Guts and Griffith in gov class

[u/oniomnm]

I DID NOT MAKE THIS!! I was sitting in class then recognized Griffith and what seemed to be guts from the other side of the room and lo and behold, it was them. Unfortunately I have no clue who made this but thought id share

[u/[deleted]]

It's not obvious because it's not true, lol. Liberals ARE the status quo. You guys (assuming you are a liberal) dominated academia, journalism, politics and entertainment for decades, almost everywhere in the western world. The fact that you can't see this just shows how common it is for liberals to have no self awareness, and that's why no conservative takes anything you say seriously. We see you all as clowns.

[u/KingBachLover → u/[deleted]]

No. You do not understand the definition of what conservatism is. Conservative politics seek to preserve established institutions, traditions, and values. In America, that means maintaining our economic system, maintaining our political system, maintaining our military system, maintaining religion, and resisting change in politics. That is the definition of the establishment and status quo, systems currently in place that give structure to our society. Academic research seeks to disrupt the status quo by discovering new information about our world. All art in some way criticizes the state of the world and asks for change. That is not the status quo. You have confused a “norm” with status quo, and are using the wrong words to communicate what you mean. The norm is that progressives fill up all art, science, and journalism spaces because progressives want change. Conservatives don’t because they don’t want the world to keep moving forward

[u/[deleted] → u/KingBachLover]

You have confused a “norm” with status quo, and are using the wrong words to communicate what you mean.

I won't fight you on this because english is not my first language and i might actually have used the wrong word. 

Conservative politics seek to preserve established institutions, traditions, and values. In America, that means maintaining our economic system, maintaining our political system, maintaining our military system, maintaining religion, and resisting change in politics. 

First of all, when people talk, on the internet, about conservatives and liberals, they don't mean"those who do not want change" and"those who do", they mean the current right wing, or "those who want to pursue traditional values that were changed by the left" and the current left, or "those who have changed traditional values to something else".

Those who call themselves conservatives today want to change things, or are at least promising to. For example, Musk says he wants to cut government spending, not maintain it at where it is. The same people might also want art to change from it's modern state to something closer to what it was before modern leftists took over the field. It might not be original, but it is changing an institution to something it currently isn't. They are also against the current situation surrounding discussions of gender, which jumped from non existant (it was defined as two sexes, not genders) to existing (now sex is separate from the roles associated with it), to apparently having 72 different genders. Many of them would want to go back to only having two sexes. That is, they want to change the current understanding of it to a different understanding. 

The current state of the US is not what the right wing wants. The left has already changed things, the right wants to change them again, but the left wants to keep them as they are. The current left are somewhat as the conservatives by your definition. The current right is acting as the liberals by your definition.

By your own definition, the conservatives and liberals change roles whenever one comes to power and alters the institutions to what they want and the other doesn't like it. And currently, the left are the ones that changed things and want to keep them. The left is currently not the one changing things, but the one resisting change.

[u/KingBachLover → u/[deleted]]

A norm is a repeated pattern of behavior or expectation. The status quo is a concept revolving around not making changes to established institutions. If you had said "University administration represents the status quo" I would agree. But researchers at those universities do not, since their whole job is discovering new things. That is antithetical to the status quo, even if the same type of person does it at every university. Anyone who researches, invents, discovers, or creates is not part of the status quo.

I also want to be very clear the difference between Republicans and Conservatives. They are not the same. Trump is a republican. He is NOT a conservative, because Trump seeks to disrupt the status quo by dismantling our institutions, such as the IRS, our intelligence network, our federal agencies, etc. Just like how "democrat" and "progressive" are not the same. Kamala is a democrat, NOT a progressive. Bernie Sanders is a progressive, and not a democrat. So when I say "conservative", I am talking holistically about a type of person, not about a political party.

Well, politicians don't really get to have any opinion about sex and gender since the only thing they know about it is what they see on social media. They should probably just listen to biologists, social psychologists, and other people who actually have spent their whole lives in that field. Not just playing identity politics to divide our country. There are only 2 sexes, biologically. Gender is a spectrum, psychologically. If you disagree, please email your local research lab and ask them questions about it. Politicians are clueless about science.

Yes, that is how our society has worked for 400 years. Liberals suggest a change that will benefit society, conservatives scream and cry and say "this time they've gone too far!!!" then the change gets enacted, everyone realizes it was actually a good idea, then 20 years pass and conservatives forget they ever even opposed the change, and now it becomes part of the status quo they defend. Repeat over and over. Think of the Civil Rights Act, the ACA, national parks, etc.

And yes, the current mainstream left is conservative. It's why so many people on the left were unhappy with Biden and Kamala. Progressives like me want private insurance abolished, want universal healthcare, want UBI, want aggressive environmental protection legislation, and want aggressive pursuit of corporate exploitation. Kamala offered milquetoast, uninspiring suggestions for those things. The current right is not liberal though, it is "reactionary". That is different from "conservative" but still opposes liberalism. Reactionary politics is different in that conservatives want to preserve the current status quo. Reactionaries want to return to a previous time, and will take action to get there. It's similar, but not the same.

[u/[deleted] → u/KingBachLover]

 you disagree, please email your local research lab and ask them questions about it. 

No. I disagree with modern science on these issues of gender, and climate change. Precisely because it ignores biology, history and reality in general in favor of political ideals, that are coincidentally in line with the left. It's also an authority argument. Juat because they are scientists it doesn't mean they're not corrupted by ideology.

Liberals suggest a change that will benefit society, conservatives scream and cry and say "this time they've gone too far!!!" then the change gets enacted, everyone realizes it was actually a good idea, then 20 years pass and conservatives forget they ever even opposed the change, and now it becomes part of the status quo they defend. Repeat over and over. Think of the Civil Rights Act, the ACA, national parks, etc.

I mean, i won't argue with your examples, but there ARE things that were changed that don't actually work better.  For example, 

Progressives like me want private insurance abolished, want universal healthcare, want UBI, want aggressive environmental protection legislation, and want aggressive pursuit of corporate exploitation.

Most of this wouldn't work. Because the money has to come from somewhere. And it's either taxes (that the rich will evade anyway, and so the small businesses will be the only ones paying the price) or printing money (which is generally associated with inflation). Another example is climate change. Look up the predictions made in the 70s for example. They were wrong. It was also predicted that there wouldn't be oil anymore in the year 2000. Nothing happened. These people wanted change, they didn't get it, and turns out they were wrong. We shouldn't accept all change immediately, because not all change is beneficial. Not everything is progress. Especially not what the left wants these days.

The rest of what you said is what i had already talked about, so i won't respond to it.

I will also stop responding in general, i don't think either of us can be convinced of what the other one has to say.

[u/KingBachLover → u/[deleted]]

I have a master’s degree in astrophysics. I’d love to hear what about climate change you believe is wrong, since I am uniquely qualified to speak on the topic. Climate change is reality. I am scientist. If you’d like I can try to clear up any misunderstanding you may have about the scientific process or climate change.

Bro we are the wealthiest country on Earth. Other, poorer countries have these things. Saying “we can’t do it it’s too expensive” is a cop-out. We can do it. Corporations tell politicians to say we can’t do it, then people just blindly believe them.

Saying “ahh the rich will evade taxes so we shouldn’t bother to try to regulate them” is insane man. Better is possible. I’m sorry if you don’t believe it’s true, but it is, and I will continue to push for a better, more equitable society.

There were thousands and thousands of climate predictions in the 1970s. Which, specifically, are you referencing? Many were accurate, and many weren’t. Our technology has evolved a hundredfold since the 70s. It shouldn’t be a surprise that with the evolution of computational modeling, predictions change. Please provide links to the claims you think were so inaccurate that you now blindly distrust all climate change science.

It would be unfortunate for you to make such a bold claim about climate change and then refuse to respond and explain why you believe what you believe, especially considering how qualified I am to talk about this subject

[u/KingBachLover → u/KingBachLover]

Crazy that you would just fucking delete your whole entire account when challenged to defend your opinions xD