Reasons I hate Conservatism

Post Reply New Topic

Oh OK.

Nah I don't think it's being a snowflake. I just think someone must be a complete feckless dreg of a tosspot to complain to a train company that the driver said "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" in the hope of some disciplinary procedure taking place against the driver. It's about as low as someone can stoop to.

Last edited by Cornflake on 15 May 2021, 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Removed a transphobic slur

At first glance, this seems like reasonable beliefs, if you're a truely free individual.
It is also known as being a reasonable, rational being.

But then it has got nothing to do with Conservatism.

As I understand conservatism, it cannot be reduced into "conservation"-theory.
You can however, have conservatives on both left and right.

North Korea, China and Russia are good examples of conservatism.
So are Singapore, U.S. and U.K.

I choose to define conservatism as a belief that the state should decide every part of your life, unless you're at the top of the hierarchy. Because that's how conservatism works in real life - and always have.

It is a reactionary belief, a belief that you should do no thinking for yourself.

• Promotion of personal responsibility.
- Well, let's just say conservatives wants you to have personal responsibility for everything, including stuff that doesn't affect you in any way - like being forced going to war to some foreign country.

• Spending only what you already have.
Conservatives wants you to not have any money to spend. You're being paid as little as possible so that you cannot escape your workplace and change employment.

• Belief in Truth and equal justice for all.
No. Belief in lies and justice only for the employer should you leave your work.

• Consuming only what you need.
Well, what else can you do? You're not getting anything else than what's needed for your survival, in a truely conservative society. Let's have a look at 18th c. Europe - as serfs and their overlords, shall we?

• Preserving natural resource ("Conservation").
That's just an excuse to punish the peasants for hunting, because the forests belong to the lords.

• Negotiation before conflict (war as a last resort).
That's only because the lords have a lot at stake.

• Respect for the sovereignty of other polities.
Yes, respect for other lords and landowners. No respect for the peasants, the workers and those at the bottom of society.

I consider myself a conservative and I don't believe in anything you said. I've always been against conscription, always believed in a jury and actually believe in the right for a jury being told about nullification if they believe the law itself is incompatible with what they believe and I get into raging arguments with my closest friends on why they make no effort to compete against landlords for houses. A friend recently complained to me that I'm apparently hoarding all the houses as a landlord. I asked her why she made no effort to buy houses as many are going dirt cheap (the house in question was on the market for 30 months before I bought it for a merger 55k). She could provide no reasonable answer as to why she spent all her money on holidays, new phones and cars.

I don't have an issue against people with low income but I have an issue with people on low income spending all their money on gadgets that even I don't buy and complaining about not having everything they desire in life. It annoys me to no end watching a friend on a low income spent 25k over 10 years on gadgets when they could have easily used that for a house deposit!! !

The vision of history as an arc ever bent towards progress is a deliberately propagated corruption of history. There are patterns and cycles. This is not the first time humans have sexually liberated themselves, nor is it the first time women have seen a measure of "emancipation" from tradition, nor even the first time the genders have become confused and ill defined.

Androgyny becomes prevalent as a civilization is starting to unravel. You find it again and again and again in history. People who live in such times feel that they’re very sophisticated, they’re very cosmopolitan. But in truth, they are evidence of a civilization that no longer believes in itself. On the edges of that civilization are people who still believe in heroic masculinity - the barbarians....

Of course you're not homophobic or transphobic, you're just angry it would dare voice an opinion you don't agree with.

Last edited by Cornflake on 15 May 2021, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Removed the quote of an earlier transphobic slur

So I assume you think it's OK to try and get someone in trouble with their employers for saying "ladies end gentlemen"?

Last edited by Cornflake on 15 May 2021, 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Removed the quote of an earlier transphobic slur

I feel it's reasonable to question whether or not that phrase is inclusive. Do you disagree?

It it's to complain to an employer then yes...........................................of course I do. I think it's the behavour that only a true p**** partakes in.

How would you suggest the issue be raised?

Not via complaining to an employer obviously. Why not do something more reasonable like talk to the person in question. It's not hard really isn't it? I can't refer to Lawrence as "it" now so he will be called Lawrence from now.

Last edited by Nades on 15 May 2021, 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Edmund Burke - the founding father of conservatism - was campaigning for gay rights in 1780.

Who is that person to harass some schmuck at work, especially if they were upset at the moment?

Bringing it up with the one person might convince one person to change their behaviour, bringing it up with the company allows the company to consider changing the policy which is a more significant victory than just one employee changing the wording.

I hate all isms. Isms are bad.

The person to harass someone at work was called "Lawrence"

It's never acceptable in my eyes to bring it up with an employer especially as trans people can use pronouns that can be completely different to one another. Lawrence is the lowest of the low by bringing it up an employer and Lawrence needs to be brought to the attention of other train drivers.

I see we're back to let's punish them for voicing an opinion.

You need to see what's happened in a proportional manner. If the train driver has been given a disciplinary for saying "Ladies and gentleman" then absolutely hell yes. Seriously, take a look at what you're saying right now and how utterly abhorrent it appears to a lot of people. Nobody should be given a disciplinary for saying "Ladies and gentlemen"........what is this? Kindergarten levels of politics?

Kick Lawrence off the trains ASAP. Lawrence is just looking for things to complain about regardless of how trivial or the levels of difficulties it causes to others. Do you think someone should be given a disciplinary for saying "ladies and gentlemen"? It might cause the train driver for all we know, to lose his job after 30 years of loyal service.