I am so sick of the word conservative. It’s not conservative, it’s fucking regressive. It’s back sliding our society into a world that never really existed in the first place.
It’s not conservative, it’s fucking regressive.
I mean, Liberals aren’t particularly liberal and far too many of the Progressives are barely progressive. Libertarians don’t seem that interested in liberty. Centrists can’t find the center. Plutocrats are immolating their capital. The Meritocrats are unqualified. The Technocrats are incompetent. Only the Fascists seem intent on delivering results consistent with their brand.
I don’t disagree. The world liberal is wasted on the Democratic party. They’re not liberal. They’re just the only valid opposition to the Nazis. Even if their policies are conservative.
They’re just the only valid opposition to the Nazis.
I think you’re asking “opposition” to do more heavy lifting than it can bear in that sentence.
They’re just the only valid opposition to the Nazis.
They’ve rolled over so fast and so frequently that I’d hardly call them “opposition” without prefixing it with “controlled”.
The most influential force in Democratic Party leadership right now is Bitcoin Banks, ffs. They’re fully rotten.
The democratic party is run by conservatives that are keeping the liberals and progressives in check. The republican party is so far off the deep end we need a new word for what they are.
I’ve managed to find a few that can describe the Republicans:
- Nazis
- Neo-Nazis
I say this all the time and somehow people just can’t see it. Who cares what they call themselves. Its what they do and what they want that describes them.
“Conservative” just means “extreme far-right” now.
That’s only if you let it
To me it’s still what Americans consider left
I just look fondly back on the times when there was a slightly higher barrier-to-entry to those that wanted to access and use the internet.
This makes me wonder how many “teenage edgelords” that bought into “the manosphere” would’ve been able to go to such an extreme if they’d been forced to access every website through a shared family computer, in a room that others frequent, the way many Millennials had to do at their age.
Relatively-guaranteed privacy only happened on rare occasions (I came from a large household), and I had to share the one computer with all of my siblings. My parents weren’t the type to go out of their way to monitor my internet activity, but just knowing they or my siblings could appear at any time, look over my shoulder, and ask me what I was looking at, made me think very carefully about what I put on that screen.
We wouldn’t have been able to entrench ourselves 24/7 in toxic muck the way people can today.
I hadn’t thought about it until reading your comment here but I accidentally raised my GenZ kids this way. If I hadn’t done this I never would have seen my eldest heading down the misogynist edgelord path and intervened.
The only decent computer in the house was in the living room, and they had clunky retired elementary school computers in their rooms running Linux and Open Office so they could work on homework (no internet, USB drive to save homework and send from family computer). It wasn’t because I sought to keep them from using the internet privately, it was because we couldn’t really afford better.
August 1993?
Ah yes, the halcyon days when only upper-middle class techbros had access to such beacons of internet liberalism as 4chan and Albino Blacksheep.
Bring back Powerline Blog! Bring back deeply homophobic Starcraft voice chats! Bring back spending 30,000 bitcoins on a pizza! I miss the days of three horny Harvard kids putting together an online Hot-or-Not image ranking of their female peers. I miss Googling “Waffles” and getting John Kerry’s campaign website. I miss downloading an .mp3 of someone reading erotica in a Daffy Duck voice on Napster! You know, when the internet was normal and sophisticated and good.
Retvrn To Tradition!
Yep, still sounds better than our current enshittification.
I mean at least there wasn’t a subscription for literally everything back then.
You say that like that isn’t better
It isn’t. It’s just older - often past the point of living memory.
The modern era has far more in common with the '00s and '80s and '60s than modern Americans are willing to accept.
When you’re older you’ll understand that mass propaganda campaigns and truth control are worse
Trying to believe this, but I’ve got Chinatown playing in the background and it’s drowning you out.
But sure, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were winning elections based on facts and logic. Newt Gingrich and George Bush Jr never went on the TV and told lies. Censorship during the War on Drugs and Crime and Terror is a myth. Nobody in America was being poison pilled with red scares and satanic panics before 2016.
We’re talking about the internet
mass propaganda campaigns and truth control are worse
These predate the Internet.
But also, omg the post 9/11 Internet was black pilled to the gills
You’re thinking too modern. We need to go back before Eternal September
… can… can we go there?
