Hyperactive Vs Conservativism

[Hyperactive]

As we all are very clear on within today's society, we have evolved past the fascist mold of yesterday's standards, beginning with the renaissance, leading into the evolution of society into the Scientific Revolution, to the French Revolution and the fall of the Bastille, to the revival and fall of Fascism in the early 1900s, to the Conformity Revolution of '79, to the rise and fall of the Bush Administration more recently. We live in a more liberal, free thinking society because of this fall of fascism. However, fascism does not sprout its head today in a form of which we are all apparent of. No, in fact, fascism is not lurking within society with the hate and oppression of which it has shown in the past. Instead, it is back, and it's wearing smiley t-shirts and handing out free entertainment for us all to absorb mindlessly into the beings of ourselves. Those who fall for such a trick eventually lead themselves into becoming fascists, and give it a new name: conservativism.

Notable traits of a conservative include ignorance, arrogance, a following of religion, lack of observation, conformity and many other horrible diseases of which plague their minds. These brainwashed conservative thinkers eventually become like cancer cells within our world. Conservative fanatics may not be cured, but teenagers going through the basic anxiety-based phases of life may be cured by simply forcing them to observe their surroundings and giving them a need to learn.

To heal the world of this horrible cancer, we must either help these conservatives grow up to be individual and non-conforming thinkers.

(EXTREMELY watered down version of essay by Hyperactive. Dedicated to the life of Chuck Schuldiner (1967-2001))

[Fayt Zelpher]

We must strive to educate these people. Not to blindly follow their parents, their preachers, or the people they see on TV, but rather to educate people to the extent that when presented with an argument, the can stop and say "Hey, this doesn't seem right". Until we get a strong education system that teaches kids and teenagers not how to pass a test, but instead how to think logically and create persuasive arguments, we will never achieve this goal. I ask anyone who reads this to support a strengthening of education systems, both in the US and abroad, so that all children and young adults have the capacity to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and to do so on the basis of logic and reason, not fear and base emotion.

[Don Draper]

Conservatives =/= Conservatism.

Today's conservatives follow the liberalism ideology. The conservative party was formed to "conserve" the liberalism. Sounds confusing, but you'll learn about it if you ever take political science.

Edited January 20, 2010 by IOS

[Hyperactive]

Conservatives =/= Conservatism.

Today's conservatives follow the liberalism ideology. The conservative party was formed to "conserve" the liberalism. Sounds confusing, but you'll learn about it if you ever take political science.

Are you absolutely sure about this? It seems that many of the beliefs of old, regarding the absolutist rule that society held on society is trying to be revived by the conservatives of who are plaguing and plotting against us.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Conservatives =/= Conservatism.

Today's conservatives follow the liberalism ideology. The conservative party was formed to "conserve" the liberalism. Sounds confusing, but you'll learn about it if you ever take political science.

I somewhat understand the point that you make. Nonetheless, I do maintain what I said in that point, although part of it is because of just how conservative the Republican party is (yes, I live in the States) and how much our education system needs improving. I do think that some aspects of conservative viewpoints can be incorporated in a contemporary society, but I think that people need more educated for a democracy to work to it's fullest extent. We have the right to vote, but the responsibility to learn about the issues and make an informed decision based on the facts and not kneejerk reactions.

[Don Draper]

Well, I'm not a poli-sci major (I'm a business man), but I am taking a first year course in political science, and here were my notes on both liberalism and coservatism.

liberalism: belief of individual freedom, freedom from government. we are rational beings, and should pursue our interests with little interference. government should only protect us.

conservatism: society is not composed of single individuals; we are one and should look out for each other. liberty is worthwhile only when it is ordered. government can ensure the social order, and is therefore necessary.

Today's Liberals/Conservatives take the rival ideology (Conservatives believe in liberalism and vice-versa).

