Where are all the conservative socialists in the West?

submitted by IamCleaver from (self.politics)

I have been going around YouTube trying to find interesting (english-speaking) channels that discuss interesting social issues to watch but, whichever channel I end up watching, I found that the content creator always either:

-has a socialist agenda, promoting fair wealth distribution and debunking religious fanatics, BUT inevitably supports liberal crap like LGBTQwerty and multiculturalism, throwing terms such as "sexist" "racist" and "white privilege" whatever those mean;

OR

-the content creator is conservative and might even be an atheist, BUT will inevitably be against social welfare and promote the free market as a cure-all

There is also the less common third option where the content creator is both pro-LGBT/multiculturalism AND anti-welfare/pro-free market.

I have not seen the obvious fourth option though...

I am yet to find anybody on the english side of the internet who is both a SOCIALIST and a CONSERVATIVE. What gives? This political alignment seems to be completely absent in the West. Am I missing something (or someone)? Do you know any content creators who fit this definition?

top 100 commentsshow all 240
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

wouldn't that mean national socialists, so they would be banned from youtube?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

By your definition anyone who doesn't support Liberalism and is a socialist is a Nazi?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

no not all national socialists are nazis, the kind that were from germany.

I do know youtube would define it thusly though so would ban them

[–]wristaction 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was going to say this.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

has a socialist agenda

How do you define socialist?

promoting fair wealth distribution

This could range from GOP's minimum wage to communist tyranny.

debunking religious fanatics

This could range from the Moonies to all religions.

LGBTQwerty and multiculturalism, throwing terms such as "sexist" "racist" and "white privilege"

Extremist far "Left" Social Justice Warrior cult.

What about corporate media and celeb "conservatives"?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

"How do you define socialist?" In broadest terms, for me, a socialist is someone who believes that the economy should serve the society and not the other way round.

"This could range from GOP's minimum wage to communist tyranny." You can overdose on anything, communism is the extreme form of socialism which has been proven not to work. I am not a fan of minimal wage. Not because I don't am against minimal income but because it promotes illegal hiring to circumvent it. It is much better to tax the companies and redistribute the income through various means to the needy.

"Extremist far "Left" Social Justice Warrior cult." From what I have seen it seems that anyone who is economically a socialist tends to at least sympathise with these ideas. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

"This could range from the Moonies to all religions." What makes all religions better then the moonies? I have no hostility to Zoroastrianism, but when it comes to Abrahamic religions I see them as a huge burden on the society.

"What about corporate media and celeb "conservatives"?" What about them? I don't exactly know what you mean. I am not from the US.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

"Extremist far "Left" Social Justice Warrior cult." From what I have seen it seems that anyone who is economically a socialist tends to at least sympathise with these ideas. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

There's no end to the Old-Left people out there saying they are not Right nor Conservative and they aren't for SJWs either - and they don't express any anarchism either. At least half of the news and political content from YouTube I share express this. The Old-Left no longer has a voice in politics, much like the non-GOP-Right, the Alt-Right, and Voluntaryists.

What makes all religions better then the moonies?

Depends how much they want to exploit or kill you. I agree - most religions are terrible.

Most corporate media (and celebs) are Left, but some are conservatives. They're rarely hard-core though. Many of them may claim to be "conservative" yet support socialist stuff.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Are there any Socialist conservatives? I don't see a contradiction between socialism and conservatism.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How do you define liberal and capitalist?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Capitalist? I don't usually use this term but the opposite of socialist. Free market. Reducing government involvement in the economy. Against social welfare, free healthcare etc.

Liberal? Somebody who puts the freedoms and needs of an individual above social norms, traditions and needs.. Supports LGBT, feminism, gender non-conformism...