It’s funny cuz people actually think this way, and don’t realize what a self-own it is.
Love how even in this future people still park on the fuckin sidewalks.
Cant change the fact that people suck
Someone added that to the PragerU post? Because I can’t imagine PragerU posting a Utopian image with that text. PragerU are worse than Fox “Newz”.
PragerU posted the text, someone added the image.
I’m fine with conservative media in theory, but the problem with conservative media these days is just the constant blatant lying.
I think there’s definitely room for conservative voices, like:
- Conserving the environment.
- Putting checks and balances on AI and technology in general
- Maintaining non-harmful cultural traditions (Morris Dancing is cringe, but it should still be around)
- Promoting an emphasis on local community and family rather than individualism fuelling the capitalist system
Even traditions that have been harmful can be recontextualised and maintained and used as a means of teaching, rather than thrown out entirely in the name of progress. People are so drawn to places like Japan (at least partially) because they maintain their traditions and seek to conserve what they have rather than constantly push forward and bulldoze everything old because it’s old. Obviously not everyone believes in the traditions, but they keep them anyway.
Nowadays though? Conservatives have basically tossed all of that in favor of allowing capital to completely bulldoze over traditions and then blaming the ensuing misery on the gays.
I don’t think political conservatism has ever meant caring about conserving heritage and nature. From the inception of the concept in the 18th century to now, it’s always been about conserving (or bringing back) inequality in power and wealth. It was never about preserving nature or protecting other people their way of life. Then and now, the credo of the conservative movement might just as well be “I want rules for thee but not for me”.
Then what would you call someone who holds those beliefs? The belief that some things ought to be conserved and progress ought to be held back in some circumstances? I would call that conservative in a small c kind of way, as opposed to big c Conservatives that are all about centralised power and handing everything over to big businesses to strip the world clean of anything of value.
Conservators are those that work towards the conservation of things.
Edit: conservation and conservatism are 2 very different things. To work towards conservation of something is not going to be directly tied to political backgrounds: It is not because someone is a socialist or liberal, that they will not want to conserve some things. Everyone will probably have some things (nature, monuments, traditions, …) that they want to conserve for future generations.
Political conservatism definitely has meant conserving heritage and nature, just not in your lifetime. Example: Theodore Roosevelt created America’s national park system. But since at least as far back as 1980 conservatism has been co-opted by con men as a beard for their own gain. I think the main reason they’ve succeeded is that so many conservatives, although basically good at heart, were brought up with the biblical family model of putting absolute faith in a strong and wise Daddy who looks after them. They want to believe in that so hard because it’s so much a part of who they are, once they identify a Daddy they’ll give him a pass on just about everything. Once you figure out how to become Daddy they’re all yours.
Theodore Roosevelt was considered domestically progressive, internationally conservative. The encyclopedia Britannica has this to say on Teddy: “By 1906 he was the undisputed spokesman of national progressivism and by far its best publicity agent.”. https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Theodore-Roosevelt-and-the-Progressive-movement
What do you call a progressive who wants to conserve a piece of nature? Still a progressive, because progressive/conservative terminology is about political philosophy/ideology, not about conservation. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive politician who also was a conservator of nature.
How could you ban political speech without some kind of Act under the guise of keeping Kids Safe Online?
Actually holding platforms accountable for hate speech and propagating dangerous misinfo would solve 90% of the problem. Some shitty guy self hosting his Nazi rants was never the problem. It’s a problem when he’s allowed to push his content directly to users unprompted.
Believe it or not people hated minorities and drank bleach before social media, they just weren’t on the front page.
Have we tried putting them on a boat and sending on to find the next continent? If we did that, I might start celebrating Columbus day!
G’day mate.
Yeah, several times. The colonies of every major recent empire were essentially formed this way. It sounds good on paper, but it ends up just being harborage for conservatism.
Self-built echo chambers are not something to be proud of; we know those are unhealthy.
There is a whole world of political opinions that aren’t American conservatism. You can have a diversity of opinions without indulging fascists.
Well, when it comes to politics in the United States versus the world, it seems to differ a good amount, not just with conservatism.
You can have a diversity of opinions without indulging fascists.
Yes, that would be ideal, but we must not forget people do come to the same conclusions without needing to be paid or tricked into thinking or viewing the world a certain way.
