I agree, just as you should be free to say/do as you wish BUT you're also responsible for the consequences. The latter part many people have problems with.
When we're protected from consequences, we fail to grow and learn. Consequences are built into life so that we can improve and develop the winning approach. By denying people the consequences of free choice, you are denying them development as a human being.
We should have let the banks fail in 2008, and we should be letting individuals fail.
Sounds like classical liberalism..... Which it is. That's how far the overton window has turned, that what once were liberals are now considered far-right nationalists. If far-right nationalism is equal rights, then by all means. Hate me. Revile me. Call me every name in the book. It doesn't phase me one bit. I will stand by them, because that's what principles are about. Everybody should be responsible for their own decisions and should be left to their own devices, so long as they do not affect other people.
If words affect you, I'm sorry but it goes both ways. Only difference is, I don't want to censor you. I don't have all the answers and feel just like anybody else, and my stance is grounded in pendanticism, not in value. I'd love to just hold hands and sing songs over marshmallows and ensure every man and woman has everything they could ever need or want, as I'm sure many if not most on this site would agree to. But the world doesn't work that way. Not yet. And until we get to that point where we can sustain ourselves indefinitely, it will only faII into disarray.....
California, as rich as silicon valley is, as progressive as its politicians are, aren't even able to provide even a decent fraction of homeless needs. It alone accounts for about a quarter of the nation's homelessness. That is what we're trying to avoid, and as bleak a future having to work a job you might not like may sound to you, suck it up, buttercup. And read about how over-regulation and the types of policies big cities are known for tends to affect small businesses disproportionately to big businesses before you pit the blame on capitalism and capitalism alone. Then tell me how propping even more progressive policies is gonna help what borked the system in the first place.
Sorry about the rant, but I figure the few troIIs who might see it could use some help in understanding what us conservatives are truly about.....
this needs far more upvotes. this is why i'm here. i'm a classical liberal, and we're a dying breed. the core of the constitution and the enlightenment values it seeks to uphold speaks to us. its strange but classical liberals must unite with conservatives to defeat woke bullshit.
thing is, classical ANYTHING is a "high information" concept, due to the existence of positive & negative rights, as well as having to understand the heavily philosophical and experimental nature of our government.
todays "low-information" idiot voters and dems cannot possibly get this shit.
Likewise with libertarianism. I think most of you guys are far more libertarian than the Libertarian Party is today. It's makes sense though. What are American conservatives trying to conserve? The Constitution. The most radically libertarian form of government ever attempted.
This is a typical conservative. Honestly, just leave us alone. You do you. But the left has to be a control freak. If we don’t glorify guys kissing each other, and killing babies, we are evil gun toting extremists
But rights are rights. You don't lose your rights if your hair is purple, just the respect of normal people.
If rights are natural and come from God, it shouldn't matter at all whether you believe in God. Do people who worship Odin deserve individual rights? They may live in a society based on Abrahamic law, but they don't believe in the God of the Bible. How about a Buddhist practitioner? Does a person in a coma have rights? They aren't capable of thinking about God at all.
Of course they have rights. But abusing the constitution is removing peoples' rights. I don't think he's listing purple hair in and of itself being unworthy of rights or lack of religion for that matter. If he is, I don't agree with his sentiments. I think, however, that he's alluding to a very specific group through a series of descriptions of their general ideology whose actions inherently disrespect others' rights. Idc if you are religious or not, for the record. I only care of the certain political ideologies that have proven time and time again to be less than fair for the people. It's one thing to do what you want. It's another to do what you want to others.
This is what I have been saying to my husband. I just want to be left alone. I don't break the law, we work, we pay our taxes. We just want to be left the fuck alone. Our government is like a yappy dog that follows you down the street, nipping at your heels. You just want to give it a good kick.
It absolutely is that easy. For the people that this constitution was designed for, which is explicitly NOT everyone. It's only for people who do the right thing most of the time, when there are neither penalties nor rewards for it. Only for people who put their shopping carts in the corral over 90% of the time.
Nations which don't have this feature aren't capable of self-rule. There's a minimum time preference (that is, you have to think about the future), and even more important there is a minimum level of empathic ability. Nations that don't make the cut must be ruled by elites or autocrats in order to function as a civilization, which is what they've been doing for centuries. Nations which do make the cut can produce a functioning civilization no matter the format, but do better and greater things when un-harassed by useless busybodies.
Maintaining freedom demands a certain caliber of people. Heaven couldn't remain heaven if they had a loose immigration policy towards hell. You can't remain a nation of laws when criminals run free and unpunished. You can't stay a free country unless you keep it exclusively for freedom-minded people.
Yes. It's class psychology for the most part at this point. 60 years ago, it wasn't uncommon at all for a working class person to end up in the same economic class as a university professor, and there was much more common ground between the two. Now, same professor or whatever doesn't want a working class person anywhere near them. As fewer and fewer working class people make it into the middle class, it's led the uppers to think that it's inherent and not a matter of bad policy, and it's made them feel superior. Now they're hooked on the feelings of supremacy, and every time we try to use policy to put the ladder back up they kick it down. They don't want to give up the false sense of superiority that this wretched situation has created for them. Then they pretend they don't feel that way about brown people who are poor, but they do.
Far left = total government control. far right = no government at all.
This is the only political spectrum.
Conservatives are moderates because we fully expect individual rights but conceed to the constitutional limited government because humans dont live forever and we are not all born on the same day. We are infinitely coming and going and experiencing different stages of enlightenment internally while simultaneously we are all sharing the experience of the physical space on earth.
You can't approximate people's political views on a single dimension, that's insane and curse the people who taught you this insanity.
Three dimensions may be enough: Authoritarian vs Libertarian, which is government control over individuals. "Left" vs "Right", which is government control over the economy. Progressive vs Conservative, which is how much we tolerate deviants. That is to say, deviation from the moral traditions which have been proven to maintain a strong, healthy society. Some deviation is necessary for improvement, but they never roll back destructive deviation.
Personally I don't find you socially conservative until you're ready to outlaw porn.
And you're not really socially conservative if you want to outlaw porn unless you also want to take women's automatic voting rights away and outlaw adultery.
The religious right would love to ban porn, but as it doesn't say a peep about taking any women's rights away, their agenda is not about building families, it's about totalitarian control over men's sexuality.
Yes, the new philosophy of the left is mandatory participation in 'healing the world.' You cannot be left alone, you MUST participate, you cannot be neutral, there is no such thing as neutral, you are either a good person who joins the protests for social justice or whatever, or you are on the side of the oppressors.
Your body is theirs.
It's why Google changed its slogan from 'don't be evil' to 'do the right thing.'
To enact Communism, Agitation demands tying all grievances of smaller groups to all attack the same power structure. They consider this a Patriarchy so by being males their policy is quite literally to stir the pot and get people angry at men. They're coming for you either way.
Also they want to look noble and generous by giving your stuff away in exchange for "Progressive" praise.
Communists won't tolerate neutrals. You're the first ones to go because no one will miss you.
There's only one good historical example of preventing communists from winning on the eve of their total victory, and it resulted in the greatest economic recovery in world history. But you have to find out when and how on your own.
Everybody else went through massacres and hellish conditions before the communist system collapsed under the weight of its elitists.
This has always been "far right" since forever. It's not just "far right", it's all the way to the right. It is the ideal right. It is "good". Any compromise with this is letting evil win. When good compromises with evil, evil wins.
This is also why conservatives are losing. When someone is actively working against you passively sitting around hoping they'll leave you alone doesn't work.
Yep, they've already decided you must be "fixed", so they can avoid thinking about their own daily misery, or avoid taking responsibility for it. Their solution to their own unhappiness is to change YOU, and if they're unhappy after that, it's still your fault somehow.
The most straightforward solution is to make them fear trying to mess with us... but I don't think there's any words, spoken or written, that can convince them to stop abusing us. Just like an abusive relationship, the abuser enjoys it too much. We need to cut them completely out of our lives, or to scare them off.
"Trauma" results from an incident causing emotional or mental distress.
Legally, one is able to file suit for emotional distress from intentional actions, such as speech or artwork. Of course, intent has to be proven in court.
This is the insidious way some have destroyed language and the ability to debate.
Conservatism at its fundamentals is the golden rule. Simple shit that people have believed in for millenia. To be brainwashed into thinking that stealing is a good thing I think is a relatively new thing.
But if a man wants to wear a dress and go to a woman's restroom while drooling you'd oppose it! That is far right! Think about the poor man that won't get to live out his lifelong dream of going to the women's restroom and shaving his beard while wearing a dress!
"What's wrong!? You can't do your part!? You can't give your [fair share]!? You're killing grandma!!!" It's not according to some democrats. It's most or all democrats.
I'm increasingly irritated when the news refer to people and groups as far right with no explanation as to what views or practices make them far right. I would sue for slander/libel.
I was researching a society/ club. Their espoused views were Freedom, follow the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and Christianity. It was called a far right group. I guess I am far right now.
I don't think conservative ideals can be explained more concisely than that
I think it goes beyond that...
People espouse individual rights, but when SHTF, a lot of people want some type of handout/help.
I think "leave me alone" more or less implies "let me make my own decisions and own my own mistakes".
I agree, just as you should be free to say/do as you wish BUT you're also responsible for the consequences. The latter part many people have problems with.
When we're protected from consequences, we fail to grow and learn. Consequences are built into life so that we can improve and develop the winning approach. By denying people the consequences of free choice, you are denying them development as a human being.
We should have let the banks fail in 2008, and we should be letting individuals fail.
Sounds like classical liberalism..... Which it is. That's how far the overton window has turned, that what once were liberals are now considered far-right nationalists. If far-right nationalism is equal rights, then by all means. Hate me. Revile me. Call me every name in the book. It doesn't phase me one bit. I will stand by them, because that's what principles are about. Everybody should be responsible for their own decisions and should be left to their own devices, so long as they do not affect other people.
If words affect you, I'm sorry but it goes both ways. Only difference is, I don't want to censor you. I don't have all the answers and feel just like anybody else, and my stance is grounded in pendanticism, not in value. I'd love to just hold hands and sing songs over marshmallows and ensure every man and woman has everything they could ever need or want, as I'm sure many if not most on this site would agree to. But the world doesn't work that way. Not yet. And until we get to that point where we can sustain ourselves indefinitely, it will only faII into disarray.....
California, as rich as silicon valley is, as progressive as its politicians are, aren't even able to provide even a decent fraction of homeless needs. It alone accounts for about a quarter of the nation's homelessness. That is what we're trying to avoid, and as bleak a future having to work a job you might not like may sound to you, suck it up, buttercup. And read about how over-regulation and the types of policies big cities are known for tends to affect small businesses disproportionately to big businesses before you pit the blame on capitalism and capitalism alone. Then tell me how propping even more progressive policies is gonna help what borked the system in the first place.
Sorry about the rant, but I figure the few troIIs who might see it could use some help in understanding what us conservatives are truly about.....
this needs far more upvotes. this is why i'm here. i'm a classical liberal, and we're a dying breed. the core of the constitution and the enlightenment values it seeks to uphold speaks to us. its strange but classical liberals must unite with conservatives to defeat woke bullshit.
I’ve always held that classical liberals and American conservatives are the same thing. Shows how much the word liberal has been abused.
This is why I refer to the freaks as LEFTISTS.
thing is, classical ANYTHING is a "high information" concept, due to the existence of positive & negative rights, as well as having to understand the heavily philosophical and experimental nature of our government.
todays "low-information" idiot voters and dems cannot possibly get this shit.
Huzzah.
I don't even label them conservative, just common damn sense.
Likewise with libertarianism. I think most of you guys are far more libertarian than the Libertarian Party is today. It's makes sense though. What are American conservatives trying to conserve? The Constitution. The most radically libertarian form of government ever attempted.
American constitution isn’t the only thing we need to conserve.Today conservatives don’t talk about immigration and borders like the founding fathers.
This is a typical conservative. Honestly, just leave us alone. You do you. But the left has to be a control freak. If we don’t glorify guys kissing each other, and killing babies, we are evil gun toting extremists
I agree.conservatives need to shrug off their libertarian mindset.
Why?
When he says he doesn't agree, he's talking about the second paragraph.
But rights are rights. You don't lose your rights if your hair is purple, just the respect of normal people.
If rights are natural and come from God, it shouldn't matter at all whether you believe in God. Do people who worship Odin deserve individual rights? They may live in a society based on Abrahamic law, but they don't believe in the God of the Bible. How about a Buddhist practitioner? Does a person in a coma have rights? They aren't capable of thinking about God at all.
Of course they have rights. But abusing the constitution is removing peoples' rights. I don't think he's listing purple hair in and of itself being unworthy of rights or lack of religion for that matter. If he is, I don't agree with his sentiments. I think, however, that he's alluding to a very specific group through a series of descriptions of their general ideology whose actions inherently disrespect others' rights. Idc if you are religious or not, for the record. I only care of the certain political ideologies that have proven time and time again to be less than fair for the people. It's one thing to do what you want. It's another to do what you want to others.
People develop their own packaging so that you can guess what's inside.
I can't complain about warning labels.
Do you believe that individual rights are conditional?
This is what I have been saying to my husband. I just want to be left alone. I don't break the law, we work, we pay our taxes. We just want to be left the fuck alone. Our government is like a yappy dog that follows you down the street, nipping at your heels. You just want to give it a good kick.
That kick is closer than ever right now
Perfect visual. Thank you.
You'd think life would be simple. Really only two real rules -
Apparently it ain't that easy.
that's #2
Capitalism adds one moar.
It absolutely is that easy. For the people that this constitution was designed for, which is explicitly NOT everyone. It's only for people who do the right thing most of the time, when there are neither penalties nor rewards for it. Only for people who put their shopping carts in the corral over 90% of the time.
Nations which don't have this feature aren't capable of self-rule. There's a minimum time preference (that is, you have to think about the future), and even more important there is a minimum level of empathic ability. Nations that don't make the cut must be ruled by elites or autocrats in order to function as a civilization, which is what they've been doing for centuries. Nations which do make the cut can produce a functioning civilization no matter the format, but do better and greater things when un-harassed by useless busybodies.
Maintaining freedom demands a certain caliber of people. Heaven couldn't remain heaven if they had a loose immigration policy towards hell. You can't remain a nation of laws when criminals run free and unpunished. You can't stay a free country unless you keep it exclusively for freedom-minded people.
Yes. It's class psychology for the most part at this point. 60 years ago, it wasn't uncommon at all for a working class person to end up in the same economic class as a university professor, and there was much more common ground between the two. Now, same professor or whatever doesn't want a working class person anywhere near them. As fewer and fewer working class people make it into the middle class, it's led the uppers to think that it's inherent and not a matter of bad policy, and it's made them feel superior. Now they're hooked on the feelings of supremacy, and every time we try to use policy to put the ladder back up they kick it down. They don't want to give up the false sense of superiority that this wretched situation has created for them. Then they pretend they don't feel that way about brown people who are poor, but they do.
"Excuse me could you please let me through I'm just trying to get to work." - Literally Hitler
Libertarian.
They can't leave people alone. They have this unshakeable urge to convert and conquer. They adopted Al Qaeda tactics. Terrorize, submission.
It's really quite simple:
A host with a parasite is perpetually sick, but not sick enough to die, because the parasite would die as well.
But a liberated host means death for the parasite. That's why the host cannot be free.
"Leave me alone" doesnt work with a leftist, because how are they going to pay for all their "free" stuff if they dont loot the workers
I love that he said "leave me alone" twice
Amen brother
When the person who holds the Women's Weightlifting title speaks, folks better listen.
Truth.
I’m not sure everyone/anyone else got it, but I very much appreciated it, because that was one of the finest, bravest moments in sports history ever.
Zuby: Leave me alone.
Also Zuby: Forced vaccinations are great. https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1337699045578579969?s=19
Criticism of the less free parts of someone's ideals is welcome with some.
OMG he's a literal Nazi!
Far left = total government control. far right = no government at all.
This is the only political spectrum.
Conservatives are moderates because we fully expect individual rights but conceed to the constitutional limited government because humans dont live forever and we are not all born on the same day. We are infinitely coming and going and experiencing different stages of enlightenment internally while simultaneously we are all sharing the experience of the physical space on earth.
You can't approximate people's political views on a single dimension, that's insane and curse the people who taught you this insanity.
Three dimensions may be enough: Authoritarian vs Libertarian, which is government control over individuals. "Left" vs "Right", which is government control over the economy. Progressive vs Conservative, which is how much we tolerate deviants. That is to say, deviation from the moral traditions which have been proven to maintain a strong, healthy society. Some deviation is necessary for improvement, but they never roll back destructive deviation.
Personally I don't find you socially conservative until you're ready to outlaw porn.
And you're not really socially conservative if you want to outlaw porn unless you also want to take women's automatic voting rights away and outlaw adultery.
The religious right would love to ban porn, but as it doesn't say a peep about taking any women's rights away, their agenda is not about building families, it's about totalitarian control over men's sexuality.
Yes, the new philosophy of the left is mandatory participation in 'healing the world.' You cannot be left alone, you MUST participate, you cannot be neutral, there is no such thing as neutral, you are either a good person who joins the protests for social justice or whatever, or you are on the side of the oppressors.
Your body is theirs.
It's why Google changed its slogan from 'don't be evil' to 'do the right thing.'
Very hegelian viewpoint.
Activism or die!
To enact Communism, Agitation demands tying all grievances of smaller groups to all attack the same power structure. They consider this a Patriarchy so by being males their policy is quite literally to stir the pot and get people angry at men. They're coming for you either way.
Also they want to look noble and generous by giving your stuff away in exchange for "Progressive" praise.
Communists won't tolerate neutrals. You're the first ones to go because no one will miss you.
There's only one good historical example of preventing communists from winning on the eve of their total victory, and it resulted in the greatest economic recovery in world history. But you have to find out when and how on your own.
Everybody else went through massacres and hellish conditions before the communist system collapsed under the weight of its elitists.
pretty much this.
This has always been "far right" since forever. It's not just "far right", it's all the way to the right. It is the ideal right. It is "good". Any compromise with this is letting evil win. When good compromises with evil, evil wins.
He is literally hitler
The Left: If you are not actively with us and supporting us, you are against us.
That sounds like something Bush 43 would say.
Oh wait, he did
I think he needs a few more "leave me alones" in that list, but I agree!
For Lib Lurkers "leave me alone" has to be said 2x because of your commune-ist idealogy ....WE DONT WANT TO JOIN YOUR COMMUNE !! SO FUCK OFF !!!
nuff said
Sure doesn't leave any room for ethnic cleansing.
What's up with all the black and Hispanic and female and gay folks that are becoming fascists lately? Individualism, Self Agency and Freedom? Psshh.
This is also why conservatives are losing. When someone is actively working against you passively sitting around hoping they'll leave you alone doesn't work.
Yep, they've already decided you must be "fixed", so they can avoid thinking about their own daily misery, or avoid taking responsibility for it. Their solution to their own unhappiness is to change YOU, and if they're unhappy after that, it's still your fault somehow.
The most straightforward solution is to make them fear trying to mess with us... but I don't think there's any words, spoken or written, that can convince them to stop abusing us. Just like an abusive relationship, the abuser enjoys it too much. We need to cut them completely out of our lives, or to scare them off.
Harm: an act that causes loss or pain.
"Don't harm people" would cover both. Important note: feelings cannot be harmed.
I see where you are going.
One problem: Pain can be defined in terms of "emotional pain".
Pain: An unpleasant feeling occurring as a result of injury or disease.
Interesting, pain is a feeling. However, emotional trauma isn't pain.
"Trauma" results from an incident causing emotional or mental distress.
Legally, one is able to file suit for emotional distress from intentional actions, such as speech or artwork. Of course, intent has to be proven in court.
This is the insidious way some have destroyed language and the ability to debate.
When the democrats become collective nutjobs that's what happens
Conservatism at its fundamentals is the golden rule. Simple shit that people have believed in for millenia. To be brainwashed into thinking that stealing is a good thing I think is a relatively new thing.
Zuby's a total chad
But if a man wants to wear a dress and go to a woman's restroom while drooling you'd oppose it! That is far right! Think about the poor man that won't get to live out his lifelong dream of going to the women's restroom and shaving his beard while wearing a dress!
As long as the person is not doing so as a guise to rape biological females, why care?
Most US conservatives do not realize they are Classic Liberals. Much in the fashion of Jefferson and others.
"What's wrong!? You can't do your part!? You can't give your [fair share]!? You're killing grandma!!!" It's not according to some democrats. It's most or all democrats.
now many on the left have the urge to harass him at home...hurt him and destroy his stuff then kick him when hes down
Mine is even simpler: leave me alone and don’t take my stuff
Based.
Wanting to be left alone and keep what you've earned is "greedy."
Wanting to take someone's stuff and give it to yourself and others is "selfless."
Agree
I'm increasingly irritated when the news refer to people and groups as far right with no explanation as to what views or practices make them far right. I would sue for slander/libel.
Silence is violence don’t ya know
Speech is also violence.
"Say exactly what we tell you when we want you to, or it's violence."
I was researching a society/ club. Their espoused views were Freedom, follow the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and Christianity. It was called a far right group. I guess I am far right now.
That man speaks in plain, and simple, truths that describe most every one of us that does not fall in to the Leftoonie Bin.