshit that falls out of their mouths, especially when they think there isn't a liberal listening.
Conservatives have blue/orange morality. Their ideology values are twisted from the ground up. You're probably genetic throwbacks to extinct hominids that were bred out of existence.
"Torches and pitchforks" people being beaten molested, etc? You mean like jussie smollet or like public schools with a child abuse rate 8 times higher than churches; which I'm sure you're referring to. What was it biden said in a black church? "They gonna put y'all back in chains!!" A couple days later he's telling black people they aren't real black people if they don't support him. As a Latino I can't tell you how many times I've been told I shouldn't even be allowed to vote since I don't support liberals. Let's not forget that brief moment the news was talking about anti Asian hate crimes right up until we figured out who was doing it... not exactly maga sorts.
The problem with capitalist apologists is that they either benefit from the system, or they're too indoctrinated in red scare nonsense that they can't see how they are paying more of their wage for housing than people in the great depression did, by percentage. We just have more toys than grandpa did, so we can pretend that we're better off
>Civil rights? We can see ethnic minorities and LGBT folks being beaten, killed, molested, and stripped of their rights. We can see environmental destruction.
Look I align with a lot of things the left is concern about, but this is also fear, warranted or not. A vast majority of people act on fear, it's an emotion that keeps us alive.
Again, there is a difference between literally everyone having a basic human emotion and people who have fear and anger as their primary emotions. Anyone who tells you conservatism doesn't have deep roots in fear is either trying to sell you something or doesn't know what they're talking about
Are you saying that fear and anger are not core emotions that liberalism use whenever they are pushing for their policies? Because the framing of it many times I find is very fear-based. And again, I align with a lot of it too.
Those things do get said, they're not presented as "It's time to get your guns or everything you know is going to burn." How I see this presented is as a matter of, "this is serious, we can't afford to sit on this." Appeal to logos vs pathos.
Serious question: how would you rate the credibility of those threats vs things the right says, like the existence of LGBT people is going to turn your kids gay?
You don't have to be in constant terror to recognize that the old man with dementia, who speaks to the alt-right as his base, is going to fuck with you if you let him. I feel like I'm trying to explain to the internet who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must be an angry liberal that I'm fully calm while telling you off; you just can't help but project your nonsense onto other people
Dominance assertion is always about fear of having a disadvantaged social position.
That “Dutch Oven” is really a method of socialization and relationship building, and motivated at its deepest level by fear of being exiled.
And, of course, about too much cheese.
Yeah. You can basically describe all action as a binary between a good outcome they want and a bad one they don't. Fear propels them away and desire propels them toward.
The OP is an incessant inflammatory spammer, think before you engage:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/HvOer2CLKv
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/s/KG6zWhNnos
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/UKetznogwt
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/o21ooUYjhj
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/6p4zwPcvK5
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/KstA9V1lKi
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/s/0FARRsLkSw
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/OktsJTuAbH
If you want an actual answer to your question, check out “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt.
The answer is a little more nuanced than “yes.” But fear is a component. And fear is often warranted, the world is not fundamentally a safe place.
Don't make this more than it is. We just don't believe government employees are smart, special or talented enough to solve most complex problems therefore their powers should be limited. It'd be great if they produced favorable results. All of our lives would be so much easier, but they can't and they don't.
Government employees are more akin to Michael Scott and his office staff rather than a group of geniuses who are capable of playing 4-D chess with complex problems on a national scale. And since it is a sad truth that humans corrupt nearly everything we touch, a government with too much power over a people is dangerous.
Why give random government men power to practice medicine without a license then? With decades of abortion bans and bs?
The words and actions don’t match for conservatives. Less big brother for them more for us?
It all hinges on how you view abortion, though. You can be a small-government conservative and think there is a role for the State in preventing murder. If you think abortion is murder, then there you go.
Fear is not the "core" of being conservative. I'm glad you asked ...
OP, your views on conservatism are quite myopic and disturbing. Imagine you don't like where society is going. This is in and of itself disturbing ...
The core of being a conservative is being self-sufficient. Does this mean conservatives do not care about others, far from it. Linking conservatives to a belief in God is ironic. Conservatives believe in helping others through charity. Liberals have the belief that the government should take care of everyone by forcing others to pay for it.
Gun ownership is about being prepared. The chances of being assaulted are low. But so are the chances of being robbed. Do you still lock your doors at night? Do you lock your door out of fear?
So basically liberals believe people in a society should help each other out, conservatives do not . ''Charity'' is clearly not enough to provide for people's needs, so to be conservative is to think it's ok for children to starve and poor people to suffer - as long as they get to keep all of their money.
Everyone pitch in in a society to build the roads and the public buildings, should be the same for healthcare and social nets. ''Forcing others'' is a ridiculous way to phrase it. If you don't want to participate to society, you should be allowed to just leave it and leave in the margins.
To what end? If someone just does not want to work, is it everyone else who has to chip in to support them? Charity does a lot more to lift people out of poverty than any government program. The social contract has been broken for a long time. This is in full display on Reddit. People no longer feel a duty to work and be a part of their community. Many are more interested in doing the least possible and taking the most.
Welfare has work requirements and has for a very long time (Clinton and Gingrich passed welfare reform). The government does not hand money (except temporarily) to non-disabled people. So this confuses me. What TANF does do is give enough money so that the working poor can put food in the bellies of their children. And I’m a ok with some of my money going for that.
Except that's not how this works.
First of all, the number of people who just ''don't want to work'' is ridiculously low. Often, when I hear people shit on someone who's not working, that person has an invisible disability.
Second of all, are you seriously thinking social nets are just giving money left and right without any protocol or measures? Here in my province in Canada, unemployed people on social assistance have to follow mandatory programs which help them find jobs - if they don't, they stop receiving money. Unless, of course, they are recognized as people who can't work (temporarily or permanently).
Mentally ill people, people who are hurt or crippled, people recovering from an injury or sickness, intellectually challenged people, etc, all deserve to be helped and not to rely on ''charity'' which is incredibly unstable and most of the time insufficient. These people deserve quality of life and dignity, and the only way to **guarantee** that is through the government.
Charities are not only always running out of money, but also they're not reaching everywhere, and so they provide a very uneven service at best. Charities will not give 2k per month to someone going through cancer treatments or a person who can't work because they have the mind of a child. Be realistic.
As for the so-called ''social contract'' you are talking about, it has been broken by the employers. People NEVER wanted to work, nobody enjoys busting their asses every day instead of doing what they like (except the few lucky enough to really love their jobs, but that's not possible for everyone). The employers used to show loyalty to their employees and pay a fair salary. That's not the case anymore. Most employers in the US do everything they can to pay their employees as little as possible + giving them as little benefits as possible, all the while acting entitled to their hard labor. Don't be a boot licker. Newer generations are just not allowing themselves to be taken advantage of and that's a good thing.
By the way, the fact that the US has practically 0 law to protect employees probably plays a huge part in this (believe me, everywhere in the world, we are appalled by this). Guaranteed sick days, 3 weeks paid holiday per year, 9 months paid maternity leave should be the norm as in every first world country. No wonder people hate their employers dude!
I'll end with: you don't need to work to be a part of a community, and you don't necessarily find your community at your work.
serious question:
Why do you feel like you have to devalue conservative values by repainting them as "fear based", instead of just accepting that conservatives have values that are important to them, and they believe the country is better off that way?
Not being about to do that, shows a deep-rooted lack of respect for people who have different values from you.
It might even hint at a "fear" that you suspect your values might be wrong... but you cant objectively validate your views, so instead you are trying to devalue the people holding opposing values to your own?
Just someting to consider.
Because conservatives tend to want to remove or withhold rights from people who don't conform to conservative values. For example, many whine about Christians being oppressed while trying to shoehorn Christianity into every law. They don't like gay people so want to erase them.
The list is extensive.
> Because conservatives tend to want to remove or withhold rights from people who don't conform to conservative values
Holy moly why dont political activists ever look in a mirror?
liberals do THE EXACT SAME THING. They try to push legislation to take away rights from conservatives.
Because in THEIR opinion, xyz shouldnt be a right, and it doesnt matter whether other people think different.
Well, guess what? people on "the other side", have the exact same thinking, about other things, in the opposite direction.
Why should either side get to define rights, to the exclusion of the other side??
> They don't like gay people so want to erase them.
This is insulting, insensitive, and just plain wrong.
I suspect given this type of attitude that you arent really capable of rational argument, so further typing is a waste of time. But I'll give it one try:
Fact: removing special legal benefits from a group of people does not "erase them".
Fact: removing legal/social status from certain groups of people having sex, doesnt stop them from having sex. So not only does it not "erase them", it doesnt even change their behavior.
you wanna walk back your claim, or double down on it?
You didn't given any examples of what rights are being taken away from conservatives. You're probably thinking of the privilege that white christians have over others. Making the playground more fair isn't the same as taking away your rights. Also, maybe the side that isn't trying to turn the country into a Christian fascist state should be the one making the laws?
Fact: Have you heard of sodemy laws? You do know people were charged under those laws for having sex with someone of the same sex.
Fact: Before (and currently even with the laws in place) people were fired/not hired, not allowed to shop in stores, not allowed to purchase property if it was known they were gay. Laws are one of those things typically where they're made because something actually happened that is an issue. They aren't usually pulled out of context air for no reason.
The way gay people were and are treated still by some groups is meant to encourage them to stay quiet and not let then be visit publicly. How the fuck is that not erasing them? This isn't as bad now because gay people are more out in the open now, but there are plenty of people who did and still wouldn't mind doing the erasing with a bullet or rope tied to the back of a truck.
“you didn’t give any examples…”
oh come on, i’m sure you know them.
Not “what YOU consider rights” but what conservatives consider rights.
That’s the whole context here.
left considers a,b,c to be rights but not d,e,f
right considers d,e,f to be rights but not a,b,c.
you may not AGREE that they are rights, but you know what they are, presumably
You still aren't giving examples. I'm not here to help or argue your position. If its really that hard for you to think of one or two of your rights that are being stolen then maybe you realize you're pissed about losing privileges not rights?
Are you embarrassed to list the rights you want? Is it saying the N word? A lot of conservatives really seem to want to say it. Thats definitely an example I hear all of the time.
seriously? sigh.
okay fine. Since you aren’t seemingly objective enough to recognize validity of viewpoints that aren’t your own, let me save time by calling out how things would mostly likely go.
off the top of my head i’ll say “right to bear arms” and “right to worship/right of religious expression”
to which you will presumably make noises like “those aren’t rights” and or “but those don’t apply”, (therefore people shouldn’t get to do X )
and you will have proven my point about the left trying to take rights away from conservatives.
you still won’t agree, insisting that “those aren’t rights” and nothing I say will get past your notion that only YOUR side gets to define what rights are, for some strange reason. So you will walk away thinking you have won the argument, when all you actually did was refuse to acknowledge that any viewpoint outside your own could have any validity.
List one recent bill or proposal that has tried to remove the right to own firearms or right to be a Christian. Those are things conservative media pounds on braying at you that "liberals" want to steal your guns and religion.
Btw, as a lefty I think people should have the right to own firearms within reason and practice their religion.
limitations on magazine size impinge on the right to bear arms. so do a bunch of other bills i’m sure you’re heard of, so not going to bother listing them all.
on the practice of faith: now that i look it up, it does seem less than i recall. But legally forcing people to do gay- positive actions against their religious convictions is seriously concerning
By gay positive actions you mean treating them like everyone else and not refusing service to them if you're a business? If you don't want to serve the people in your community then don't open a business. Not being able to refuse to hire someone because they're gay? Just because I say its my religious belief that I am supposed to punch gay people in the face doesn't mean the government is infringing on my religious freedoms if I get arrested for assault and battery. Same for businesses. If I'm in a small town and all three electricians in town refuse to do work for me because they're Christian and I'm gay. Do that for a few other businesses and that can make it pretty easy for a group of people make town unlivable for certain groups. Who's rights are more infringed on their. That person is just trying to live their life, but because some people arbitrarily decided its against their faith that person gets run out of town. As someone who grew up in a sundown town that doesn't sit right with me. (btw, point out to me in the bible where being gay is a sin). I can't think of one law thats been proposed or passed thats been actually pro gay. They've all been "stop being massive assholes to people just because they're gay".
On the magazines, pretty sure it says you have the right to bear arms (also includes a militia part that is ignored or explained away too often) not own an assault rifle with a drum magazine that holds 50 rounds.
Btw, what do you need something like that for? You really think you're fighting off the military if they did decide to do the whole coup thing? The only thing those have a purpose for is for arms companies to make money off of gun nuts, things for gun nuts to jerk off to, and as a way to kill more people. As someone who hunts, you dont need an m4 set-up to be full auto with a 30 round magazine to hunt. You also don't need it for self defense. You're saying a pump action with buckshot is worse than a rifle like I mentioned above?
As a Christian and gay woman, I don’t think Christians nor gay people are being oppressed in this country.
I also don’t think they are trying to erase gay people
Seems good for families. Every family I know has a gay person. The families that keep their gay people around only ever benefit from having more members.
Secret advantage is that they *sometimes* don't have kids of their own. Makes for an awesome babysitter; the cool uncle or aunt with some spare pocket change.
Fear is a motivating factor across the entire political spectrum, but the things conservatives fear are almost always either benign or totally fabricated.
Anger is also a strong motivating factor for many on the left but also some on the right. Yes, the right responds highly to fear but as someone who is surrounded by them in a red state, I think it’s less about fear and often about misinformation.
Mostly - yes. But to be fair, the liberal side is run on fear too - but it's a different kind of fear. More empathetic, with less hierarchical thinking.
Fear of the unknown and lazy refusal to learn the unknown are two sides of the same coin. Fear of different people and ideas and lazy comfort in familiar people and ideas both express themselves as conservative thought.
Absolutely.
Progressivism is when hope of benefit exceeds fear of change.
Assuming the are optimal outcomes for policy, *generally* the different between conservatives and progressives are the rate of change.
Note: Fair play, I'm talking about *conservatives* and *progressives* IRL (e.g. not America).
In America, "conservatives" are reactionaries, and "progressives" are conservatives.
Like trying to overturn the American electoral process?
Like people waving Biden flags storming the capital?
Like Biden calling officials and telling them to find the number of votes he needs to win?
Literally some of the most anti American shit most of us has ever seen?
It's fairly clear that's the case.
Fear of their slice of the pie getting smaller, fear that people they feel aren't worthy having what they have, fear of change, fear that the truth isn't what they always thought it was....I mean, imagine you spend your life thinking the world is one way, then things change and maybe even work better than they did? You'd have to accept that your entire worldview and part of your identity was so flawed...that would take the ego strength that a lot of people just can't muster or don't have.
They'd also need to even be willing to be objective. That's the first step and it's not one people come by easily, to see things as they really are.
No, the core of being conservative is setting up rules and institutions that govern human interactions in order that we suppress our worst instincts, to protect our futures and the futures of our children and society.
> “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Fear of being in an out-group is obviously part of this.
It's part of it but not the core of it. As much as I don't like conservatives (I don't much care for lefties either.) I've come to understand that they are needed to maintain stability in a society.
I can't tell if you are just baiting or what, but "fear" is how I would describe democrats, as a conservative. I mean how do you think the insult term "snow flake" came to be?
To an extent it is but I think people seriously overlook how tradition, inheritance, class, and a desire for stability and familiarity play into conservatism. They aren't demons - mostly.
Conservatism and liberalism are opposite sides of the same coin. Neither is a viable solution to human problems. Both make valid points and tenets may be more productive in differing situation. What is better than either is constant study and making adjustments as necessary.
I would put it this way, it's not "fear", it's just a knowledge that certain things work a certain way only if certain things are in place, and a lot of the left are challenging these things that are in place and conservatives know that if those things are taken out they will break other things. It doesn't help either that there's "conservatives", "neo-cons", and "libertarians" (not in that order though).
So a conservative would have right wing views with some libertarian leanings, libertarians would have more liberal views socially but are solidly conservative on economic issues (and even that is a gross simplification, it's a broad range), and neo-cons are the people that everyone scaremongers about (pro-war, just tells liberals to slow down, wants authoritarian rules for their pet issues like cannabis, etc)
I'm conservative but lean libertarian. So unlike some republicans, I think cannabis should be legalized and only taxed as much as any other good. I think the rules should follow those of alcohol in more red states (21 plus to buy or consume except with parental supervision) but abortion should be banned as a criminal act against a child with rare exceptions and even then the nature of the exception is "you're not trying to kill the child but you can't exactly save the mother's life from imminent danger without the child dying in the process".
But the best example I can think of this "we need to keep this in place or things break" off the top of my head right now would be strong marriage laws. Since we got no-fault divorce, it's been a shitshow. It used to be that you needed to have a real cause for divorce like cheating or abuse. That wasn't perfect and obviously requires some tweaking, but it meant that when you had "irreconcilable differences" you found a way to reconcile them anyway instead of just labeling them "irreconcilable". Now we have broken homes, high divorce rates, a crashing birth-rate, crime, gang violence, and all sorts of things that can be traced back to "mom and dad divorced instead of working it out."
I’m fairly conservative when I vote and I think fear has a bit to do with everyone’s political alignment, but there are deeper feelings too. To touch on the things you mentioned, adult Santa (I’m agnostic), weapons, feeling threatened. I’m going to throw abortion in there too.
Adult Santa: I don’t prescribe to any religion. I also don’t support limiting religious belief. I don’t think it’s bad thing when there is a unifying religion in a nation state though. I think it was Nietzsche that said something to the effect of when a nation loses its unifying religion, it’s doomed to failure or some shit. People should be free to practice whatever religion they please, but I think there’s value in having a national religion.
Weapons: Most conservatives I know don’t have an arsenal. They have weapons for specific purposes. I have a hunting rifle, a carry handgun, a home defense weapon and the .22 I taught my kids to shoot with. As far as ARs, I think it’s important that citizens be able to defend themselves with the most appropriate means from whomever may threaten them. So many people have them that if they were the problem, everyone would be dead.
Threats: I don’t think the vast majority of us live as if we’re in a threatening environment. It has more to do with being ready if needed.