Propaganda does affect everyone; we all have our preferred sources of propaganda, even if we see ourselves as being above its reach.
This seems like one of the areas where LLM generative AI could actually be a good thing. It would not be difficult to have such a system desensationalize the media we consume. It’d still be propaganda, but it would largely be toothless. Propaganda relies heavily on appeals to our fears and other emotions. Put it through a sieve that filters most of that out and it becomes much less engaging.
Yes, echo chambers are not at all healthy.
According to neo-reactionaries, eventually socialists will become the new conservatives. 1Dime talks about this. Crazy stuff.
TIL
First I am hearing about this narrative.
I see it as some socialists becoming communists over time, or they give in to the status quo, like AOC and Bernie Sanders.
Thanks for the link. I will have to make time to watch it; it looks like a weird and interesting viewpoint!
Generated Summary:
This YouTube video features a discussion between the host of 1Dime Radio and Michael Downs, author of “Capital VS Timenergy: A Žižekian Critique of Nick Land,” about accelerationism, focusing on the ideas of Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), and the challenges of right-wing accelerationism. The conversation also explores “Timeenergy” as a basis for socialism and whether socialism might become a “conservative” movement against the accelerating change of capitalism.
Main Topics:
- Accelerationism: Exploring the philosophies of Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin, particularly their contributions to accelerationist thought.
- Neoreaction (NRx): Discussing the core tenets of neoreactionary ideology and its connection to figures like Mencius Moldbug.
- Capitalism and Artificial Intelligence: Examining Nick Land’s thesis that capitalism is inherently geared towards the development of AI.
- “Timenergy”: Introducing and discussing the concept of “Timenergy” (Time + Energy) as a potential foundation for socialist thought.
- Left vs. Right Accelerationism: Differentiating between left and right-wing approaches to accelerationism.
Key Points:
- Michael Downs’ Background: Downs is presented as a working-class intellectual and autodidact philosopher.
- Nick Land’s Philosophy: Downs provides a detailed breakdown of Nick Land’s philosophical evolution, dividing it into six periods:
- Early Land: Focus on Denal Materialism, influenced by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Bataille, and Deleuze & Guattari.
- Mid-90s: Theory-fiction era, emphasizing capitalism as an engine of decoding and deterritorialization, leading to AI production.
- CCRU Period: Experimental philosophy collective, exploring the occult and the power of “hypers” (fictions becoming real through hype).
- Shanghai Period: Focus on mega-cities as accelerants of AI development.
- Neoreactionary Period: Embracing neoreactionary ideas alongside Curtis Yarvin, advocating for “SOV Corps” (Sovereign Corporations) and anti-democracy.
- Bitcoin Period: Interest in Bitcoin and its technological potential.
- Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug): Discussed as a key figure in the neoreactionary movement, advocating for corporate city-states.
- Critique of Democracy: Both Land and Yarvin are portrayed as being critical of democracy, favoring alternative governance models.
- AI and the Left: The discussion highlights a perceived lack of engagement with AI on the left, with many leftists dismissing its significance.
- Marxist Interpretation of AI: Downs argues that Nick Land offers a unique and valuable perspective on AI by analyzing it through a Marxist lens, emphasizing its connection to the structure of the economy.
- China and Capitalism: The conversation touches on China’s success with capitalism, particularly in the field of AI, attributing it to a Marxist understanding of surplus value extraction.
Highlights:
- The Nick Land vs. Žižek Debate: The video opens with a preview of a discussion about the potential debate between Nick Land and Slavoj Žižek.
- Downs’ Meeting with Žižek: Downs recounts his experience of having breakfast with Slavoj Žižek at a conference.
- The CCRU’s Experimentation: The discussion of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) and their exploration of theory-fiction, drugs, and the occult is a notable highlight.
- Land’s Influence on Working-Class Perceptions of AI: Downs shares anecdotes about how his working-class coworkers express views on AI that align with Nick Land’s pessimistic predictions.
- Land’s Marxist Perspective: The video emphasizes that Land’s unique contribution is his Marxist analysis of AI, linking its development to the structure of the capitalist economy.
