I’m just glad the world is becoming a place where that kind of thinking is becoming increasingly laughable. Can you imagine a blue-in-the-face right wing selfish bigoted type just banging his head against the wall looking out at the world screaming, “but my arguments were well constructed and my rhetoric was completely loaded with all the tried and true lines of bullshit that had worked in the past!”
maybe all the conservatives saw Jesus. like actually
or maybe some are the kids of those
Both liberal and conservative are just pain in the butts to humanity. All countries have their versions. Niether side shuts up and tries to work together , to compromise and search for actual resolutions. Both have good and both have bad. Both have loudmouth powerful morons that are professional con artists and brain washers. Hopefully eventually we outgrow both. Niether want what is best , they just want power and to win.
Double post, see below.
Yes, precisely. This paradigm of thinking is confronting its own limits to being effective in the real world.
What is really interesting to me is how this fits in with modern capitalism: capital is inherently liberal, money and profit don’t give a shit if you’re black or brown or purple or what you believe or where you live, capitalism is inherently “liberalizing” because of how money is a universal fluid medium devoid of values. As money became the raison d’être of the system we’ve seen a raising of consciousness beyond petty ideological polarities-- not on the level of individual people or group, of course, ideology still lives on very strongly there, but at the level of capital growth and the larger system itself such as laws, trade and the phenomenon of political correctness. Not only is it a philosophical imperative to evolve thinking beyond ideological idiocy and ignorant personal bias of implicit sttitudes but it is also a liberal-capitalist imperative to evolve the larger system beyond institutional bias and prejudice. But this becomes a problem for at least two reasons: 1) actions and areas of society that are either non-capital-based or actually generate capital from out of functional bias are encouraged to be ideological (e.g. police arrests and court convictions, which skew heavily against blacks more so than whites), and 2) popular culture and media/entertainment and “memes” that all function quasi-economically by inter-locking into capitalist machinery for affecting profits to huge multinational corporations such as media, music and film companies. In these sort of areas the liberalization of capital is confronted with a limit of the fact that appealing to and replicating existing biases and errors in human thought and reason is actually reliably profitable to do.
But when you’re talking about hiring, education and training, upward mobility and rising middle class, and the general maximally free-flow of capital (money, intellectual capital, ideas, etc.) there is more subtle pressure on society to evolve out of entrenched polarities. And of course all of this is “non-moral”, the value of freedom to capital growth isn’t a moral value at all, so we need to be careful about praising this effect of liberalized capitalism and instead focus our attention and efforts on the moral side of the equation, namely the philosophical rational and human reasons for raising awareness of such things as institutional bias and ignorance, persistent racial disparities, and how best to really improve conditions of generational poverty, crime and urban family breakdown.
I actually study right wing talk radio, I know exactly what they’re saying and why, I know their appeal and how it works. And from a philosophical, historical and moral perspective I can say that this whole paradigm of right wing talk radio/tv, the American far right ultra-conservative movement, if you can call it a movement, is quite literally the single biggest problem in American society today. In fact it wouldn’t be an overstatement to say it poses also a serious economic and national security threat, because of how this level of mass persistent ignorance obstructs real solutions to real problem, distorts reality for a large bloc of the voting public and introduces deep errors into the political system by way of infecting minds with low-level reactive, erroneous and emotionally-charged rhetoric that literally psychologically prevents any real thinking from occurring.
Yep.
This is genius… I mean the stripped fact that money cures ideology. Damn… this could make things a lot easier. To change.
Itd be a gutsy move to roll with this hard and directly. But it might even convince people, the right people, when framed well.
And it would evoke a shitload of resistance from all religions. Which would be a trip.
^ yes and it’s one of the main reasons for us to support a notion of “existential capitalism”, as a means of overcoming the polarized divide of left vs right when it comes to capitalist logic.
Capitalist logic is simply “the logic of life”, except that this logic is stripped bare of superfluities irrelevant to the fundamental value of pursuit of capital’s self-growth, what we call profit. At a baseline level life is about the same thing, maximizing resource use into the organism’s genetic self-growth in order to potentiate a successful reproductive event; however, this simplistic Dawkins-ish view is naive in that it only sees the genetic and not the existential, logical, self-valuing level of things: genes don’t give a shit about surviving, nature doesn’t give a shit about growth or reproduction or efficiency, these are logical values, they sit in the “ether” of the pure universal philosophical realm of Facts and exert a literally physically real influence. Genes are the bitch of truth. All organic systems and natural laws exist only because there exist above and prior to these phenomena a Self-Valuing Logic and “pure factuality of Logic as such” that quite literally can be thought of as “more real” than all this physical stuff that had unfolded out of its many permutations and machinations.
But that’s probably getting a little too philosophical for a discussion on modern far-right conservative ideology. Or maybe not.
Well eventually it needs to be phrased in palatable terms. But we need to be able to discuss it in its technicalities first.
The nature of value, aspect of selfvaluing logic, is that it increases by (accurate, successful, ‘intelligent’) transaction.
Due to this natural power to increase through interaction (its timespace existence) it holds existential supremacy and primacy.
So yes, existential capitalism. This is the only way to a purely VO derived politics. It will be a basis for any new kind of ideological view, be it postNietzschean, postChristian, whatever - it needs to be embedded in a framework that can handle values of every type and weigh them, forge contexts to weigh them, bring people around and together to form such contexts.
The reason things grow isn’t because they want to survive. This is obviously a point Nietzsche already made well, but it bears looking at again. If survival were the value of life then life would have devolved itself out of existence shortly after its random appearances. Only the overflow can guarantee a steady development: only the exponential curve frozen outside of time can guarantee the straight line.
Yes, VO makes this very clear.
Things just happen to survive if they expend themselves in such ways as to receive values that sustain them. This is self-valuing.
The ‘will to survive’ is obviously a function of the drives towards values. One wants to survive in order to attain values.
As one grows accustomed to reliably attaining this or that value ones entity changes, evolves, to attain to new heights of joy.
Evolution is the path of increased joy. This is brought about by the self-increasing nature given to of Value by its proper behavior which is Interaction.
Selfvaluings are just “increasings”.
One major Law VO logic creates is the necessity of perpetual increase.
Economists sleep and wake with this law. Physicists are totally oblivious to it yet.
The notion of conservation of energy is unfounded. The only reason why thing are stable at all is because they increase in density all the time.
Yes and when everything is increasing in this way, the relativistic result is that things look like they are staying the same over time. This is what we call reality and “conservation of energy”-- relativistic alignment of multiple self-valuing-increasings into a common shared framework, a “world”.
Why? You already wrote your fucking paper without asking, citing, or quoting any conservatives about what their own ideology is. Pointing out your idiocy is much more efficient and constructive than re-hashing what anybody could find with a 30 second Google search.
Ideas don’t need citations or quotes, if they are good ideas. They stand on their own merit.
The value of a citation or quote is merely to support an idea, or provide reference for further information. Not to do your fucking thinking for you.
Are you really a moderator here? How?
I feel a responsibility to point out the glaring fact that you haven’t provided a single idea here.
As for conserving one’s own people.
It is essential to be racist for a conservative to conserve his people.
And as everybody who has thought about this for some time knows - demographics are destiny.
Liberia looks like Liberia because of the people who live there. The US looks like the US because of the people who live there and Yes, a decline in civilisation goes hand in hand with a decline in the quality of people, it’s usually preceded and accompanied by it.
The constitution won’t help once you live in a state filled with other people. They don’t care for that constitution one bit.
Secondly, the modern Conservative is less racist than a Progressive.
Of course he is because he is the one who constantly is made to ‘check his privilege’. In other words shut up with insinuation about racism.
But also a conservative is being less racist to his own detriment and to the detriment of his own people and therefore also his values which on average come with his kind of people.
Accepting the moral premises of commies (and that’s where muh racism originated as a idea-weapon) is the downfall of Western civilisation.
Really do not see cooperation or compromise here.
That’s right.
It is even probable that those who claim that they are not conservative are more religious (because of their ideologies and ideological exercises) than those who claim to be conservative.
Ideas about what other people’s belief systems are and why they hold them do not stand on their own, because they are biographical. Without anything to back them, they are at best guessing, and at worst, politically motivated denigration. But then, the merit of an idea to a leftist is not in whether or not the idea is true, but whether it pushes a particular narrative or serves a particular end.
And it’s absolutely crucial when it’s an idea about what somebody else believes. For example, if I said “Liberals (or black people, or Wyld or whatever) believe that dogs are more deserving of rights than human beings”, one would expect me to show where it is that liberals claim this or how their arguments entail this. One cannot simply make up nonsense about other people’s ideas and expect it to ‘stand on it’s own’, unless by ‘standing on it’s own’ one means something other than ‘being based on reality’.
I certainly have. The idea I’ve provided is, your description of conservatism is utter shit because it’s not based on anything any conservative has ever said or advocated. “I reject this because X” Is a perfectly coherent idea.
The other idea I’ve provided is that this is not uncommon. People on the left continually write about what conservatives are, what they think, and why they do the things they do without giving any reason to think that they’ve read any conservative works or indeed have any knowledge of conservatism outside of their imagination.
The reason is that the left isn’t concerned with reality (insofar as they actually think there is such a thing), they are concerned with narrative. If you can push a story about conservatives and why they are flawed, whether or not the story has any basis in fact is irrelevant if the story can be sold and pushes an end. That’s why you seem puzzled that you would be expected to consult a conservative about what conservatism is- the idea that you might want your position to be true as opposed to merely sounding good seems genuinely foreign to you.