Things you simply don't get...

I think you are using a stick figure version of conservatism. Conservatism in essence is an inclination to cherish the permanent things in human existence. Or if not permanent (due to leftist
onslaughts), at least traditional.

I would juxtapose conservatism not against progress, but against egalitarianism, collectivism, atheism, humanism, and the liberal's fetish for government regulation and intervention in raditionally private affairs and arrangements.

There are exceptions, obviously. We do not oppose all regulation, but are suspicious of its capacity to grow into a monster and choke off private initiative. The liberal's eyes gleam and his mouth waters at the prospect of Beto's "hell yes we are going to take your guns," of Bernie 's call for elimination of private insurance, of AOC's declaration that there shouldn't be any billionaires, of Warren telling the energy companies "you guys are done."

Don't misunderstand: it's not that any of those ideas are necessarily bad (though some are), it's that the liberal gets so enthused about them, even though they all involve government coercion of the individual. Liberty matters to me more than equality.

 

I don't get licorice, coffee, or Redditt.

 

I don't get National Geographic, Playboy, or Scientific American.

I used to get Scientific American but finally cancelled my subscription.

 

Inequality only manifests if one is able to take away someone else's liberty. Basically, you are saying that liberty matters more to you than liberty.

 

Emotional dependence

If you can't figure out how to make yourself happy, how can you expect anyone else to figure out how to make you happy?

 

Let's think about. The right of choice for women, the right to die, the right to choose and marry your adult lover, what kind of sex your can have, legalization of pot and other drugs, gambling, drinking... what life choice have "Conservatives" NOT tried to control?

Democrats want to regulate factories and banks. Republicans want to control your personal life. But what gets me the most is Republican "Christian" opposition to assisted suicide. HOW DARE THEY tell anyone that they must suffer horribly until they die an unavoidable, miserable death. Who they hell are they to force people to suffer? It is cruel and based on nothing but magic sky god bs. It is arrogance in the extreme and the very worst sort of government intrusion in our not only our lives, but also how we can die.

 

What you call "choice" (such a nice word -- like "soup or salad!"), conservatives call "murder," but an argument can be made that the true conservative should be as leery of abortion prohibition (like sodomy prohibition) as they are of abortion itself. the government that governs best governs least. But past 8 months or so, society is uneasy to horrified by abortion. Calling it "choice" doesn't resolve the dilemma. Good luck arguing the contrary.

Now, what you would call the spaghetti monster, the pure conservative, in the tradition of Burke, Santayana, Kirk, and others would call a "prevailing moral order." Because if nothing is right, then nothing is wrong. The alternative to the spaghetti monster is the monster that spawned the French Revolution, the gulags, Nazism, Stalinism, Khmer Rouge, and so on. I don't know what you call that -- "evil" will serve well enough, I guess.

Gay marriage? How dare conservatives argue that you can't marry as many people as you like? Or that you cannot marry your sister or your daughter or your 13 year old neighbor's daughter? Or that you must support your dependents? Fascists! But I think most conservatives, and many liberals, didn't oppose the cohabitation and ceremonial aspects so much as the distortion of the word "marriage" into something other than what it meant for over 2000 years in every important culture I am aware of.

Drugs? I can't see outlawing marijuana while alcohol is celebrated. It's almost required during the super bowl. But I'll never agree to legalize meth, heroin or cocaine. Distribution, I mean. Personal use? Confiscation and education is probably enough.

 

Uh, no, I don't think so. Inequality also manifests when I study and then work more, harder, and longer than you do. Anyway, how are you going to make everybody equal other than by governmental fiat?

 

That's not inequality, that's achievement. If you know more than someone, or work harder, etc. and you therefore do more and/or better work you should be paid more for it, but that's not inequality. Inequality is when you charge more even when you've delivered no product or service at all (and this can often appear to be the case at first glance but isn't when you consider how much more knowledge is worth, like a doctor's or lawyer's opinion). The kind of inequality that's anathema in America is mainly inequality as an accident of birth. That can't be eliminated entirely without getting into knotty problems of property but we should make efforts to minimize it.

 

The glaring ABSENCE of any knowledge of history is duly noted FTR!

In no particular order here are the historical fallacies in the screed above.

Abortion was known and practiced by the Ancient Egyptians and in every other culture that we have records for including the Christian bible. (They even put a price on the life of a fetus.) Abortion was LEGAL when our nation was founded and therefore the right to an abortion is protected by the 9th Amendment.

Homosexuality is also recorded throughout history with some very famous and successful generals being in that mix. It is ironic that a great many heterosexual Christians INCLUDE a homosexual declaration of devotion in their own "holy matrimony" vows. The "traditional" concept of marriage was a man OWNING a woman and that concept remained in place until relatively recently. The idea of women even owning property in their own name was an alien concept for thousands of years. Marrying 13 year old girls was commonplace in the bible and 14 year olds are still allowed in some of the Red states here in America today. (Three 10 year olds were married in TN as recently as 2001 before they changed their laws.)

