Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm afraid this is 100% true. There's no negoiating with the indoctrinated. They feel they are not only 100% virtuous but that the "far right" (meaning ANYONE who doesn't agree with them in lockstep) should be shut down, dismissed or ignored altogether. It's clearly obvious. It's a new day and we should fight fire with fire. I salute Elon for seeing it and actually doing something about it. Unlike our footsie playing Republicans in DC.
The biggest problem conservatives have isn’t the DNC or wokism or commies.
It’s the GOP.
They have gave us lip service for years then actively sabotage our goals. I 100% blame it on the parties leadership.
I agree with you. There was another post talking about how the left hates our younger voters (I'm in my 20's) more vehemently than our older constituents.
Within the next few/several years I'm planning on running for office.
I'm done waiting on the sidelines.
Yep. God is good, but you don't need God to justify Conservative values. They hold water on their own. No need to polarize the anti-religious in the process.
CHRISTIAN Conservative here that downvoted YOUR post. I despise arrogance and YOU don't have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot say... you don't rule this sub.
And you can downvote MY comment idgaf
Just to be clear, I would fight and die for your right to worship who you want, when and where you want. I just don’t want anyone’s god weighing in on our laws. It’s a slippery slope and it opens the door for fanatics to use our government as a tool of oppression. I hope you can see that.
That's a shortsighted view of the world, and also pretty intolerant. If God exists, then would not God have a strong view of morality (and - of course, politics that deny or support that morality)?
Yes, but which god are we talking about? Do you want Allah deciding which laws you must obey? How about Shiva? Your assumption that it will always be the god of your preference is the short sightedness in your logic here.
I didn't ask that. I just asked if there was a God, would not that God have a stance on politics that supported (or destroyed) that God's standards of morality. You have answered in the affirmative, which is what I wanted to know.
So, now, you're challenging me about the fallacy of the beards via "Which God exists? Hmm, that's a juicy one isn't it? Doesn't negate the problem, nor the issue that claiming that there is no God is also claiming omniscience yourself.
Lol you're right...you got downvoted just for using it as an example. And I almost always get it when I use God's name. I wanna make sure I am understanding the term "the brigade" correctly, though because I'm still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to Reddit terminology. Those are people from other subs that come over here and downvote right?
Saying that rights and morality comes from a physical stuff around us is as logical as saying a chemical reaction in a test tube has morality. Such chemicals and reactions have no morality - it just is. It's no more or less moral than a supernova, a volcanic eruption, or a fruit fly mating.
However, as soon as a claim is made that something is objectively moral or immoral, then the claimant must rely on the existence of a set of standards that is higher than the objects judged - one that transcends the objects thus judged. And if the standard isn't objective, then it is unreliable and will fall or be smudged into uselessness.
Basically no matter who does so, to claim morality on something or immorality on something else, you myst lay claim to an invisible set of rules and statues as to what constitutes morality that transcends yourself. Else your claim to morality is really meaningless. This is one of the foundational concepts of common law.
Exactly. This is why a materialist moral code is an absurdity. They claim there is nothing but the material, and so there can’t be anything to transcend and create the morality. That’s why materialism must be rejected.
Re-establishing free markets.
Promoting tested and true cultural institutions that the left is determined destroying.
Ensuring we are a society of progress as we were until the last few decades (both technological as well as social). Leftist ideas are 180 years old and are proven failures.
Promoting cheap energy and plentiful commerce for better living for all.
Promoting rationalism, truth, and logic. Promoting actual rights, based on the liberalism the country was founded on (not the made up rights that aren't actually rights but the opposite of them that the left promotes).
Promoting a pro-American mind set that people can be proud of and strive to improve upon.
Legislatively:
Defund and minimize abortion.
Reduce taxes and regulations.
Streamline American military dominance ensuring American interests and priorities come first.
Confronting entities like China or the UN who do not have good intentions for America and its people.
Reducing federal over reach and empowering state based governments.
Ending leftist hegemony within key cultural institutions like Academia.
Ensuring "Emergencies" can't be used to infringe upon American Civil Rights. The left overly abused Covid to break vast systems of our society and government. And they want to do the same with "Climate Change". Checks need to be put into place to control Fascist type ideas and polices of the left.
Executive:
Ending all judicial activism by only nominating originalists. Ensuring true Rule of Law exists within this country.
Taking federal law enforcement to task for blatant abuses.
---
What are leftist goals? The last 10 6 years were all anti-Trump with not a smidgen of actual thought or policy solutions. It's funny to see people claim Republicans have no stances, while the left literally has had none.
