[k4c9x]

Unfortunately, I think, "conservative" has become nearly synonymous with bad faith arguments, blatant lies, racism, libel, violence, and other bad things no one really complains about being "censored" unless it's framed as a conservative ideal, or said by a self-proclaimed conservative.

I personally know plenty of people that are conservative that can have intriguing discussion about small government, personal freedoms, right to bear arms, etc, without even hinting at any of the bad things. But, at least lately, I don't see many (any?) conservative politicians, "leaders", or pundits that don't lean on those bad things rather heavily.

The problem with building a personal identity on words is that words have different meaning in peoples minds based on event and actions that happen in the name of those words, doesn't matter what it says in Merriam-Webster.

So, I think, if you identify as any label, reality requires that you immediately and strongly denounce the things done in it's name that you think shouldn't be. Not only do I not see much denouncing of those things going on in self-proclaimed conservative circles, I see them being actively excused and even doubled down on.

Seems a bit late to turn the word back around, if that's actually what "conservatives" want, probably time to find a new word and protect it's meaning a strongly as possible.

[insickness]

In the great controversies, only the simplest of minds can believe one side is wrong. If you think the word 'conservative' or 'liberal' is synonymous with bad arguments, then you've spent too much time in echo chambers. There are very good and interesting arguments to be made for and against each side and plenty of terrible people on both sides who can be held up as bad examples. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth.

[k4c9x]

So, in short, I'm stupid, you're smart, and "both sides".

Terrible is a very broad word. Who's terrible? Why are they terrible? How are their terrible actions addressed by their own? Are they held personally accountable, or handed a position of power?

Truth doesn't have a side, it's objective. It's not always completely knowable, but there are some great tools for knowing when you're nowhere near it, or someone is attempting to prevent you from heading towards it. I apply those tools often and one side has proven semi-reliable, the other not only completely unreliable, but an active hindrance.

[llamaz]

How do you know truth is objective? Without a doubt it's true in hard science, e.g. chemistry and biology.

But by the time you get to social science, economics, politics, and ethics I think we're closer to the dark ages than we like to admit. In the dark ages religion was taken as objective truth, but in the present that doesn't work because people think religion exists to "trick" them or gain political power.

It's possible that we extend the authority that science has in the fundamental sciences to areas where it is not as effective without justification. The free marketeers always touted their view of objective science as dispassionate, objective science. Similarly, everything from the marshmellow test to the left-vs-right brain (creative vs logical) has been debunked, or at the very least been called into serious question due to a reproducibility crises in psychology and similar disciplines.

We really live in a HP lovecraft-esque world, where we understand almost nothing, and are controlled by powers beyond human understanding and control. This idea is something that naturally repels the human mind, and those who profess such a view are treated as being deficient if not mentally ill (external locus of control, anxious/depressive).

The reason Nietzsche is so revered but Schopenhauer is not, is that Nietzsche offers a hopeful "way out" of this crisis with his nonsense idea of the overman, while Schopenhauer is more disciplined and stops at pessimism. The latter is attacked as bourgeois, and as being a hypocrite, while the male chauvinism and other negative character traits of Nietzsche are overlooked.

[k4c9x]

Truth: The body of real things, events, and facts.

This is me immediately and strongly denounce the things done in the name of "truth" that I think shouldn't be. I said "It's not always completely knowable".

You're turning the conversation towards fringe cases of "truth" when I'm talking about simple shit like claiming the sky is falling when I can just look out the window and clearly see that it is, in fact, not.