In a sense I agree with you. What the person you are responding to is trying to say, I assume, is the new status quo is liberalism. As in lgbt, blm, van life, cannabis culture, casual dating, multiculturalism, secularism, etc.
I labelled the above idea space “liberalism” but I’m not convinced it’s the right term. I am just lacking a better one. In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.
There is also another idea space, generally associated with christian identity, belief in God, the existence of two biological sexes with clear roles to fulfil, european heritage, abortion is murder, sex strictly within marriage, no homosexuality, gun rights, etc
This would be called conservatism. But, as in the “liberalism” mentioned above, it’s not really the best term. If we just take it as an idea space and assume liberalism to be the status quo, this would definitely be a counter culture.
It dislikes the current status quo, wishes to undermine it and shift it in a different direction.
And, in this sense, I agree with the person you responded too. “Conservative” is the new counter culture.
You’re mistaken if you think “liberalism” is the status quo. It might be in the internet, but real life is not the same as Twitter. Just look at the push against abortion, or the massive incarcerated population, or the constant killing of poor people by the police. Or the raising of the interest rate to freeze salaries in detriment of bigger unemployment which won’t target the rich people?
Honestly saying that being conservative is a counter-culture just shows how alienated conservatives are.
> In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.
It is true, but there is not only one or two directions, and it must be necessary to consider that there is no only one or two directions.
People can believe in God or not as they wish, and might or might not be Christian (and there is many different Christians anyways, as well as many different non-Christians, and you need not only necessarily one religion, also). Either way can result people do good things and bad things.
Furthermore, "God exist" is not even very clearly defined. They shouldn't shame people for believe in God, although to say that it is right or wrong to believe in God can be mistaken because many people fail to consider that it is not really well defined.
Although two biological sexes do have clear roles to fulfil (specifically, mother vs father), that is a simplification and also is sometimes expanded too much (especially in the past, more often than today). That fails to consider intersex, and also people who do things differently from each other, you can do such things which are not part of biological sex.
Some people have some European heritage but not necessarily all. However, "European" is not very specific compared with e.g. "Italian", I think.
Homosexuality is not such a bad thing and even if you do not like it, it is not what should be illegal. (But, they should not force you to like it or to hate it.)
About gun rights, I think that you should need right to have weapons (especially unpowered and improvised weapons, rather than guns, but guns too) and other devices (including clothing, pencil/paper for writing, etc), and the right to not have weapons and other devices (including clothing) in case you do not want it, but that they should not just sell guns to everyone without proper safety training, etc. Proper safety training is important. However, if you make up your own weapons and other devices then you can do that; the government should not get in the way of everything. However, such a thing should not mean that you can just shoot everyone or bring guns everywhere; the law would still need to prevent against such a thing, which they already do anyways.
There are some Canadian laws relating to guns. Some of these things seems like good ideas but should not be mandatory, and are often more restrictive than they should be.
Furthermore, even if guns are legal should not mean that they should be encouraged. Use of weapons should normally be discouraged, not encouraged.
(I do not want any guns and I do not like guns, but that is just my opinion.)
Too often they say they either want gun rights or gun restrictions, either yes or no, and fail to consider a more nuanced possibility.
Cannabis, also, they fail to consider a more nuanced possibility. Now, smoking marijuana is legal, and I also do not think they should make the drugs illegal, but unfortunately they can still harm the air outside, and make smell even inside someone else's house right next to it too, so there still need to be the restriction of that. But, usually the people just consider yes or no instead of the more complicated possibility like I have described.
Abortion also is complicated, often both side they fail to consider the nuance. Ideally, I think it should be something to be avoided (it is better to start to not be pregnant, if possible), but conditions are not ideal and never are ideal. If it is your body then you will have the right to do with it (although you should still consider whether or not it is a good idea; just because something is or should be legal does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea), and can be self-defense from your own body (in case you would die otherwise), but the government should not make it difficult by getting in the way.
And then, there are some things that neither "liberal" nor "conservative" governments tend to consider, or that both do.
That is not an argument. The same way wokes say “look at Europe” when it comes to healthcare, conservatives say “look at Europe” when it comes to id cards.
All through the EU, id cards are the norm. If we can do it, so can you. This whole “but think of the black people” is bs. What are you, some kind of racist? You don’t think black people can get ids?
Obviously there's no shortage of ugly history in Europe, but Europe doesn't have this particular historical context. I would expect Europeans to be naive about this. I've had this discussion before.
> You don’t think black people can get ids?
Statistically, they are less likely to do so.
Edit: For me, an eye opening tidbit was this admission by a Republican strategist that the late 20th century discourse was about shifting from overt language about racism to more covert, abstract, economic talking points that are still rooted in racism. This is a left wing source but has the actual audio recording of that admission. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa... -- the takeaway is that you can't take a surface level read on a proposal and trust that no direct mention of race implies that it is not racist.
I think what Atwater predicted in this clip somewhat came true. Enough time has passed that young people have unironically embraced the dog whistles as idealized abstractions about small government and economics, states rights or federalism, without realizing they used to be dog whistles and not genuinely held when popularized.