Kind of confusing, I agree

[Hyperactive]

Well, I'm not a poli-sci major (I'm a business man), but I am taking a first year course in political science, and here were my notes on both liberalism and coservatism.

liberalism: belief of individual freedom, freedom from government. we are rational beings, and should pursue our interests with little interference. government should only protect us.

conservatism: society is not composed of single individuals; we are one and should look out for each other. liberty is worthwhile only when it is ordered. government can ensure the social order, and is therefore necessary.

Today's Liberals/Conservatives take the rival ideology (Conservatives believe in liberalism and vice-versa).

Kind of confusing, I agree

You're wrong in the sense that the liberals and conservatives are taking on the rival ideology. That's my opinion though, as demonstrated through the many actions which have been taken as of the new millenium by both parties.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Hyperactive

[Don Draper]

Whoops

Edited January 20, 2010 by IOS

[Don Draper]

Take it up with my university's entire political science faculty then:

http://www.wlu.ca/fac_listing.php?grp_id=166

The whole history behind it is that the Conservative party was formed because the creators advocated a return back to classic liberal policies. Therefore, you can't attack "conservatism", because thats not the ideology that today's conservatives believe in.

Edited January 20, 2010 by IOS

[Hyperactive]

Take it up with my university's entire political science faculty then:

http://www.wlu.ca/fac_listing.php?grp_id=166

...Shit, I actually applied there recently :c

[Don Draper]

Haha, thats quite the coincidence. Which program? By the way, sorry to get off topic

[Hyperactive]

Haha, thats quite the coincidence. Which program? By the way, sorry to get off topic

No problem.

English and Social Science. Thing is, I'm most likely going to go to the more local universities, and Laurier was the last place I applied actually.

Sorry, mate :c

EDIT:

BACK ON TOPIC

Edited January 20, 2010 by Hyperactive

[#!/dev/haru]

Did you know? The right wing is called "Neo-Liberalism" everywhere outside the United States.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Did you know? The right wing is called "Neo-Liberalism" everywhere outside the United States.

If I may ask, what do you call the left wing in American politics?

[#!/dev/haru]

Did you know? The right wing is called "Neo-Liberalism" everywhere outside the United States.

If I may ask, what do you call the left wing in American politics?

I don't call it anything but "left-wing". The rest of the world calls it collectivism, I think.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Did you know? The right wing is called "Neo-Liberalism" everywhere outside the United States.

If I may ask, what do you call the left wing in American politics?

I don't call it anything but "left-wing". The rest of the world calls it collectivism, I think.

I see. Very interesting, and I thank you for telling me something that I did not know.

[Blademaster!]

Notable traits of a conservative include ignorance, arrogance, a following of religion, lack of observation, conformity and many other horrible diseases of which plague their minds. These brainwashed conservative thinkers eventually become like cancer cells within our world. Conservative fanatics may not be cured, but teenagers going through the basic anxiety-based phases of life may be cured by simply forcing them to observe their surroundings and giving them a need to learn.

Although I want to agree with you when you say this, you are probably being too stereotypical. Or something.

[quanta]

One day, the OP shall learn that southern U.S. evangelicals are not really the only form of conservatives even in U.S. terminology (they are probably among the worst form though :D ). You need to look at some Buckley or Goldwater or something (if you're thinking U.S. conservatives). Goldwater's probably the polar opposite of fascist. Maybe read Edmund Burke (the original conservative). I dunno. I'm not as good at grinding through philosophical or political treatises as I used to be. I get sick of all the bullshit without any data or modeling. :P (Note: I'm not totally serious here).

[Phoenix Wright]

Conservatives =/= Conservatism.

Today's conservatives follow the liberalism ideology. The conservative party was formed to "conserve" the liberalism. Sounds confusing, but you'll learn about it if you ever take political science.

Or AP Euro. I'm learning about that now. Basically, everyone understands they'll never be able to shut out liberalism and nationalism from society so the conservatives of the time started to do the things liberals were trying to do.

[Hero]

I'm no political science major, but I'm close and I know how to pretend to be an expert on this subject.

Hyperactive, I think you're marching the wrong way when you equate conservatism to fascism. In reality there's nothing insidious about conservatism, it's really quite boring. The most basic definition of a conservative is somebody who's against change that doesn't have good reason behind it. This definition has been hijacked by Republicans in America lately, in the same way that they've taken over populism and so many other political ideas and symbols.

A conservative doesn't even necessarily want to return to a past state of affairs, since that would mean rolling back changes and likely changing more than is necessary of the status quo. In the Soviet Union after the 1950s hardline communists were called conservatives because they thought that things were moving in the right direction and didn't want to change them.

Did you know? The right wing is called "Neo-Liberalism" everywhere outside the United States.

Neoliberalism is one of those terms that has come to have very little meaning as it's been overused in clashing senses.

I think the best definition of neoliberalism is just classical liberalism brought back a generation after it lost its support to more statist theories. The "neo" was added on because, in America, the word liberal has taken on a more Keynesian tint since the 1930s. In this sense both wings in US politics are broadly neoliberal, and though I'd agree with you that Republicans preach closer to that ideal than Democrats each can claim to be more liberal on certain issues than the other.

Of course, this isn't the only definition. Back when I was enamored with characters like Trotsky and Mao around tenth grade I got a book by a Canadian university professor called "The Terror of Neoliberalism" that claimed neoliberalism is an ideology inseparable from modern imperialism and stark class divisions. One teacher who I took several classes with in my last two years of high school likely would have agreed with the argument of that book if not the language, and often blamed it for the decline of industry in America and the rash of disastrous free trade agreements in the last thirty years. On the other hand I've seen it used positively (albeit not as often) by self-proclaimed liberals, and in contrast to what they called "Reaganomics"!

I don't call it anything but "left-wing". The rest of the world calls it collectivism, I think.

The Democrats collectivist? You gave me a good laugh.

Collectivism is all about lateral interdependence and interaction within a community. The Democrats promote resource sharing with some of their positions, but their support for economic centralization is much stronger.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Hero

[Phoenix]

I'm no political science major, but I'm close and I know how to pretend to be an expert on this subject.

Hyperactive, I think you're marching the wrong way when you equate conservatism to fascism. In reality there's nothing insidious about conservatism, it's really quite boring. The most basic definition of a conservative is somebody who's against change that doesn't have good reason behind it. This definition has been hijacked by Republicans in America lately, in the same way that they've taken over populism and so many other political ideas and symbols.

A conservative doesn't even necessarily want to return to a past state of affairs, since that would mean rolling back changes and likely changing more than is necessary of the status quo. In the Soviet Union after the 1950s hardline communists were called conservatives because they thought that things were moving in the right direction and didn't want to change them.

Neoliberalism is one of those terms that has come to have very little meaning as it's been overused in clashing senses.

I think the best definition of neoliberalism is just classical liberalism brought back a generation after it lost its support to more statist theories. The "neo" was added on because, in America, the word liberal has taken on a more Keynesian tint since the 1930s. In this sense both wings in US politics are broadly neoliberal, and though I'd agree with you that Republicans preach closer to that ideal than Democrats each can claim to be more liberal on certain issues than the other.

Of course, this isn't the only definition. Back when I was enamored with characters like Trotsky and Mao around tenth grade I got a book by a Canadian university professor called "The Terror of Neoliberalism" that claimed neoliberalism is an ideology inseparable from modern imperialism and stark class divisions. One teacher who I took several classes with in my last two years of high school likely would have agreed with the argument of that book if not the language, and often blamed it for the decline of industry in America and the rash of disastrous free trade agreements in the last thirty years. On the other hand I've seen it used positively (albeit not as often) by self-proclaimed liberals, and in contrast to what they called "Reaganomics"!

The Democrats collectivist? You gave me a good laugh.

Collectivism is all about lateral interdependence and interaction within a community. The Democrats promote resource sharing with some of their positions, but their support for economic centralization is much stronger.

That was refreshing. I thought I was going to get all the way to the bottom of the page without getting to read one unbiased opinion. That was pretty damn close.

By the way, Hyper, you sound like a radical when you talk about conservatives and republicans. Candidly, your views on conservative thinkers are just straight up bullsh*t.

The ideology of the cancer cell is growth for the sake of growth. That's easier to compare to liberalism than conservatism, which is focused on preservation, not necessarily thoughtless expansion.

Now I hardly ever pay much attention to this kind of crap, because it's all politics, and therefore worthless, but I don't like where all the liberalism has led certain areas of society over the past decades.

There are good changes that come with liberal ideas, and bad ones.

Just my opinions, but here are a few good ones:

End of segregation.

More recognition for women.(This is ignoring feminists whom I hate with a fiery passion by the way.)

Friendlier relations with foreign countries.

Just my opinions, but here are a few bad ones:

Media's evolution into mindless sexism... just take a look around...

(Not entirely the fault of radical change)Desolation of traditional family structure, which was part of what caused the fall of the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.

Attempts to violate the constitution.(When's the last time a conservative went after the document that has formed the core of the most powerful nation on Earth, and tried to replace it with policies used by far less stable governments(historically)?)

Paint conservatives as badly as you want, but the truth is that both conservatives and liberals are what keep this country going.

Each have a place.

IN A NUTSHELL:

Conservatives are here to value and protect what this country has that is good, for the good of all.

Liberals are here to try to add more good to the country for Conservatives to protect, for the good of all.

THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE. Both parties are failing miserably, and succeeding greatly in certain areas, which is why this country can be so ugly if you look at it with a certain set of eyes, and beautiful with another set.

Cut the liberalism bullsh*t and realize that we're all on the same side here... ... or at least we should be

[Dark Sage]

That was refreshing. I thought I was going to get all the way to the bottom of the page without getting to read one unbiased opinion. That was pretty damn close.

By the way, Hyper, you sound like a radical when you talk about conservatives and republicans. Candidly, your views on conservative thinkers are just straight up bullsh*t.

The ideology of the cancer cell is growth for the sake of growth. That's easier to compare to liberalism than conservatism, which is focused on preservation, not necessarily thoughtless expansion.

Now I hardly ever pay much attention to this kind of crap, because it's all politics, and therefore worthless, but I don't like where all the liberalism has led certain areas of society over the past decades.

There are good changes that come with liberal ideas, and bad ones.

Just my opinions, but here are a few good ones:

End of segregation.

More recognition for women.(This is ignoring feminists whom I hate with a fiery passion by the way.)

Friendlier relations with foreign countries.

Just my opinions, but here are a few bad ones:

Media's evolution into mindless sexism... just take a look around...

(Not entirely the fault of radical change)Desolation of traditional family structure, which was part of what caused the fall of the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.

Attempts to violate the constitution.(When's the last time a conservative went after the document that has formed the core of the most powerful nation on Earth, and tried to replace it with policies used by far less stable governments(historically)?)

Paint conservatives as badly as you want, but the truth is that both conservatives and liberals are what keep this country going.

Each have a place.

IN A NUTSHELL:

Conservatives are here to value and protect what this country has that is good, for the good of all.

Liberals are here to try to add more good to the country for Conservatives to protect, for the good of all.

THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE. Both parties are failing miserably, and succeeding greatly in certain areas, which is why this country can be so ugly if you look at it with a certain set of eyes, and beautiful with another set.

Cut the liberalism bullsh*t and realize that we're all on the same side here... ... or at least we should be

See THIS should be our political ideology. This is what we should be striving for. This is what the founding fathers wanted. Instead the political system throughout the past 40-50 years has been full of whining, partisan sob stories and corruption.

Neither side is in the right. The liberals today act seem to believe in socialism and communism, which is a factor in today's political turmoil. Some of the most powerful ones (like Nancy Pelosi) seem to want the government to control everything in our everyday lives. Our stores, our media, our music, our housing, all of course in the name of the good of all. This ideology is why we have Obama's proposed health care bill.

And the conservatives aren't much better either. Many are clueless and pompous and always complain about how the left wing is always so extreme and out to destroy everything our country stands for as opposed to themselves, the perfect, reasonable, down to earth conservatives. If this were true, then they wouldn't have Rush Limbaugh as a spokesman and Richard Nixon would never have been elected (and no, Carter was not much better).

Note that most ordinary people don't think like this. It's mainly the media and the politicians. I do know some radical people who are like that however and are neither part of the media or politics, but they are rare. Some of my best friends are liberals and conservatives.

The cause of all of this is YOU. That's right, the American voters. You elect these people, you engage in partisanship all the time. Not directly, but you are the watchers and listeners of the media's partisan entertainment. You're the one who makes it sell.

In conclusion, everyone is responsible for all this radical and partisan garbage that our country is engaged in. There is no good side or bad side. The liberals are more extreme and, as said above, try to make whatever fashionable ideal they're into at the moment part of the constitution. The conservatives are too stuck in the past and are clueless with a lot of stuff to get their act together.

The above post is epic win and captures my beliefs very well.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Dark Sage

[Original Alear]

Well, I'm not a poli-sci major (I'm a business man), but I am taking a first year course in political science, and here were my notes on both liberalism and coservatism.

liberalism: belief of individual freedom, freedom from government. we are rational beings, and should pursue our interests with little interference. government should only protect us.

conservatism: society is not composed of single individuals; we are one and should look out for each other. liberty is worthwhile only when it is ordered. government can ensure the social order, and is therefore necessary.

Today's Liberals/Conservatives take the rival ideology (Conservatives believe in liberalism and vice-versa).

Kind of confusing, I agree

This is true to some extent insofar as economic policy goes. But as far as social policy, we often see conservatives as trying to use government to maintain social policy.

The whole history behind it is that the Conservative party was formed because the creators advocated a return back to classic liberal policies. Therefore, you can't attack "conservatism", because thats not the ideology that today's conservatives believe in.

This is essentially the validation of the "original" and to say that when a movement changes, it is no longer that movement. It would be as correct for me to point out the differences between greek and american democracy and conclude that america is not democratic because it is not like greece. I think you can see why this sort of argument is not correct. Defining a movement according to its policies and beliefs at any particular time is irrational, since the word "movement" inherently suggests a change in ideas over time.

Historians should try reading some Hegel. Simply because two ideas seem contradictory (yesterday and today's conservative party) does not mean they are not - in finding how the shift occurred between one day and the next, one decade and the next, we expose the continuity in the change. We might think of it as a parabolic curve - finding the first derivative at one particular point does not give us an indication of where it was or where it will be, since that measure of change changes over time.

I think the best definition of neoliberalism is just classical liberalism brought back a generation after it lost its support to more statist theories. The "neo" was added on because, in America, the word liberal has taken on a more Keynesian tint since the 1930s. In this sense both wings in US politics are broadly neoliberal, and though I'd agree with you that Republicans preach closer to that ideal than Democrats each can claim to be more liberal on certain issues than the other.

Yes! I think this is a key point. Although perhaps a simplification, I see Keynes as essentially continuing the debate between Malthus and Ricardo over the possibility of supply gluts, and arguing that government intervention was a good way to resolve the gaps. The liberals went along with this, the neo-liberals did not.

(Not entirely the fault of radical change)Desolation of traditional family structure, which was part of what caused the fall of the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.

Are you talking about the destruction of the nuclear family? If so, the nuclear family is a characteristic of the industrial era; it's hardly traditional.

As far as Rome goes, I don't know where you got that. I'm not saying you're wrong, since I don't know much about the Roman empire after the nervan-antonian dynasty. However, Romans were complaining about the "decline" of the traditional roman family significantly before they went from republic to empire, so I don't see that it was a root cause. In rome, a person descended from a plebian family getting elected to the senate was considered a decline in family values.