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (113 children)

Socialism as a theory had conservative believers, however there has been 100 years of communist and socialist experiments proving how horrible it is in practice. The only people dumb enough to still advocate it are ignorant children brainwashed by jews, and low IQ bottom feeders who live on welfare.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (75 children)

Socialist programs advocated for by the Right:

  • Taxes
  • Government
  • Military
  • Police
  • Fire Department
  • Healthcare*

 

* Some restrictions may apply.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What are you trying to say?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What is a socialist program? The mafia governments take all our taxes, don't bother asking how we'd like them spent, and decide for us how they will spend it, including their salaries, expenses, all all those services, utilities, and programs.

They are not JUST socialist programs advocated for by the Right, as the Left and centrists support them too. The further you go from Totalitarianism towards Voluntaryism the less you are likely to support mafia government and their "socialism".

Even "capitalist" governments are still paid for by socialism, otherwise they'd be government for profit in no need of taxes (or would shrivel and die without funding).

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Our taxes? It isn't our taxes. I might not be paying any taxes because I am a hobo on the street. What good would it be for me if the government were to stop collecting taxes from people and entities who can afford to pay them?

Corporations should only exist for the purpose of producing taxing them. They are the milking cows. When your cow stops producing milk you slaughter it and eat it.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (71 children)

Socialism is government ownership of buisness. All forms of government have taxes and government institutions.

If what you listed were socialism then the socialists should STFU because they already have it, right?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (58 children)

"Socialism is government ownership of business." That is a narrow deffiniton. That isn't what I mean when I say "socialism". The businesses can be owned by anyone (unless it is a strategically important business, in which case the government should indeed have the majority of the shares), but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible and that those taxes are benefiting the whole society and providing help for the needy.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

That is a narrow deffiniton.

No, that is THE definition. If you mean something else than use a different word. What you are doing is repeating propaganda from hucksters who literally want communism, see socialism as a stepping stone, and tricked people like you into supporting that first step by lying to you about what socialism is. You, nor they, get to redefine socialism. That is not how language works. Socialism has a definition, if that is not what you mean then YOU are using the word wrong.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

No, it's an EXTREMELY NARROW definition. The entire English-speaking world has been the object of a vast psyop brainwashing campaign to make you believe that is THE definition, so you can't think the entire spectrum of socioeconomic thought and from there, control you. It's working extremely well. Your VERY NARROW definition comes from whom? From Marx of course, you communist.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Marx invented it therfore he gets to name it. You don't get to use his word and claim it means something else.

Not using socialism to talk a out shit that is not socialism does not prevent you from talking about those other things. You can invent your own names for the made up systems you invented. Calling your made up shit socialism does nothing but muddy the water and create confusion. It is completely counter productive, unless your intent is to pull a bait and switch; tricking idiots to support "socialism" by convincing them it's this other thing then switching in real socialism when those fools help you destroy the current system.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

From Google's dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR regulated by the community as a whole" That is at least on of definitions. By this definitions, businesses might not be directly owned by the government, as long as the government is keeping them in check. I believe in strong government regulation of (mostly) privately owned business. If you support a stricter definition of "socialism" then you have that right, but for now, the term fits my meaning, at least in sensu lato.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

"The community as a whole" IS GOVERNMENT!

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible

So basically take all the money and redistribute it. 🙄🤭 How is that NOT the government owning the buisness?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (40 children)

Because it isn't taking ALL the profit. Just as much as it can get away with while still making the business a valuable asset for its owner. Let me clarify if: I was probably a bit too harsh. A business can provide benefit for a society in multiple ways. Taxes is the most obvious one but others include providing jobs, providing necessary services that a government is unable to effectively provide, etc. The point is: business should exist for the benefit of the society, not the other way round. If the business is not socially valuable in any other way, then at least it should be milked for taxes. Just because somebody is making a profit doesn't mean the business is socially valuable.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

It is so vague and subjective that all your claims are lies. You have no grounds to claim "its not all profit". There are no limits set in your system, and everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything.

All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness. But what leftists want is to have control over buisness on the pretext that they are serving the community when they are just being tyrants. Just like all the social media giants censor ideas they don't like on claims of hate speech, and community guidelines violations.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

If what you listed were socialism then the socialists should STFU because they already have it, right?

They don't all have healthcare, among other things. It's a big wide grey area, ripe for disaster capitalism to exploit.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

They have medicaid, Medicare, and Obama care. If we gave all medical power over to the government we would be absolutely fucked right now with forced experimental jabs. They would deny medical coverage to anyone not compliant. Thank God we haven't made that mistake yet.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Somehow, ALL European countries have handed their medical power to the government and are doing just fine.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah right, just like Australia turned over its guns and they are totally fine too. 😅

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Australia was fine, more or less - until the scamdemic.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, thats how it goes. Everything is fine until it isn't. Which is why it is so stupid when the left claims that Americans have no basis to want guns for protection from government because the current government is not tyrannical.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Truth.

load more comments (3 replies)

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    They were, more or less, with decent socialized medicine that was behaving within reason - before the scamdemic.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    You're right about their abuses, but it's not that cut and dried.

    I'm quite certain poor people needing operations would do the jab Russian roulette just to have that cancer carved out of them. This is not a solution by any means, but it illustrates how the US government is holding "healthcare" ransom - just as the Canadian government is now with this global scamdemic.

    [–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

    To you I wish to loose everything dime you have so you would have to rely on welfare to survive. I hope that might teach you a lesson on why we need it. If you do get welfare, you might recover and stand up back on your feet again. Without social welfare, you would probably starve...

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

    I would rather see communities keep their taxes and deal with their own problems wisely than have the mafia government force their final "solutions" on us.

    [–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

    Municipalities with more freedom? I am all for it. One question though: who will help out poor communities? Who will guarantee that a rich community shares its wealth with the rest? Who will build high-speed trains and other large-scale infrastructure that benefits the whole nation? Who will maintain the military?...you get the point: we need a strong central government non the less. If I were American though, I would advocate for reducing the rights of States and increasing the rights of municipalities while keeping the central government intact.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    One question though: who will help out poor communities?

    Excellent questions. It's not meant to be simply fixed.

    Another question: Who will take the boot off the necks of poor communities?

    Who needs such a huge obscene military? Only industrial death.

    Who needs high-speed consumerism?

    Who needs toxic environments?

    Who needs taxes?

    Tyrants.

    we need a strong central government non the less.

    Yes/no.

    If I were American though, I would advocate for reducing the rights of States and increasing the rights of municipalities while keeping the central government intact.

    Interesting idea.

    How's this suit you?:

    Weakest: National
    Weak: State
    Strongest: County & Municipal

    All the strong county and municipalities would need to co-operate together at the state and then national levels. We're no longer limited to the time it takes to ride a horse to another state, so communicating and organizing with modern tech is instant. Unified cooperative regions with strength create a strong state. Unified cooperative states with strength create a strong nation.

    Despite all the bullshit, most Americans have more in common with each other than with others around the world. The propaganda makes folks loose sight of this. Rather than focusing on all this divisive bullshit, we'd have to try to focus on unity for strength.

    [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    "Tyrants." Sounds like a straw man.

    "How's this suit you?:" Not really. I would want to live in a unified nation. I would prefer something like this:

    Strongest: National

    Weakest: State

    Strong: Municipality

    If I were American, I would want unify the criminal code for all states and hand the authority over it to the central government. Same for education standards. Healthcare, universities and highways should be handles by the States, but that is pretty much it.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    I would want unify the criminal code for all states and hand the authority over it to the central government.

    Ripe for rampant abuses.

    /s/DecentralizeAllThings and collectively create universal standards to measure things so everyone everywhere can benefit from "uniformity" that way, rather than from central command.

    [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    "Ripe for rampant abuses." How so? Most countries manage to do with a single, nation-wide legal system just fine. "...collectively..." That is what the national parliament is for.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Your blind faith in the system is unsettling.

    [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    You blind faith in the market is unsettling.

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

      I would like to hear which country you are from to have these views.

      But suffice it to say that power corrupts. The people need to keep A VERY STRONG GRIP on their officials or else, totalitarianism ensues. Look at Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, France, and soon EVERYWHERE... Tyranny.

      [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

      Russia. It is a pretty common world view here. It seems to be almost absent in the West from what I have gathered.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      In my view, you can only allow a central government to be strong if the nation has a strong, nationalist leader. In most of the world, there are no leaders at all, so there can't be a strong central government because in such a case, it quickly becomes the representative of the rich and already powerful, and tyranny ensues. This is what is happening in most of the world right now.

      As such, the only solution for most nations is direct democracy such as there was in Lybia before it got "liberated" by evil. In Russia you are lucky to have such a leader at this crucial moment in your national history. Hopefully he is a true nationalist and not a sellout to the subhuman parasites that ruin everything.

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      a strong, nationalist leader

      Is only ever a figurehead.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      Genghis Khan was a figurehead huh. Damn.

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Genghis Khan was a figurehead huh.

      Yes he was.

      Without his legions of followers, establishment systems, political landscape, and various opportunities, he would have been just a solo rampaging lunatic if he wanted to slaughter throngs of people. He didn't just decide to do that on a madman's whim though - the political climate, opportunities, and support were there and he with his trusted advisors navigated their conquests.

      If you don't see than then you are just another megalomaniac idol worshiper in the cult of personality.

      [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      "you can only allow a central government to be strong if the nation has a strong, nationalist leader." True. The system should promote strong nationalist leaders.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      The only system that did was that of the NSDAP in the first half of the XXth century Germany.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      In the USA, the Federal government is pure evil. Moreso than most places.

      [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

      People who use unemployment temporarily to get back on thier feet do not support socialis. Social safety nets are not socialism. The problem with those is leaches always want more. We already have too many welfare programs and people take far more than thier share and squander it on frivolous shit.

      A lot of people simply refuse to work, collect benefits multiple times, spend it on drugs, and despise all the "stupid" people working hard and being forced to support them.

      [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

      If a welfare program is being exploited by those who don't need it it is a badly designed welfare program. That should have been accounted for before its implementation. A good example of a safeguard would be giving out food instead of hard cash. Or giving a card that can only be used to buy particular products.

      [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      Let's fix the programs we have, then people will be more likely to accept new programs.

      load more comments (1 reply)

        load more comments (2 replies)

          [–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (102 children)

          How do you define conservative? It's not clear from your post.

          [–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (101 children)

          Family values. Societal norms above personal freedom. Respect for traditions. That is the gist. I can give a more detailed breakdown if you want.

          [–]StillLessons 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (72 children)

          Your post highlights an eternal central problem in debating politics. The language we use to define different groups has always been muddy as hell. What you are using as "conservative", for example, is sometimes described as "socially conservative". But there are people in my family who find that use of the word "conservative" offensive, because they believe conservatism is about economics, thinking social conservatives to be dupes of authoritarians. Because these terms are so frustratingly confused, the entire debate has splintered along a thousand different fractures with everyone yelling at everyone else over which ever is our particular pet peeve.

          For myself, I find the most useful term (though far from perfect) to be Libertarian. I would like to have it be even more specific, as Individual Libertarian, stressing that individuals have rights that corporations DO NOT. The first and foremost right is individual personal freedom (liberty), which can be limited only after the individual demonstrates serious cause to do so (i.e. abuses the freedom of his/her neighbors). It is this fundamental natural state of individual freedom that is under direct assault by today's elite class, and that is the first priority of all conversation for me. The other pieces must all be aligned with that. This was the purpose of the Bill of Rights, now lying burning in the garbage.

          Again, though, the problem is that words are very easily misused (quite intentionally, by charismatic rhetoricians), and the resulting confusion always provides politicians opportunities to abuse others for personal gain. This is the expertise of those who make their living at the public teat.