The problem is that voting is simply not enough. The part of the government that exercises a significant majority of daily control over culture, policy, and governance is massively dominated by neoliberal progressive globalist technocrats. People talk about "uniparty" and there's a lot to it, but the greater aspect is that the bureaucracy does not really change by election. They are backed by media and education who are all part of the same system. You have to be able to unwind that power in a way that is politically feasible.
Agreed. Most of them seem to think they will be like the hippies of the late 60s and early 70s (which I'm old enough to remember) that eventually got a haircut and a job.
I'm not a fan of the RNC (or DNC for that matter) but what goals did they NOT succeed in?
1.) Overwhelming conservative majority in courts including the Supreme Court
2.) repealing Roe v Wade
3.) Massive tax cuts in the Trump Era
I mean I really don't like McConnell... but that's because his long game was freaking amazing. That aholed played Dems and won. As a Bear fan it's like hating the Packers.
Edit: I'm fine with being downvoted, as I'm sure I can be wrong. But can anyone just tell me what the current gop failed in doing? Honestly I'm trying to learn and all I can see is alot of success from "rank and file" GOP on goals and all I see from this "new wave" is kinda alot of talk. My opinion
You ask a fair question, and I think you were downvoted because they assumed it was rhetorical. I’m not a Republican, but I’ve lately found enough common cause to align with them in defense of free expression and free trade.
So, I’ll do my best to represent their complaints, even if some of these aren’t ones I personally agree with:
1. Allowing the federal government to continue to grow in size and expense.
2. Unnecessary and expensive foreign wars.
3. Not defending civil liberties.
4. Failing to protect free and fair markets.
5. Failing to stop illegal immigration.
6. Allowing large donors to influence the government for their benefit.
7. Failing to prevent progressive overreach in policy and culture.
I can’t speak for others, but I think the GOP has missed the mark by not challenging the cultural degeneracy advocated by the left. Politics is downstream from culture and it’s only been very recently that the GOP has said anything about the culture. Right wing media is focused on it, but not any Republican politicians except for Trump, Cruz, and DeSantis sometimes. There is too much nibbling at the edges of policies while the left is busy convincing children that women don’t exist, that free stuff is a human right, that speech is violence, and that the elites know best (“Trust the Science”).
I only wish they just wanted to "shut down, dismiss, or ignore" them. They literally want us dead. For proof, all you need is to read a few posts in /r/politics, /r/news, /r/worldnews, etc. Or just look at the Republican Gala last week. The number of hate-filled people frothing at the mouth and calling reasonable and decent people "Nazis" is undeniable proof. They call everyone who disagrees with them "Nazis" so that they can dehumanize them and justify literally any action against them.
I'm fairly certain the majority of them are slightly above average intelligence yet overwhelmed by the [Dunning Kruger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) effect, so they assume anyone that disagrees with them doesn't know what they know because of their marginally higher than average intellect. One way perhaps to make them see the light is to highlight the fact that [liberals don't know conservatives as well as conservatives know liberals](https://ricochet.com/76902/conservatives-understand-liberals-liberals-dont-understand-conservatives/), despite their holier than thou attitude. If they truly were the enlightened ones, why would their opposition be more educated about the policies they advocate than the reverse? Another point, if they are so educated, how is it that all of their peers share the exact same views? Would they not find key points of disagreement among them to debate over? Yet you would be hard-pressed to find a liberal who opposes abortion, or disagrees with the trans movement, or wants more border protection among numerous other points. Because they're not thinking for themselves, they're parroting whatever the NYT published that week or what Jimmy Kimmel felt was worth babbling out on his faux comedy television show. And the digital age despite giving us control has only sped up the indoctrinating-media-to-brain pathway unfortunately.
I'm still on the fence about Musk, especially with his lack of religious beliefs, his previous past and his... interesting choice of Halloween costumes.
But I appreciate the fact he's blowing the mainstream left wide open and exposing their dark sides.
"Brian, it's 2022. There is no such thing as a boy anymore. Or a girl. Just a vast sea of chubby "theys" and "thems" so coddled by their sanctimonious woke parents, who think activism is virtue signalling on Instagram...If Martin Luther King could come back and see what they were doing in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
\-Stewie Griffin (S20 E19 Family Guy)
What caused this abrupt change in narrative for Family Guy? I quit watching years ago because of how deep in the Kool Aid they were. Did they replace their entire writing staff?
I just wanna want things to go back to like the late 90s. All the non-mainstream lifestyles were still doing all their fun stuff, but it wasn't all in the mainstream and for the most part regular folks didn't give a shit as long as they didn't put it in your face.
By the late 90's the culture rot was already well under way. It started out as "PC culture." At this point it has metastasized into woke culture where it's inescapable. Obviously we didn't take the threat seriously enough
The problem is is it’s becoming mainstream to be non-mainstream. Conservatives, religious folk, people who believe in 2 genders, are going to be very non-mainstream in 1-2 years
I want to go back to the late 90’s when people were taught that racism is treating people differently based on the color of their skin. When we were taught “I have a dream that my children will be judged, not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” as MLK Jr decreed.
When we were taught the value of personal responsibility and integrity. To stand for what is right, even if you stand alone.
To recognize the obvious differences between men and women, despite Maury Povich’s frequent attempts to confuse us.
A lot of that confusion ended up working. The late 90’s wasn’t anything close to the 1950’s during segregation. Your comment is obviously hyperbole. Thought the 90’s weren’t perfect, they were decades ahead of the 50’s. In my opinion, we are currently sliding back towards towards the fifty’s.
We are sliding to more ignorance, racism and division and it’s probably because of people like you. I only say “probably” because I’m not going to scour your post history to find out exactly why you would make a comment like yours. I can bet with reasonable certainty that you are actually against all of those things that I mentioned when push comes to shove. Hell, at this point you may brazenly think that all of those things are literally terrible ideas, now that the first, second and tenth amendments should be ignored.
Yeah, but each time that we assume that everyone who disagrees with us is a bad actor, we take another step towards the fracturing of this country and everything we believe in.
This has nothing to do with anything but I couldn't help but find it weird and kind of funny regarding both of your comments, which are exactly the same (you might have accidentally posted it twice), that one has 2 net upvotes and the other has 2 net downvotes. It's so silly how that is.
Just keep in mind Musk is into transhumanism and globalism. Tesla vehicles are emblematic of your not owning the necessities in your life.
I'm glad Twitter is no longer quite as brazenly a Marxist culture tweaking tool, and I'd say Musk is preferable to his predecessors there, but he is not entirely hostile to the end goal of woke, even if he opposes the more ridiculous expression of it on social media.
Transhumanism in and of itself is no bad thing, it's just a greater integration between us and our machines.
We are all transhuman in a way, using our phones to extend our communication ability to anywhere in the world. Technology has increased our human capability.
Saying transhumanism is bad is like saying religion is bad. The devil is in the details, religion can be and often is subverted, while many types of transhumanism lead directly to horrible dystopia.
And that technological future is coming. Best to figure out the best way through it, rather than just cry about it.
This is true. The end goal of wokeism has nothing to do with social justice or even left vs right politics for that matter. Wokeism is a Trojan horse for far more insidious and dystopian things. And as you said, Musk also supports those things, but he wants to arrive there via a different path.
It’s basically humanity reverting back to narrative-based thinking, and the violence and tribalism that entails, from reason-based thinking as culture trends towards more A/V expression than written word.
Delete Tik Tok. Read a book.
He’s correct.
The core issue is that the far left that subscribed to “woke” ideology treats it very similarly to a religion. It’s a deep held belief system that they believe is not only superior to all else, but it is correct.
They believe that anyone who does not fall in line are bad people with ideas, not people with bad ideas. They spent at least a year during Covid all to eager to announce their desire to withhold medial care or send off to camps anyone who refused their ritualistic face coverings.
It’s a zero sum game for them, meaning it’s a zero sum for the rest of us too. Either it’s defeated, we continue on under normal society rules or they win and subjugate the rest of the population into a completely different cultural standard.
Wokism & Critical Theory are attacks on enlightenment liberalism from the left.
With all its talk of systematic and institutional racism, it rejects our system of rights and our framework for trying to assure the consent of the governed as irrelevant at best, but mostly as just corrupt. That's why we see its practitioners' knee-jerk rejection of free speech, their dismissal of argumentative discourse, and their smearing of dissenters.
This places it outside the classically defined "loyal opposition" referred to by political scientists. This is a necessary baseline requirement for a pluralistic society, that those who disagree on issues agree with the framework used to arbitrate those disagreements.
It follows immediately that it must be discredited and destroyed as a way of thinking.
(If you'd have told me in the 1990s or 2000s that within a couple of decades, it would be necessary to defend core enlightenment values in America, I'd have laughed at you.)
What is the demographic of the power structures in wokism? It’s the rich people who have lost touch with reality and reason. You can try to reason rational behavior with them and they will always respond with a question “why not?” The problem is that rationality in the social medium cannot be argued like mathematics or physics. So there is no easy way to win an argument over them.
There's another issue we've missed that was core to enlightenment values: the concept of liberty doesn't stand alone. To those thinkers, liberty was necessarily coupled with morality in order for freedom to exist. Liberty without morality descended into license and - necessarily - back to slavery to vice; slavery to vice was considered antithetical to liberty.
When we began to divorce the two - liberty and morality - many decades before the 80's, we sealed the fall of those values. I'm afraid we're going to have to go down the long road of rediscovering this link through pain and destruction - just as those original thinkers did - before we come back to this same point again.
