[tstrimple]

We live in a largely more accepting world that somehow exists in the same timeframe as "empathy is a sin". No matter how far we come as a society, there will always be people looking to "Make X Great Again" regardless of how great or not X ever was. Unfortunately humanity cannot rest on its laurels. No matter how much we advance as a civilization there will always be a conservative somewhere looking to pull up the ladder or cut off support. Ultimately looking for a way to game the system and deny benefits to others. It's quite amazing that we can look back on all the advances humanity has made in the last few centuries and can clearly see conservatives opposing all of it and somehow still rationalize conservatism as just some other process to achieve the same goals through other means. Yet at every major inflection point in our country conservatism has been the fucking enemy. They have been wrong. Every. Single. Time. When conservatives rebelled against the country and decided to start their own so they could maintain slavery, they were wrong. When conservatives fought against women's suffrage. They were wrong. When conservatives fought against civil rights. They were wrong. When conservatives fought against gay marriage. They were wrong. They have been wrong at literally every fucking important decision since their ideology was created during the French revolution. It's beyond time we stop pretending they have some insights worth listening to or some valuable lessons to convey and treat them as the enemies of humanity that they actually are.

[robertlagrant]

You've mis-defined "conservative" to mean "everyone who lost in history".

[rbanffy]

“Conservatives” yearn for an idealised version of something that has been, but that is no more. In that, they are the very definition of sore losers.

[robertlagrant]

You've done it too.

[rbanffy]

Can you elaborate on that?

[robertlagrant]

Well, you've mis-defined conservatives.

[reissbaker]

Ironically, this is the least empathetic message in this thread.

You're also wrong: there were plenty of "anti-war protestors" during the Holocaust, who lost, and were wrong; plenty of radical feminists who were (and are) anti-trans; and the idea that the American Revolution was primarily about maintaining slavery has been debunked — for one thing, it was often led by Northeners who had already banned slavery. (The 1619 Project eventually conceded and issued corrections.) Environmentalist groups in the 70s doomed the planet by making it near-impossible to build nuclear energy in the US, and then later drove the US into spiraling inequality by making it near-impossible to build enough housing. Opposing eugenics was once a conservative opinion, whereas the "science" of eugenics was favored by academia — and most of the suffragettes! The largest anti-eugenics movement came from the Catholic Church.

Of course, new ideas that were better than old ideas usually came from people now termed "progressive" — the term is self-defining (if it wasn't "progress" no one would look back and call it "progressive.") But plenty of bad ideas have also come draped in the cloaks of people who term themselves progressive, and opposed by people who at the time were termed conservative: it's only in retrospect that we rewrite the people in the wrong as not-progressive, and consider the people then termed conservative as the true-progressives. Ultimately most people want good things for most people, and mainly argue — sometimes vociferously, and acrimoniously — about what the best way for that to happen is.

[wizzwizz4]

It seems to me there are two types of conservatism: concern about a change to society that does not have a clear evidential basis (which I'll call "small-c conservatism"), and a desire for other people to not have nice things (which I'll call "capital-C Conservatism").

If you read early radfems' complaints about trans women, you'll see concerns about men infiltrating the burgeoning movement to subvert or destroy its ability to effect much-needed substantial societal improvements for women. Nowadays, internet access and 10 minutes can disabuse you of this notion – but in the past, you'd have to have talked to an out, activist trans woman (who would often adhere to a different school of feminism to you, which if anything is evidence that she is dangerous to the Cause!) or had the right zines circulated to your doorstep (not really an option until the 90s, by which time it was generally understood that Transphobia Bad, the debate was about to what extent trans women's experiences were central to the Cause ("only tangentially" versus "in every respect"), and everyone knew you could pick up a Judith Butler book from your local library), to receive evidence to the contrary.

Likewise, the Catholic Church's conservative opposition to eugenics: they raised concerns about the human rights of those subject to eugenics practices, and later added secular arguments as justification. Contrast their opposition to trans people, which is… theologically confusing, to say the least: the existence of trans people "erases differences" (Galatians 3:28), distorts the image of God (Genesis 2:22), and (I seem to remember one bishop claiming) has already killed God… somehow. (Perhaps Pontius Pilate was secretly transgender? (This is me being silly.)) The justifications are all over the place, as is characteristic of post-hoc rationalisations of Conservative bigotry: replace the vague unevidenced claims about God with vague unevidenced claims about "nature", and the Catholic claims become the same rubbish as TERF claims. (Obligatory note: many Catholics do hold coherent views on this topic: I'm talking about the overarching organisation, not the people, or even all parts of the organisation.)

