Political Misconceptions

[Chase]

I want to leave this thread open-ended, because I'm not a liberal thinker and I don't have all the answers on their side of the aisle - but as one of the few conservatives on this board (or one of the few vocal ones anyway) - I think there are some very key things liberals tend to think about conservatives that are just plain off-base or at the very least are a hasty generalization of all conservatives when the statement only truly applies to a specific margin of conservatives. If a well nuanced liberal out there has a list of their own, or if any of you out there have one point to share, please do so!

This will be a fun course of trying to understand one another.

• CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT "FAIRNESS"

Staring off with a bang - The Democratic presidential primary focuses a lot on fairness, especially because the theme is central to Bernie Sanders' entire campaign from free upper level education to sticking it to the private sector. Liberals tend to contend that because a conservative doesn't appreciate taking what they deem as necessary steps to ensure all Americans have the same result, they tend to insinuate that conservatives are ignorant to the issue of raising up most people. The concept of fairness however, is genuinely abstract and as such can be approached from different angles. This is what is happening from the conservative point of view - as a conservative thinker dwells in the rules and ensuring everyone in the game has the same playing field. By focusing on the rule making, conservative legislators are trying to create a level arena of opportunity for all people, which would make the arena "fair." Liberals tend to approach fairness by the outcomes - and as such work to ensure they can put as many people in the bucket for that outcome as possible. Both sides actually tend to emphasize fairness, but go about it differently.

• CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POOR

The liberal misconception here often involves the conservatives' resistance to broad big government influenced welfare. In this election cycle even - Sanders employs what is known as democratic socialism - which would ideally redistribute the wealth of the entire nation to eliminate class structures using the government as an economic vehicle while still giving governmental power to the citizens. This approach is notably "collectivist" - in that Sanders would be calling on the whole country to support the poor as opposed to individual groups and people. Conservatives however - statistically- actually attack poverty in a different way, by addressing the problem for what it is - poverty - and not income inequality (with regards to the poor - there is inequality in things like minority groups and women that will be tackled later.) The conservative statistically is more reliable to give to charity and volunteer than the liberal is, meaning conservatives attack poverty by what is known as "individualism." Both collectivism and individualism have drawbacks however - collectivism causing a lower success ceiling and a lack of will to innovate, with individualism not meeting the demands of the entire country.

• ​CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN

Usually - this argument comes in regards to abortion - but is also attributed to thinks like free and wide-spread contraceptives and the like. In the former - which is the most prevalent cause of "conservative chauvinism" (which it isn't.) conservatives advocate for the fetus as well as the mother - and in the latter, they advocate practicing abstinence as the most effective method of avoiding pregnancy. Neither of which are views that belittle the woman but are methods that are designed to preserve life in most cases and attempt to privatize medicine to give Americans choice.

• CONSERVATIVES WISH TO MAKE AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY

A theocracy is a government that is ruled under a specific religious doctrine and structure of government body (I.e. priests holding executive power.) - and liberals tend to conceivably believe that personal guidance in government affairs, teaching about religion and philosophies that indulge in spiritualism, and exposing citizens to one's personal practice of their faith equates to establishment of a national religion - something that is deemed "un-Constitutional" under the 1st Amendment. Christianity, being one of the largest followed and oldest major religions throughout America's history, is often the cited religion when the claim is being made. The fact that the 1st Amendment even exists, and that conservatives are very keen on the Constitution's phrasing, should automatically debunk this assertion - but to put away any doubt, it is not the conservative's goal to replace the checks and balances system and the three branches of government with a temple full of pastors, nor does every law need to be written in the name of "God." The real issue here - for the most part - is actually one that isn't applicable to religion or spirituality aside from one concepts traditional association. It's the citizens' beliefs of how "morality" is interpreted. Conservatives tend to approach lawmaking and enforcement with objective morality, while liberals tend to advocate subjective or relative morality. There are disagreements of which the either/or exists - and because in the objectivists' position a deity is often the basis for said objective morality, it's interpreted as establishment incorrectly. Another thing that is worth noting is that not all conservatives are theists.

• CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE

This one is actually one I feel minorities are being marginalized by liberals on. There are plenty of African, Latin, Hispanic, Asian, Polynesian, and so on people that are conservative - and the more appalling thing about this is that liberals - perhaps in attempt to make this claim about white folks true - often knock minority conservatives or outright ignore their existence. You hear too many people being called "Uncle Toms" here. The difference with conservatives and liberals on minority matters is that conservatives tend to be color blind in that they avoid even talking about race. They fight racism by example and not by protest and attention. liberals - who pursue outcomes over fair rules - make their issues known - which makes it appealing for a minority member to be liberal because it feels like they are being heard and attempted to be understood. By being silent examples of colorblind citizens, conservatives use this opportunity to "level the playing field" by addressing minorities as if they too were white - in a sense. Are there White supremacists who are conservative? Yes - but to brand conservatism favorable to racial supremacy for all idealists would be one of those hasty generalizations I pointed to earlier. White supremacy is a minority viewpoint in conservative circles. It should also be worth noting, that many conservatives -do- acknowledge racial issues being prevalent as well, and are usually in agreement with liberals in how to combat them.

• CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT BIG BUSINESSES

Hasty generalization - although one that is admittedly separating "conservatism" with "Republicanism" due to the increase in corrupt political action taken by corporate forces and special interests - Conservatives only appear friendlier to business tycoons and the private sector because they feel that capitalism provides everyone with the same high ceiling should enough work be put in. It's capitalistic approach however, that is aimed at more than just the big businesses. What about the folks that have small businesses that wish to grow? Competition is a means of making that happen. What about someone who wants to work hard and earn a lot of money personally? Free-market economy is a very friendly structure with regards to that aspiration - assuming the work is put in on the individual level.