          [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (71 children)

          Ok then. I am a SOCIALLY conservative socialist. I believe that the societal norms and traditions are above the wishes and freedoms of individuals. That doesn't mean that the individual is irrelevant, but one should not do what is considered socially unacceptable. You are free to express yourself as you wish as long as the society at large doesn't disapprove of it.

          What do you mean by "corporations"? As in private commercial companies? I believe they should never be allowed to have any say in matters of politics and the society. Their sole function should be the generation of wealth that could then be taxed and used by the government for the good of the society. I completely agree that individuals should have more rights than corporations.

          [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

          You are free to express yourself as you wish as long as the society at large doesn't disapprove of it.

          That very black and white thinking will stifle development, the arts, etc etc etc. There is wisdom in mobs, but there is also stupidity in group-think, and the tyranny of the majority can be very ugly.

          [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

          I disagree. It can get out of control under certain conditions, but usually it doesn't. Humans are naturally tribalistic. We are adapted to fitting into the society we live it.

          load more comments (5 replies)

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (57 children)

            I believe that the societal norms and traditions are above the wishes and freedoms of individuals. That doesn't mean that the individual is irrelevant, but one should not do what is considered socially unacceptable. You are free to express yourself as you wish as long as the society at large doesn't disapprove of it.

            Agsin, how on earth is that a good thing? That sounds like hell. Your human instincts like it but they are evil.

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (56 children)

            Why is that evil? We live in a society. We are its members. The society is the source of morality (because there isn't anyone else). If there is a consensus that wearing a certain element of clothing is unacceptable then don't wear it publicly. Don't make people angry on purpous. As members of the society, I strongly believe it is our duty to conform to its norms. The more a society is homogeneous the less there is room for conflict, the more stable it becomes. Don't rock the boat unless it is absolutely necessary.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

            The society is the source of morality

            Keep saying that but someday its worst enemy Jesus will return and overthrow the power it unrightfully stole.

            As members of the society, I strongly believe it is our duty to conform to its norms.

            But I never joined society. I was forced into it, and so was everyone else. We were kidnapped. We are slaves.

            The more a society is homogeneous the less there is room for conflict, the more stable it becomes. Don't rock the boat unless it is absolutely necessary.

            If no one can be themselves, if no one can live life, what's the point of living at all? And what's the point of having a society meant to improve peoples' lives if it ends up making it worse?

            You fell for the evil human agenda. Wake up, think for yourself, stop listening to society and your instincts. They don't care about you.

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (31 children)

            "Keep saying that but someday its worst enemy Jesus will return and overthrow the power it unrightfully stole." Or maybe Zeus. Or perhaps Vishnu...it is hard to guess. I prefer to assume non of those guys.

            "But I never joined society. I was forced into it, and so was everyone else. We were kidnapped. We are slaves." What? Maybe where you live that is the case, but I personally was BORN into the society.

            "If no one can be themselves, if no one can live life, what's the point of living at all?" If by your standard, being yourself is breaking the rules then you are causing more damage to others then they are causing to you (since you are one an they are many). I have no trouble living without causing discomfort to others.

            "And what's the point of having a society meant to improve peoples' lives if it ends up making it worse?" The way I see it, a prosperous harmonious society is the key to improving people's lives.

            [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            I have no trouble living without causing discomfort to others.

            SJWs have been brainwashed to think they have a right to not be offended.

            They TAKE offense at everything. Even when no offense is GIVEN.

            They are STEALING our culture by destroying it.

            They are not the majority but they act like it.

            It will be unbearable if they do grow.

            Civil war looms.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

            What? Maybe where you live that is the case, but I personally was BORN into the society.

            Yeah, tell me about why you chose to be born. Oh right, you didn't, nor did you choose where, from what parents, your sex, your genetics, your looks, your talents, or anything.

            If by your standard, being yourself is breaking the rules then you are causing more damage to others then they are causing to you (since you are one an they are many). I have no trouble living without causing discomfort to others.

            I don't cause discomfort for others. But humans are extremely petty authoritarians and have zero tolerance for any difference at all. They will attack me for not being identical to them. Even if I literally can't help it. And when I can, I'm forced to be someone I'm not.

            The way I see it, a prosperous harmonious society is the key to improving people's lives.

            Or it's really the key to max procreation and your instincts' agenda. A dystopian totalitarian society which is basically a prison only benefits those who run it. It may benefit "the collective" but that is an imaginary concept; it doesn't exist. A collective is merely the sum of its individuals, thus the individual is what matters. Our instincts give us a mythical idea of the collective but they are LYING to us. Nature's agenda is procreation, it doesn't care about you or how much suffering happens and lives are devastated in the process.

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

            "Yeah, tell me about why you chose to be born. Oh right, you didn't, nor did you choose where, from what parents, your sex, your genetics, your looks, your talents, or anything." Well, If you don't like being born than go hang yourself (don't! I am not promoting suicide, just making a point). If you were born and raised in a society then you should have automatically picked up on its traditions and norms. Respect them.

            "They will attack me for not being identical to them" Unless you really stand out in a way that is unacceptable nobody cares. What is it you are doing that makes everyone so angry (a genuine non-rhetorical question, you got me intrigued)? If you are not causing anyone discomfort then nobody should attack you.

            " A collective is merely the sum of its individuals, thus the individual is what matters." I don't get that leap of logic. The collective is indeed the some of its individuals. It is the mean opinion of all its members on all matters important to them. Unless you have a very divided, unhealthy society, the majority of people should share the majority of values. The minority conforms to that collective majority.

            Obviously, those few who really stand out in a way that the majority sees as unacceptable, would not like this arrangement. But they are just that. The few; the minority. Seven don't wait for one. If the majority finds it offensive for men to dress like women, then nobody should dress like a women.

            [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

            Have you gotten your mandatory vaccination?

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

            Where I live it isn't mandatory.

            [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

            I know. Lucky you. Now imagine if the mob was whipped up into a frenzy by propaganda and insisted you all take an experimental vaccination - and censored all actual science and healthy skepticism.

            [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

            Yes, just imagine Russia being one of the bastions of freedom in the XXIst century!

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

            I wouldn't mind it that much. I would take the vaccine tomorrow if I were to get at least a hundred dollars for it. Not having access to free healthcare and having to take loans to go to university is a much bigger deal for me.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

            That is evil. What's the point of a better society if nobody is allowed to enjoy it? No one signed up for it anyway.

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

            Can you not "enjoy" the society without going against it?

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

            Only if you're lucky enough to be exactly what they like, otherwise you're screwed.

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

            Well, if you grew up in it so you probably should share most of its values and customs. Respect them. Besides, unless it is a very unhealthy prescriptive society, it really isn't that hard to follow social norms.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

            Yes I know, most humans don't use their brains and blindly copy everyone else no matter how stupid or evil it is. That really needs to stop.

            Besides, unless it is a very unhealthy prescriptive society

            With humans, it always is.

            it really isn't that hard to follow social norms.

            For some people it is, and besides something not being hard isn't an excuse to force it on anyone.

            [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

            "That really needs to stop." That is never going to stop because that is just how humans evolved to operate. We are social creatures who take up the traditions and customs of those around us. We should praise it and accept it.

            "With humans, it always is." By your definition perhaps...

            "For some people it is" But for most it isn't. The majority shouldn't conform to minority. If it is hard for you but fine for 90% others then tough luck. Seven don't wait for one as the saying goes.

            What social norms are you so firmly against anyway. I never found it that hard to follow the norms of the society I grew up in and when I did it was my problem - not that of the society.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

            We should praise it and accept it.

            No, we should drop our pride and stand against it because it's wrong.

            But for most it isn't. The majority shouldn't conform to minority. If it is hard for you but fine for 90% others then tough luck. Seven don't wait for one as the saying goes.

            That's easy for you to say when you're part of the 90%. Try to love your neighbor rather than hate your enemy, not everyone is fortunate.

            What social norms are you so firmly against anyway.

            Any of them. They are almost all pointless and many of them are oppressive. I'm sure you love your current social norms, but you'd change your mind if you didn't like them. Imagine an enemy takes over tomorrow and institutes their norms.

            I never found it that hard to follow the norms of the society I grew up in and when I did it was my problem - not that of the society.

            No, it's society's problem for not being able to tolerate someone different from them in even the tiniest matters. "It's human nature" shouldn't be an excuse to be evil.

            load more comments (1 reply)

              [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

              you probably should share most of its values and customs. Respect them.

              All governments are corrupt mafias. Some more than others. None deserve respect, especially when they demand it.

              it really isn't that hard to follow social norms.

              Currently there's a class war on and they're trying to depopulate the planet. Their social norms will kill millions.

              Stalin killed 40 million Russians.

              Mao killed 100 million Chinese.

              [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              First, no. Secondly I said you should respect the values and customs.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

              Values and customs don't come from guverments OR from "elites".

              [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

              They come from influencers, though you are correct, not entirely. This includes the ruling class, their puppets, and their propaganda/media.

              [–]thefirststone 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

              Respect for traditions.

              American tradition is, at its ideal, Jeffersonion. This is opposed to centralization and empire.

              If we return to tradition, as we should, then the state would be razed to fertilize liberty, not to build up stinking fortifications for new tyrants under the banner of "security".

              Strangely, these are all thoughts developed by Europeans in Europe, but embraced by the decedents of those who might have a chance at implementing it.

              [–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              They are showing up in Chattanooga every day. Fortunately the Spring pollen load runs a lot of them off and if that doesn't get them the Summer humidity will.

              [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

              Same place as libertarians. The human instinct us vs them mentality created two tribes and they happen to be liberals and conservatives. Very few arrive at their own conclusions, politics for the vast majority of people is about tribal loyalty.

              [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

              The issue is that this arrangement is unique to the west. Where I live, we have the total opposite situation: we have liberal capitalists and conservative socialists (the majority). The are some liberal socialists but I am yet to meet a conservative capitalist.

              [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

              Different countries are going to have different circumstances. But the fundamental workings and human nature are universal.

              [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

              Yes, I understand that, but I was under the impression that you were saying that conservative socialism is somehow against human nature.

              [–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

              No, in fact it's the most in line with human nature (and both are almost pure evil). It's atypical to have more than two major tribes, at least late in the game like the west is. It's all about us vs them, not policies.

              [–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              Ah. Yes. That does make sense. I just find this particular alignment weird.

              load more comments (2 replies)

                [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                I am a conservative socialist, but not "socialist" in the meaning that most Americans believe the word has.

                Socialism was first created as an idea by anarchists and libertarians. I am neither of these, but I am certainly not anywhere near to communism which is what Americans believe "socialism" means.

                It actually only means ways to prevent the fat cats like Biff Jazos, Gill Bates and the sucker of bergs to name only these, from robbing the whole of society blind under the cover of "private enterprise profits".

                [–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

                I the people like you rare in the US? Are there any influencers who fall in this camp?

                [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                I don't think so, because the whole English-speaking world has been the object of a vast psyop brainwashing campaign to make them believe that Canbot's definition is THE definition of socialism, so they can't think the entire spectrum of socioeconomic thought and from there, are made very easy to control. It's working extremely well.

                And the kicker is, they think their using that definition makes them good Americans or good capitalists, when in fact that definition is a lie perpetrated by none other than Karl Marx, with the goal of twisting ideas around so much that communism would be seen as the natural extension of that "socialism" when in fact it is directly opposed to it.

                I am from Québec by the way. Let me guess: you are not from an English-speaking country and therefore have not been contaminated by that brainwashing.

                [–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                Oh. I am sorry. I assumed you were American. I am Russian BTW.

                [–]wristaction 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                National Justice Party.

                [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                therightstuff.biz