On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Nolidor » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:39 am

One of the primary values of conservatism is rugged individualism. That is conservatism recognizes the right to disrespect who individuals are on the inside that counts. Instead, it believes in abusing people and blaming the victim. It believes in enslaving people against their consent, and when they refuse to endure slavery, it believes in neglecting them because rectification of that abuse would be slavery in itself. That is victims in society would be demanding that others come to their rescue whether they like it or not. Sometimes, conservatives even have the audacity to claim that expecting conservatives to change their values is slavery itself since conservatives would be expected to change their values without consent despite how their own values don't respect consent to begin with. Instead, those who are powerful, in conservatism, are entitled to dictate their emotions by expecting everyone to conform to their traditional norms.

This is a rationalized equivocation between retributive and redistributive justice however.

Unless conservatives wish to become tyrants, despots, dictators, etc. where they believe in might makes right, they must recognize that rights depend on civilization which intrinsically acknowledges who people are on the inside that counts. The emotional self-objectification that conservatives engage in to reduce themselves down to the level of animals just in the name of their own simple-minded, short-term self-interest destroys the very foundation which their very paradigm depends on. That is conservatives have no longer appreciated the free willing skill that defines who people are, but rather they have converted towards a belief of fatalist luck.

The very notion of rights, therefore, in a conservative's paradigm, can no longer exist such that the very notion of disrespecting who individuals are on the inside that counts must automatically be recognized as wrong.

Therefore, is there any other reason for conservatives to behave the way they do other than intentional harassment where they get things wrong on purpose just to get on their victims' nerves? For example, do conservatives behave the way they do just to tell intellectuals in society, "Do our homework or else we're going to beat you up and take your lunch money?" and in the case that their victims call them stupid, do they want the right to claim victims provoked them as an excuse to abuse them anyway despite how victims were just standing up for themselves after conservatives broadcast stupidity into society, potentially in a sarcastic manner?
Last edited by Nolidor on Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nolidor
Citizen
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby The Dharma Bum » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:15 am

As long you try to play the left/right game tyrants, despots, and dictators win
people need to learn how to live in a community together
Image
User avatar
The Dharma Bum
Vice President
 
Posts: 11594
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:31 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3285 times
Been thanked: 617 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Nolidor » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:54 am

That's what a conservative would tell you because a conservative doesn't respect individuality. They'd say individual creative thinkers need to stop being selfish and conform to the norms of the traditional community.

Communities can be nice, but they're not always. Peaceful coexistence requires a fundamental attitude of respecting your fellow people for who they are on the inside that counts. That is internal identity must come before external identity, not the other way around.
Nolidor
Citizen
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby The Dharma Bum » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:07 am

I'm not detecting a "fundamental attitude of respect for fellow people" in your commentary, mainly because you are attempting to demonize them for political reasons.

Also you directly attack the notion of individual rights yourself when you ask people to be forced to conform to your own values and reject traditional ones. It always comes down to that with party ideologues because this is what both parties are really all about.
Image
User avatar
The Dharma Bum
Vice President
 
Posts: 11594
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:31 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3285 times
Been thanked: 617 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Nolidor » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:36 am

The Dharma Bum wrote:I'm not detecting a "fundamental attitude of respect for fellow people" in your commentary, mainly because you are attempting to demonize them for political reasons.

Also you directly attack the notion of individual rights yourself when you ask people to be forced to conform to your own values and reject traditional ones. It always comes down to that with party ideologues because this is what both parties are really all about.


???

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying I'm expecting conformity despite how I'm expecting tolerance for the diversity of who people are on the inside that counts.

You're confusing first order with higher order logic. If you applied a sense of time, you would see the difference. Conservatism comes to the conclusion of conformity by expecting a premise of diversity that disrespects non-established people and insists on established people having the right to push non-established people around. Liberalism comes to the conclusion of diversity by expecting a premise of conformity where everyone plays by the same rules of the game regardless of their lifestyle strategy.