• CONSERVATIVES ARE WARMONGERS

Hasty generalization. Not all conservatives are Hawks, and there are several of which are that are indeed Doves. Conservatives however envision peace often through strength as opposed to purely through democracy - and support building the military for personal defense sometimes exclusively and sometimes in the case of needing to protect American interests abroad as a complement to national defense.

• BIGOTS!

Another unfortunate hasty generalization. For something like the LGBT community, Caitlyn Jenner comes to mind as a pretty well known transgendered individual who also happens to be conservative and a traditionalist. Often the "clashing" comes from religious practice and conflicting rights of citizens, and not all conservatives are opposed to tolerating homosexuality.

[Eviora]

*Digs through her box of quotes.*

Ah, here we are!

"It's not who you are underneath. It's what you do that defines you." - Batman Begins.

Cheers!

Edited March 15, 2016 by Eviora

[Deleted User]

I want to leave this thread open-ended, because I'm not a liberal thinker and I don't have all the answers on their side of the aisle - but as one of the few conservatives on this board (or one of the few vocal ones anyway) - I think there are some very key things liberals tend to think about conservatives that are just plain off-base or at the very least are a hasty generalization of all conservatives when the statement only truly applies to a specific margin of conservatives. If a well nuanced liberal out there has a list of their own, or if any of you out there have one point to share, please do so!

This will be a fun course of trying to understand one another.

• CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT "FAIRNESS"

Staring off with a bang - The Democratic presidential primary focuses a lot on fairness, especially because the theme is central to Bernie Sanders' entire campaign from free upper level education to sticking it to the private sector. Liberals tend to contend that because a conservative doesn't appreciate taking what they deem as necessary steps to ensure all Americans have the same result, they tend to insinuate that conservatives are ignorant to the issue of raising up most people. The concept of fairness however, is genuinely abstract and as such can be approached from different angles. This is what is happening from the conservative point of view - as a conservative thinker dwells in the rules and ensuring everyone in the game has the same playing field. By focusing on the rule making, conservative legislators are trying to create a level arena of opportunity for all people, which would make the arena "fair." Liberals tend to approach fairness by the outcomes - and as such work to ensure they can put as many people in the bucket for that outcome as possible. Both sides actually tend to emphasize fairness, but go about it differently.

There will however always be the outliers who grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth, regardless of what sort of taxes or regulation you institute. If we want to make things more 'fair' we do need to increase the quality of education in many areas. Which yes, takes spending. I think one way we can help things immediately is to promote the acceptance of vocational occupations, and ask students to start focusing their studies in a direction (not necessarily a major) sooner, say... the start of high school. I'm sure there are many other ways we can improve things aside from monetaily to support the increase in funds which are necessary. One thing that we need to stress is for Children to make the most out of their education. That can be rather difficult, especially if it's not reinforced at home. Also, eliminate the myth that college is absolutely necessary to have a fair paying job. Cut down on the enrollment for next to useless degrees.

• CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POOR

The liberal misconception here often involves the conservatives' resistance to broad big government influenced welfare. In this election cycle even - Sanders employs what is known as democratic socialism - which would ideally redistribute the wealth of the entire nation to eliminate class structures using the government as an economic vehicle while still giving governmental power to the citizens. This approach is notably "collectivist" - in that Sanders would be calling on the whole country to support the poor as opposed to individual groups and people. Conservatives however - statistically- actually attack poverty in a different way, by addressing the problem for what it is - poverty - and not income inequality (with regards to the poor - there is inequality in things like minority groups and women that will be tackled later.) The conservative statistically is more reliable to give to charity and volunteer than the liberal is, meaning conservatives attack poverty by what is known as "individualism." Both collectivism and individualism have drawbacks however - collectivism causing a lower success ceiling and a lack of will to innovate, with individualism not meeting the demands of the entire country.

"Help me, help you." There are many people who are poor who become complacent and acceptant of the help they get for the long hail and this is the wrong attitude to have, it's to those individuals that conservatives get frustrated with. On the other side of the coin, there are people who work 2 jobs just to get by. The issue is that they're stuck on a treadmill. If they do receive funds as help, they need to be doing something to help them get off said treadmill and actually climb so they can support themselves opposed to being stuck. If they look to improve in some manner, I have no issue with it.

• ​CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN

Usually - this argument comes in regards to abortion - but is also attributed to thinks like free and wide-spread contraceptives and the like. In the former - which is the most prevalent cause of "conservative chauvinism" (which it isn't.) conservatives advocate for the fetus as well as the mother - and in the latter, they advocate practicing abstinence as the most effective method of avoiding pregnancy. Neither of which are views that belittle the woman but are methods that are designed to preserve life in most cases and attempt to privatize medicine to give Americans choice.

Abortion, the right to life for the unborn child is more important than the amount of time that a women is required to carry. Newborns are often adopted upon birth so being unable to raise the child is not an acceptable reason to instead end it's life. A few months of maternity leave can still be covered. There are exceptions, but yes when to consenting individuals do the deed, they know what risk they take. Ending a life for the mother's convenience doesn't sit right with me. I'm against widespread paid for contraception in healthcare because.... sex is NOT a health necessity. It's a pleasure. Many times the issue with conservatives' views on women stems simply from the fact that they are religious and in the past religion was used to suppress the rights of women. One can still be religious without adopting those mindsets.

• CONSERVATIVES WISH TO MAKE AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY

A theocracy is a government that is ruled under a specific religious doctrine and structure of government body (I.e. priests holding executive power.) - and liberals tend to conceivably believe that personal guidance in government affairs, teaching about religion and philosophies that indulge in spiritualism, and exposing citizens to one's personal practice of their faith equates to establishment of a national religion - something that is deemed "un-Constitutional" under the 1st Amendment. Christianity, being one of the largest followed and oldest major religions throughout America's history, is often the cited religion when the claim is being made. The fact that the 1st Amendment even exists, and that conservatives are very keen on the Constitution's phrasing, should automatically debunk this assertion - but to put away any doubt, it is not the conservative's goal to replace the checks and balances system and the three branches of government with a temple full of pastors, nor does every law need to be written in the name of "God." The real issue here - for the most part - is actually one that isn't applicable to religion or spirituality aside from one concepts traditional association. It's the citizens' beliefs of how "morality" is interpreted. Conservatives tend to approach lawmaking and enforcement with objective morality, while liberals tend to advocate subjective or relative morality. There are disagreements of which the either/or exists - and because in the objectivists' position a deity is often the basis for said objective morality, it's interpreted as establishment incorrectly. Another thing that is worth noting is that not all conservatives are theists.

Hey, I'm one of those non theist conservatives. I take issue with some things, but I do think a Church should have the right to refuse a marriage ceremony should it be against their beliefs. Government forcing a church to do something against it's beliefs is a violation of the first amendment.

• CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE

This one is actually one I feel minorities are being marginalized by liberals on. There are plenty of African, Latin, Hispanic, Asian, Polynesian, and so on people that are conservative - and the more appalling thing about this is that liberals - perhaps in attempt to make this claim about white folks true - often knock minority conservatives or outright ignore their existence. You hear too many people being called "Uncle Toms" here. The difference with conservatives and liberals on minority matters is that conservatives tend to be color blind in that they avoid even talking about race. They fight racism by example and not by protest and attention. liberals - who pursue outcomes over fair rules - make their issues known - which makes it appealing for a minority member to be liberal because it feels like they are being heard and attempted to be understood. By being silent examples of colorblind citizens, conservatives use this opportunity to "level the playing field" by addressing minorities as if they too were white - in a sense. Are there White supremacists who are conservative? Yes - but to brand conservatism favorable to racial supremacy for all idealists would be one of those hasty generalizations I pointed to earlier. White supremacy is a minority viewpoint in conservative circles. It should also be worth noting, that many conservatives -do- acknowledge racial issues being prevalent as well, and are usually in agreement with liberals in how to combat them.

• CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT BIG BUSINESSES

Hasty generalization - although one that is admittedly separating "conservatism" with "Republicanism" due to the increase in corrupt political action taken by corporate forces and special interests - Conservatives only appear friendlier to business tycoons and the private sector because they feel that capitalism provides everyone with the same high ceiling should enough work be put in. It's capitalistic approach however, that is aimed at more than just the big businesses. What about the folks that have small businesses that wish to grow? Competition is a means of making that happen. What about someone who wants to work hard and earn a lot of money personally? Free-market economy is a very friendly structure with regards to that aspiration - assuming the work is put in on the individual level.

• CONSERVATIVES ARE WARMONGERS

Hasty generalization. Not all conservatives are Hawks, and there are several of which are that are indeed Doves. Conservatives however envision peace often through strength as opposed to purely through democracy - and support building the military for personal defense sometimes exclusively and sometimes in the case of needing to protect American interests abroad as a complement to national defense.

• BIGOTS!

Another unfortunate hasty generalization. For something like the LGBT community, Caitlyn Jenner comes to mind as a pretty well known transgendered individual who also happens to be conservative and a traditionalist. Often the "clashing" comes from religious practice and conflicting rights of citizens, and not all conservatives are opposed to tolerating homosexuality.

Will continue later.

[Chase]

I was hoping to hear a litany of "Liberals are blanks" and see the other side rationalize them. I would love some understanding, not because I lack all of it, but just because I would love to learn. I'll suggest a few as a conservative that I've made before and have heard from others. This doesn't mean that I think that way now, but I want to hear a few of you other guys weigh in here.

• LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN DREAM
• LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
• LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT BI-PARTISANSHIP
• LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO MAKE AMERICA AN ATHEISTIC COUNTRY
• LIBERALS ARE INVASIVE
• LIBERALS ARE HYPOCRITICAL ON TOLERANCE
• LIBERALS ACTIVELY PURSUE POSITIONS THAT WILL WIN THEIR SIDE VOTES FIRST AND FOREMOST
• LIBERALS DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE

[mde2001]

I was hoping to hear a litany of "Liberals are blanks" and see the other side rationalize them. I would love some understanding, not because I lack all of it, but just because I would love to learn. I'll suggest a few as a conservative that I've made before and have heard from others. This doesn't mean that I think that way now, but I want to hear a few of you other guys weigh in here.

Well let's try this (although my lack of being an American makes some of these questions a little irrelevant)

• LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN DREAM

I personally don't, but I'm not the right person to answer this question.

• LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION

At least in terms of the Australian constitution, I am of the opinion that it is a highly important document that should generally be abided by, but it was created in a society that is very different to modern day society. Times change, and the things that the social norms in the past (and therefore in the constitution) are not always accurate today. So it isn't so much nto caring about the constitution, as thinking that something being in the constitution is enough of an argument for or against something.

• LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT BI-PARTISANSHIP

We do care about bi-partisan ship, the conservatives can come up and support us

Bi-partisanship is always tricky and it is probably true that we are inclined not to compromise as much, but I don't think that this is something that comes with political ideology, but moreso something that comes from specific people (or groups of people in a party).

• LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO MAKE AMERICA AN ATHEISTIC COUNTRY

I don't think we're trying to make the world atheistic, possibly secular, but they aren't exactly the same thing. I'd agree we're generally trying to stop religious groups from having such control over policy decisions and what is socially acceptable, and trying to limit Christian supremecy.

• LIBERALS ARE INVASIVE

Not 100% sure what you're talking about here, but we do generally like to be involved and we aren't afraid to make decisions that may limit people in certain ways, which can sometimes appear invasive.

• LIBERALS ARE HYPOCRITICAL ON TOLERANCE

This isn't something that applies to all liberals (although I do lack tolerance for bigitory and discrimination). It is pretty similar to your argument on conservatives are bigots. It is a group of people that exist within Liberals, but isn't something that can be applied to everyone.

• LIBERALS ACTIVELY PURSUE POSITIONS THAT WILL WIN THEIR SIDE VOTES FIRST AND FOREMOST

I wouldn't say this is true. It is possible that given my generation is a lot more progressive, it appears this way as the popular opinions are becomming the progressive views. In the past, when conservative Christian values were the predominant force in America, the same thing could be said about conservatives.

• LIBERALS DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE

I wouldn't say this is accurate, liberals and conservatives just have a very different idea of what is fiscally responsible and whether or not possible future advancement is worth immediate loss.

[Chase]

Don't worry Mde, I know you're working with the outsider perspective so I'm not going to hold you over the coals for things that are rough guesses.

The "American Dream" is essentially the rags-to-riches ascension anybody in America can/used to be able to make by honest, hard, law-abiding work. Conservatives tend to hold this value better than liberals do when it comes to policy analysis due to the conservative's higher likelihood of suggesting individualist approaches to solving problems. Liberal "lacking" of valuing the American Dream is arguably seen in their support for Federal Welfare programs and supporting pouring more money into the Social Security treasury to ensure it's a permanent government program as opposed to a temporary 'New Deal' program to fix an immediate problem (such as the Great Depression.) The potential misconception here may be do to a view that liberals think the government is directly responsible for causing individual prosperity to some degree - and thus they should act on behalf of the citizen.

• the "Different Era" argument

Common liberal response and to it's credit, it's a fair one. However, there already is a process in place for adopting the Constitution to relevancy in different times - the amendment process. The Constitution is an extremely important document regardless of the modern shift because it's still the document that outlines the basic unalienable rights of the citizens and it's still the limitations in writing that the Federal government must abide by. The amendment process allows it to be a fluid document while leaving the power of change in the hands where it belongs - the American people. Liberals in government are largely the biggest offenders when it comes to bad Constitutional interpretation, be it legislators that want to retry landmark Court cases where the Second Amendment is directly being challenged by an area of the country (District of Columbia v. Heller.) or where the justices rule in the effect of writing in arcane legislature and use authority outside of their bounds (Obergefell v. Hodges.) - or where the President enforces whatever legislature that is still arcane he wants by making usage of executive orders routinely as opposed to using those executive orders as a check. (See; Obama - according to some who do not approve of the sitting president.) Considering the gravity the document actually holds - can someone really say it's not enough to justify a position over? That's where the danger of liberalism lies to many conservatives.

• Difficulty

That's an acceptable response - because it is hard for people - on both sides of the spectrum - to play nice on many issues, but the hugest issue conservatives take is that liberals tend to delve immediately into the "blackmail" phase whenever a conservative dares to propose such ideology in any way, shape, or form. When liberals are in power - they are easily able to discourage mutiny in government by pointing to term limits and rallying the people to smear a conservative in doing so. It's sort have become the alternative definition to "political correctness" - Be liberal or be undesirable to the American people in some capacity. I'm sure conservatives in power are prone to being persuasive in the same right. Get along folks. That's better for all of us.... although, that strike-through message is not quite funny when that's literally what it looks like government officials are saying bi-partisanship is.

• not a complete misconception

Secularism isn't a bad thing in my opinion - but seeing as most religious adherents are actually individualistic as opposed to collectivists, I can say that most Christian push-back is a vocal minority. Those that do speak up on issues that favor a religious point of view usually try to bring secular reasoning that affirms that viewpoint - such as asserting that we know what a fetus is going to be if it were conceived by humans and opting to defend religious viewpoints using the Constitution as opposed to the Bible. Those that try to "Bible-thump" are a very vocal minority. There are concerns like this in the Middle East - where Islamic adherents have Scripture that does have rather theocratic rhetoric in it's phrasing - thus explaining why it's such a volatile place over there.

• I'm talking about things like violating the 1st Amendment for the sake of pushing legislature that doesn't actually exist to promote tolerance for previously discriminated groups - or violating the 2nd Amendment to instill gun control. There's a very large problem with seemingly most hyper-progressives in that they seem to always want to be trailblazing, where they are setting the rights of the people ablaze to "progress." One such example is a major organized protest that was actually designed not to protest at all - but actually DISRUPT a speech and deny someone of their 1st amendment rights to do so.

