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 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.
You really don't have to accept it in order for it to be our current reality.
What is the point of labels like this if they don't signal what it is you believe, relatively accurately?
This is exactly why it's necessary to push back on those who would twist it to mean something else.
I think you're about 80 years too late for that. At least.
All battles are hopeless when no one fights them.
You're not wrong, though. But even thirty years would be enough to make a change, perhaps... or maybe it seems that way to me because that's when I started paying attention.
Friggen Tea Party bullshit was when it really started sliding downhill fast, IMO.
Just a weird hill to die on... Doesn't seem worth it, even if it was possible to accomplish (which I do not believe it is). Seems like you'd not want to label yourself with such a universally tainted title. I'm certain that there are people out there with similar positions as you who understand they're not conseratives, and have another word for it. You should find those people.
Otherwise everyone will just assume you're a piece of shit when you tell them you're a conservative. And rightfully so.
The fact that you're even here having an honest discussion about politics means you're not a conservative.
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.
Conservatives have always been regressive, period. Their entire philosophy emerged as a reaction to the "excesses" of the French Revolution. The forward "movement" (if you want to call it that) was from the "divine right of kings" to the "divine right of lords" (chosen by the market).
To quote the infinitely quotable (Wilhout, from the top rope...with a fucking blog comment):
The whole "left vs right" divide itself originates from this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
I understand the desire to take the positive aspects of a word, apply them to your political stance, and pretend that you're part of a movement. But it isn't true. It reminds me of when lefties (often in a USA centric thread) describe themselves as "left libertarians". All this crap does is confuse people and make you sound like a pedant.
If you think this is what conservative means and that's what your politics are, you're basically just politically homeless...and have been since you started calling yourself that.
This, at least, is correct.
Welcome to the club!
I'm there. I vote Democratic but there's basically no representation for my views to be found.
EDIT: Have you really thought through your political philosophy beyond pleasant sounding notions though? While "conserving the present" sounds nice, taken a bit further you're basically talking about fighting the Buddhist notion that "no man steps into the same river twice". Things change and if the government doesn't change along with them it gets eaten alive. That's partially, I would argue, what happened with technology in the last thirty years.
The government needs to adapt, yes, but carefully. You can't just run with the first or second option, that's a recipe for regulatory capture.
It's not "no change is good" but rather "most change isn't good, so we need to test them until we find the best change".
The problem with that is it limits the government's ability to change in ways that have no correlate in industry or culture. This inevitably leads to the government being unable to respond to changes that have already occurred or are currently occurring, and in the case of change driven by industry (i.e., most societal change in the US) that invariably leads to regulatory capture.