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

Is conservatism the new counter-culture?

ameirecan

Many years ago, rebellious students campaigned and fought for far-left ideas like gay rights, legalization of contraception, veganism and the socialist utopia. These days being pro-immigration, pro-gay rights and anti-religion is the epitome of the establishment. These are the safe, mainstream ideas that are celebrated daily in our media. Our Taoiseach is an openly homosexual son of an Indian immigrant.

These days the rebels are the lads who go to mass every Sunday and take pride in their country’s past and traditions. They want to keep Ireland for the Irish and many even make the effort to include a cúpla focail in their daily conversations. Instead of indulging in hedonistic binge drinking and casual sex antics at the weekend, they stay in and study the writings of Pearse. Witholding sex until after marriage is the radical thing to do these days.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bnt

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Which practice or concept would you be talking about? Women voting? Gay rights?

Again with the caricature of "conservative" as just saying "no" to all forms of social progress. Did you know there are conservative American women - remember Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska? - and such as thing as LGBT conservatism? This is not "whataboutery", it's evidence that you can be conservative-leaning and still favour social progress.

It's like the difference "liberal" and "libertarian". Are libertarians "conservative"? In the USA, the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, and by 1975 they already had a positive public position on gay rights. The way the Wikipedia article on the Libertarian Party puts it:

The party generally promotes a classical liberal platform, in contrast to the Democrats' modern liberalism and progressivism and the Republicans' conservatism. Gary Johnson, the party's presidential nominee in 2012 and 2016, states that the Libertarian Party is more culturally liberal than Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than Republicans. Current fiscal policy positions include lowering taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), decreasing the national debt, allowing people to opt out of Social Security and eliminating the welfare state, in part by utilizing private charities. Current cultural policy positions include ending the prohibition of illegal drugs, supporting same-sex marriage, ending capital punishment and supporting gun ownership rights. Many Libertarians believe in lowering the drinking age to 18.

Anyone interested in starting the Libertarian Party of Ireland? :cool:

professore

Wanderer78 wrote: »

absolutely disagree there, as others have said, 'our' reaction to the 2008 crash has shown the true colours of European institutions including our political institutions. i dont see us all living in a utopian socialist union! i would class these reactions to the crash as being rather right winged.

I would say that this is how socialism works in the real world.

One eyed Jack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, examples of conservatives resisting cultural and social changes, the thing you say they don't do.

Ok, I see now I should have made that clearer. There are people who spout all sorts of ill-informed nonsense who claim that their nonsense is based on conservative values, and there are people who spout all sorts of nonsense which other people agree with the people spouting nonsense would identity as conservative values. Now, not only are the people spouting nonsense incorrect in identifying themselves as conservative, so too are the people who identify them as conservative, on the basis of the nonsense they're spouting.

To give you an example, Donald Trump would describe himself as conservative, but he's not. Donald Trump is an anarchist, who just wants to wind up as many people as possible, and watch the world burn. Donald Trump instituting social change doesn't scare me, because anarchists, like progressive liberals, rarely give a flying fcuk about anyone but themselves, so the appearance of change is like flambéing a steak - it's shocking, it's showy, but like the flame, anarchists and progressive liberals ideas go out of fashion as quick as they came in, whereas for the conservative, all they care about is the fcuking steak.

So the next time you're going to spout nonsense about marriage equality as though it's some great massive social change, try and remember the social institution of marriage, which underlies marriage equality and forms the basis of social institutions like the family, the most fundamental building block of any society, both of those social institutions are almost as old as human civilisation itself, and not just some new hair-brained fad that some Occupy hipster dreamt up over their frothy cappulaté in Starbucks.

professore

crazy_larry wrote: »

there is no need to over complicate what is obvious , people who loot like in lidl last week do so because they are immoral , unconscionable people who were badly reared by ( most likely ) immoral unconscionable people , we are not dealing with people dodging russian bombs in allepo here

aoidain o riordain was on tv the other night referring to so called middle ireland and its reaction to the lidl looting , middle class socialists like him have always despised the silent majority , lefties have always viewed thugs as exotic , doesnt matter if its stalin , castro or those guys lugging larger in tallaght last weekend

the hated middle class are too be milked so lefty intellectual posers can study these exotic species who do nothing but sponge of the state

the problem with lefties is they have no common sense and actually hate traditional cop on

I grew up in 70s and 80s Ireland - those people have a higher standard of living than the vast majority of people of my era. They are part of the 1% worldwide in terms of wealth. They are entitled to massive support should they want to better themselves. Loads of work out there if they want it.

Complex social issues my hole.

Captain Obvious

bnt wrote: »

Again with the caricature of "conservative" as just saying "no" to all forms of social progress. Did you know there are conservative American women - remember Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska? - and such as thing as LGBT conservatism? This is not "whataboutery", it's evidence that you can be conservative-leaning and still favour social progress.

What exactly is your point here? The fact there are conservative women and lgb people doesn't change the fact that conservatives have opposed, and in many cases still oppose, rights for those people.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, I see now I should have made that clearer. There are people who spout all sorts of ill-informed nonsense who claim that their nonsense is based on conservative values, and there are people who spout all sorts of nonsense which other people agree with the people spouting nonsense would identity as conservative values. Now, not only are the people spouting nonsense incorrect in identifying themselves as conservative, so too are the people who identify them as conservative, on the basis of the nonsense they're spouting.

The very definition of conservative is to be averse to or wary of change. And that's what conservatives are. You haven't put any argument against that other than to justify why they are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So the next time you're going to spout nonsense about marriage equality as though it's some great massive social change, try and remember the social institution of marriage, which underlies marriage equality and forms the basis of social institutions like the family, the most fundamental building block of any society, both of those social institutions are almost as old as human civilisation itself, and not just some new hair-brained fad that some Occupy hipster dreamt up over their frothy cappulaté in Starbucks.

Marriage equality is a great massive social change. It doesn't damage the family unit, it simply allows different variations of it. The institution of marriage is ancient but it has taken many different forms in that time, as has the family unit. Both concepts have evolved over time

Wanderer78

professore wrote:

I would say that this is how socialism works in the real world.

Who exactly does this 'socialism' actually work for?

biko

Is conservatism the new counter-culture?

I think someone has been watching Paul Joseph Watson...

One eyed Jack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The very definition of conservative is to be averse to or wary of change. And that's what conservatives are. You haven't put any argument against that other than to justify why they are.

Again, you're just incorrect. That's your definition of conservative. It is not, and never has been, the definition of conservative.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Marriage equality is a great massive social change. It doesn't damage the family unit, it simply allows different variations of it. The institution of marriage is ancient but it has taken many different forms in that time, as has the family unit. Both concepts have evolved over time

Goodness sake, marriage equality was never that big a deal at all, I never said it damages the family unit, so I don't know where you got that from. It certainly reveals your own biases and why you're so reluctant to accept that conservatives are not averse to change, nor do they fear change. One of the reasons I voted for marriage equality was not because I gave a damn about the adults involved, but because it gave the children of homosexual couples the same rights as the children of heterosexual parents by recognising the family unit through the institution of marriage. That was no giant step forward. It will be a giant step forward when the children of one parent families are given the same rights and protections in law as the children of married parents who have those rights through the institution of marriage.

But because there's no social media merit badge for one parent families, all the "support" they get from liberal progressives is when they are used as a stick to beat their opposition with in regards to issues like abortion and the Catholic Church, and when that doesn't work, well you can just make shít up to suit yourself, as you have done, and as the media have done, in wildly misquoting Ms. Mary McAleese in recent media reports:

McAleese did not make pro-abortion remark

drillyeye

To use the traditional American "left and right".......

In a finite universe, the idea of "giving stuff away" (liberalism), versus "preserving what you have" (conservatism).......

not only is conservatism the new counter-culture, it is the only logical end-point of a finite system.

As quite literally everything becomes less and less affordable, from having a family to having a roof over your head, from having a job to enabling genuine progress in life......liberalism is slowly but surely being seen as lunacy.

Bob_Marley

drillyeye wrote: »

To use the traditional American "left and right".......

In a finite universe, the idea of "giving stuff away" (liberalism), versus "preserving what you have" (conservatism).......

not only is conservatism the new counter-culture, it is the only logical end-point of a finite system.

As quite literally everything becomes less and less affordable, from having a family to having a roof over your head, from having a job to enabling genuine progress in life......liberalism is slowly but surely being seen as lunacy.

Both liberalism and conservatism have damaging and beneficial polices for the common good of humanity. The problem is, people who label themselves as liberal or conservative weld themselves to the bad policies as well as the good, instead of examining each policy under it's own merits. One of the most backward steps in human evolution was people splitting and pigeonholing themselves and their ability to rationalise ideas and policies for themselves into so called left and right camps.

drillyeye

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Both liberalism and conservatism have damaging and beneficial polices for the common good of humanity. The problem is, people who label themselves as liberal or conservative weld themselves to the bad policies as well as the good, instead of examining each policy under it's own merits. One of the most backward steps in human evolution was people splitting and pigeonholing themselves and their ability to rationalise ideas and policies for themselves into so called left and right camps.

To take a step back, this recent phenomena (aided by the internet) could very well be an evolutionary challenge. That the very ideologies are being paired against each other for the last time.

In that scenario, and considering the very real dangers the world is facing (climate, automation, social erosion, energy etc), there is clearly only one who will win.

MayoSalmon

Bob_Marley wrote:

One of the most backward steps in human evolution was people splitting and pigeonholing themselves and their ability to rationalise ideas and policies for themselves into so called left and right camps.

Well this is very much the ideology of the so called left.

The right are focused on the individual and the left are very much focused on whichever group can give them the most political traction.

drillyeye

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Well this is very much the ideology of the so called left.

The right are focused on the individual and the left are very much focused on whichever group can give them the most political traction.

Whether historically correct or not, the identity politics dreamed up by people on the left is, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst thing to happen to people on a day by day basis.

Everyone is an "enemy" or an "ally". From men versus women, to black men versus black women, X country versus Y country, Asians versus Africans, bed-wetters versus cake makers, turnip lovers versus technology haters.....

And then the gall to preach "b.b.b.but we're all the same. Respect!"

It is the singular worst thing to happen to society in the last ten to fifteen years, and for that level of social hostility, I would like to congratulate the left on being an unmitigated disaster. Its a miracle the push-back has taken this long, but I suppose that just goes to show how deafening their cries have been up to now.

Good riddance to that poisonous "ideology", it cant die quick enough.

One eyed Jack

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Both liberalism and conservatism have damaging and beneficial polices for the common good of humanity.

The view that a policy is either good or bad would depend upon whether ones values are indeed conservative, and interested in maintaining the common good, or liberal - only interested in the effects of any policy as it pertains to the individual.

The problem is, people who label themselves as liberal or conservative weld themselves to the bad policies as well as the good, instead of examining each policy under it's own merits.

I don't know how you make that out. There have been horrendous policies put forward historically by both conservative and liberal leaning individuals and groups, and there have been some good policies put forward by both, but that doesn't mean anyone has welded themselves to any particular policy, and the vast majority of people are more than capable of viewing any policy through a lens which is influenced by their own values, whether those values be either liberal, conservative, or anarchist.

One of the most backward steps in human evolution was people splitting and pigeonholing themselves and their ability to rationalise ideas and policies for themselves into so called left and right camps.

Left and right on the political spectrum are not the same as conservative or liberal values as they pertain to issues of social and/or economic policies. I also disagree that one of the most backward steps in human social evolution is people aligning themselves with groups which reflect their values. That's exactly why conservatives will always be in the driving seat in society whereas liberals will tend to take a back seat, because conservatives are more interested in the common good than liberals who are more interested in what's good for the individual. Individuals can't do jack shìt on their own to effect social change, so that's why human societies depend upon tribalism and shared common goals to actually achieve anything, as opposed to the individual who wants to look like they're championing some great idea that usually has no grounding in reality, because they crave validation from their peers.

[Deleted User]

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The right are focused on the individual and the left are very much focused on whichever group can give them the most political traction.

I would say the right are more concerned with companies and protecting their interests than the individual working person.

I would say that the traditional left were more concerned about society as a whole.

Some but not all of the contributors here that claim to be to the right seem to be very unhappy and angry individuals who rant on about the rights that gays/women/migrants have and an unhealthy obsession about social welfare.

Some but not all of the contributors here the claim to be the left seem to be constantly delusioned that everyone who commits a crime is simply doing it because of how their disadvantaged etc.

The majority of people if intelligent and open minded will be conservative in some manners and liberal in others.

MayoSalmon

The right are concerned about free market and enterprise hence their involvement with companies...

The left simply want to nationalise industry for the most part and see free markets as some sort of manipulative machine unless heavily regulated etc

So I wouldn't agree with your statement at all

drillyeye

DubInMeath wrote: »

I would say the right are more concerned with companies and protecting their interests than the individual working person.

I would say that the traditional left were more concerned about society as a whole.

Some but not all of the contributors here that claim to be to the right seem to be very unhappy and angry individuals who rant on about the rights that gays/women/migrants have and an unhealthy obsession about social welfare.

Some but not all of the contributors here the claim to be the left seem to be constantly delusioned that everyone who commits a crime is simply doing it because of how their disadvantaged etc.

The majority of people if intelligent and open minded will be conservative in some manners and liberal in others.

I don't even think the deep political divide today is a case of left and right.

Its more a case of everything/anything versus the left. There is no doubt that the political climate of today has been fostered by the left, pretty much every antagonistic point in society today has originated from left ideology.

So its probably a mistake to portray it as left versus right. The left has pretty much made an enemy of everything.

[Deleted User]

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The right are concerned about free market and enterprise hence their involvement with companies...

The left simply want to nationalise industry for the most part and see free markets as some sort of manipulative machine unless heavily regulated etc

So I wouldn't agree with your statement at all

Free market policy has led to higher levels working poverty and increased costs, with often reduced service, not decreased costs and increased service as a profit needs to be made.

Regulation in Ireland has an orientation in favour of business for the most part, the banking and power sectors are examples of this and costs you as an individual.

So I wouldn't agree with your statement at all either.

[Deleted User]

drillyeye wrote: »

I don't even think the deep political divide today is a case of left and right.

Its more a case of everything/anything versus the left. There is no doubt that the political climate of today has been fostered by the left, pretty much every antagonistic point in society today has originated from left ideology.

So its probably a mistake to portray it as left versus right. The left has pretty much made an enemy of everything.

How have antagonistic attitutes such ad homophobia, misogyny etc been created by the left in Ireland, they've been here a long time.

drillyeye

DubInMeath wrote: »

How have antagonistic attitutes such ad homophobia, mysognagy etc been created by the left in Ireland, they've been here a long time.

Society, by definition, functions on majority.

It cannot function any other way, it is an impossibility.

Therefore, when I see issues "championed" by the left, such as homosexuality (whats that, 1 to 3 odd% of the population?), immigration (again, tiny, tiny, tiny %), misogyny/feminism/sexism (again, a very small percentage of people actually believe or follow the examples of the extreme) and so on........

I say that the left takes issues that affect very, very few people, and obviously don't bother the rest of the people........blast the issue across the majority incessantly.......thereby fracturing a working society into smaller and smaller groups.

A quick example. if 95% of the population was "content" or didn't care about gay marriage, when the left had come and had its way, it fractured society into two VERY opposing groups of about 65% and 35%. It creates ill-will where there was none before.

That is the modus operandi of the left, namely, division. One needs only look to the united states (the origin of the modern "left") to see how badly a society starts to crumble under their influence.

That said, I dont think things should stay the same forever, or that minorities should be ignored. But they should be given their due importance in society. Harsh as that might sound, it is the only practical way to govern a society.

Long story short, the left is wholly concerned with the small picture at the expense of the big picture. There is no balance, and that is why they are being decimated across the planet. Their game of social division is just about over.

And to add, again, that's why this isn't a left versus right thing at all, its the left versus everyone else.

rossie1977

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The right are concerned about free market and enterprise hence their involvement with companies...

The left simply want to nationalise industry for the most part and see free markets as some sort of manipulative machine unless heavily regulated etc

So I wouldn't agree with your statement at all

Free market is a pie in the sky fantasy to begin with.

It's funny those on the right are so interested in helping giant corporations but love interfering in the lives of ordinary people. I guess corporate donations helps

Wanderer78

rossie1977 wrote:

It's funny those on the right are so interested in helping giant corporations but interfering in the lives of ordinary people. I guess corporate donations helps

Those that believe in free market principals, believe government should never interfere with the market, but would that not mean failing institutions such as banks should never be bailed out? I find that a little puzzling!

[Deleted User]

drillyeye wrote: »

Society, by definition, functions on majority.

It cannot function any other way, it is an impossibility.

Therefore, when I see issues "championed" by the left, such as homosexuality (whats that, 1 to 3 odd% of the population?), immigration (again, tiny, tiny, tiny %), misogyny/feminism/sexism (again, a very small percentage of people actually believe or follow the examples of the extreme) and so on........

I say that the left takes issues that affect very, very few people, and obviously don't bother the rest of the people........blast the issue across the majority incessantly.......thereby fracturing a working society into smaller and smaller groups.

A quick example. if 95% of the population was "content" or didn't care about gay marriage, when the left had come and had its way, it fractured society into two VERY opposing groups of about 65% and 35%. It creates ill-will where there was none before.

That is the modus operandi of the left, namely, division. One needs only look to the united states (the origin of the modern "left") to see how badly a society starts to crumble under their influence.

That said, I dont think things should stay the same forever, or that minorities should be ignored. But they should be given their due importance in society. Harsh as that might sound, it is the only practical way to govern a society.

Long story short, the left is wholly concerned with the small picture at the expense of the big picture. There is no balance, and that is why they are being decimated across the planet. Their game of social division is just about over.

And to add, again, that's why this isn't a left versus right thing at all, its the left versus everyone else.

Well in terms of gay marriage people (not all homosexual) were calling for its legalisation for many years, and only religious and social conservatives contiue to opposed it. Your point that minorities etc shouldn't be ignored or things should not say the same ignores the fact that without the left highlighting and pressing for change they wouldn't happen.

Without the left we wouldn't have any workers rights etc that we have as good and as bad as some of them are. The US is a prime example of this where basically they don't exist, and its a model that a lot of the right want to employ here, zero hour and fixed term contracts being an example.

drillyeye

DubInMeath wrote: »

Well in terms of gay marriage people (not all homosexual) were calling for its legalisation for many years, and only religious and social conservatives contiue to opposed it. Your point that minorities etc shouldn't be ignored or things should not say the same ignores the fact that without the left highlighting and pressing for change they wouldn't happen.

Without the left we wouldn't have any workers rights etc that we have as good and as bad as some of them are. The US is a prime example of this where basically they don't exist, and its a model that a lot of the right want to employ here, zero hour and fixed term contracts being an example.

Nobody can state numbers for definite, of course. But I sincerely doubt there was some huge undercurrent of people in Ireland thinking "yeah! that's what we want, gay marriage!". It wasn't an "issue" until the left jumped on it and made it an issue.

Regardless of specifics, social antagonism is firmly attached to left ideology. And as borne out through the rise of counter-culture and just about every election in the past couple years, people (not just "the right") have had enough of the left ideology.

Regarding working rights, the cut-off point for the left seizing on identity politics (read: every identity that is minority) began around the regan era. Not so bad a thing, but the last 10 to 15 years has seen them double and triple down, to the point that the left is defined by identity politics.

Take away identity politics and social division, and whats left of the ideology? Pretty much nothing as far as I can see.

Theres no end game or strategy, just chip chip chip away at functioning societies until everyone hates you. It doesn't even make sense from THEIR point of view!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ameirecan wrote: »

Many years ago, rebellious students campaigned and fought for far-left ideas like gay rights, legalization of contraception, veganism and the socialist utopia. These days being pro-immigration, pro-gay rights and anti-religion is the epitome of the establishment. These are the safe, mainstream ideas that are celebrated daily in our media. Our Taoiseach is an openly homosexual son of an Indian immigrant.

These days the rebels are the lads who go to mass every Sunday and take pride in their country’s past and traditions. They want to keep Ireland for the Irish and many even make the effort to include a cúpla focail in their daily conversations. Instead of indulging in hedonistic binge drinking and casual sex antics at the weekend, they stay in and study the writings of Pearse. Witholding sex until after marriage is the radical thing to do these days.

That;s not a rebel, that's a zombie.

JohnMc1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Who exactly does this 'socialism' actually work for?

In Socialism the Elites have all the power while the rest. Just look at Venezuela and any other 3rd World Country that's mired in poverty.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JohnMc1 wrote: »

In Socialism the Elites have all the power while the rest. Just look at Venezuela and any other 3rd World Country that's mired in poverty.

You could use that post to describe any country on the planet.

[Deleted User]

Regan and Thatcher's economic policies are one of the reasons for how messed up societies have become in that even an average work person is struggling to keep their heads above water and anyone falling on hard times is personally responsible for their predicament if itheir living in a particular post code.

In your posts it appears that a normal functioning society would be happy to deny marriage equality etc.

JohnMc1

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You could use that post to describe the US.

The "Poor" in the US are rich by most Countries standards. The "Poor" in the US have $100 + sneakers, the latest mobile phone, the latest game console, etc. They're not eating rats or garbage to survive like they are in Venezuela. That was a poor example on your part.

Capt'n Midnight

It's like men's beards.

Being clean shaven is counter-culture when everyone has a beard, and visa-versa.

Hipsters and their ilk I would not consider to be counter-culture.

Where have you been hidin' out lately, honey?
You can't dress trashy till you spend a lot of money"
Billy Joel - nearly 40 years ago.

Conservative values ? Mé Féinners. Being selfish isn't something you need a degree in advanced whatever to figure out.

Leaving the rat race by living off the dole isn't counter culture it's just sponging off the rat race.

Counter culture has been about defending the masses and basically giving the fingers to the 1% 'cept the last guy that went around saying we should be nice to each other got nailed to a cross.