Conservative values/principles

[JimL]

Why? On what basis do you assert that person A can not sympathize with or defend the interests of person B unless they look the same? That's racist thinking at its worst.

On the basis of empirical knowledge. It's not about person A or person B, it's about the racist, misogynist republican party to which the A people are associated with. Republicans don't go out of their way to suppress the vote of minorities for nothing.

[carpedm9587]

Liberally diversity: everybody looks different but thinks the same.

While the Democrats can also suffer from "my-way-or-the-highway" now and again, it is only the Republican party that has a name for this phenomenon: anyone not thinking like the party is a "RINO." Republicans are 90%+ Trumpians today, and anyone who does not toe the party line is vilified from the top on down, and then primaried. Democrats range from progressive to moderate with a handful of conservatives peppered in, mostly in the redest states. Lots of bickering between the extremes - but they are all Democrats. And these days, mostly unified on the goal of getting Mr. Trump OUT of that office. The split that Republicans were gleefully predicting has not manifested.

[carpedm9587]

No...... given an equal opportunity setting, the representative makeup should roughly reflect the diversity in the population.

Skin color, hair color, eye color, sex, left handed, right handed etc should be represented in a similar percentage to the whole population the larger the group becomes.

I agree - sort of. I don't think we should be consciously trying to achieve this distribution, because we run the risk of simply engaging in reverse discrimination. That is what "Affirmative Action" does and I am not a fan.

But when the proportions are NOT reasonably aligned with the general population, it is prudent to ask ourselves, "why is this so?" The law of large numbers tells us that there SHOULD be reasonable alignment over time and over large populations, if everything is equitable. If the cause is due to a systemic inequity, the lack of alignment may be a symptom suggesting some kind of corrective action is needed.

It's kind of like coin tosses. If you are attempting to force an equal number of heads and tails, then you are interfering with the natural process of "coin flipping" and potentially creating an inequity. There will naturally be long runs of heads and long runs of tails over the course of many, many, flips. But if you flip the coin equitably, and over time it shows a constant tendency to come up heads more than tails, it is time to ask if the coin has been tampered with.

[seanD]

I let my children make up their own mind. They don't need me to tell them what they are experiencing every day - they tell me.

I'm sure they tell you that because you've brainwashed them into thinking they're helpless creatures against the racist whites, so they probably see racism every time they have an encounter with a white person.

[seanD]

And I wonder why Asians and Indians (who are very dark skinned) do so well in this racist country. BTW Sean, are you African American?

Not only do other races do well here, as well as black immigrants, but blacks do better here in the US than they do in a lot of places in Europe. And yet many foreign born twebbers from Europe want to lecture us on how racist the US is.

[Starlight]

It's kind of like coin tosses. If you are attempting to force an equal number of heads and tails, then you are interfering with the natural process of "coin flipping" and potentially creating an inequity. There will naturally be long runs of heads and long runs of tails over the course of many, many, flips. But if you flip the coin equitably, and over time it shows a constant tendency to come up heads more than tails, it is time to ask if the coin has been tampered with.

To put it another way, equality of opportunity ought to lead to equality of outcomes, and lack of equality of outcomes indicates a probable lack of equality of opportunity.

For that reason I don't find trying to distinguish the two very interesting - the one ought to be tied to the other and follow from it.

Of course, a person who was racist and firmly believed in the inherent genetic inferiority/superiority of one race relative to another racist person would believe that equality of outcomes won't follow from equality of opportunity, because they think given equal opportunities one race would outperform another. Hence a racist person wouldn't find lack of equality of outcomes worrying, because it's what they would expect anyway. A racist person would therefore emphasise that what is important is equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. And if we look at the world to see who is exhibiting that behaviour... the answer appears to be many Republicans and many conservative posters on TWeb.

[Whateverman]

The simple and complete answer is the constitution. As a conservative, I value the constitution.

There's obviously more than that, but I didn't start this thread to argue with conservatives. I started it to hear them describe themselves.

So thank you.

What do you mean there is more? Do you get to decide who believes what?

There's no need to be hostile. If someone stood up and said "the simple and complete answer is Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God", you would be entirely reasonably and justified in replying "there's obviously more to it" - and you wouldn't be deciding what people believe.

It's a brute fact that conservatives value more than the constitution.

I had no intention of arguing with conservatives, but if you're going be hostile about this, I'll tell you where you're wrong.

[seer]

To put it another way, equality of opportunity ought to lead to equality of outcomes, and lack of equality of outcomes indicates a probable lack of equality of opportunity.

So if Jews, Asians or Indians do financially better than whites that is because of lack of equality of opportunity?

[Starlight]

It's a brute fact that conservatives value more than the constitution.

When conservatives talk about "valuing the constitution" they seem to mean something really complicated, which doesn't seem to have much relationship with what those words would mean to a normal English speaker as far as I can tell.

They appear to mean:
1. They really strongly value really creative interpretations of tidbits of the constitution. e.g. The 2nd amendment as interpreted by the 5-4 majority in the 2008 SCOTUS case. e.g. The freedom of religion phrase in the 1st amendment as reinterpreted to mean that the US is specifically a Christian nation and non-Christian religions and lack of religious belief are to be second-class at best.

2. They reject bits of the constitution they don't like. e.g. Their dislike of the 'fake news' mainstream media overrides their interest in the 1st amendment's protection for the press, so they tend to support Trump crackdowns on it. e.g. their dislike of Black Lives Matter protesters overrides their interest in the Due Process clauses in the amendments, so they tend to be fine with secret police kidnapping protesters off the street and taking them away in unmarked vans etc.

3. The vast vast majority of the constitution they don't seem the least bit interested in. They seem to generally show no interest in becoming lawyers or in reading the constitution.

4. Liking the constitution seems to be shorthand for wanting to get back to the creatively re-imagined non-historical glories of the founding age of the US, when more conservative values were followed on the whole, back before modern liberalism had taken over America. It seems like a yearning for imagined earlier 'better times' that were actually pretty terrible times, but in the imagination it's thought that times like that could have been good if we had them again without the bad parts. It's a "well apart from the whole slavery thing, and then the whole KKK thing, those times were pretty good, right?" attitude, where people who have never seriously studied any history imagine for themselves what history could have been like.

5. By saying they like the constitution they virtue signal among themselves that they're part of the group described by #1 through #4, and particularly #4 in particular.

So their "valuing the constitution" seems to actually equate to valuing only about a dozen words in the actual constitution. It doesn't seem to be so much the document they value, as the social values and norms that were prevalent in society at the time the constitution was written that they like, in contrast to the more liberal values of society today.

[Starlight]

So if Jews, Asians or Indians do financially better than whites that is because of lack of equality of opportunity?

Presumably.

[seer]

Presumably.

You know that makes no sense right in a White racist culture-right? Perhaps it could be family structure and the strong emphases on education and hard work?

[Watermelon]

Why? On what basis do you assert that person A can not sympathize with or defend the interests of person B unless they look the same? That's racist thinking at its worst.

Well that’s not even a little bit close to what I was saying.

Example: around 10% of the population is left handed. How many house of rep members do you think are left handed? Whites make up roughly 60% of the US population. Let’s say white males then make up 30%. I’m sure there are many other factors that the Republican Party would take into consideration when backing a candidate but it looks, on the surface at least, that white males are given higher consideration.

That would be the definition of systemic racism, a system that is advantageous to one race over another.

[seanD]

To put it another way, equality of opportunity ought to lead to equality of outcomes, and lack of equality of outcomes indicates a probable lack of equality of opportunity.

For that reason I don't find trying to distinguish the two very interesting - the one ought to be tied to the other and follow from it.

Of course, a person who was racist and firmly believed in the inherent genetic inferiority/superiority of one race relative to another racist person would believe that equality of outcomes won't follow from equality of opportunity, because they think given equal opportunities one race would outperform another. Hence a racist person wouldn't find lack of equality of outcomes worrying, because it's what they would expect anyway. A racist person would therefore emphasise that what is important is equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. And if we look at the world to see who is exhibiting that behaviour... the answer appears to be many Republicans and many conservative posters on TWeb.

You actually have the politics of racism completely twisted. Conservatives generally oppose social programs because they feel people have an obligation to take care of themselves, including minorities. Conservatives are accused of being racist by the left for saying that, but that's precisely what a racist WOULDN'T say. A non-racist would consider minorities equals to whites, thus strong and adequate enough to take care of themselves, hence don't need special or exceptional assistance from the state. A racist would say that minorities need help from the state, which implies they're inferior and inadequate, thus can't take care of themselves. They'd even pander these special programs just to get their votes, knowing full well the negative impact these programs might have on the minorities in the long run (that might even be the intentional desire of some). Which political side makes that argument? We know which side does. Then when you couple that with the psychology of projection it makes perfect sense who the racists truly are. The preacher who's guilty of secretly sleeping with prostitutes will be the most outspoken about sexual sin and accusatory of others. And that's exactly what liberals do. They're the most outspoken about racism, even frivolous accusations of racism that don't exist, and readily accuse others of being racists (including against minorities themselves), because they're projecting.

[Mountain Man]

Well that’s not even a little bit close to what I was saying.

Example: around 10% of the population is left handed. How many house of rep members do you think are left handed? Whites make up roughly 60% of the US population. Let’s say white males then make up 30%. I’m sure there are many other factors that the Republican Party would take into consideration when backing a candidate but it looks, on the surface at least, that white males are given higher consideration.

That would be the definition of systemic racism, a system that is advantageous to one race over another.

Again, you're assuming that those white male representatives are not being voted for by minorities, or that white male representatives are not adequately able to promote the interests of minority citizens. You persist in your racist thinking apparently without even realizing it.

[Mountain Man]

No.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. It never has, AFAICT.


Right. That is why they are (on average) paid less, have lower access to healthcare, are incarcerated more and with stiffer penalties, are less healthy, and are the target of racial hostility almost daily. I see what you mean about power. They are just swimming in it.

I am flat out amazed anyone in 2020 USA would make this statement.


They ended up consolidating on an older white man. One race - one office. Now take a look at the distribution of sexes and races among Democrat members of the national and state legislatures, local governments, and even presidential appointees if the president is a Democrat. Across the boards, Democrats are more willing to embrace a "big tent" philosophy. Look at Cabinet memberships. Not only have Democratic presidents had a more diverse cabinet, they also regularly appoint Republicans to some of those positions. Obama had THREE Republicans in his cabinet. Trump not only has minimal diversity, he has not a single Democrat in his cabinet. Even Bush Jr. did better.

Sorry, MM. You can pick/chose your data all day long to hold your position. Cherry-picking is, after all, what you do. But you will be swamped by the statistics every time.

It would work that way (ignore racism until it dies out) because racism is a tiny minority view in America. We give it whatever power it has only because there is a segment of our society (not the racists, ironically) who focus on it incessantly and keep it alive.

And, yes, oppression is power in the US because the "oppressed" are given special consideration and favors by society and the government in order to "level the playing field". Whether or not minorities take advantage of these exclusive privileges and opportunities or continue to see themselves as the helpless victims that liberals constantly tell them they are is another matter.

Concerning your last paragraph, you're reciting the standard liberal manta of "diversity" for its own sake. Did this supposed "diversity" lead to better outcomes? I don't think so.