Holy shit mate, do you hear your self? This is literally 13/52 talk.
Black people can get ids, they should get ids, just like everyone does in every other civilised country. I honestly can’t understand how anyone can oppose such a simple and natural thing.
> Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African- American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.
I did not make up the statistic.
I do not endorse it or wish it to continue, but numerically, that is what it is. This is probably the largest reason one side of the American political spectrum, the one who would benefit from lower racial minority turnout, supports tightening the laws.
In tight elections like we routinely have, that statistical disparity can be enough to alter electoral outcomes.
Bruv, that is literally what racists say about crime stats. Black people account for only 13% of the population yet commit 52% of the crime. And they say “I did not make up the statistic.
I do not endorse it or wish it to continue, but numerically, that is what it is.” and then go on to suggest segregation or some other ridiculous thing. Just like you are suggesting ridiculous things like opposing id cards. They work, everyone uses and yes you god damned racist, black people can get them, they’re not retarded ffs!
There's a huge difference between blaming black people for crime and wanting to prevent voter disenfranchisement that the status quo says disproportionately affects black people.
They can get ID cards.. but they are less likely to. There are all sorts of factors involved in that, which are lamentable but we won't be able to solve overnight. Taking away voting rights will probably not help us get there either.
I swear this is literally the meme with the soyjack at the end crying “no, not like this!”
There is literally no functional difference between using racial statistics to argue for segregation or against id cards. The only difference is, you like one policy and dislike the other.
I completely agree. You are denigrating black people by implying they’re retarded and can’t get something as simple as an id card, and I am protecting voting rights by supporting a measure that will aid in increasing trust in the elections.
ACLU is no longer an unbiased source and regularly peddles regime propaganda.
"Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout." [0]
"A 2014 study from the University of Iowa found no evidence that strict voter ID laws reduce minority turnout.[127] A 2012 study found that, although the Georgia voter ID laws lowered overall turnout by 0.4%, there was no racial or ethnic component to the suppression effect." [0]
Sorry, I tried a few drafts and I'm not sure how to say this. I am blown away by your reference to "the regime". It destroys your credibility immediately. It marks you as a very paranoid person.
I don't agree with everything ACLU says or does either. I don't start accusing them of conspiracy theories. I feel like pockets of HN are much more pro right wing conspiracy theory vs. just one year ago.
Anyway, the Wikipedia article you link to also has my argument represented, too ... Maybe read more of it.
If someone says ACLU is "propaganda for the Biden regime" I would say that person is pretty conspiracy theorist adjacent and not expressing themselves like someone in touch with reality.
I am usually very agreeable toward arguments of the form "all of Europe does X, so it's ridiculous to assume the US can't too". This is one of the cases where that's not true. ID requirements have been used for centuries in the US to disenfranchise various groups of voters. That's fact. If you know of a specific way to enforce strong ID requirements while somehow changing culture and politics dramatically for a huge swath of people such that this disenfranchisement stops being a problem, by all means, please let us know. Otherwise, your idea will not work.
>>you know of a specific way to enforce strong ID requirements
Do you know of any state that even has or is proposing "strong ID requirements" in the first place, because most of the Voter ID Laws I have seen passed have very very weak ID Requirements, often not even requiring offical government ID, instead accepting all mannar of types if ID including school issued ID's, Libary ID;s (if they ahve a photo), some even accept employer made ID's
All states that have voter ID laws also include a provision to get Free State Issues ID's so there is no cost requirement.
> ID requirements have been used for centuries in the US to disenfranchise
Because something was bad in the past, implemented in a different way, with different terms, under a difference society does is not a justification for opposition today.
>>If you know of a specific way
Some of the reforms / requirements I would like to see for voting
1. Week Long Voting including at-least 1 Sat and 1 Sun separated by 5 days.
2. In Person only unless provided a medical or other reason they can vote in person
3. if we are to have "ballot harvesting" Ballot collection only by certified, sworn and bonded person. A program akin to something notary public, and the collector must sign or otherwise identify their collections on the outside of the secure envelope, collections will be recorded and made part of the public record showing how many ballots each collector collected, and for what voter
4. Work with private partners to provide more polling locations, I am unclear why every Walmart, is not a polling location as an example
5. Remove all political parties from the ballot. We vote for people, not parties.
I labelled the above idea space “liberalism” but I’m not convinced it’s the right term. I am just lacking a better one. In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.
There is also another idea space, generally associated with christian identity, belief in God, the existence of two biological sexes with clear roles to fulfil, european heritage, abortion is murder, sex strictly within marriage, no homosexuality, gun rights, etc
This would be called conservatism. But, as in the “liberalism” mentioned above, it’s not really the best term. If we just take it as an idea space and assume liberalism to be the status quo, this would definitely be a counter culture.
It dislikes the current status quo, wishes to undermine it and shift it in a different direction.
And, in this sense, I agree with the person you responded too. “Conservative” is the new counter culture.