244
Candace Owens describes science as "pagan faith"
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
244 points (90.1% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4275 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why conservativism is just not compatible with democracy. You can't have a society that adapts to a changing world and growing understanding of reality if people's political ideology boils down to "We need to ignore new information and instead keep trying the failed ideas of the past."
This is why when the Democratic party talk about the need for "balance" between the two parties it's so toxic.
I don't know if this is conservatism anymore. My Grandfather was conservative, and he was an engineer. He would have loathed the amount of misinformation and straight up lies being flung around these days. As much as his views were disagreeable, he never tried to manipulate or lie to anybody and always wanted to get to the truth of things. This is something else.
It's still the end result, and while your grandfather might've been an engineer and accepted some science as an individual, his political ideology is what has contributed to the slow creep of increasing ignorance because his conservative views are what prompt him to vote for conservative politicians who obstruct attempts to improve society for all of us. Conservativism degrades a society's ability to access the truth.
There actually is no reasonable form of conservativism. You're either looking for ways to improve and integrate new understanding about the world based on the best information available to you at the time, or you're trying to preserve ideas simply because they existed beforehand.
It would be like if someone brought a newer, safer design to your grandfather and he rejected it simply in the interest of preserving the old design because its old. He couldn't function as an engineer if he applied his conservative thinking to his work, so I don't see how people expect that philosophy to work in politics either. There is no effective scientist who, upon recieving new information, rejects it because it doesn't fit with what they already believe, they try to adapt their model to fit the new facts.
We accept conservativism as some kind of immutable facet of politics, but we don't actually need to. Making itself seem intrinsic is how the ideology survives, but really all it is is the remnant ideology leftover ftom the death of monarchy, it was injected into our politics early on in order to protect an aristocratic class, allowing it to continue on in a new form (corporate oligarchy).
Very well said.
I think it's also worth mentioning that conservatism is an inherently reactionary and counter-revolutionary ideology: it is primarily concerned with protecting the powerful by entrenching privilege and maintaining the structural oppression of the underclasses.
Well said!
Yea basically you don’t accept “states rights” blindly unless you’re willing to overlook “other things” and accept them in the back of your mind.
What you look past is more telling than what you say.
It's regressivism now
Capitalism was always destined to progress to an advanced terminal stage.
Sounds like your grandpa might have been conservative as in slow to change.
Nowadays, conservative in politics means deepthroating fascism.
Conservatism has always been authoritarian. The notion of "slow to change" has only ever been a fig leaf to obfuscate that fact.
It's a return to what conservatism always was.
I don't believe actual conservatism exists anymore.
That's why I call those clowns "servatives." Take the "con" out of "conservative" and you get "servative."
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a conservative.
Conservatism isn't compatible with a lot of things in the modern age: social programs, military industrial complex during arms races spanning decades, late-stage capitalism in a social Republic...etc. I wouldn't say Democracy in general though.
Also, these whack jobs are not Conservatives with a capital 'C', they are Radicalized Religious Zealots at a minimum. They think their way is the "right way", and are on some mission to ensure everyone else gets on board, or else. It's how they approach everything.
The nutty thing about Candace Owens is that as much as she is a liar and scammer, she's just jumping into the deep end with all these people who are working against her own best interests. She's not completely stupid, so she must realize this, but refuses to be deterred because she thinks she will somehow benefit in the end. To what end that is for her, who knows. She's working hard to enable a bunch of racist, misogynistic, assholes though, but she's also profiting from it and couldn't care less about who she's impacting elsewhere with her vitriolic bullshit.
Yes, there are degrees of commitment, but the normie conservatives are still enabling the extremists and play a key part in the progression from democracy to fascism, you can't just flip from democracy to a fascist state, you need "respectable" conservatives to start to ease people towards the notion. There's still no value in their conservative leanings, even if it's watered down.
I don't want any lead in my water ideally, even if slight amounts aren't immediately harmful, the lead traces in the water has no benefit regardless of the degree.
Run of the mill, average religious people. Religion is one of the many reasons the working class must never disarm. The cult followers literally cannot help themselves. At some point, they all will work to make their delusions your reality.