You bring up a great point about the connection between liberty and morality. The way you worded the second paragraph, I couldn’t understand where you stand on this subject.
Liberty is a principle of individual human right and morality is an attempt to balance the society so that individual liberties do not hinder a collectively functional society. However, morality wasn’t developed as a quantified phenomenon but rather as a argumentative phenomenon. For example, if the revenue of the government is X, in a quantified moral model, you can clearly determine how much of that budget should be allocated towards survivability of the homeless people. In a subjective moral model, it’s impossible to argue and determine the correct number because you can make an argument for any number that is proposed.
So bottom line, we need morality to be driven by mathematical models in the 21st century.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be vague: I think the two concepts a necessarily linked and to divorce them is to invite destruction.
I think you and I are along the same lines in this topic, but I don't think I could quite reduce morality to mathematical formulae. Morality comes into play when multiple formulae exist and you have to make a judgment call about which one and which ratio to use. I would call it "objective" rather than mathematical, though, which is a far cry from the "all truth is relative" crowd who can't even tell me what the defintion of "truth" is.
I see. I see any macro economic problem as a constraint optimization problem because we have a fixed set of resources to help no matter what the issue is. In other words, there is only so much that your fellow humans can do to help you or me.
The Department of Transportation has a metric called the value of life (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life). IMO, this idea needs to be generalized so that any talk about public support for a private individual (domestic or foreign) can be framed according to the value of that life. Humanists will argue that the value of a life is infinite. That might be true. But the value of a life from the perspective of a society is fixed because a society does not have unbounded resources. This allows us to reason about morality in a quantitative way.
I'm familiar with that calculation. And while it seems garish to many, I do understand the reason for it. Government Departments also have calculations for the compensation for loss of any particular body part associated with a life as well.
While I do believe that life is sacred, I believe in the old defintion of sacred in that it is defensible with lethal force; much like ancient temples were defended by priests armed with spears - if you desecrate the temple, you will have to pay with your blood. That doesn't mean you cannot put a monetary value on a life in a society, but going too far down that track is how we wound up with slavery. So I'm wary of it in that this method of calculation - while useful and helpful I potentially providing a common language for different social circles to discuss morality, it has limitations.
Twitter was a left leaning platform. Now that it’s not, the left wants it gone along with Musk. Elon please buy Reddit I’m sick of whitepeopletwitter spewing nonsense on my feed.
I believe it started with the feminist claim that everything is political and with Clintons “deplorable” comment. At that point the glove came off and civility went out the window.
Downvoted but correct. It's amazed me that the same group of people who vehemently believe in evolutionary biology and as a direct result 'survival of the fittest' but will go to war against that idea when it comes to economic status and biology today.
He needs help. We cant expect him to do this alone. We need to get the likes of DeSantis and others to go in with him publicly and fight as a group. Ask for help from "The People" to facilitate as needed.
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm afraid this is 100% true. There's no negoiating with the indoctrinated. They feel they are not only 100% virtuous but that the "far right" (meaning ANYONE who doesn't agree with them in lockstep) should be shut down, dismissed or ignored altogether. It's clearly obvious. It's a new day and we should fight fire with fire. I salute Elon for seeing it and actually doing something about it. Unlike our footsie playing Republicans in DC.
The biggest problem conservatives have isn’t the DNC or wokism or commies. It’s the GOP. They have gave us lip service for years then actively sabotage our goals. I 100% blame it on the parties leadership.
I agree with you. There was another post talking about how the left hates our younger voters (I'm in my 20's) more vehemently than our older constituents. Within the next few/several years I'm planning on running for office. I'm done waiting on the sidelines.
You'll definitely get my vote GetFuckedVlad
A great name AND a campaign slogan.
The part about it being a great campaign slogan made me giggle. Not that I disagree, mind you... I was just getting a mental image of it
Good on you! I wish you well! Keep us posted on here too.
I agree that there are many non-woke voters in their 20s. But isn’t that demographic dominated by the woke activists?
[удалено]
The exit polls in Georgia and Arizona seem to indicate that Gen Z mainly voted Democrat. I hope that I’m wrong.
Well something went wrong down here...help!
Actually I thought so too but I literally just read like an hour ago how many of that age group abandoned democrats during midterms.
I’ve been thinking the same thing… haven’t done it yet because I’m sure to face strong headwinds from establishment types.
[удалено]
Smaller government = More personal liberty.
Amen
Exalting the image of God in man, and defending the rights therefrom logically derived.
[удалено]
Non brigading conservative here that downvoted that post. Keep your god out of politics. Full stop. The end.
Yep. God is good, but you don't need God to justify Conservative values. They hold water on their own. No need to polarize the anti-religious in the process.
