Society/Culture Progressives, what is the most conservative belief you hold? And vice-versa for conservatives?

[Number37]

What land has the usa claimed as their own in latin america beyond a tiny island?

before the usa started protecting borders after world war 2 countries borders changed all the time. Like all the time. The lack of appreciation of how the usa changed the world for the better post world war 2 is astounding. Invasion used to be the norm.

What land has the USA claimed as their own in Afghanistan or Iraq?
None.
Did they invade Afghanistan and Iraq?
Yes.

The US military invaded Central and South America and never left, and will never leave.
99% of the troubles of the Central and South American peoples are caused by the presence of the US military.
Drugs, guns......

 

[Gethelred]

I'm going to remind people that this thread was a thread for civil discussion earlier. I'd appreciate it if we all returned to that from here.

Commentary that is designed to deride will be deleted or infracted from here.

If you cannot post politely, this might not be the thread for you.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

In any society, there sits at between 1-5% of people who cannot work. This group includes both those who physically cannot do it - for whatever reason - and those that will not, regardless of how poor or weak it makes them. Placing these people in programs like WFTD is actively worse for the companies that run those programs; they now have to actively monitor those people almost on a case by case basis and watch them every moment of their time there, to ensure they're doing something and not actively doing something to make things harder.

These people, by and large, simply want to get left alone. Most of them are tremendously unhappy, and a large percentage of them have substantial mental health conditions, most of which go untreated because when you're dirt poor getting help is butting up against a system designed to force you into work.

Now, while I understand that you know someone who is genuinely just lazy, the question cannot be 'how do we catch Cryptkeeper's family member who's just lazy'; we have a wider responsibility than that.

The question needs to be: do we as a society owe anything to those people who cannot work? Do we completely cut them off and let them rot? Do we provide for them? What do we do about the fact that the traits society values has not selected in their favour, to the point of near complete exclusion?

To what extent do the priorities of a capitalist mindset and the protestant work ethics' effects over a now much more secular society triumph over the more empathetic requirement to not see someone else - someone elses' father, mother, child - go hungry or without clothing or without shelter?

When you say 'cut them off', what do you mean?

Great post and I am conflicted by my position, most definitely.

I have no problem with my taxes funding the genuinely unemployable, those with mental health issues and so on. I have big issues with those who milk the system and can dodge the law in the process. And I have no idea what the answer is but I’d prefer to fund a school or hospital than pay lazy people to sit on the couch.

Most are genuine, it’s those who have no reason not to do their best to look for work that piss me off.

 

[Cooldude]

My most "conservative" view point is that current trans issue is merely a distraction to bigger issues. I believe trans people shouldn't be hounded and be in danger of their lives, but they are like less than 1% of the population, it is comparatively a niche issue compare to unprecedented inflation, cost of living and climate crisis. Yet the media would have you believe it's like the most important issue right now, which makes me believe it's just a "look over there"

 

[O Grobbecker]

Progressive or conservative ? Run up a flag and see who salutes ?

 

[evolved2]

My most "conservative" view point is that current trans issue is merely a distraction to bigger issues.

Conspiracy theory.

I believe trans people shouldn't be hounded and be in danger of their lives,

Lol.

but they are like less than 1% of the population, it is comparatively a niche issue compare to unprecedented inflation, cost of living and climate crisis. Yet the media would have you believe it's like the most important issue right now, which makes me believe it's just a "look over there"

Lol.

 

[Cap]

My most "conservative" view point is that current trans issue is merely a distraction to bigger issues. I believe trans people shouldn't be hounded and be in danger of their lives, but they are like less than 1% of the population, it is comparatively a niche issue compare to unprecedented inflation, cost of living and climate crisis. Yet the media would have you believe it's like the most important issue right now, which makes me believe it's just a "look over there"

I mean, you just triggered every RWNJ on the site.

It's important to those impacted, but not 99.9% who feel the need to add their 2c of bile (with inflation that's what 20c now? ).

What is true is the focus should be on the topics you talk about, because you can actually make inroads on those. Inflation and cost of living looks like an easy win for a conservative party looking for inroads in the next election.

 

[Todman]

Abortion.

I don't object to abortion but.....

I disagree with late term abortion.

I can't believe that a woman will happily carry a fetus to term (38 weeks) and then decide on a whim to kill it.
The woman doesn't need an abortion but support therapy for mental health.

 

[Todman]

3. I was filthy about China’s One Child Policy - that they relaxed it. At the very least China should have received carbon credits and acknowledged for its efforts to stem population growth.

China's one child policy has lead to future a population collapse. There will be only 500 million of them in 50 years. It's now cultural that urban women over there will only want one child if at all. Many are now so materialistic that they don't want kids because they rather have consumer goods.

 

[Gethelred]

Abortion.

I don't object to abortion but.....

I disagree with late term abortion.

I can't believe that a woman will happily carry a fetus to term (38 weeks) and then decide on a whim to kill it.
The woman doesn't need an abortion but support therapy for mental health.

Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them

The reasons why people may seek out late-term abortions are complex and are often based on new medical information and delays caused by state policies.

theconversation.com

... data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that less than 1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks of pregnancy.