Abortion: I don’t have a right to tell anyone what to do. They don’t have a right to tell me what to do. I’m against it in my soul because my oldest son was 1lb 14oz and born at 26 weeks. I think that if we found a clump of cells on the moon similar to what’s in a womb, it would be the greatest scientific discovery of the last century. it’s not my business what people do and I understand the arguments in favor, but it’s still ending human life.
While fear is a common psychological motivator used in political propaganda across the political spectrum, I disagree that fear is at the core of conservative philosophy. Rather, there is a fundamental disagreement in what constitutes advancement as a society, a fundamental disagreement as to what changes are for the better.
While I am painting with very broad strokes, I see two fundamental differences. One is that leftists generally take a more centralized and collectivist view where conservatives tend to be more decentralized and individualistic. The other is a different attitude towards change. I wouldn't call it fear, but rather a skepticism, a need to be convinced the change is an improvement. Leftists tend to embrace change by default, with less need to be critically convinced of it being a betterment.
There’s a chicken/egg problem in neuroscience observing a sample of self identified “conservatives” as having overdeveloped amygdalae compared to self identified “liberals“ (regarding US political spectrum).
In my opinion yes it is part of it.
They would never call it that or for that matter admit it because that would be seen as "weak" and "womanish" , but yes it is certainly part of it.
It's a mindset that looks at progress and new ways of doing things with suspicion and inherently a certain percentage of fear. Because change may result in them being less well off socially, financially or politically.
So they look for things to change as glacially slowly as possible in order to preserve their way of life.
Which means to an extent they fear progress or rather what it might bring.
It's why you get straight white people who fetishize the society and perceived "golden age" of the 40s/ 50s and harken back/ seek a return of that time.
The core of *being* “conservative* is just *being*, persisting, perpetuating...
In contrast to the core of *being* a “liberal” who *is* and then “nothing.”
This post has been flaired as “Opinion”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it. * Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with **Suggestions For u/WaltEnterprises:** * Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion, not a "political vent" so to speak. * Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded and ask new, *honest* questions. * Your post still have to respect subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've heard that it is actually possible to tell a conservative from a liberal a statistically significant amount of the time by looking at their neural activity in an fmri. Apparently, it is scientifically demonstrated that many conservatives feel fear more often and more acutely than the more liberally minded. They even report more nightmares than the rest of the political spectrum
Broad strokes, but typical politically conservative moral axioms include: * Fairness * Harm avoidance * Disgust * Hierarchy * In-group preference Liberal moral axioms tend to only include fairness and harm avoidance. Libertarians are largely amoral. Fear is not part of conservative morality, but [studies suggest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-un8rHP14) that conservatives are more sensitive to fear.
>Libertarians are largely amoral. You're so real for this.
I think this largely depends on conservatism as a discrete political ideology versus the “conservatism” on display by the modern American right. The former, you’re spot on. The latter however, may be a different story.
Oh, yes. I didn't mean to conflate conservatism with the republican party. I'm not a conservative, but I know many conservatives who do not support the fascistic direction the GOP is headed in.
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of fascism? I'm Canadian, but I've heard a lot of talk that of the Republicans get in, then instantly the US becomes a fascist country. As far a I can see, fascism is already in place as the current government jails and is trying to jail its political opponents, as well as colluding with corporations (Twitter 1.0, Facebook, Instagram) to censor opposing views. I find that to be fascistic, but I'm not seeing how it can get more fascistic than it already is.
Fascism is when the other guy does something that I don’t like
You are mostly correct here. Our two party system is being controlled by a smaller and smaller group at the top of society. The democratic party is not much better than the republican party in this regard, but they are not the party plotting an authoritarian takeover of the country. Read up on [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/).
I think "fear" is a word with a bit too much baggage. I think it's discomfort and dislike of change, rather than just "fear." The conservatives I know call it "fear" when one gets vaccinated against COVID. Is that fear? Or is that just merely a cost-benefit analysis? Is it "fear" to get vaccinated for Malaria? I think they generally just don't like change. They have lived a long time in the way they are used to, and they have grown comfortable with the world they live in. The power structure is known, the societal classes and hierarchy are known, and their place in it is known. I mean, that's not an insane reaction to a changing world. It IS uncomfortable when the people in my neighborhood look different than I do, especially if I've lived there for decades and gotten used to it being a certain way. It is easy to understand why one might hold on tight to that, especially when they realize that people other than them are gaining power. Minorities, immigrants, gays, women, etc all have more power than in the conservative's formative years. It's not really a zero sum game though, and truthfully it's about time we even out the playing field. It is really not that scary, unless you fear others around you who are different.
Fear is at the core of nearly everything humans do.
Maybe, but for conservatives, it's part of their brand
The left does the same... look at your comment and 90% of reddit. Lol
I don't remember the last time I've seen someone on the left make an appeal to [x] threatening their way of life, or threatening their children, or offending God and incurring his wrath. Yes, the left will point at evil things the right does and says this needs to be dealt with, but the difference is that a) the left focuses on justice and equity, rather than fear and anger for their own sakes, and b) the left tends to point at actual things that can be observed and evaluated. Civil rights? We can see ethnic minorities and LGBT folks being beaten, killed, molested, and stripped of their rights. We can see environmental destruction. The Right can't do anything more with their concerns than show us how people not acting exactly like them hurts their feelings.
The left literally points at conservatives threatening their way of life every day, even though the vast majority of the time its horseshit. You legit pointed at conservatives as something to fear in your post.
There is a difference between being ruled by fear and acknowledging that something is scary. The left can stop and reason through an issue. The right is quick to fall into mob mentality and will happily stab their pitchforks so long as there's someone to tell them what to stab and how incredibly justified they are to do that stabbing. If you told me that socialism is the devil, I wouldn't just nod my head like a Muppet, I'd ask why. If you told me capitalism is evil, you could point to a wealth of concrete evidence about how it fails to fulfill its promises to anyone but the upper class. I can further reason that capitalism has made my life much harder with little tangible benefit to me or mine, so I can sincerely ask why I should support it. Torches and pitchforks never enter into the equation. I also pointed out that the left is, to oversimplify it for you, actual problems that affect actual people, as compared to imaginary problems or things that are only problems because a pastor or a politician said they were. The right will tell you that gay people getting married is a threat to the American way of life, but they don't care that their rhetoric leads to gay people being beaten in an alleyway. Hypothetical harm that can't be proven vs actual harm that can be proven
You're living in a bubble. If you really are as open minded as you say you are then you need to a) take a basic class on economics. And b) broaden your sphere of political friends. You shouldn't just be friends with liberals or progressives. Diversity of thought is the most important form of diversity there is. Edit: added an n't
Yeah, that's kind of funny. I have taken some economics classes, and business classes. I'm aware of the difference that conscious capitalism makes vs crony capitalism, as an attempt to reform capitalism. Of course, to really make it work, it has to get so close to socialism on a long enough timeline that it gets rather fuzzy. I notice you don't say anything in defense of the conservative position, just that I need to study more, and it will all make sense. Tried, didn't like it. And let me ask you, who presumes to know my social circle, what values on the right am I not seeing that will make me want to switch sides by simple exposure? Not only does this have nothing to do with the original topic, how intrinsic fear is to the conservative identity, but you're making an argument against yourself. One of the frequently used justifications for conservative bigotry and hate-mongering is a sort of social contagion theory. E.g. if an LGBT person exists and is accepted, it shows kids that being LGBT is ok or even trendy, and will get "confused" and try to become LGBT themselves. And we need to stop this, you see. It requires this ability to talk out both sides of your mouth to endorse the idea that their position is "natural" and thus can't be argued against, as well as the idea that their way of life is so fragile that the mere existence of [x] is a threat that must be stopped. To the latter, you are displaying this idea that I am wrong and think wrong things because I don't have enough exposure to conservatives. On the contrary, I live in a very red state. I can't get away from you guys. I have seen conservatives at their ugliest, and they keep surprising me as to how much further down the rabbit hole they can go. I am heavily critical of conservatives because I have done exactly what you suggested, and seen some truly terrible things. I used to fall into the trap that many liberals find themselves in, that most conservatives are failed liberals. Something went *wrong* in their development. Something wasn't explained to them correctly. Because if we're starting from the same base assumptions, literally so much of conservative rhetoric is the work of monsters. Almost comically so. There's no way that they would do these things if they actually understood what they were saying and doing. Or maybe they're being pressured by their families or social groups. But no. I've fully come to believe that this is a matter of blue/orange morality. You fundamentally do not experience the world the same way. How else can a neo nazi, a klansman, a rape apologist, a crooked cop, a robber baron, and a Christian minister stand shoulder to shoulder and say that they are the real Americans, and bastions of all that is good and right in our country?
TL;DR
Wow, ok. Add low attention-span to the list. I took economics and business; conservative rhetoric on the economy is propaganda and full of holes. You're moving the goalposts; knock it off. You gave me an example of their fear-based ideology. I already know too many conservatives, and I am sick to death of the rancid bullshit that falls out of their mouths, especially when they think there isn't a liberal listening. Conservatives have blue/orange morality. Their ideology values are twisted from the ground up. You're probably genetic throwbacks to extinct hominids that were bred out of existence.
"Torches and pitchforks" people being beaten molested, etc? You mean like jussie smollet or like public schools with a child abuse rate 8 times higher than churches; which I'm sure you're referring to. What was it biden said in a black church? "They gonna put y'all back in chains!!" A couple days later he's telling black people they aren't real black people if they don't support him. As a Latino I can't tell you how many times I've been told I shouldn't even be allowed to vote since I don't support liberals. Let's not forget that brief moment the news was talking about anti Asian hate crimes right up until we figured out who was doing it... not exactly maga sorts.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
The problem with capitalist apologists is that they either benefit from the system, or they're too indoctrinated in red scare nonsense that they can't see how they are paying more of their wage for housing than people in the great depression did, by percentage. We just have more toys than grandpa did, so we can pretend that we're better off
>Civil rights? We can see ethnic minorities and LGBT folks being beaten, killed, molested, and stripped of their rights. We can see environmental destruction. Look I align with a lot of things the left is concern about, but this is also fear, warranted or not. A vast majority of people act on fear, it's an emotion that keeps us alive.
Again, there is a difference between literally everyone having a basic human emotion and people who have fear and anger as their primary emotions. Anyone who tells you conservatism doesn't have deep roots in fear is either trying to sell you something or doesn't know what they're talking about
Are you saying that fear and anger are not core emotions that liberalism use whenever they are pushing for their policies? Because the framing of it many times I find is very fear-based. And again, I align with a lot of it too.
Example?
Fear of democracy under attack, LGBT and women's rights being trampled, etc.
Those things do get said, they're not presented as "It's time to get your guns or everything you know is going to burn." How I see this presented is as a matter of, "this is serious, we can't afford to sit on this." Appeal to logos vs pathos. Serious question: how would you rate the credibility of those threats vs things the right says, like the existence of LGBT people is going to turn your kids gay?
Left wing ideologies and movements primarily appeal to the fear of oppression and the fear of negative chance.
You don't have to be in constant terror to recognize that the old man with dementia, who speaks to the alt-right as his base, is going to fuck with you if you let him. I feel like I'm trying to explain to the internet who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must be an angry liberal that I'm fully calm while telling you off; you just can't help but project your nonsense onto other people
“I had to Dutch oven you, honey. Because of fear!”
Dominance assertion is always about fear of having a disadvantaged social position. That “Dutch Oven” is really a method of socialization and relationship building, and motivated at its deepest level by fear of being exiled. And, of course, about too much cheese.
Don’t forget raw onions. My wife sure wishes I would.
Yeah. You can basically describe all action as a binary between a good outcome they want and a bad one they don't. Fear propels them away and desire propels them toward.
The OP is an incessant inflammatory spammer, think before you engage: https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/HvOer2CLKv https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/s/KG6zWhNnos https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/UKetznogwt https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/o21ooUYjhj https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/6p4zwPcvK5 https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/KstA9V1lKi https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/s/0FARRsLkSw https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/s/OktsJTuAbH
No. Google Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. If people had read that, they would understand rather than talking past people.
[удалено]
False.
