I don't say it casually, Steve, and I don't say it to shock or for attention. This is my firm belief. Let's take a few of the positions of pre-alt-right conservatism.
* "strong defense" euphemises bullying and intimidation as international policy
* "fiscal conservatism" is a rationale for not giving help to those who need it
* "states' …
I don't say it casually, Steve, and I don't say it to shock or for attention. This is my firm belief. Let's take a few of the positions of pre-alt-right conservatism.
* "strong defense" euphemises bullying and intimidation as international policy
* "fiscal conservatism" is a rationale for not giving help to those who need it
* "states' rights" is to create a safe haven for bigotry and for destruction of the environment (have you ever heard it applied to any kindness?)
As for the new conservatism, the cruelty is out in the open and undeniable.
When conservatives call us groomers and communists, they are knowingly lying. When we call them cruel, we are not. I reject this symmetry.
I characterise liberals, broadly speaking, as being driven by kindness, and conservatives, broadly speaking, as being driven by stability. Both instincts are necessary in a functioning society. And both can be pursued to a fault.
All the identity politics, words are violence, you are whatever you say you are nonsense is the left going too far.
All the close the borders, "any lifestyle except a traditional christian nuclear family is evil" nonsense is the right going too far.
But they're both built on their respective instincts.
The violence we see from the left and the right, is because each side allows themselves to believe that a caricature of the other is the reality. And that their side is in existential danger. We saw how extreme this can get on J6 obviously, but also during the summer riots in 2020.
I don't say it casually, Steve, and I don't say it to shock or for attention. This is my firm belief. Let's take a few of the positions of pre-alt-right conservatism.
* "strong defense" euphemises bullying and intimidation as international policy
* "fiscal conservatism" is a rationale for not giving help to those who need it
* "states' rights" is to create a safe haven for bigotry and for destruction of the environment (have you ever heard it applied to any kindness?)
As for the new conservatism, the cruelty is out in the open and undeniable.
When conservatives call us groomers and communists, they are knowingly lying. When we call them cruel, we are not. I reject this symmetry.
I characterise liberals, broadly speaking, as being driven by kindness, and conservatives, broadly speaking, as being driven by stability. Both instincts are necessary in a functioning society. And both can be pursued to a fault.
All the identity politics, words are violence, you are whatever you say you are nonsense is the left going too far.
All the close the borders, "any lifestyle except a traditional christian nuclear family is evil" nonsense is the right going too far.
But they're both built on their respective instincts.
The violence we see from the left and the right, is because each side allows themselves to believe that a caricature of the other is the reality. And that their side is in existential danger. We saw how extreme this can get on J6 obviously, but also during the summer riots in 2020.
Perfectly said.
To bad You're delusional. You'd have some things worth listening to, if You weren't.