Christianity has been around for nearly two millenniums now and it's long and humble road started in complete persecution. Does that mean Christians should be entitled today? No - but it does mean that throughout America's history the presence of the church has been something that has been accounted for as a major component of freedom. For example - religious freedom is outlined in the very first amendment of the Constitution. It's been a major cause of political identity for the entirety of America's lifespan, and it's been something that arguably - doesn't truthfully constitute a "fad" given how long Christianity was somewhat of a status quo. Civil Rights however have had very short lifespans in comparison, usually (THANK GOODNESS) ending in progressive results or ones that respect as many Americans as possible. Starting with Blacks - the liberal party quickly attacked the provision that slaves were only 1/5 of a person and pursued them as a voting bloc first. Women have typically been liberal following stances like providing equal wages between the sexes and giving them bodily autonomy first. LGBTs are conventionally liberal due to their policies being friendly to the group.

A noteworthy group of people that don't get that respect? the millions of aborted fetuses that conservatives fight for. Another? Christians who are regularly under the impression that they are being attacked because they are being jailed for denying a license to someone in observance of what they are taught to believe what marriage is -or- are LITERALLY attacked in a genocide over in the Middle East, that conservatives fight for. Those two groups of people and "not-people" if you have such view have been around and given provisions far longer (either for the history of mankind in the case of the fetus -or- the 2000 years since Christ's crucifixion.) than African Americans and women and LGBT people - which suggests liberals only care about the women on the abortion stand-off because between only one side of that fight can speak for themselves - the women. Liberals love progressives because it's precisely what keeps them constantly pulling in new voters. Instead of being true activists, it makes them come off as self-serving come election time. It's a possible misconception - but that's kinda the point. It's not really explained why.

• Obama nearly triples US National Debt. under his presidency.

I know that government is usually a little different than the individual, but not to the point where wasteful spending isn't wasteful spending. Liberal policies tend to mark heavy spending to upkeep the size of the government and it's ability to solve broad issues. By proxy, it would definitely seem to increase the national debt. Even when conservative presidents spend - they do so largely on liberal actions, save for funding the military. How is the government working to pay it's dues under a liberal view point? Blame the rich people that don't pay their fair share and what else? Blame other taxpayers too?

I'm inviting you guys to inquire about my assertions too. It's not a discussion without disagreement. Try to keep it classy though. Unlike liberals - that doesn't mean you have to agree with me. (That's a relevant joke folks. I love you all.)

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

(I don't normally get involved in subjects like these but felt like replying to three specific points)

Re: American Dream

From what I've read, making your way to the top just on hard work was a lot more possible ~50-60 years ago then it is today due to changes in jobs, school, the economy, etc. I do think there are factors besides hard work that play a role in determining how successful some people are and how difficult it is for them. There are also people who got into high positions without working hard and people who work hard for years-decades without making very much progress.

I guess you could say I don't care about it on a personal level because it doesn't apply to me. I'm stuck as a kid and can't do any of that to begin with, and I'm fine with that.

Re: Invasive.

In most cases that I can think of, I'm against compromising peoples' privacy when there's nothing like a warrant. I disagree with the phrase "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you care?" because that makes it sound like only criminals want privacy. I'm also against the government spying on people.

Re: Hypocritical on tolerance.

I can't speak for other people, but I never said that we should accept everyone and everything. A lot of times when I hear phrases like "It's ironic that you promote tolerance while being intolerant of others", it sounds like the person thinks the mindset they're arguing with is "Literally everything is ok and should be accepted". People shouldn't be judged or attacked because of their skin color, sex, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, sexual orientation, etc. because who someone is in those regards doesn't harm anyone and has nothing to do with how good or bad of a person they are.

Here are some things that I think SHOULDN'T be accepted

-Abusing your child(ren) or significant other

-Drunk driving

-Not vaccinating your kids because you believe in a study from the 90s that was 1) proven false and 2) made up to begin with that says vaccines cause autism.

-People being disadvantaged or harmed based on the above mentioned factors. There are actually states where "I freaked out and beat a person because they were trans" is considered a legitimate legal defense.

[Chase]

As a conservative:

Here are some things that I think SHOULDN'T be accepted

-Abusing your child(ren) or significant other

-Drunk driving

-Not vaccinating your kids because you believe in a study from the 90s that was 1) proven false and 2) made up to begin with that says vaccines cause autism.

-People being disadvantaged or harmed based on the above mentioned factors. There are actually states where "I freaked out and beat a person because they were trans" is considered a legitimate legal defense.

- I agree

- I agree

- I agree

- I agree

---

I also agree that one shouldn't discriminate against those other things (sex, race, orientation, beliefs, identity) - but I don't think my opposition to several issues is indicative of intolerance. Off the cuff, liberals seem to be very "intolerant" of theists, wealthy people, whites, men, and the unborn. theism is a belief system, male is a gender, and being white is indicative of a race issue

This means that when liberals are vocalizing tolerance for similar issues - that it seems to reflect hypocritical approach.

---

Thank you for probably providing the best answer I've heard on the American Dream. I do agree that the boundaries that are in place today -could- make it harder and I do think the government should be looking for solutions. I just don't think it needs to grow into a massive central body and pour money at every obstacle it encounters.

---

You're actually pretty conservative yourself when it comes to privacy, ICSW.

[torpedocat]

Oh man... I can't fight the urge to involve myself in this mess... So, where do I begin? Let's see... Ah, right! Your political thesis are flat out, a joke. No offence of course. Dearly yours, a fellow commie.

[Eviora]

People on both sides of the fence are just so intolerant of serial killers. It's almost as if the dislike comes from how they determinedly hurt others rather than the circumstances of their birth. It's totally unfair!

