Anonymous #1 6w

Group or shared ideology.

6

Anonymous #2 6w

One can maybe argue that the conservative agenda in the 80s helped hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that’s not concrete

5

Anonymous #2 6w

Im aware. I really want them to try and form a legitimate argument. I miss debating with actual people and not unintelligent animals

8

Anonymous #3 6w

Can ya give me one example where conservatives are on the correct side or not? Its honestly that simple

1

Anonymous OP 6w

Without resorting to trying to say the confederacy was the liberal side in the civil war, that’s tough

4

Anonymous #2 6w

Still insane that ppl in college think this

1

Anonymous OP 6w

my guy I completely reject the concept and organization you are spewing. You will never say “a conservative got this right” unless it is something you believe is “progressive” and vice versa. You subscribe to a train of thought where compromise does not exist because you think you are on the always right side of history which is the most naive thing you can be. History is no one’s to claim.

-1

Anonymous #3 6w

Thats convenient for you, isn’t it. Conservatives being consistently wrong does not mean progressives are always right. This has nothing to do with my place in history but rather the history of the side you seem set on defending. History belongs to no one but it demonstrates an annoyingly consistent backlash to any significant societal progress. You reject that line of thinking to avoid recognizing the problems of the historically problematic philosophy you preach.

4

Anonymous #4 6w

For example, in the Mexican Revolution, you could call the pro-monarchist white supremacists conservative and I’d say that would be accurate. But would the indigenous Zapatista rebels not also be conservative? They were deeply Catholic and were fighting to conserve the traditional indigenous communal land holding, as opposed to the privatized liberal reforms which favored plantations.

1

Anonymous #4 6w

Conservative essentially just means resistant to change. That can apply to any change really. It can be resistance to positive social reform or to negative social reform. All it means is either supporting the status quo or a slowing of the social change.

1

Anonymous #4 6w

For example, in parts of Europe during the rise of fascism, there was resistance to fascism by conservative factions, who saw its centralized state power, secularization, and focus on modernity as threatening. The anti-fascist underground in Romania, for instance, wasn’t just communists. It was also members of the National Peasant’s Party, a conservative group based around the interests of small farmers.

1

Anonymous #4 6w

Id agree with this definition if modern American conservatives weren’t trying to roll things back. Or historically didn’t try to create additional rules in favor of reinstating a old status quo. The American conservative ideology often goes way beyond a basic opposition party.

1

Anonymous #4 6w

Conservatism in the face of positive social change is bad (though I think there are instances where it is useful to be slower and more methodical in reform). But in the face of negative social change it is good.

1

Anonymous OP 6w

Yeah I think modern American conservatism is much more specific and harmful. When the thing they are aiming to conserve is racism that’s obviously just awful. Plus in many ways they aren’t just conservative. Like separation of church and state is the status quo from the founding fathers, that logically would be conserved. But they are trying to actively destroy it.

1

Anonymous OP 6w

No,I’ve just evolved from your line of thinking which is fundamentally flawed. You have no claim to any success of the people who came before you. Progress is subjective in the face of history and you are self-centered. You are riddled with it, you call what you like progress when change is inherently neutral.

1

Anonymous #3 6w

I’m not “defending conservatives”, that is again a proponent of you claiming all good comes from your beliefs and all bad comes from theirs when there is inherent difference between people over time.

1