Well that's not true. I know plenty of religious people who don't give a shit about what other people do or believe, and that's the standard. Anyone who is out trying to recruit, guilt, or force fear onto others in the name of religion is absolutely just a Zealot (capital "Z"), and that is not the standardnof behavior for what I would say is most people.
There's certainly something about the Southern US that really churns these pieces of shit out like a factory though.
It worked out for Dave rubin. Wait, no it didn't. And then he doubled down on hate speech so people would forget he was gay and having surrogate kids.
I've not heard the Democratic Party demand a balance between themselves and Republicans as a policy plank. Even if an individual had done so, It seems foolhardy to blame a large tent of fairly reasonable people for the incestuousness that has become conservatism.
You are in a abusive relationship with the democratic party. You are a domestic abuse victim.
And the Republicans burnt your house down every once in a while.
Smile, for you are fully represented by the greatest democracy on planet earth! Feeling free yet?
It's less than ideal, but is still preferable to many places, if for no other reason than its potential for reform. We still have some insight into things like campaign finance for now, which makes it possible to fight from an informed position.
I'm actually not that committed to the Democratic party itself, but you're right that they're abusive. Acting politically based on the division between conservative and progressive, regardless of any label a politician might self-apply, helps clarify the way forward for me. As far as my mental model of the political landscape goes, conservative/neoliberal democrats are quarantined off with the GOP, they're the same in terms of their potential to produce lasting change. I'm not going to support an AIPAC democrat the same way I'm not going to ever support a MAGA conservative.
But yeah, our democracy is functioning incredibly poorly at the moment.
The abuse comes from this comment.
You don’t recognize democracy and like to abuse people as a result.
We are all in an abusive relationship with our government here in the US. For some reason we are accepting being lied to, gaslight, and manipulated by our ruling class.
For all their faults the Democratic party is the only one doing something about it. From trying to hold police responsible to protecting our most vulnerable people.
Meanwhile Maga is repealing transparency laws, taking away women's rights, and othering people at an alarming pace.
The two side of the same coin rhetoric grows old and at this point is only here to blur the lines and continue to give conservatives control due to apathy.
We have been bred to be moral. To NOT accept abuse and lies implies to fight. And fighting is never considered moral. To fight you have to admit there is a conflict (your interests vs the billionaires aka "the owner class"), then escalate the already existing conflict, do lots of deeds considered atrocious by society, etc.
Morality, like religion, is a conservative policy meant to protect the status quo at all costs. That's why no one ever went to jail for preaching or exercising morality. If morality could change the status quo, it would be prohibited and punished.
These two statements do not logically follow each other. There's nothing inherent to democracy that makes Progressivism necessary
Progressivism is just a label for people who believe in things like science and humane, fact-based policy. There's no continuum between that thinking and conservativism, it's a binary. Either someone is ready to accept the truth about any given issue as its revealed or they're not. They're either able to admit when something doesn't work or they're not.
Conservativism is, fundementally, trying failed ideas over and over in the hopes they'll work. It's an ideology that's constantly falling behind reality, and as it falls behind and gets out of sync with the real world your average conservative becomes more extreme and more detatched from the reality around them until a breaking point is reached and either they finally accept reality or they try to implement fascism so they can try to force reality to conform to what they think should true, to validate their old failed notions.
You can't have a democracy run under the idea that things can always stay the same. Because what are conservatives actually trying to conserve in the US? The 1950s was not some golden era of democracy, it was actually a period of severe disenfranchisement and if we successfully conserved that system the civil rights era would've never come to be because conservativism does not improve anything. There was no benefit to thinking "We need to be conservative about this whole giving people voting rights thing."
Conservativism is dead weight that becomes malignant naturally as part of its regular life cycle, it's not a counter balance.
Literally untrue. You seem to have a very idealistic definition of what a democracy is. Democracies can follow any policies they want, as long as they're based on the popular vote of the people.
Inherent to democracy, no. Inherent to a well-functioning society in a world where changing circumstances are inevitable, yes.
Yes? That's a completely different statement though.
I think it's safe to assume that a person wants their society to function smoothly. But yes, I suppose it is technically different.