The reason conservatives do this is exactly what you said as well. They claim that non-established people aren't respecting the individuality of established people because non-established people are expecting established people to not push non-established people around despite how established people aren't willing, or at least don't want, to control themselves.

Conservatives also claim that non-established people are demonizing them for political reasons as well since non-established people would be better off from not being pushed around. Therefore, conservatives claim they're acting in their own self-interest. In reality, they're confusing hygiene factors with motivators. That is there's a difference from someone being better off from the removal of a negative versus the addition of a positive.
Nolidor
Citizen
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Professor » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:26 am

I reject your definition of conservatism.

The best definition* of conservatism is that one persons rights extend to where another's begins.

*Definition = overarching rule. There are exceptions, but this is true in a broad sense.
Image
User avatar
Professor
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 570 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Philly » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:34 am

Professor wrote:I reject your definition of conservatism.

The best definition* of conservatism is that one persons rights extend to where another's begins.

*Definition = overarching rule. There are exceptions, but this is true in a broad sense.

That's liberalism
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9416
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Professor » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:10 am

Philly2 wrote:
Professor wrote:I reject your definition of conservatism.

The best definition* of conservatism is that one persons rights extend to where another's begins.

*Definition = overarching rule. There are exceptions, but this is true in a broad sense.

That's liberalism


Is it?

Frankly, I don't put much stock in labels. As we've seen, there are usually too many exceptions for them to stick.

That said, I was thinking that liberalism was more "the rights of the community over the rights of the individual". By way of example, I'll express my point.

Take a village with a sick elder who has no direct family or other caregivers. Conservatives would say, "If anyone wants to help him, that's their choice. But, no one can force anyone else to help." Liberals, on the other hand, would say, "We are a community, and what's good for one is good for all. We must all chip in and help this person."

I dunnno - maybe it's just me. And, again why I hate labels, according to the example, I'm a conservative. But, in some very real situations, the liberal option is better.
Image
User avatar
Professor
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 570 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Philly » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:12 am

Professor wrote:
Philly2 wrote:
Professor wrote:I reject your definition of conservatism.

The best definition* of conservatism is that one persons rights extend to where another's begins.

*Definition = overarching rule. There are exceptions, but this is true in a broad sense.

That's liberalism


Is it?

Frankly, I don't put much stock in labels. As we've seen, there are usually too many exceptions for them to stick.

That said, I was thinking that liberalism was more "the rights of the community over the rights of the individual". By way of example, I'll express my point.

Take a village with a sick elder who has no direct family or other caregivers. Conservatives would say, "If anyone wants to help him, that's their choice. But, no one can force anyone else to help." Liberals, on the other hand, would say, "We are a community, and what's good for one is good for all. We must all chip in and help this person."

I dunnno - maybe it's just me. And, again why I hate labels, according to the example, I'm a conservative. But, in some very real situations, the liberal option is better.

That's socialism.
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9416
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

Re: On Anti-Intellectual Conservative "Reflexive" Thought

Postby Professor » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:43 am

Philly2 wrote:
Professor wrote:
Philly2 wrote:
Professor wrote:I reject your definition of conservatism.

The best definition* of conservatism is that one persons rights extend to where another's begins.

*Definition = overarching rule. There are exceptions, but this is true in a broad sense.

That's liberalism


Is it?

Frankly, I don't put much stock in labels. As we've seen, there are usually too many exceptions for them to stick.

That said, I was thinking that liberalism was more "the rights of the community over the rights of the individual". By way of example, I'll express my point.

Take a village with a sick elder who has no direct family or other caregivers. Conservatives would say, "If anyone wants to help him, that's their choice. But, no one can force anyone else to help." Liberals, on the other hand, would say, "We are a community, and what's good for one is good for all. We must all chip in and help this person."

I dunnno - maybe it's just me. And, again why I hate labels, according to the example, I'm a conservative. But, in some very real situations, the liberal option is better.

That's socialism.


True.
Image
User avatar
Professor
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 570 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Next

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests