It's almost illegal to have conservative opinions in theWest

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think it will ever be illegal to be conservative in the U.S. (or any other non-communist nation), nor should it.

However, the court of public opinion is another thing altogether.

The problem with the COPO is that it can be very quick to judge, and that people can be accused of being racist, sexist, et al, for merely criticizing someone of a certain group. Various online comment boards provide all sorts of proof of this.

For example, a few years ago, there was a big NASCAR race, and Danica Patrick didn't perform as well as she had in earlier races. People were criticizing her performance--maybe her car had issues, maybe it was the weather, or something else. But one commenter replied "You just can't stand that there's a woman in NASCAR".

During Obama's presidency, any criticism of his policies was assumed to be criticizing him, and assumed to be because of his race. If anyone criticized Hillary Clinton, they were assumed to be sexist.

One has to be merely *accused* of bigotry to have their livelihoods gone--and no proof is needed.

I don't think it would be even be that effective. The right already thinks that BLM are communists, vandals, anti-white racists (lol) and terrorists, and are already hostile enough to discussing racial politics that they're offended by the assertion that black lives matter. I don't think an "also" would change a thing. The current arguments I see about black lives matter are against their tactics, or against the idea that systemic racism is the cause of inequality. So their rebuttal to "black lives matter, also" would be the same rebuttal to "black lives matter": "they already do, sit down."

And it is, absolutely, sanitizing. What would it say if a movement of oppressed minorities rallied around a basic assertion of their value and dignity, one that shouldn't even be controversial, and then they changed it to appease hyper-sensitive members of the group oppressing them? That'd be ridiculous. Even if it did make some crybabies more comfortable, would it be worth it to give the intellectually weakest and dishonest members of the opposition that kind of power over their core message? Would be worth it to amend the most basic statement of worth to make people hostile to them more comfortable? It goes without saying for me, that, if the future is more anti-racist, one will be able to say black lives matter without having to edit it to make it more comfortable for for defensive fragile whites.

TL;DR: I don't see it.

There used to be a WP poster from Virginia who had made the ridiculous claim that in other parts of the country, people could be jailed for talking about Jesus in public. The sad thing is, I think he actually believed that idiocy, even though I and others had tried straightening him out.

You are probably right in that it is likely too late at this stage.


We will agree to disagree. But I am the guy that about six years ago that polled changing the name of this site to "Our Planet Also" mainly because I felt and still feel that "Wrong Planet" is defensive, it implies we are not human. It was overwhelmingly rejected. In other words unlike "Black Lives Matter" there were only a very few objecting to "Wrong Planet"

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 11 Aug 2020, 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Was he also a country musician?

Yes. You remember him?

I wouldn't so much say it's illegal. but conservatives tend to be a little grumpy when they are asked to defend their positions.

Yup. I've got his Youtube as a bookmark, I might sample something on there and tell him he's about to get famous with a rap song.

I have tried to be open minded about conservatives but they always then say something racist or something and I go back to hating them again and judging them all. They keep confirming my prejudiced and they are always a Trump supporter or always a conservative I see.

Then there are my in laws but wait, they lack all these traits so they must not be real conservatives

I guess fake conservatives exist. Just like how I have seen fake liberals.

So because America was not a perfect, flawless utopia from its inception, it has to no right to exist and must be dismantled?
What country would you endorse as a model of a perfect example of a nation? I ask this because your argument seems to be that since the United States has never been a perfect nation it has no right to exist. Please clarify.

Look around ... America is already being dismantled from the top down.None of them; not a single one.It seems that since you cannot refute the three facts I presented, you now feel compelled to go after me; so please, just acknowledge that all three facts are valid and we'll carry on from there.  Thank you.

I'm not attacking you. Merely making an inference from your previous posts. Yes I can agree that the list you posted is historical fact. But the thing is that if every country is bad what makes America any worse? Is it really the political systems that you dislike or is it the condition of the human race?

"It's almost illegal to have conservative opinions" Ha! Haha! Ha, when the hot take is searing hot lava.

In America, if you want
- housing security
- student loan forgiveness
- no more unarmed people of color shot by police
- no more arresting people for non-violent crimes
- people to be paid fair and liveable wages
- safe working conditions
- equal human rights (for people of color, gay or transgender, religious minorities, etc.)
- fair trade, no more colonialism in other countries
- protection of natural resources, no more industrialized farming/logging/mining etc.

The government calls you "anarchist" or "antifa" and the government's response is that we should be shot at with gas grenades, baton bullet and beanbag bullet, arrested en masse, police will beat us, taze us, rape us, shoot us or sic German shepherd dog on us.

Meanwhile, hardcore right wing organizations never have any problem with police, and literal fascists like the Patriot Front get to march around with their rifles and police support them 100%, and they are never arrested.

Yes this doesn't sit comfortably with me either.

It probably comes down to how the different groups are acting and how they respond to the police: If a group is acting peacefully, then there won't be a problem. If the group is hostile to the police, or acting in a hostile\destructive manner, then the police will react accordingly.

Admittedly I haven't seen right wingers damaging public property but they come armed to the teeth at rallies. Certainly intimidating to normal folk.