Then we come to the "prevailing moral order" and the asinine recitation of "atrocities" as if none of that had ever occurred while white men ruled the earth. The history of forced labor begins with slavery and the Concentration Camp was invented by the British Empire.

So the REALITY is that "conservatives" would NEVER have allowed any of the "liberal" reforms that emancipated women and eliminated forced labor. They would still have no problem with "child brides" and would probably turn a blind eye to abortion as long as it wasn't their own spawn.

And FTR the French Revolution was no different to the American Revolution in principle since it enabled ordinary people to have the same rights and liberties as We the People.

 

Well I will try very hard not to do that. Yes, birth circumstances mean a lot, but I'm not sure it isn't a disadvantage to be born wealthy. Do you know the biography of Elon Musk?

 

I don't get masochism.

Then there are a couple things I get but I don't get:

First and foremost, Nihilism, especially the Nihilism you find here in the United States.

Second, the Ugly Art movement of the 1980s. Not only was it peculiarly gratuitous given that artists had already established that art doesn't have to be beautiful to be art, but it stood in lame contrast to what was arguably the most vibrant and energetic period throughout the Arts since the 1950s.

 

What are you referring to there?

 

Masochism is a disorder that a family member of mine had, and I fear I inherited. I don't think a person who doesn't have it could possibly understand it.

 

There is a fine line between pain and pleasure. If you watch videos of only someone's face, it is usually impossible tell from facial expressions if they are in pain, or having an orgasm.

Many people associate minor pain with sex. It only becomes a problem when that threatens true injury.

One of the most common sexual complaints from women about their male mates [where they have an active sex life], is that the men won't spank them hard enough. Something like 80% of women like to be spanked. And probably most of those want it to hurt at least a little.

 

Jabers!
How’s the weather at your place?

 

And then you woke up?

 

Based on surveys.

 

If you're asking about the Ugly Art movement of the 1980s, it was a somewhat fringe and obscure movement consisting primarily of painters and sculptors who made hideous works of "art" in order to "prove" that art didn't have to be beautiful or even innovative to be art. I mentioned earlier that this was a gratuitous gesture because previous modern art movements had already made the point (most famously the Dadaists). Furthermore, not only were the paintings and sculptures aesthetically displeasing, so was the subject matter. You might say it was a "shock" art movement, but as with other things that were intended to shock audiences it was weak and superficial with no enduring value. This is why most people are unfamiliar with this art "movement" - once it was over it faded into the obscurity it deserved and earned.

This stood in stark contrast to the broader art movement of the 1980s where we saw a lot of innovation and creativity going on, especially in the media arts where artists were really starting to explore its various forms (video, multimedia, etc.) for the first time. While everyone has their own opinion, I think it was the most creative, vibrant and energetic period within the Arts in America since its zenith in the 1950s when New York became the art capital of the world. Since then, the visual arts have gone downhill in my estimation - too much politics passing itself off as "art" - but there are some truly wonderful exceptions, such as Njideka Akunyili Crosby, who is a fantastic painter:

 

Well, it's good that you're brave and honest enough with yourself to face the prospect that you might have inherited that disorder. That's the first step in tackling any psychological and/or emotional condition. If you don't mind me asking, how do you deal with that condition? I imagine there must be positive means and outlets that enable people to overcome it.

 

Heh, just passing along what I've learned.

I'm so used to this stuff that it doesn't even phase me anymore. Just a part of being human. Fetishes are a funny thing and they often don't make sense.

See for example, Furries

 

Not to mention the 30 or so women I've dated over the last 7+ years. Almost all like spanking as well as hair pulling, in the heat of passion. I've also seen a number of women who like to be slapped during sex. They don't want to be hurt but somehow the shock turns them on.

And FWIW, this was all news to me! I learned this from them.

 

Another thing that I don't get is why rightwingers believe that any increase in taxes will automatically be passed along to consumers but increases in the minimum wage won't be passed on and will cause small businesses to fail instead.

Other nations like France and Australia have fast food franchises like McDonalds where they pay living wages and they haven't failed so would they fail here in America if they started paying living wages?

It must take cognitive dissonance to hold these contradictory beliefs.

 

In the same vein as the above I don't get why righwingers believe that paying living wages is going to cause hardship and suffering for major corporations.

Who exactly is going to "suffer" and why?

Does paying out a slightly smaller amount in dividends to shareholders mean that they are all suddenly going to become homeless?

Does a drop in the value of shares suddenly turn shareholders into paupers?

What exactly did those shareholders DO to DESERVE those dividends and increased share values besides GAMBLE their EXISTING WEALTH on the Wall Street Casino?

I just don't get why wealthy gamblers MUST be REWARDED while hardworking Americans must be forced to SUFFER with Insufficient Income to the point of destitution and homelessness.