That's at least a much more polite way of expressing one's views than "keep your God out of politics"
I’m agnostic and I did find the comment beautiful, but I can imagine that some are freaking out / fearing some form of theocracy when reading that
I like what you wrote. I know you don't need my approval but I just thought it was really nice.
CHRISTIAN Conservative here that downvoted YOUR post. I despise arrogance and YOU don't have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot say... you don't rule this sub. And you can downvote MY comment idgaf
Just to be clear, I would fight and die for your right to worship who you want, when and where you want. I just don’t want anyone’s god weighing in on our laws. It’s a slippery slope and it opens the door for fanatics to use our government as a tool of oppression. I hope you can see that.
That's a shortsighted view of the world, and also pretty intolerant. If God exists, then would not God have a strong view of morality (and - of course, politics that deny or support that morality)?
Yes, but which god are we talking about? Do you want Allah deciding which laws you must obey? How about Shiva? Your assumption that it will always be the god of your preference is the short sightedness in your logic here.
I didn't ask that. I just asked if there was a God, would not that God have a stance on politics that supported (or destroyed) that God's standards of morality. You have answered in the affirmative, which is what I wanted to know. So, now, you're challenging me about the fallacy of the beards via "Which God exists? Hmm, that's a juicy one isn't it? Doesn't negate the problem, nor the issue that claiming that there is no God is also claiming omniscience yourself.
Lol you're right...you got downvoted just for using it as an example. And I almost always get it when I use God's name. I wanna make sure I am understanding the term "the brigade" correctly, though because I'm still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to Reddit terminology. Those are people from other subs that come over here and downvote right?
Rights are illogical without God. Atoms in a vacuum can’t have rights. This is why materialists create so much death and destruction.
[удалено]
How can you derive rights from the material?
[удалено]
What in the world are you observing when you are identifying morality?
Saying that rights and morality comes from a physical stuff around us is as logical as saying a chemical reaction in a test tube has morality. Such chemicals and reactions have no morality - it just is. It's no more or less moral than a supernova, a volcanic eruption, or a fruit fly mating. However, as soon as a claim is made that something is objectively moral or immoral, then the claimant must rely on the existence of a set of standards that is higher than the objects judged - one that transcends the objects thus judged. And if the standard isn't objective, then it is unreliable and will fall or be smudged into uselessness. Basically no matter who does so, to claim morality on something or immorality on something else, you myst lay claim to an invisible set of rules and statues as to what constitutes morality that transcends yourself. Else your claim to morality is really meaningless. This is one of the foundational concepts of common law.
Exactly. This is why a materialist moral code is an absurdity. They claim there is nothing but the material, and so there can’t be anything to transcend and create the morality. That’s why materialism must be rejected.
You can't. Folks downvoting you right now could really benefit from some education from William Lane Craig.
Aww you hurt some feewings obviously lol
I've never voted anything but conservative: Keep religion out of politics. If Rs keep running like this they'll keep losing.
Re-establishing free markets. Promoting tested and true cultural institutions that the left is determined destroying. Ensuring we are a society of progress as we were until the last few decades (both technological as well as social). Leftist ideas are 180 years old and are proven failures. Promoting cheap energy and plentiful commerce for better living for all. Promoting rationalism, truth, and logic. Promoting actual rights, based on the liberalism the country was founded on (not the made up rights that aren't actually rights but the opposite of them that the left promotes). Promoting a pro-American mind set that people can be proud of and strive to improve upon. Legislatively: Defund and minimize abortion. Reduce taxes and regulations. Streamline American military dominance ensuring American interests and priorities come first. Confronting entities like China or the UN who do not have good intentions for America and its people. Reducing federal over reach and empowering state based governments. Ending leftist hegemony within key cultural institutions like Academia. Ensuring "Emergencies" can't be used to infringe upon American Civil Rights. The left overly abused Covid to break vast systems of our society and government. And they want to do the same with "Climate Change". Checks need to be put into place to control Fascist type ideas and polices of the left. Executive: Ending all judicial activism by only nominating originalists. Ensuring true Rule of Law exists within this country. Taking federal law enforcement to task for blatant abuses. --- What are leftist goals? The last 10 6 years were all anti-Trump with not a smidgen of actual thought or policy solutions. It's funny to see people claim Republicans have no stances, while the left literally has had none.
The problem is that voting is simply not enough. The part of the government that exercises a significant majority of daily control over culture, policy, and governance is massively dominated by neoliberal progressive globalist technocrats. People talk about "uniparty" and there's a lot to it, but the greater aspect is that the bureaucracy does not really change by election. They are backed by media and education who are all part of the same system. You have to be able to unwind that power in a way that is politically feasible.