Imagine a world where news was balanced and progressives had equal media representation.
looks like cool discussion downwind but why should we even argue about what is “conservative”
you’re interested in conserving resources? you got some canned food in your cubbard? you tried to teach your kid whatever bullshit you thought was important from your folks? BOOM you’re a Filthy Conservative.
I’m interested in conserving the word “cupboard”
damn swear i knew some one on the internet would come after for that
you’re not wrong though
Old Mother Hubbard glares disapprovingly
some individual should explain to her about phonetic spelling and it’s all irrelevant, as long as you understand the context and hopefully the nuance
I think about the Soviet Union and communism and whatnot. I think your concept of liberal and conservative really set in a modern period. So now it means something totally different than what it used to mean. Liberals are not liberals, and conservatives are not conservatives, in the modern era in America. Like you might not agree with a European conservative, but they’re not absolutely horrible, unlike the ultra far right in Europe as well as here in America. Now that might all change due to how much the establishment turns up the volume and the mass hysteria kicks in though. I’m coming from a sociological point of head space, mindset. In regards to America’s liberal and conservative i see both as reactionary. America is one of the most propagandized populations in the world. We’re like a mixture of North Korea and Disneyland without your wallet. An open-air prison where everybody’s gaslighting the fuck out of you. The show must go on, remember to smile. to elaborate further, I think maybe it’s always been like this and it just has to do with the bread getting short and the rise of right-wing populism. I think all of this lives on like a spectrum. I just think of Mass hysteria. The Masters know how to fuck with our heads. Like I’m gonna hide underneath my fucking desk to keep myself safe from a nuclear bomb. Fucking ridiculous.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mom about Trump taking away Social Security. She said it was impossible and we wouldn’t let him do it. And I told her, not only would we let him do it, but after the media gets finished, we’d be browbeating those that complained about it ending. It’s ridiculous how Americans have adapted to tolerating the most abhorrent shit. Like, healthcare, minimum wage, “right to work “ states, etc.
Like you might not agree with a European conservative, but they’re not absolutely horrible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
Really? We would be better after blocking quite the range of views we don’t like?
not the views we don’t like, but the ones that cause harm and suffering for western societies.
“Ones that cause harm and suffering” is subjective though.
Blocking online content, even ones we don’t like, is a slippery slope
i believe it can be objective. i believe neuroscience has the ability to quantify suffering. i believe if we spent more time studying neuroscience and the health of a society, this could all be feasible.
i agree that censorship of things we ‘don’t like’ is not a society i want to live in. i just think that there are objective answers to what now seems like vague questions.
You may believe it cna be objective but believing that isn’t enough.
it takes will and research and development.
And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?
And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?
as i said to the previous poster, “i believe neuroscience has the ability to quantify suffering.”
i speak of western cultures because we are so obsessed with individual liberty that we will be the hardest to convince that some censorship in the interest of promoting a healthy society is possible and needed.
And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?
As in all conservative opinions.
No, just the views that are constant lies
Conservatism in the use has nothing to do with actual conservative thoughts, quite the opposite, really. It’s just a cover for the rich to steal from, and control the poor.
Ant conservative media in the use today is just one large stream of lies, lies, lies. Anything to keep you distracted from the fact that they’re stealing the coffers empty, anything to keep you so angry about “the others” that you wo t even consider talking to them to realise that you’ve been played
So you mean misinformation, not conservatism.
Yep, but right now those two are mostly the same, and constant. Especially in the us
Yeah, mostly. The fact that they aren’t exactly the same and aren’t synonymous is why makes this meme post stink of censorship imo.
It’s censorship for sure, but I’d dare to argue that not all levels of censorship are bad
Ok… but the level described in this meme is the bad one (aka absolute censorship).
No, we can block just conservative media, thanks.
Great. Let’s solve all the problems with censorship! That totally works and totally addresses the root cause rather than the symptoms.
The douchevoters are really trying to bury you on this but I agree with you. It’s kind of stunning how many people who sincerely believe they’re progressive and enlightened share the conservative faith in a Daddy who will beat up the bad guys for them and keep the bad stuff away.
And to top it off: banning conservatives from social media WILL NOT have the effect they think. It will backfire.
state sponsored censorship is bad
That’s why you don’t do censorship with right wing traitor lunatics. You ban their media and execute them.