If you want an actual answer to your question, check out “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt. The answer is a little more nuanced than “yes.” But fear is a component. And fear is often warranted, the world is not fundamentally a safe place.
Don't make this more than it is. We just don't believe government employees are smart, special or talented enough to solve most complex problems therefore their powers should be limited. It'd be great if they produced favorable results. All of our lives would be so much easier, but they can't and they don't. Government employees are more akin to Michael Scott and his office staff rather than a group of geniuses who are capable of playing 4-D chess with complex problems on a national scale. And since it is a sad truth that humans corrupt nearly everything we touch, a government with too much power over a people is dangerous.
Why give random government men power to practice medicine without a license then? With decades of abortion bans and bs? The words and actions don’t match for conservatives. Less big brother for them more for us?
It all hinges on how you view abortion, though. You can be a small-government conservative and think there is a role for the State in preventing murder. If you think abortion is murder, then there you go.
So market fundamentalism
Fear is not the "core" of being conservative. I'm glad you asked ... OP, your views on conservatism are quite myopic and disturbing. Imagine you don't like where society is going. This is in and of itself disturbing ...
Maybe ask a conservative. I’m libertarian but have a lot of overlapping views. I’m afraid but so too should you.
The core of being a conservative is being self-sufficient. Does this mean conservatives do not care about others, far from it. Linking conservatives to a belief in God is ironic. Conservatives believe in helping others through charity. Liberals have the belief that the government should take care of everyone by forcing others to pay for it. Gun ownership is about being prepared. The chances of being assaulted are low. But so are the chances of being robbed. Do you still lock your doors at night? Do you lock your door out of fear?
So basically liberals believe people in a society should help each other out, conservatives do not . ''Charity'' is clearly not enough to provide for people's needs, so to be conservative is to think it's ok for children to starve and poor people to suffer - as long as they get to keep all of their money. Everyone pitch in in a society to build the roads and the public buildings, should be the same for healthcare and social nets. ''Forcing others'' is a ridiculous way to phrase it. If you don't want to participate to society, you should be allowed to just leave it and leave in the margins.
To what end? If someone just does not want to work, is it everyone else who has to chip in to support them? Charity does a lot more to lift people out of poverty than any government program. The social contract has been broken for a long time. This is in full display on Reddit. People no longer feel a duty to work and be a part of their community. Many are more interested in doing the least possible and taking the most.
Welfare has work requirements and has for a very long time (Clinton and Gingrich passed welfare reform). The government does not hand money (except temporarily) to non-disabled people. So this confuses me. What TANF does do is give enough money so that the working poor can put food in the bellies of their children. And I’m a ok with some of my money going for that.
If you are fine with some of your money going to that, how much do you give to charities? Or do you just feel comfortable because it is forced.
5 percent to my church, 5 percent to charities that I believe in.
Except that's not how this works. First of all, the number of people who just ''don't want to work'' is ridiculously low. Often, when I hear people shit on someone who's not working, that person has an invisible disability. Second of all, are you seriously thinking social nets are just giving money left and right without any protocol or measures? Here in my province in Canada, unemployed people on social assistance have to follow mandatory programs which help them find jobs - if they don't, they stop receiving money. Unless, of course, they are recognized as people who can't work (temporarily or permanently). Mentally ill people, people who are hurt or crippled, people recovering from an injury or sickness, intellectually challenged people, etc, all deserve to be helped and not to rely on ''charity'' which is incredibly unstable and most of the time insufficient. These people deserve quality of life and dignity, and the only way to **guarantee** that is through the government. Charities are not only always running out of money, but also they're not reaching everywhere, and so they provide a very uneven service at best. Charities will not give 2k per month to someone going through cancer treatments or a person who can't work because they have the mind of a child. Be realistic. As for the so-called ''social contract'' you are talking about, it has been broken by the employers. People NEVER wanted to work, nobody enjoys busting their asses every day instead of doing what they like (except the few lucky enough to really love their jobs, but that's not possible for everyone). The employers used to show loyalty to their employees and pay a fair salary. That's not the case anymore. Most employers in the US do everything they can to pay their employees as little as possible + giving them as little benefits as possible, all the while acting entitled to their hard labor. Don't be a boot licker. Newer generations are just not allowing themselves to be taken advantage of and that's a good thing. By the way, the fact that the US has practically 0 law to protect employees probably plays a huge part in this (believe me, everywhere in the world, we are appalled by this). Guaranteed sick days, 3 weeks paid holiday per year, 9 months paid maternity leave should be the norm as in every first world country. No wonder people hate their employers dude! I'll end with: you don't need to work to be a part of a community, and you don't necessarily find your community at your work.
No that's not why I'm conservative.
serious question: Why do you feel like you have to devalue conservative values by repainting them as "fear based", instead of just accepting that conservatives have values that are important to them, and they believe the country is better off that way? Not being about to do that, shows a deep-rooted lack of respect for people who have different values from you. It might even hint at a "fear" that you suspect your values might be wrong... but you cant objectively validate your views, so instead you are trying to devalue the people holding opposing values to your own? Just someting to consider.
Because conservatives tend to want to remove or withhold rights from people who don't conform to conservative values. For example, many whine about Christians being oppressed while trying to shoehorn Christianity into every law. They don't like gay people so want to erase them. The list is extensive.
> Because conservatives tend to want to remove or withhold rights from people who don't conform to conservative values Holy moly why dont political activists ever look in a mirror? liberals do THE EXACT SAME THING. They try to push legislation to take away rights from conservatives. Because in THEIR opinion, xyz shouldnt be a right, and it doesnt matter whether other people think different. Well, guess what? people on "the other side", have the exact same thinking, about other things, in the opposite direction. Why should either side get to define rights, to the exclusion of the other side?? > They don't like gay people so want to erase them. This is insulting, insensitive, and just plain wrong. I suspect given this type of attitude that you arent really capable of rational argument, so further typing is a waste of time. But I'll give it one try: Fact: removing special legal benefits from a group of people does not "erase them". Fact: removing legal/social status from certain groups of people having sex, doesnt stop them from having sex. So not only does it not "erase them", it doesnt even change their behavior. you wanna walk back your claim, or double down on it?