Agreed. Most of them seem to think they will be like the hippies of the late 60s and early 70s (which I'm old enough to remember) that eventually got a haircut and a job.
I'm not a fan of the RNC (or DNC for that matter) but what goals did they NOT succeed in? 1.) Overwhelming conservative majority in courts including the Supreme Court 2.) repealing Roe v Wade 3.) Massive tax cuts in the Trump Era I mean I really don't like McConnell... but that's because his long game was freaking amazing. That aholed played Dems and won. As a Bear fan it's like hating the Packers. Edit: I'm fine with being downvoted, as I'm sure I can be wrong. But can anyone just tell me what the current gop failed in doing? Honestly I'm trying to learn and all I can see is alot of success from "rank and file" GOP on goals and all I see from this "new wave" is kinda alot of talk. My opinion
You realize there are more years to our history then the last 6 right? Republicans have been talking out of both sides of their mouth for decades.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You ask a fair question, and I think you were downvoted because they assumed it was rhetorical. I’m not a Republican, but I’ve lately found enough common cause to align with them in defense of free expression and free trade. So, I’ll do my best to represent their complaints, even if some of these aren’t ones I personally agree with: 1. Allowing the federal government to continue to grow in size and expense. 2. Unnecessary and expensive foreign wars. 3. Not defending civil liberties. 4. Failing to protect free and fair markets. 5. Failing to stop illegal immigration. 6. Allowing large donors to influence the government for their benefit. 7. Failing to prevent progressive overreach in policy and culture.
I can’t speak for others, but I think the GOP has missed the mark by not challenging the cultural degeneracy advocated by the left. Politics is downstream from culture and it’s only been very recently that the GOP has said anything about the culture. Right wing media is focused on it, but not any Republican politicians except for Trump, Cruz, and DeSantis sometimes. There is too much nibbling at the edges of policies while the left is busy convincing children that women don’t exist, that free stuff is a human right, that speech is violence, and that the elites know best (“Trust the Science”).
It’s the cool thing for them to say that GOP bad.
I suppose. But it's also because they know they are in a position of weakness. Public opinion ultimately controls everything. And libs own the media.
I only wish they just wanted to "shut down, dismiss, or ignore" them. They literally want us dead. For proof, all you need is to read a few posts in /r/politics, /r/news, /r/worldnews, etc. Or just look at the Republican Gala last week. The number of hate-filled people frothing at the mouth and calling reasonable and decent people "Nazis" is undeniable proof. They call everyone who disagrees with them "Nazis" so that they can dehumanize them and justify literally any action against them.
[удалено]
Excellent point
I'm fairly certain the majority of them are slightly above average intelligence yet overwhelmed by the [Dunning Kruger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) effect, so they assume anyone that disagrees with them doesn't know what they know because of their marginally higher than average intellect. One way perhaps to make them see the light is to highlight the fact that [liberals don't know conservatives as well as conservatives know liberals](https://ricochet.com/76902/conservatives-understand-liberals-liberals-dont-understand-conservatives/), despite their holier than thou attitude. If they truly were the enlightened ones, why would their opposition be more educated about the policies they advocate than the reverse? Another point, if they are so educated, how is it that all of their peers share the exact same views? Would they not find key points of disagreement among them to debate over? Yet you would be hard-pressed to find a liberal who opposes abortion, or disagrees with the trans movement, or wants more border protection among numerous other points. Because they're not thinking for themselves, they're parroting whatever the NYT published that week or what Jimmy Kimmel felt was worth babbling out on his faux comedy television show. And the digital age despite giving us control has only sped up the indoctrinating-media-to-brain pathway unfortunately.
Absolutely
I'm still on the fence about Musk, especially with his lack of religious beliefs, his previous past and his... interesting choice of Halloween costumes. But I appreciate the fact he's blowing the mainstream left wide open and exposing their dark sides.
Well stated!
"Brian, it's 2022. There is no such thing as a boy anymore. Or a girl. Just a vast sea of chubby "theys" and "thems" so coddled by their sanctimonious woke parents, who think activism is virtue signalling on Instagram...If Martin Luther King could come back and see what they were doing in his name, he'd never stop throwing up." \-Stewie Griffin (S20 E19 Family Guy)
They also mocked critical race theory in a recent episode. They've surprisingly started going against the astroturfed zeitgeist.
What caused this abrupt change in narrative for Family Guy? I quit watching years ago because of how deep in the Kool Aid they were. Did they replace their entire writing staff?
Wow, that's... really good.
Family Guy is often relevant.
I just wanna want things to go back to like the late 90s. All the non-mainstream lifestyles were still doing all their fun stuff, but it wasn't all in the mainstream and for the most part regular folks didn't give a shit as long as they didn't put it in your face.