On a less serious note, pretty much every liberal I know hates white people and men. Some of our least favorite people are Bernie Sanders and Billl Clinton. We visit our wrath upon them by insidiously ignoring the underprivileged position of white guys and only vying to decrease oppression toward groups that are actually systematically subject to it. Aren't we awful? =(

Edited March 18, 2016 by Eviora

[torpedocat]

People on both sides of the fence are just so intolerant of serial killers. It's almost as if the dislike comes from how they determinedly hurt others rather than the circumstances of their birth. It's totally unfair!

I lost you there... Care to explain?

[Chase]

Oh man... I can't fight the urge to involve myself in this mess... So, where do I begin? Let's see... Ah, right! Your political thesis are flat out, a joke. No offence of course. Dearly yours, a fellow commie.

People on both sides of the fence are just so intolerant of serial killers. It's almost as if the dislike comes from how they determinedly hurt others rather than the circumstances of their birth. It's totally unfair!

On a less serious note, pretty much every liberal I know hates white people and men. Some of our least favorite people are Bernie Sanders and Billl Clinton. We visit our wrath upon them by insidiously ignoring the underprivileged position of white guys and only vying to decrease oppression toward groups that are actually systematically subject to it. Aren't we awful? =(

I'll suggest a few as a conservative that I've made before and have heard from others. This doesn't mean that I think that way now, but I want to hear a few of you other guys weigh in here. - from an earlier post.

Sometimes I think people just don't read the entire post and take the time to get nervy because "how dare someone disagree with me!" or "how dare such assertions be made in the first place!"

• Sub-oceanic Missile Feline - These are not my theses - but MISCONCEPTIONS conservatives have about liberals...it's flat out in the title. In other words, I am already aware that those ARE a joke.
• Eviora - That's sort of my point. There are a lot of white men you don't tolerate - but you DO tolerate the ones that you like. That's why I didn't even go with "Liberals hate White People" or "Liberals hate Men" - Consistency is not a part of the liberal mindset. Especially when it comes to NON-WHITE individuals who commit crimes. Yes there is institutionalized racism and every effort under the sun needs to be concentrated on ending it - but goodness gracious not to the point where a police officer can't even do his or her job because making the arrest is a form of discrimination. With liberalism, it's markedly more pick-and-choose where the line should be drawn than with conservatism.

Give me a response that isn't sarcasm next time please - I'm not trying to incite anger or flaming here.

[torpedocat]

It was sarcasm. That would be me, stating the obvious, trying to be funny. I don't have to read every single post to unertand the irony I'm also revealing my social ideology, you know, for future conversations. jeez, you conservatives live up to your name

[Eviora]

We could have a discussion about consistency... but I'm not really in the mood, especially since you've clearly already made up your mind about all this. Instead, to clear up some misunderstandings, let me list a few things I really am intolerant of - some of them may be more typical of liberals, and some might just be mine. By the way, these aren't all directed at any one person in particular.

• "Tolerate my unjustified intolerance"

We've been over this one like a billion times before. Your rights end where other people's rights begin. It doesn't matter if you religion is telling you to do it.

• Strawmen

Seriously. Scarecrow was everything wrong with Oz.

• Willful ignorance

No, lack of education on an issue doesn't justify you saying whatever you want about it. If you don't understand something, go learn about it before railing against it again. You have the freedom to say whatever you want, of course, but others also have the right to classify you as a moron and/or a bigot if you do.

• Traitors (who intended it)

I don't believe in a hell, but if I were the god of one, there would certainly be a special place for these. A girl has to vent her frustration somehow, after all.

• Obvious overgeneralizations

This one relates directly to my last post, Chase. Do you really think it's remotely plausible that liberals in general are intolerant of men? You can make the argument that may of us dislike certain men, or men of a certain type (serial killers, for instance), but judging by the number of men we choose to represent us, it's pretty clear that we dislike those individuals and groups for reasons other than being men. Similarly, lots of prominent liberals are white or theists. I'll be really impressed if you can list me 5 Republicans elected into office while being out as LGBT or atheists. I'm sure it's technically possible - you can use really minor elected officials, after all - but some claims of bias are a teensy bit completely unsupported by the evidence, while others may need another look. And, yes, I'm aware you meant this as a misconception open to be refuted. It's not a worthy one.

Rule of thumb: Try to analytically isolate the precise cause for a phenomenon, (in this cause, liberals allegedly being intolerant of some people) rather than jumping to conclusions based on contingent facts.

• Exploiting people's disabilities

A crazy girl has problems with people trying to manipulate her craziness? That's crazy talk.

But, seriously. This applies to both physical and mental handicaps. Abusing these to get the upper hand over already disadvantaged people is the same as coming out as human scum - and that also goes for when companies try to take advantage of these disabilities to make money (beyond offering necessary services). This one may appear irrelevant to the topic at hand, but many people have issues far more debilitating than my whimsical insanity. I often hear Republicans refer to welfare recipients as "lazy" and the like, but in truth, there are people who rely on such systems. Society is complicated. Rules often need exceptions. That's just the nature of human interaction.

By the way, yes, I'm sort of raving on this one.

• When you can't remember the other things you're intolerant of

Um... yeah. I'm sure there are more of these, but I'm out of steam. Maybe I'll post more later; maybe not. It mostly depends on my mood.

Now, I'm gonna go eat some stuff. Have fun coming up with ways of accusing me of all the things on my list! Ciao!

Edited March 18, 2016 by Eviora

[Chase]

Torpedocat - That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.

For future reference, because in text format it's not as easy to derive sarcasm, when you say "commie" - do you really mean that you are a communist, or are you really referring to socialism?

For example - Socialism advocates a strong government body that pays it's working class evenly whereas Communism advocates the working class holding all of the facilities and resources needed at the start. I ask because that's another misconception my conservative friends have - that socialists are communists.