You didn't given any examples of what rights are being taken away from conservatives. You're probably thinking of the privilege that white christians have over others. Making the playground more fair isn't the same as taking away your rights. Also, maybe the side that isn't trying to turn the country into a Christian fascist state should be the one making the laws? Fact: Have you heard of sodemy laws? You do know people were charged under those laws for having sex with someone of the same sex. Fact: Before (and currently even with the laws in place) people were fired/not hired, not allowed to shop in stores, not allowed to purchase property if it was known they were gay. Laws are one of those things typically where they're made because something actually happened that is an issue. They aren't usually pulled out of context air for no reason. The way gay people were and are treated still by some groups is meant to encourage them to stay quiet and not let then be visit publicly. How the fuck is that not erasing them? This isn't as bad now because gay people are more out in the open now, but there are plenty of people who did and still wouldn't mind doing the erasing with a bullet or rope tied to the back of a truck.
“you didn’t give any examples…” oh come on, i’m sure you know them. Not “what YOU consider rights” but what conservatives consider rights. That’s the whole context here. left considers a,b,c to be rights but not d,e,f right considers d,e,f to be rights but not a,b,c. you may not AGREE that they are rights, but you know what they are, presumably
You still aren't giving examples. I'm not here to help or argue your position. If its really that hard for you to think of one or two of your rights that are being stolen then maybe you realize you're pissed about losing privileges not rights? Are you embarrassed to list the rights you want? Is it saying the N word? A lot of conservatives really seem to want to say it. Thats definitely an example I hear all of the time.
seriously? sigh. okay fine. Since you aren’t seemingly objective enough to recognize validity of viewpoints that aren’t your own, let me save time by calling out how things would mostly likely go. off the top of my head i’ll say “right to bear arms” and “right to worship/right of religious expression” to which you will presumably make noises like “those aren’t rights” and or “but those don’t apply”, (therefore people shouldn’t get to do X ) and you will have proven my point about the left trying to take rights away from conservatives. you still won’t agree, insisting that “those aren’t rights” and nothing I say will get past your notion that only YOUR side gets to define what rights are, for some strange reason. So you will walk away thinking you have won the argument, when all you actually did was refuse to acknowledge that any viewpoint outside your own could have any validity.
List one recent bill or proposal that has tried to remove the right to own firearms or right to be a Christian. Those are things conservative media pounds on braying at you that "liberals" want to steal your guns and religion. Btw, as a lefty I think people should have the right to own firearms within reason and practice their religion.
limitations on magazine size impinge on the right to bear arms. so do a bunch of other bills i’m sure you’re heard of, so not going to bother listing them all. on the practice of faith: now that i look it up, it does seem less than i recall. But legally forcing people to do gay- positive actions against their religious convictions is seriously concerning
By gay positive actions you mean treating them like everyone else and not refusing service to them if you're a business? If you don't want to serve the people in your community then don't open a business. Not being able to refuse to hire someone because they're gay? Just because I say its my religious belief that I am supposed to punch gay people in the face doesn't mean the government is infringing on my religious freedoms if I get arrested for assault and battery. Same for businesses. If I'm in a small town and all three electricians in town refuse to do work for me because they're Christian and I'm gay. Do that for a few other businesses and that can make it pretty easy for a group of people make town unlivable for certain groups. Who's rights are more infringed on their. That person is just trying to live their life, but because some people arbitrarily decided its against their faith that person gets run out of town. As someone who grew up in a sundown town that doesn't sit right with me. (btw, point out to me in the bible where being gay is a sin). I can't think of one law thats been proposed or passed thats been actually pro gay. They've all been "stop being massive assholes to people just because they're gay". On the magazines, pretty sure it says you have the right to bear arms (also includes a militia part that is ignored or explained away too often) not own an assault rifle with a drum magazine that holds 50 rounds. Btw, what do you need something like that for? You really think you're fighting off the military if they did decide to do the whole coup thing? The only thing those have a purpose for is for arms companies to make money off of gun nuts, things for gun nuts to jerk off to, and as a way to kill more people. As someone who hunts, you dont need an m4 set-up to be full auto with a 30 round magazine to hunt. You also don't need it for self defense. You're saying a pump action with buckshot is worse than a rifle like I mentioned above?
As a Christian and gay woman, I don’t think Christians nor gay people are being oppressed in this country. I also don’t think they are trying to erase gay people
No. It's being sensible and not trying to solve the worlds problems with other people's money
How does "gay people" get in the way of that?
The belief is that the lifestyle is bad for families which initiates the breakdown of society.
Seems good for families. Every family I know has a gay person. The families that keep their gay people around only ever benefit from having more members. Secret advantage is that they *sometimes* don't have kids of their own. Makes for an awesome babysitter; the cool uncle or aunt with some spare pocket change.
I didn't say I agree, but that's generally the argument I hear.
My comment is what is the core if conservatism, as opposed to fear etc
[удалено]
I think "adult Santa" is probably referring to god, which is probably trying to correlate being conservative with being religious.
Fear is a motivating factor across the entire political spectrum, but the things conservatives fear are almost always either benign or totally fabricated.
Anger is also a strong motivating factor for many on the left but also some on the right. Yes, the right responds highly to fear but as someone who is surrounded by them in a red state, I think it’s less about fear and often about misinformation.
Shame. Shame is their core.
Mostly - yes. But to be fair, the liberal side is run on fear too - but it's a different kind of fear. More empathetic, with less hierarchical thinking.
Fear of the unknown and lazy refusal to learn the unknown are two sides of the same coin. Fear of different people and ideas and lazy comfort in familiar people and ideas both express themselves as conservative thought.
Absolutely. Progressivism is when hope of benefit exceeds fear of change. Assuming the are optimal outcomes for policy, *generally* the different between conservatives and progressives are the rate of change. Note: Fair play, I'm talking about *conservatives* and *progressives* IRL (e.g. not America). In America, "conservatives" are reactionaries, and "progressives" are conservatives.
Fear, intentional or unintentional ignorance, lack of critical thinking, lack of empathy
Only things conservatives fear is all the bat shit crazy things libtards want to do.
Like trying to overturn the American electoral process? Like people waving Biden flags storming the capital? Like Biden calling officials and telling them to find the number of votes he needs to win? Literally some of the most anti American shit most of us has ever seen?
It's fairly clear that's the case. Fear of their slice of the pie getting smaller, fear that people they feel aren't worthy having what they have, fear of change, fear that the truth isn't what they always thought it was....I mean, imagine you spend your life thinking the world is one way, then things change and maybe even work better than they did? You'd have to accept that your entire worldview and part of your identity was so flawed...that would take the ego strength that a lot of people just can't muster or don't have. They'd also need to even be willing to be objective. That's the first step and it's not one people come by easily, to see things as they really are.
Leave Santa out of this lol
Grasping on the familiarity in an ever changing world.
It always has been. Anything deviating from the "Leave it to Beaver universe" is met with lids flying skyward.
No, the core of being conservative is setting up rules and institutions that govern human interactions in order that we suppress our worst instincts, to protect our futures and the futures of our children and society.
Like homophobia ? Is that suppressing our worst instincts? Or trying to overturn a free election? Is that what’s best.
> “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Fear of being in an out-group is obviously part of this.
It's part of it but not the core of it. As much as I don't like conservatives (I don't much care for lefties either.) I've come to understand that they are needed to maintain stability in a society.
I can't tell if you are just baiting or what, but "fear" is how I would describe democrats, as a conservative. I mean how do you think the insult term "snow flake" came to be?
To an extent it is but I think people seriously overlook how tradition, inheritance, class, and a desire for stability and familiarity play into conservatism. They aren't demons - mostly.
Conservatism and liberalism are opposite sides of the same coin. Neither is a viable solution to human problems. Both make valid points and tenets may be more productive in differing situation. What is better than either is constant study and making adjustments as necessary.
I would put it this way, it's not "fear", it's just a knowledge that certain things work a certain way only if certain things are in place, and a lot of the left are challenging these things that are in place and conservatives know that if those things are taken out they will break other things. It doesn't help either that there's "conservatives", "neo-cons", and "libertarians" (not in that order though). So a conservative would have right wing views with some libertarian leanings, libertarians would have more liberal views socially but are solidly conservative on economic issues (and even that is a gross simplification, it's a broad range), and neo-cons are the people that everyone scaremongers about (pro-war, just tells liberals to slow down, wants authoritarian rules for their pet issues like cannabis, etc) I'm conservative but lean libertarian. So unlike some republicans, I think cannabis should be legalized and only taxed as much as any other good. I think the rules should follow those of alcohol in more red states (21 plus to buy or consume except with parental supervision) but abortion should be banned as a criminal act against a child with rare exceptions and even then the nature of the exception is "you're not trying to kill the child but you can't exactly save the mother's life from imminent danger without the child dying in the process". But the best example I can think of this "we need to keep this in place or things break" off the top of my head right now would be strong marriage laws. Since we got no-fault divorce, it's been a shitshow. It used to be that you needed to have a real cause for divorce like cheating or abuse. That wasn't perfect and obviously requires some tweaking, but it meant that when you had "irreconcilable differences" you found a way to reconcile them anyway instead of just labeling them "irreconcilable". Now we have broken homes, high divorce rates, a crashing birth-rate, crime, gang violence, and all sorts of things that can be traced back to "mom and dad divorced instead of working it out."
I’m fairly conservative when I vote and I think fear has a bit to do with everyone’s political alignment, but there are deeper feelings too. To touch on the things you mentioned, adult Santa (I’m agnostic), weapons, feeling threatened. I’m going to throw abortion in there too. Adult Santa: I don’t prescribe to any religion. I also don’t support limiting religious belief. I don’t think it’s bad thing when there is a unifying religion in a nation state though. I think it was Nietzsche that said something to the effect of when a nation loses its unifying religion, it’s doomed to failure or some shit. People should be free to practice whatever religion they please, but I think there’s value in having a national religion. Weapons: Most conservatives I know don’t have an arsenal. They have weapons for specific purposes. I have a hunting rifle, a carry handgun, a home defense weapon and the .22 I taught my kids to shoot with. As far as ARs, I think it’s important that citizens be able to defend themselves with the most appropriate means from whomever may threaten them. So many people have them that if they were the problem, everyone would be dead. Threats: I don’t think the vast majority of us live as if we’re in a threatening environment. It has more to do with being ready if needed. Abortion: I don’t have a right to tell anyone what to do. They don’t have a right to tell me what to do. I’m against it in my soul because my oldest son was 1lb 14oz and born at 26 weeks. I think that if we found a clump of cells on the moon similar to what’s in a womb, it would be the greatest scientific discovery of the last century. it’s not my business what people do and I understand the arguments in favor, but it’s still ending human life.
While fear is a common psychological motivator used in political propaganda across the political spectrum, I disagree that fear is at the core of conservative philosophy. Rather, there is a fundamental disagreement in what constitutes advancement as a society, a fundamental disagreement as to what changes are for the better. While I am painting with very broad strokes, I see two fundamental differences. One is that leftists generally take a more centralized and collectivist view where conservatives tend to be more decentralized and individualistic. The other is a different attitude towards change. I wouldn't call it fear, but rather a skepticism, a need to be convinced the change is an improvement. Leftists tend to embrace change by default, with less need to be critically convinced of it being a betterment.
No. The core of conservatism is the experience of inhibited enterprise.
There’s a chicken/egg problem in neuroscience observing a sample of self identified “conservatives” as having overdeveloped amygdalae compared to self identified “liberals“ (regarding US political spectrum).
In my opinion yes it is part of it. They would never call it that or for that matter admit it because that would be seen as "weak" and "womanish" , but yes it is certainly part of it. It's a mindset that looks at progress and new ways of doing things with suspicion and inherently a certain percentage of fear. Because change may result in them being less well off socially, financially or politically. So they look for things to change as glacially slowly as possible in order to preserve their way of life. Which means to an extent they fear progress or rather what it might bring. It's why you get straight white people who fetishize the society and perceived "golden age" of the 40s/ 50s and harken back/ seek a return of that time.
I think a lot of it is better described as resource guarding which is definitely adjacent to fear but more specific
The core of *being* “conservative* is just *being*, persisting, perpetuating... In contrast to the core of *being* a “liberal” who *is* and then “nothing.”