One woman I interviewed, for example, explained that she needed an abortion following a diagnosis at 29 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus’s brain was not developing. Because a great deal of fetal brain development happens after the 24th week of pregnancy, there was no way to diagnose this problem earlier...

Sometimes, the new information people learn is simply the fact that they are pregnant. For instance, I interviewed a woman with several chronic medical conditions. Her treatment caused many of the symptoms commonly associated with pregnancy. After years of an irregular menstrual period, regular weight fluctuations, chronic nausea and at least weekly vomiting, she did not recognize any symptoms of pregnancy until she was 26 weeks pregnant. Her medical conditions made continuing the pregnancy a health risk for her, and besides that, she never wanted to have a baby.

Other people I interviewed were delayed in getting care when they first wanted an abortion, illustrating the second pathway to needing a third-trimester abortion. Typically, these delays are caused by policies, such as bans on public insurance coverage of abortion, which are legal under court rulings that followed Roe v. Wade.

Indeed, several women I spoke with had public insurance and lived in states that prohibited public insurance coverage of abortion, forcing them to pay out of pocket for abortion care. Already financially struggling, they could not afford an abortion when they first wanted one. By the time they came up with enough money, they were in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Other women described barriers that weren’t directly related to policy. One young woman, for example, was so afraid that her parents would judge her for becoming pregnant and wanting an abortion that she took no action toward getting the abortion. By the time she felt able to confide in her brother, who was able to get her an appointment for an abortion, she was in the third trimester of pregnancy.

I think there's a fair bit of assumption that goes on in these conversations when the participants are men, in no small amount due to a potential to lack perspetive.

 

[Todman]

Abortion.

I don't object to abortion but.....

I disagree with late term abortion.

I can't believe that a woman will happily carry a fetus to term (38 weeks) and then decide on a whim to kill it.
The woman doesn't need an abortion but support therapy for mental health.

Maybe I should have made it clearer, A healthy fetus. Not one with issues.

 

[raskolnikov]

I tend to lean towards the left in social aspects but right in economic aspects. Someone on here said that there is no such things as a centrist but I consider myself one. Militantism from either side shits me.

 

[Gough]

It's difficult to be progressive socially if your economics enable greater inequality.

 

[raskolnikov]

It's difficult to be progressive socially if your economics enable greater inequality.

Not sure I agree with that. You can have social justice while still allowing those who work hard to be rewarded.

 

[Kram]

I tend to lean towards the left in social aspects but right in economic aspects. Someone on here said that there is no such things as a centrist but I consider myself one. Militantism from either side shits me.

I'd say I'm similar.

And this joint is just gathering spot for simpleton barrackers with very few normal people around.

 

[Number37]

Not sure I agree with that. You can have social justice while still allowing those who work hard to be rewarded.

1/ For at least the last 50 years we haven't had "social justice while still allowing those who work hard to be rewarded".
A good example is the NDIS.
Hundreds of thousands of disabled people screaming out for help so that they can get a foot in the door to 'work hard and be rewarded'


2/ The gap between the haves and havenots is increasing exponentially.

 

[evolved2]

I'd say I'm similar.

And this joint is just gathering spot for simpleton barrackers with very few normal people around.

Do we still have any simpleton RW barrackers on the SRP? I think they vacated this place long ago. Not so sure you can say the same about some extreme LW nutters who've found a home here.

 

[cartwright]

Do we still have any simpleton RW barrackers on the SRP? I think they vacated this place long ago. Not so sure you can say the same about some extreme LW nutters who've found a home here.

They’re centrists who now post on the conspiracy board

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Do we still have any simpleton RW barrackers on the SRP? I think they vacated this place long ago. Not so sure you can say the same about some extreme LW nutters who've found a home here.

They are still here, probably got you on ignore.

 

[FireKrakouer]

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Im centre left but I still believe in minimal censorship and free speech.

 

[Gethelred]

Absolutely but do you think forcing it upon a religion that is strictly and vehemently opposed to it is the right thing?

Yes, although I'm willing to be convinced that it isn't.

If you want to be included within society - and to take advantage of the benefits of that society - you trade away certain freedoms that you would otherwise have. If I don't like my housemate Ted, I do not get to murder or drive Ted away from my house and improve my life because there are adverse consequences for having done so. If I do not like religious observance - and I don't - I do not get to declare it unwelcome within the Australian state. But by the same token, religion need make allowances for the needs of a wider society, and one of those allowances is through the acknowledgement of other forms of existence than a purely religious observance of doctrine.

To note that sometimes men are attracted to other men, women are attracted to other women, and either can be born in the wrong body or simply do not feel as though either of the binary is them is merely an expression of reality. Trans and nonbinary people do not affect anyone other than themselves when they transition or inform people about their identities; they simply wish to be acknowledged for who they are. If someone calls you by a name that is not your own, you correct them; if your name is Billy and someone calls you William, you correct them.

Why would the same not be expected of someone who is a man asking to be referred to as a man?