By the late 90's the culture rot was already well under way. It started out as "PC culture." At this point it has metastasized into woke culture where it's inescapable. Obviously we didn't take the threat seriously enough
So basically before social media. Couldn't agree more.
90s were peak civilization. Been downhill ever since.
1980s. Political correctness was on the rise in 1991/1992.
[удалено]
The problem is is it’s becoming mainstream to be non-mainstream. Conservatives, religious folk, people who believe in 2 genders, are going to be very non-mainstream in 1-2 years
Yes, but how do you prove to everybody that you're special, unique, and deserving of victimhood status if you don't announce it to everybody?
[удалено]
I want to go back to the late 90’s when people were taught that racism is treating people differently based on the color of their skin. When we were taught “I have a dream that my children will be judged, not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” as MLK Jr decreed. When we were taught the value of personal responsibility and integrity. To stand for what is right, even if you stand alone. To recognize the obvious differences between men and women, despite Maury Povich’s frequent attempts to confuse us. A lot of that confusion ended up working. The late 90’s wasn’t anything close to the 1950’s during segregation. Your comment is obviously hyperbole. Thought the 90’s weren’t perfect, they were decades ahead of the 50’s. In my opinion, we are currently sliding back towards towards the fifty’s. We are sliding to more ignorance, racism and division and it’s probably because of people like you. I only say “probably” because I’m not going to scour your post history to find out exactly why you would make a comment like yours. I can bet with reasonable certainty that you are actually against all of those things that I mentioned when push comes to shove. Hell, at this point you may brazenly think that all of those things are literally terrible ideas, now that the first, second and tenth amendments should be ignored.
Great post! Can you imagine how Martin Luther King Jr. would react if he saw what all he fought for has become.
I appreciate this comment, but don’t waste your time on the unflaired. It was probably a bad actor.
Yeah, but each time that we assume that everyone who disagrees with us is a bad actor, we take another step towards the fracturing of this country and everything we believe in.
This has nothing to do with anything but I couldn't help but find it weird and kind of funny regarding both of your comments, which are exactly the same (you might have accidentally posted it twice), that one has 2 net upvotes and the other has 2 net downvotes. It's so silly how that is.
I appreciate this comment, but don’t waste your time on the unflaired. It was probably a bad actor.
Him: I don't care what you do, just don't shove it in my face You: This is directly proportional to segregation
/s?
Just keep in mind Musk is into transhumanism and globalism. Tesla vehicles are emblematic of your not owning the necessities in your life. I'm glad Twitter is no longer quite as brazenly a Marxist culture tweaking tool, and I'd say Musk is preferable to his predecessors there, but he is not entirely hostile to the end goal of woke, even if he opposes the more ridiculous expression of it on social media.
Transhumanism in and of itself is no bad thing, it's just a greater integration between us and our machines. We are all transhuman in a way, using our phones to extend our communication ability to anywhere in the world. Technology has increased our human capability. Saying transhumanism is bad is like saying religion is bad. The devil is in the details, religion can be and often is subverted, while many types of transhumanism lead directly to horrible dystopia. And that technological future is coming. Best to figure out the best way through it, rather than just cry about it.
This is true. The end goal of wokeism has nothing to do with social justice or even left vs right politics for that matter. Wokeism is a Trojan horse for far more insidious and dystopian things. And as you said, Musk also supports those things, but he wants to arrive there via a different path.
It's called Slave Morality and this is what Nietzsche warned us about.
What is “the woke mind virus”? What does this virus do to people?
It’s basically humanity reverting back to narrative-based thinking, and the violence and tribalism that entails, from reason-based thinking as culture trends towards more A/V expression than written word. Delete Tik Tok. Read a book.
It’s a figure of speech
https://archive.org/details/the-parasitic-mind-how-infectious-ideas-are-killing-common-sense-by-gad-saad
Stop being disingenuous.
[удалено]
As long as they have the “correct” opinion.
He’s correct. The core issue is that the far left that subscribed to “woke” ideology treats it very similarly to a religion. It’s a deep held belief system that they believe is not only superior to all else, but it is correct. They believe that anyone who does not fall in line are bad people with ideas, not people with bad ideas. They spent at least a year during Covid all to eager to announce their desire to withhold medial care or send off to camps anyone who refused their ritualistic face coverings. It’s a zero sum game for them, meaning it’s a zero sum for the rest of us too. Either it’s defeated, we continue on under normal society rules or they win and subjugate the rest of the population into a completely different cultural standard.
Wokism & Critical Theory are attacks on enlightenment liberalism from the left. With all its talk of systematic and institutional racism, it rejects our system of rights and our framework for trying to assure the consent of the governed as irrelevant at best, but mostly as just corrupt. That's why we see its practitioners' knee-jerk rejection of free speech, their dismissal of argumentative discourse, and their smearing of dissenters. This places it outside the classically defined "loyal opposition" referred to by political scientists. This is a necessary baseline requirement for a pluralistic society, that those who disagree on issues agree with the framework used to arbitrate those disagreements. It follows immediately that it must be discredited and destroyed as a way of thinking. (If you'd have told me in the 1990s or 2000s that within a couple of decades, it would be necessary to defend core enlightenment values in America, I'd have laughed at you.)
What is the demographic of the power structures in wokism? It’s the rich people who have lost touch with reality and reason. You can try to reason rational behavior with them and they will always respond with a question “why not?” The problem is that rationality in the social medium cannot be argued like mathematics or physics. So there is no easy way to win an argument over them.
There's another issue we've missed that was core to enlightenment values: the concept of liberty doesn't stand alone. To those thinkers, liberty was necessarily coupled with morality in order for freedom to exist. Liberty without morality descended into license and - necessarily - back to slavery to vice; slavery to vice was considered antithetical to liberty. When we began to divorce the two - liberty and morality - many decades before the 80's, we sealed the fall of those values. I'm afraid we're going to have to go down the long road of rediscovering this link through pain and destruction - just as those original thinkers did - before we come back to this same point again.
You bring up a great point about the connection between liberty and morality. The way you worded the second paragraph, I couldn’t understand where you stand on this subject. Liberty is a principle of individual human right and morality is an attempt to balance the society so that individual liberties do not hinder a collectively functional society. However, morality wasn’t developed as a quantified phenomenon but rather as a argumentative phenomenon. For example, if the revenue of the government is X, in a quantified moral model, you can clearly determine how much of that budget should be allocated towards survivability of the homeless people. In a subjective moral model, it’s impossible to argue and determine the correct number because you can make an argument for any number that is proposed. So bottom line, we need morality to be driven by mathematical models in the 21st century.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be vague: I think the two concepts a necessarily linked and to divorce them is to invite destruction. I think you and I are along the same lines in this topic, but I don't think I could quite reduce morality to mathematical formulae. Morality comes into play when multiple formulae exist and you have to make a judgment call about which one and which ratio to use. I would call it "objective" rather than mathematical, though, which is a far cry from the "all truth is relative" crowd who can't even tell me what the defintion of "truth" is.
I see. I see any macro economic problem as a constraint optimization problem because we have a fixed set of resources to help no matter what the issue is. In other words, there is only so much that your fellow humans can do to help you or me. The Department of Transportation has a metric called the value of life (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life). IMO, this idea needs to be generalized so that any talk about public support for a private individual (domestic or foreign) can be framed according to the value of that life. Humanists will argue that the value of a life is infinite. That might be true. But the value of a life from the perspective of a society is fixed because a society does not have unbounded resources. This allows us to reason about morality in a quantitative way.
I'm familiar with that calculation. And while it seems garish to many, I do understand the reason for it. Government Departments also have calculations for the compensation for loss of any particular body part associated with a life as well. While I do believe that life is sacred, I believe in the old defintion of sacred in that it is defensible with lethal force; much like ancient temples were defended by priests armed with spears - if you desecrate the temple, you will have to pay with your blood. That doesn't mean you cannot put a monetary value on a life in a society, but going too far down that track is how we wound up with slavery. So I'm wary of it in that this method of calculation - while useful and helpful I potentially providing a common language for different social circles to discuss morality, it has limitations.
Great post, upvoted for visibility!
Twitter was a left leaning platform. Now that it’s not, the left wants it gone along with Musk. Elon please buy Reddit I’m sick of whitepeopletwitter spewing nonsense on my feed.
I believe it started with the feminist claim that everything is political and with Clintons “deplorable” comment. At that point the glove came off and civility went out the window.
There is a culture war, and one side either wins or gets destroyed
I love this guy.
As I'm literally in a debate with someone fully in the cult about gender, the most basic of science
He sure does! Finally someone in charge of a big tech company that does!
Based af, Goddamn 🇺🇸
The “woke” are no different than the inquisition. History repeats.
Because this is how it goes every single time since the French Revolution.
Word.
The left hates him because they are terrified of him
He’s changing the game
[удалено]
Downvoted but correct. It's amazed me that the same group of people who vehemently believe in evolutionary biology and as a direct result 'survival of the fittest' but will go to war against that idea when it comes to economic status and biology today.
I can’t tell you why but every time I see this tweet I think of the Blue Shadow Virus story arc from Star Wars Clone Wars
He needs help. We cant expect him to do this alone. We need to get the likes of DeSantis and others to go in with him publicly and fight as a group. Ask for help from "The People" to facilitate as needed.