In other words, I'd just like to clarify.

---

See, is that the default answer all liberals give when it comes to consistency? "I don't wanna talk about it?" I wouldn't blame myself if I -HAD- made up my mind if that's the general course of action. Way to fall in line.

1. Incorrectly labeling disagreement or refusal as intolerance =/= not tolerating intolerance.
2. I agree with you on this one - though I'm not afraid to admit I could imply straw-man arguments by accident. Logical discourse is the goal.
3. Again, I agree.
4. I disagree with outright damning traitors, but I do agree with you on treason being intolerable.
5. Karl Rove (Atheist), Robert Ingorsall (Atheist), Charles T. Beaird (Atheist), Edwina Rogers (Atheist), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Atheist) - the Log Cabin Republicans are an LGBT advocacy group that supports the Republican Party (LGBT), Caitlyn Jenner is a conservative activist that has offered to guide candidates to a better bridge with the LGBT community (LGBT) - Goes both ways - conservatives don't disown people because of their race, gender, of beliefs either. I would agree with you on this one too - although the first point is sort of why it would seem we're in disagreement. If I didn't tolerate homosexuality, I would be a much worse person than you already think I am.
6. I certainly agree with you here.

Again, our only genuine issue is directly dealing with defensible refusal vs. "intolerance". We both knew that one already.

[torpedocat]

that woman (and her list) is giving me the chills... Anyway, pardon me, english is not my primary language, so that's more than enough to generate misunderstandings, unintentionally. I like to define myself as a Marxist-Leninist, a communist. with Socialism standing for a "state" with a central coordination and planning mechanism, a direct receiver of the will of the working class (no representatives included), who hold the means of production. In other words, a "dictatorship" of the proletariat aka amere intermediate for passing on to communism; a stateless society (not it's final form, that has yet to be discovered)/the unified humanity. A pretty unrefined generalization of what these terms stand for.

[Eviora]

@Chase

*sighs* Oh, fine then. Tell me why I'm so inconsistent. Don't expect a huge debate or an overly long response, though. You may not realize it, but these conversations can be taxing and depressing, particularly when you're essentially ultimately arguing for your right to exist as more than vermin. Honestly, I shouldn't be bothering with these topics at all, but here I am, and you've just goaded me into answering your question - I'm such an idiot. =p Just know that I had no duty to defend myself to you. Ultimately, this conversation will almost certainly boil down to us having different values - which we already know is the case. Buuut go ahead!

Oh, and with regards to 5., my request was compact, but I was looking for people who fit the following criteria.

• They're Republicans currently serving as elected officials.
• They're either an atheist or a member of the LGBT community.
• At the time of their election they were open about the above.

I'm well aware that there are plenty of individuals who are Republicans and either atheists or LGBT, but my point was that they'd have a really hard time getting into office given the prejudices of many Republicans. Caitlyn Jenner isn't an elected official, of course, and a quick fact check on a couple of the others revealed dubious results - for instance, in the "Personal Life" section on Karl Rove's Wikipedia page, it says he considers himself a Christian, though Christopher Hitchens implied otherwise.

@ torpedocat

Me and my list are giving you chills? Ohmygosh, am I really that scary?

[Shamitako]

I happen to be a conservative, so Ima just state how I feel about these and let that be my thoughts on the matter

• CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT "FAIRNESS"

Not from my impression of fairness, no. Fairness is a stupid concept that only causes people to feel entitled to things they don't have. We'd all be a lot better off if we stopped trying to make it seem like anyone who has something we don't is less deserving of that thing than we are ourselves. Maybe there's someone who's managed to make fairness without jealousy, but I haven't encountered them yet

• CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POOR

As a poor (note: poor, not impoverished) woman, living in a poor neighborhood, with lots of poor people that I don't give a damn about. I'd have to say that this is also true of me. Of course even if I did care about those people each individually, they'd still be meaningless to me as a group. Poor people are very prone to the above issue of thinking we don't deserve to be poor and that it's someone else's fault (I like to blame my parents since I'm not 18 yet and can get away with it) that we're like this. But in the end I believe people should be held responsible for themselves (exception for kids, since their parents are responsible for them. Thus why I can get away with blaming my parents)

• ​CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN

As a group, not really. Women are just female members of the human species, I don't see why I should care for them as some kind of unique entity. Now, I do tend to defend certain aspects of women's rights that directly effect me, but those are generally social issues and shouldn't matter in politics

• CONSERVATIVES WISH TO MAKE AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY

Not a theocracy, no, but I do know a lot of conservatives who want us to be a Christian country. Personally, so long as I'm allowed to formulate my opinions on ethics and morals based on whatever cosmic entity I believe in at the point in time I'm formulating, then I'm happy. It's only when people say my religious beliefs aren't allowed to effect my sense of right and wrong that I get annoyed

• CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE

Again with the caring about groups. I still fail to comprehend what makes skin color so important to everyone. I only even say "white" and "black" because people started getting upset with my for saying "brown" and "tan" when I got old enough for it to stop being cute. I mean, all I was doing was describing what your skin looks like, you don't have to get so defensive...

