nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Conservatives are afraid.

Klinkhammer

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10/amp

So this guy, John Bargh, reckons conservatives who are temporarily relieved of their innate fear will temporarily turn in to liberals. Liberals who do the same experiment do not change their views.

I think there's a lot of sense in this. Using After Hours as a petri dish you have the most vitriol directed towards sections of society people fear the most.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cordell

rgodard80a wrote: »

Or had their sister nearly abducted, credit card skimmed, punched on a bus etc...

Liberalism costs hard earned tax payers money and people have a right to question immigration, refugee and social welfare policy.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation

That is, on short, the definition of liberalism. So stop using the americanized derogatory and perverted meaning.
People that "question immigration, refugee and social welfare policy" are in fact exercising their liberal liberty of freedom of speech.

Klinkhammer

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is this not stating the obvious - if you weren't afraid of change you would be a bloody conservative!

I have no idea what you mean by that.

silverharp

Odhinn wrote: »

Everyones scared of the lesbians. Except maybe the lesbians.

they are never like in the movies in real life

sbsquarepants

Klinkhammer wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by that.

The only reason for wanting things to remain the same is the fear that they will get worse if changed. If you suspected change would improve things you'd be all for it, if you though it would make no difference you wouldn't care either way.

If you are all for change, or not bothered one way or the other you, are liberal by definition.

Therefore conservatives are by definition afraid. Remove that fear and they default to liberal.

You can't be a liberal who wants to conserve, and you can't be a conservative who wants to liberalise. They are oxymorons.

Edit - Sorry, just seen my typo.

I meant to say if you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be a conservative, not that you would!

conorhal

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Conservatism is caused by fear, Liberalism is a mental disorder. Is centrism caused by parental factors or anxiety?

You know, I've wondered that... Could centrism be the product of being a middle child? Niether molly-coddled nor neglected and thus a balanced individual?
Perhaps we have so many snowflakes because people have so few kids these days that there is now a disproportionate number of people walking around that are the product of an excess of parental attention and supervision and aspirations, which you just didn't see in larger families.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Lol ok, in a thread calling all conservatives afraid where one delightful poster quipped "the only good conservative is a dead conservative" you ignore the near constant attacks on liberal policies like open/weak boarders, identity politics, multiculturalism, welfare state etc etc etc etc to make that massively hypocritical post, fantastic work, you do you!

Oh, I'm not saying liberals are innocent! Nor am I limiting it to this thread.

I've been around here a while and believe me, people just dismiss liberals. Bleeding heart liberal, pinko liberal, liberal media.... and yet never actually state what they mean by these phrases or what liberal policies thet consider examples of such.

Nor do you: those aren't policies you've outlined, those are issues. What, exactly, is the policy on a specific issue?

Consider two questions before you answer:
1 - Is it an opinion actually held by a majority of liberal-minded people (I consider my outlook to be liberal and I don't believe in open borders or unlimited immigration - and theer are many more like me) or are you just trying to create an easy target for yourself? Stick to representative sources: not Indymedia: that would be link someone using Stormfront to dismiss conservative policies.
2 - Can you prove it's a bad policy and wouldn't work on a national/global level, or are you just scared of what it might mean for you personally?

topper75

Sure it's not the liberals who fear disproportionately?

Was it not they who got in a boxset binge-watching froth over the paranoid ****ehawkery that was The Handmaid's Tale?

Anyway, if somebody wants to stop change they are not conservative. They are a reactionary. You can't stop change of course. That way lies madness.

A conservative rather wants to MANAGE change and attempt to avoid chaos. You encourage improvements in a measured fashion and you discourage any degeneracy.

conorhal

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The only reason for wanting things to remain the same is the fear that they will get worse if changed. If you suspected change would improve things you'd be all for it, if you though it would make no difference you wouldn't care either way.

If you are all for change, or not bothered one way or the other you, are liberal by definition.

Therefore conservatives are by definition afraid. Remove that fear and they default to liberal.

You can't be a liberal who wants to conserve, and you can't be a conservative who wants to liberalise. They are oxymorons.

Edit - Sorry, just seen my typo.

I meant to say if you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be a conservative, not that you would!

That might be true if you weren't misrepresenting conservatism.
It's a value system, not museum curation. Has it possibly occured to you that something might be conserved because it is something that is valued and appreciated or considered a common good rather than something retained for fear of changing it?

Sonics2k

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Lol ok, in a thread calling all conservatives afraid where one delightful poster quipped "the only good conservative is a dead conservative" you ignore the near constant attacks on liberal policies like open/weak boarders, identity politics, multiculturalism, welfare state etc etc etc etc to make that massively hypocritical post, fantastic work, you do you!

It's a direct reference to the Starship Troopers gif posted above.

rgodard80a

Cordell wrote: »

So stop using the americanized derogatory and
perverted meaning.

Sounds like a mildly racist attack on Americans there.

[Deleted User]

Sonics2k wrote: »

It's a direct reference to the Starship Troopers gif posted above.