To bring it back to the specific observance of education, there is a mandate within wider society for universal education. This places responsibility for education in government hands, and government therefore gets to decide what is taught. I do not agree with the entire curriculum, but I do with the aspect you're asking me about on the basis that teaching is - in a lot of ways - compelled empathy. You need to care for your students, and you need to learn aspects of their personalities their peculiarities to teach them in the way that suits them. You maintain a narrow path between being an advocate and an instructor, and in order to do that you need to know them. And some of your students will be LGBQTIA+.

I went to a Catholic private school. From graduating class, we had a single student 'out' while he was at school; after graduation, we now have around 20.

Limiting their expression, constraining who they can be, making them feel excluded is detrimental to their outcomes.

 

[HAPPY CHEFFY]

Yes, although I'm willing to be convinced that it isn't.

If you want to be included within society - and to take advantage of the benefits of that society - you trade away certain freedoms that you would otherwise have. If I don't like my housemate Ted, I do not get to murder or drive Ted away from my house and improve my life because there are adverse consequences for having done so. If I do not like religious observance - and I don't - I do not get to declare it unwelcome within the Australian state. But by the same token, religion need make allowances for the needs of a wider society, and one of those allowances is through the acknowledgement of other forms of existence than a purely religious observance of doctrine.

To note that sometimes men are attracted to other men, women are attracted to other women, and either can be born in the wrong body or simply do not feel as though either of the binary is them is merely an expression of reality. Trans and nonbinary people do not affect anyone other than themselves when they transition or inform people about their identities; they simply wish to be acknowledged for who they are. If someone calls you by a name that is not your own, you correct them; if your name is Billy and someone calls you William, you correct them.

Why would the same not be expected of someone who is a man asking to be referred to as a man?

To bring it back to the specific observance of education, there is a mandate within wider society for universal education. This places responsibility for education in government hands, and government therefore gets to decide what is taught. I do not agree with the entire curriculum, but I do with the aspect you're asking me about on the basis that teaching is - in a lot of ways - compelled empathy. You need to care for your students, and you need to learn aspects of their personalities their peculiarities to teach them in the way that suits them. You maintain a narrow path between being an advocate and an instructor, and in order to do that you need to know them. And some of your students will be LGBQTIA+.

I went to a Catholic private school. From graduating class, we had a single student 'out' while he was at school; after graduation, we now have around 20.

Limiting their expression, constraining who they can be, making them feel excluded is detrimental to their outcomes.

And if they staunchly & continually refuse what you’re insisting upon them can they be forced to accept it in this western/democratic style of society without breaking our own ideology?

 

[Gethelred]

And if they staunchly & continually refuse what you’re insisting upon them?

I agree with the government mandate for inclusion. If they staunchly and continuously refuse to follow a government mandate, they'll lose their status as an education provider. This has consequences: the students registered there cannot remain there, as they need to be enrolled in school; they lose funding; they have to return school fees.

I'm not the one punishing/compelling their behaviour. Is that not clear from my posts?

You asked me if I agreed with this. I said yes, and provided my reasons for doing so. I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

And if they staunchly & continually refuse what you’re insisting upon them can they be forced to accept it in this western/democratic style of society without breaking our own ideology?

Ah, that's one hell of an interesting edit. Changes the complexion of what came before, and more than a little reveals the reasons behind the dance you've led me through.

Understand: if they want to provide education in Australia, they must do this. There's no flexibility within law which allows for ethical consideration within curriculum; if there was, certain christian schools would provide creationism within science classes as biology. There is no breaking our own ideology here. The other side of it is, they are accepting it. Notice, there are multiple Islamic schools in Australia that have not lost their licenses as education providers.

Then there's the third thing: have you ever spoken to a muslim about the Taliban, Cheffy?

I have. I've never met a muslim in Australia who was in favour of them; if they were in favour of them, why in absolute * would they be here and not there? I've never met a muslim in favour of Sharia law, because - and let's make this abundantly clear - Sharia law sucks for everyone who isn't a cleric or religiously inclined.

If you're intimating or have been trying to get me to say that there's irreconcilable differences between Islamic religious expression and democracy, you're pretty wrong.

 

[HAPPY CHEFFY]

I agree with the government mandate for inclusion. If they staunchly and continuously refuse to follow a government mandate, they'll lose their status as an education provider. This has consequences: the students registered there cannot remain there, as they need to be enrolled in school; they lose funding; they have to return school fees.

I'm not the one punishing/compelling their behaviour. Is that not clear from my posts?

You asked me if I agreed with this. I said yes, and provided my reasons for doing so. I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

It’s just very confusing how our society first welcome them as they are, with open arms on one hand but then on the other hand want them to abandon their core principles later on if they choose not to conform, even using laws and politics to assert this which they weren’t first instructed to obey.

What I mean is I would safely say the Islamic population would be considerably smaller in the west if they were told initially that they had to teach the LGBTQ theories and accept the community but that would mean a draconian level of immigration standards to apply and enforce on these people when relocating into a western country.

Instead at the moment they are assimilated first and then told to obey later which is destined to lead to some very messy problems in my opinion.

I think religion will forever be at loggerheads with progressive politics no matter what is proposed.