Personally I probably classify as "white" since I religiously avoid a tan, and even if I didn't I'd probably only look just a tad darker than most. I don't have too much of my grandfather in me

• CONSERVATIVES ONLY CARE ABOUT BIG BUSINESSES

No, big business can actually be quite the issue if handled improperly. While big business is not inherently bad, it does need to remain competitive. vThe struggle is keeping it competitive without breaking down capitalism entirely

• CONSERVATIVES ARE WARMONGERS

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." - My Favorite President

War is bad, I think most people can agree with that. However war is also unavoidable. When two people disagree, there's going to be fighting. When two large groups of people disagree, there's going to be large fighting. And there's a pretty high tendency for large fighting to stop being verbal. So while we shouldn't seek war, we should always be prepared for it. And imo the best way to prepare is to be read to win quickly and decisively. Long, drawn out fights always result in a lot of pain for all involved parties

• BIGOTS!

Well, if we're talking LGBT stuff, then I will say that I'm openly transphobic (note, by others' definitions, not mine). I'm also openly trans. People will basically say that anyone who disagrees with them on what they deserve is bigoted against them. Thus most people think I'm bigoted against them (see: fairness) Now there are people who are legit bigoted, and I believe they have a right to be so. Everyone has a right to be human, and bigotry is just as human as being gay--imo, they're both equally right/wrong. So long as they judge me by who I am, I'm perfectly fine with them not liking who I am. They just need to realize they can't stop me from being so and that I'm equally human as them

Now, people who treat me as though I'm inhuman, I will not treat them as human (again, being me is only as wrong as being them). They can burn for all I care

[Chase]

@ Torpedocat

Oh, that's pretty cool. You don't meet too many of those where I'm from. There are some things about communism that I actually like better than socialism, but a sizable amount of countries have not fared very well under the concept - keeping me from giving it a lot of personal appreciation. I do think that any of those left wing positions try their hardest to promote equality and fairness, and I think in theory communism aught to work nicely.

@ Eviora

Aren't we all trying to be more than vermin? I mean, we are the top of the food chain and the most intelligent species on the planet to our knowledge....

I also don't want to make this about you and I. It's a general misconception held by an opposing group of people about the opposing group. One inconsistency that I've pointed out is people-of-color conservatives. I'm not saying that -you- are inconsistently inclusive of that conservative, but that liberals are when they are out there being racial pariahs. One thing I've seen is - since telling CNN she was a conservative - a lot of hate being sent toward Jenner by her LGBT colleagues and many liberals. Political identity seems to be incredibly divisive on both sides - but when the liberals are the ones holding the "tolerance" banner it looks especially jarring from them and it makes responding conservatives jaded to the message at hand - that we need to treat everyone equally. Liberalism has also taken up a rather non-theist tone - despite holding many in it's group as believing in something other than lack of a God, and that tone has resulted in a perceived "war on religion" that may -or- may not be somewhat misconceived by theists in return.

I don't personally look to our conversations as dreary. I look at them as spirited discussions between two people who are usually in a state of disagreement, that occasionally comes to small jabbing. For the most part, I think you are a very intellectual person and I enjoy talking to you. I also think you are not vermin yourself - and I'd like to be friends with you more than anything else. I can understand if you don't wish the same in return.

@ Alexus

Teddy ain't my favorite president - but that is one of my favorite quotes of all time. Thanks for your input.

[Eviora]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to argue if you want to talk about all liberals at once. The reality is that there are "bad seeds" on both sides of just about any divide. That's just people being people. That said, I don't see how "people-of-color conservatives" and such are an inconsistency in any way. It's not like anyone is claiming members of any particular race, gender, religion, etc are a monolith. My tactic for dispelling misconceptions would have to be to provide counterexamples - proof that not everyone in the group is as the misconception claims. But words are wind. That's why I left the Batman quote. To change people's perceptions - which are based in feelings far more often and greatly than reason - you have to show them, not tell them, you're different.

I try to stick to reason in debates, but arguments based too strongly in logic and facts are only so effective. For ages, I thought reason was my forte, but I was wrong. Logic didn't make me any less aimless. Not to boast, but I'm skilled enough to make a decent argument in favor of pretty much whatever position I feel like supporting at the moment. But that didn't get me anywhere. Progress only came when I started with a subjective set of very basic values based in objective reality and empathy. I can't speak for other liberals, but I think that's why I clash with people with religion-based worldviews so frequently. I don't want to make any assumptions, but it seems to me that many theists will put the values given to them by their community and/or holy book above more concretely human considerations. So, when I argue with such people, we never really connect because the difference is based in a perception often deeply rooted within our worldviews.

Hm. I might be getting a bit off topic. That seems to be a talent of mine. Evi will shush for now. =p

[SonOfRed]

I think that every political job could be solved by voting Vermin Supreme as ultimate leader of the world. He is a friendly fascist, and he will lie to make you feel safe. He will provide a pony for every american, and he will enforce mandatory tooth brushing, what more could you want. Remember a vote for Vermin Supreme is a vote completely wasted.

[Skullkin]

Chase--THANK YOU.

[torpedocat]

@ Torpedocat

Oh, that's pretty cool. You don't meet too many of those where I'm from. There are some things about communism that I actually like better than socialism, but a sizable amount of countries have not fared very well under the concept - keeping me from giving it a lot of personal appreciation. I do think that any of those left wing positions try their hardest to promote equality and fairness, and I think in theory communism aught to work nicely.

Well it's a really a complicated theory and one of the 3 laws describing the development of organisms like the society states that if there is going to be a change (not in quantity, but in quality) the subject (working class) nust overcome it's very nature aka the capitalist way of production into a self-conscious one. And that's where a socialistic "state" comes in, that is it's very purpose and under no circumstances should it consist a separe state with no potential of evolving into communism.It's boring, I know and I'm still studying it, so I won't bother you with details

@SonofRed supporting vermin all the way dude. Gotta love that fascist scum <3

Edited March 19, 2016 by torpedocat