Small-c conservatism is a strategy, and isn't right by accident: it's an application of the same principle as Chesterton's Fence. Capital-C Conservatism is about denying resources and happiness to perceived enemies, while harming them as much as you can rationalise while still calling yourself a good person. (There are no capital-C Conservative policies that do not involve hurting people, prohibiting social mobility, or restricting what kinds of people are allowed to exist: many of them can't possibly qualify as small-c conservative policies, because they're only "conserving" an imagined past. Anti-immigrant sentiment in North America is one example: https://xkcd.com/84/.)

To undrape the cloak, we can look at how people talk about their ideas, and how they respond to criticism. (And remember not to focus on those calling themselves "conservative". Many "progressives" are actually capital-C Conservative, with a different – but no less harmful – idealised-state-of-nature: many modern-day eugenicists work in autism "charities", promoting "progressive" torture "therapies".) Unfortunately, this does not tell us which ideas are good, and which are bad: to find that out, you have to look at reality, not study rhetoric.

Most people may want good things for most people, but many people wilfully delude themselves about what "good things" means. Those, perhaps more so than the liars, are the dangerous ones.

[ryandv]

> It seems to me there are two types of conservatism: concern about a change to society that does not have a clear evidential basis (which I'll call "small-c conservatism"), and a desire for other people to not have nice things (which I'll call "capital-C Conservatism").

False dichotomy [0]. Basically a bunch of sophistry to say "all conservatism is bad."

> the existence of trans people "erases differences" (Galatians 3:28),

You can't just quote the Bible without providing a translation, and I can find no translation with this wording. I would suggest that you refrain from commenting upon other cultures that you are ignorant of, as this is a form of cultural appropriation at best, and active bigotry at worst.

Same with your supposed "quotations" of Genesis 2.

> Capital-C Conservatism is about denying resources and happiness to perceived enemies,

Apply principle of charity [1].

> [...] while harming them as much as you can rationalise while still calling yourself a good person.

> Many "progressives" are actually capital-C Conservative, with a different – but no less harmful – idealised-state-of-nature: many modern-day eugenicists work in autism "charities", promoting "progressive" torture "therapies".)

On this we can agree - I don't actually see much difference between progressives and conservatives; they all fall prey to religious and superstitious thinking. All this self-aggrandizement about how diverse and inclusive one is, all the moralizing and ethical high-horsing, is really just a series of magic incantations the progressive chants to themselves to "psychologically manage the results of living in a materially deeply unequal society," [2] without actually needing to do anything about the material reality. Not so different from the way the sinner takes a dunk in a bathtub of water and is now "born again, free from sin," doesn't take the Lord's name in vain, uses gender-neutral pronouns, and wears a crucifix or a Pride flag - take your pick of religious idol.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[2] Liam Kofi Bright, "White Psychodrama." https://philpapers.org/archive/BRIWP.pdf

[wizzwizz4]

> You can't just quote the Bible without providing a translation,

The quotation was from Pope Francis. The Bible reference (one of Saint Paul's letters) was me being facetious. Same with the Genesis reference: transphobic Catholics cite Genesis 1, but if you try to interpret Genesis 2 by the same logic, it says the opposite (and more definitively): the bigoted reading is eisegesis, and not even particularly good eisegesis.

For the record: I also think "my" reading of Genesis 2:22 is eisegesis. Very little of the Bible has to do with trans people specifically. Those passages of the Old Testament which do are best interpreted by an Orthodox rabbi, since they can't really be understood out of context (which hardly anyone else bothers with learning); and the few things Jesus is recorded as having said about trans people (that is, people who'd fall under the modern umbrella category "transgender") were positive; but trans people have little spiritual significance in the major Abrahamic religions (as compared to, say, Hinduism) and aren't major characters of any of the narratives, so there was little reason to say much about them (until the Talmud, which has rulings about a lot of uncommon situations, such as the appropriate treatment of many minority groups – but dates to after Christianity's split from Judaism and isn't really regarded by Christians).

This specific example wasn't my point. The Catholic Church is one of the few organisations in reissbaker's comment that's been around long enough to have taken a strong stance on two of the topics mentioned in the comment. (And I don't know enough about their take on slavery to neatly categorise it as small-c conservatism or capital-C Conservatism: from what little I know, it seems more like Realpolitik.)

> Apply principle of charity

That is me being charitable. There are harsher ways to apply "the purpose of a system is what it does", here.

[ryandv]

I don't take medical or vaccination advice from layman podcasts on X; nor will I accept your eisegesis as anything other than incoherent, unless you happen to have a degree in theology with fluency in most of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

>> Apply principle of charity

> That is me being charitable. There are harsher ways to apply "the purpose of a system is what it does", here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith