No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I'm curious what it is about conservative ideology that appeals to you. Because I have come to the conclusion after several decades on this planet, that deep down (or I guess really not that deep at all) it is a destructive, and morally bankrupt philosophy.
I'm curious how you came to your conclusions, too, because the point of conservatism, to me, is to prevent destruction.
I've been a environmental conservationist my whole life. As I became an adult and aware of politics, I came to realize that just as the natural environment requires protection against the selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness of humanity, so too do all the social and political systems that take decades or centuries to build but only years or months to destroy (as we've seen under the current administration).
It's been said many times that at the heart of all conservatism is fear. That's not a very generous way to put it, but neither is it inaccurate. Fear of loss, fear of risk, fear of change. Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better, and so change is to be treated with suspicion, and people pushing for it doubly so, since altruism is rare.
A bicycle needs both pedals and brakes. We need to move forward, but not recklessly. Before a change is made, the case needs to be argued as to why it is necessary, what it will cost (and there's always a cost), how to ensure it actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, and how it might be misused in the future. In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.
I think that, perhaps, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the generally accepted (speaking for the US here) definition of what the conservative political ideology actually is. I say that with all due respect.
Modern conservatives do not care about conserving the environment. Literally the opposite.
I know what the generally accepted definition is, I just don't accept it. Regressives don't have a right to call themselves conservative and I won't stop calling them out on it.
But conservatives have always been regressive in the US.
The things they were trying to conserve were slavery, segregation, women having no rights, companies being able to destroy the environment and abuse workers, etc.
You built up your very own definition of the word while ignoring what any political conservative movement in the world actually does. You listened to someone's argument on the concept of a definition, an idea that was stapled to a word in your head, without actually looking at factual reality. What you describe is simply not what any conservative party anywhere does.
Starting with the idea that you are conserving something that runs well and not spending resource on frivolous nonsense that doesn't work - just look at everything a conservative party actually funds while blocking money for anything remotely humanitarian because they claim it doesn't work, or based on the slightest disagreement about a boundary, while being themselves the very reason it doesn't work.
Look at what is actually protected. And at who isn't, based on not giving too much to someone you don't think deserves it. Do those who already have all that deserve it?
Starting with your environmental conservationist sensibility and deducing (edit: typo) that you want to be a conservative is already super wild, it's antinomic. You think you protect something from greed and selfishness, but those who who block progress are the selfish ones who hoard everything out of greed, using "this doesn't deserve it" or "you can't prove this works" as an excuse to keep everything. You are not safeguarding anything, and there's zero place for environmental protection in any conservative party anywhere.
What would you call someone with the beliefs that they've mentioned then? I agree, I don't know of a current "conservative" political group/party that follows that idea anymore but what word better explains how they actually want things?
In the US? ... Obama? (In a very big nutshell) as long as you don't oppose stuff like the Dreamers and Obamacare (which you shouldn't under this definition)
By the way, I think this bit
Is the biggest discrepancy in each person's understanding. If things are good...for who? What if they're not? If they are for 51% of people, what about the other 49%?
If you understand some stuff is good for you and some stuff is very bad for everyone else, do you block everything?
If only your situation changes and nothing else, do you switch parties?
I agree. This person is a conservative. The other “conservatives” are just fascists who inherited the label and it no longer fits.
The conservative party has never stood for what this person is ascribing to them.