Conservatives only, what the bigger evil: Hard Core Socialists or SJW

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is very tough as both are bad but currently i say hard core socialists are worse .

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I could probably survive, and maybe even thrive, in the Soviet system. There is no place for me, however, in a diversity seminar collective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In terms of the damage they could cause if given power, the Hard Core Socialists. Both groups are very worried about what other people say and think, but the former is far more aggressive in punishing ideological opponents and instituting a top-down system of control.

     In terms of which group is more annoying, the SJWs. They can probably exert more influence too given that on average they are not nearly as openly radical. At least they don't usually cause riots though.

[Vosem]

Very clearly the first. SJWs are terrible and stupid but they don't propose to destroy the economy for no clear reason.

[Santander]

I am a Leninist.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

The latter.

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

[Vosem]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

As people to deal with, the SJWs are far more annoying, but they might be less of a threat because most people realize how crazy they are.  But, socialism becoming mainstream is something that must be stopped right now.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

So what we see is that one group sees "tradition", structure, authority, and so on as the end, regarding such concepts as the market as merely a means to sometimes be used. The other believes tradtion and the like are merely a means to an end so long as they allow for capitalist accumulation. Fascinating.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

y'alls know there's a huge overlap between those two groups, right?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

y'alls know there's a huge overlap between those two groups, right?

I can't draw a Venn diagram on this Forum, but I suppose this has more to do with "values orientation" as opposed to particular policy positions; whether one ought to view history and the world in a "class" fashion, or to view it as that, combined with other social cleavages. One might take how a leftist would view, say, mid-20th century bourgeois feminism as an example, I dunno. Sanders' apparent uncomfortability when addressing racial issues would be another.

[mieastwick]

Hard Core Socialists have no power, so, not them.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

Respect for lawful authority and deference to tradition are inseparable from even the loosest conception of conservatism; that they do not factor into your ideology of Manchester liberalism is neither here nor there.

[Vosem]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

Respect for lawful authority and deference to tradition are inseparable from even the loosest conception of conservatism; that they do not factor into your ideology of Manchester liberalism is neither here nor there.

The effective origins of modern conservatism are as a descendant of anti-communist movements during the 20th century; movements that were quite literally punishable with jail-time or time in a mental asylum in the former Eastern Bloc, and that up until the late 1970s were, while by no means violent or offensive to traditionalists, certainly a minority and to some extent counter-cultural view in most of the Western world. The American strain of it, especially, is descended from and deeply ensconced in a very individualist "frontier" mentality. While I didn't find the guys who seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last year to be particularly sympathetic, I can't deny that they were acting in the long tradition of modern Western conservatism: which is a protest movement, first and foremost. Any form of conservatism that believes authority deserves respect simply because it is authority is not conservatism, but is something else entirely.

Certainly, respect for cultural traditions (especially religious ones) is an integral aspect of conservatism, but they are rather beside the point because conservatism doesn't seek to change them. No movement is the optimum, which is why the movement is applicable both to very irreligious Eastern European countries and much more religious countries, like the United States.

[Santander]

The three pillars of modern Anglo-Saxon conservatism are God, King (i.e. traditions) and Empire (i.e. country). Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is certainly mot a "protest movement".

[Vosem]

The three pillars of modern Anglo-Saxon conservatism are God, King (i.e. traditions) and Empire (i.e. country). Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is certainly mot a "protest movement".

Not only is conservatism a protest movement, but your signature reveals your allegiance to a different protest movement

[Santander]

The three pillars of modern Anglo-Saxon conservatism are God, King (i.e. traditions) and Empire (i.e. country). Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is certainly mot a "protest movement".

Not only is conservatism a protest movement, but your signature reveals your allegiance to a different protest movement

Due to the frailty of man, sometimes iconoclasts serve as vehicles to restore righteousness. There are many examples of this in history.

[RINO Tom]

The latter.

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Has there ever been a better display of how there are so many definitions of "conservatism" that it has become meaningless.  Those things are antithetical, or at least should be.

Anyway, socialists are clearly more dangerous.  However, SJWs are more annoying and tend to be less enjoyable people to be around ... and usually all around tools and weirdos.

Unlike many of our friends on the left, who rarely return this favor, I think both have their hearts in the right place.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

Respect for lawful authority and deference to tradition are inseparable from even the loosest conception of conservatism; that they do not factor into your ideology of Manchester liberalism is neither here nor there.

The effective origins of modern conservatism are as a descendant of anti-communist movements during the 20th century; movements that were quite literally punishable with jail-time or time in a mental asylum in the former Eastern Bloc, and that up until the late 1970s were, while by no means violent or offensive to traditionalists, certainly a minority and to some extent counter-cultural view in most of the Western world. The American strain of it, especially, is descended from and deeply ensconced in a very individualist "frontier" mentality. While I didn't find the guys who seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last year to be particularly sympathetic, I can't deny that they were acting in the long tradition of modern Western conservatism: which is a protest movement, first and foremost. Any form of conservatism that believes authority deserves respect simply because it is authority is not conservatism, but is something else entirely.

Certainly, respect for cultural traditions (especially religious ones) is an integral aspect of conservatism, but they are rather beside the point because conservatism doesn't seek to change them. No movement is the optimum, which is why the movement is applicable both to very irreligious Eastern European countries and much more religious countries, like the United States.

The anti-communist movements you mention were conservative because they advocated for restoration, not revolution; they resisted a foreign authority that was fundamentally unlawful. They were keepers of the flame, not just a mere protest movement.

The nature and origins of modern American conservatism are irrelevant to this discussion. Buckleyism may be dominant in the American discourse but it can not claim to have superseded traditional conservatism when the aims and underlying convictions of the two are often fundamentally opposed.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Very clearly the first. SJWs are terrible and stupid but they don't propose to destroy the economy for no clear reason.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The three pillars of modern Anglo-Saxon conservatism are God, King (i.e. traditions) and Empire (i.e. country). Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is certainly mot a "protest movement".

What your describing is European culture and conservativism  not American culture,as American culture respects freedom more . The 3 pillars of American conservativism is : personal freedom , free market economics and limited government .

[Beet]

The American right has internalized the left-wing attack on freedom, but instead of returning to the Rockefeller Republicanism we had hoped, is veering off towards European far right / identity politics. In 2008, the right collectively looked down into the vortex at the blackness awaiting us all with free market ideology and saw the same thing everyone else did. They may have spent four or five years pretending they didn't, but they did. For an entire generation, the movement that began with the publication of The Road to Serfdom in 1944 ended then and there.

[Vosem]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

Respect for lawful authority and deference to tradition are inseparable from even the loosest conception of conservatism; that they do not factor into your ideology of Manchester liberalism is neither here nor there.

The effective origins of modern conservatism are as a descendant of anti-communist movements during the 20th century; movements that were quite literally punishable with jail-time or time in a mental asylum in the former Eastern Bloc, and that up until the late 1970s were, while by no means violent or offensive to traditionalists, certainly a minority and to some extent counter-cultural view in most of the Western world. The American strain of it, especially, is descended from and deeply ensconced in a very individualist "frontier" mentality. While I didn't find the guys who seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last year to be particularly sympathetic, I can't deny that they were acting in the long tradition of modern Western conservatism: which is a protest movement, first and foremost. Any form of conservatism that believes authority deserves respect simply because it is authority is not conservatism, but is something else entirely.

Certainly, respect for cultural traditions (especially religious ones) is an integral aspect of conservatism, but they are rather beside the point because conservatism doesn't seek to change them. No movement is the optimum, which is why the movement is applicable both to very irreligious Eastern European countries and much more religious countries, like the United States.

The anti-communist movements you mention were conservative because they advocated for restoration, not revolution; they resisted a foreign authority that was fundamentally unlawful. They were keepers of the flame, not just a mere protest movement.

Virtually nobody in any of those movements would've described themselves as a restorationist; the restorationists (who wanted to go back to the interwar, or pre-WW1, or medieval or whatever governments) were always deeply fringey and very rarely had any serious influence on the movement. They advocated (for the most part) free-market multi-party democracies, which most of those countries had either never been or had been very briefly. They also frequently argued for the establishment of smaller nation-states, some of which (like Slovakia) had literally never existed prior to the 1990s. Considering the very long history of autocratic governance in that region, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that they were much more radical in the scope of the changes they envisioned than the communists were.

The nature and origins of modern American conservatism are irrelevant to this discussion. Buckleyism may be dominant in the American discourse but it can not claim to have superseded traditional conservatism when the aims and underlying convictions of the two are often fundamentally opposed.

First of all, what traditional conservatism? Bryanism had died out by the 1920s and while Taft was a non-interventionist (though even there by the end of his career he was slipping), in most respects he was essentially proto-Reaganist; he opposed the New Deal on the grounds that it took too much agency away from private businesses.

Second of all, words have meanings. Conservatism is generally used to mean a broadly Reaganist outlook -- anti-communist, anti-Islamist, and free-trade/Euro-integrationist foreign policy abroad, and market-supremacy reforms and respect for traditions at home. Trying to yell that what the word should mean is some sort of semi-mythical "traditional conservatism" won't change what most people actually use it to mean.

[Santander]

The three pillars of modern Anglo-Saxon conservatism are God, King (i.e. traditions) and Empire (i.e. country). Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is certainly mot a "protest movement".

What your describing is European culture and conservativism  not American culture,as American culture respects freedom more . The 3 pillars of American conservativism is : personal freedom , free market economics and limited government .

Beep boop

[OSR stands with Israel]

The three pillars of modern Anglo-Saxon conservatism are God, King (i.e. traditions) and Empire (i.e. country). Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is certainly mot a "protest movement".

What your describing is European culture and conservativism  not American culture,as American culture respects freedom more . The 3 pillars of American conservativism is : personal freedom , free market economics and limited government .

Beep boop

Since you can't come up with an actual response thanks for conceding I am right and you are wrong