This place sickens me sometimes, we almost had a good Starship Troopers thread going and instead it was hijacked so people could have the same tired old arguments again

Pepefrogok

riffmongous wrote: »

This place sickens me sometimes, we almost had a good Starship Troopers thread going and instead it was hijacked so people could have the same tired old arguments again

My bad, do you want to know more?

biko

68948b86a631398251f58e9cdbc3c3a2d9cf6550321f5ae93cdd4a12a266cff4.jpg

Jurgen Klopp

Is there anything to be said for the lads that are neither and want a decent social and welfare state for the population of a nation with a skills based visa system instead of looking for cheap foreign labor to suppress wages or not be a nut job mass immigration and diversity at all costs no matter the result of a the **** hole it begins to turn into like Sweden?

No?

No

rizzles

i love refugees in my country
really good

The Backwards Man

Is Starship Troopers taught in history classes yet?

In my day we had to sit through Triumph Des Willens and Battleship fcuking Potemkin.

[Deleted User]

Well it would be a great movie for bringing liberals and conservatives together, liberals can see it as satire and conservatives can just enjoy it (at least up until they realise that bug plasma can't move asteroids and the Buenos Aires was an inside job)

dav3

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for the lads that are neither and want a decent social and welfare state for the population of a nation with a skills based visa system instead of looking for cheap foreign labor to suppress wages or not be a nut job mass immigration and diversity at all costs no matter the result of a the **** hole it begins to turn into like Sweden?

No?

No

rizzles

riffmongous wrote: »

Well it would be a great movie for bringing liberals and conservatives together, liberals can see it as satire and conservatives can just enjoy it (at least up until they realise that bug plasma can't move asteroids and the Buenos Aires was an inside job)

that is the question of our generation
there are miniscule signs of compromise for both sides

[Deleted User]

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Is Starship Troopers taught in history classes yet?

In my day we had to sit through Triumph Des Willens and Battleship fcuking Potemkin.

On that note

Junkyard Tom

I was just doing a bit of reading about Starship Troopers and the satire in it was completely missed by critics at the time.

theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive

I mean how much of a dumbass movie critic would you have to be to not get it?

Cordell

rgodard80a wrote: »

Sounds like a mildly racist attack on Americans there.

It's called microaggression.

southstar

Pepefrogok wrote: »

But we are more beautiful!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/01/27/science-says-conservatives-are-hotter-than-liberals/amp/

This is backed up by looking at any protest/screem at the sky session! Mabey that's what we are scared off! That our women will put a pile of weight on and start dying their hair multiple colours?

Here is a nice science based video to help explain!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jNkg78D5iqI

it would beat turning into that smug arse hole Katie Hopkins..

Hande hoche!

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I was just doing a bit of reading about Starship Troopers and the satire in it was completely missed by critics at the time.

theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive

I mean how much of a dumbass movie critic would you have to be to not get it?

The Nazi style uniforms were a bit of a give away.

Billy86

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

A liberal is just a conservative that has not been mugged yet.

Meaning a conservative is just a liberal who can't look after or defend themselves. Explains the strong man leader fetish in some circles.

ancapailldorcha

Billy86 wrote: »

Meaning a conservative is just a liberal who can't look after or defend themselves. Explains the strong man leader fetish in some circles.

Not to mention the enduring victimhood-complex and incessant whining.

Donnielighto

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The only reason for wanting things to remain the same is the fear that they will get worse if changed. If you suspected change would improve things you'd be all for it, if you though it would make no difference you wouldn't care either way.

If you are all for change, or not bothered one way or the other you, are liberal by definition.

Therefore conservatives are by definition afraid. Remove that fear and they default to liberal.

You can't be a liberal who wants to conserve, and you can't be a conservative who wants to liberalise. They are oxymorons.

Edit - Sorry, just seen my typo.

I meant to say if you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be a conservative, not that you would!

Are liberals afraid things will get worse of action isn't taken? Who has not fears for society and the world in general ffs?

DEFTLEFTHAND

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts, conservatives become liberals, liberals become conservative and a lot of people simply stay put in the middle.

Do ye see many conservatives becoming liberals though? Isn't it more common for it to be the other way round.

sbsquarepants

conorhal wrote: »

Has it possibly occured to you that something might be conserved because it is something that is valued and appreciated or considered a common good rather than something retained for fear of changing it?

Doesn't make any sense. Even if something is considered a common good, the only reason for not changing it, would be if you fear that the change could be a disimprovement.
Why not make things even better if you think you can?

Donnielighto wrote: »

Are liberals afraid things will get worse of action isn't taken?

No, not necessarily. Change by it's nature involves risk, there is no such thing as a perfect prediction.
I'd class liberalism as "live and let live". Conservatism as "you live, how I live". One outlook accepts risk as an inevitable consequence of equality, the other just seeks to avoid it altogether.

Manach

Some of us are just spawned Conservative.