This image captures the very essence of the Conservative message.

Liberals are always talking about change. Change this, change that. What are you changing to? Do you even know? Do you even care? Some changes are good and necessary. Other changes are disastrous.

Changing from liberty to tyranny is despicable and that is exactly the change that the Democrats are forcing on us. And they sell it as positive and all of their simple minded voters just follow along like good little sheep to the slaughter.

Wake up and stop preaching the idea of change as if you are promoting something better. You're not. Freedom works just fine for me. Changing it is idiotic.

Liberals are always talking about change. Change this, change that.
>> Progressives, actually. Liberalism in reference to the rights of the individual and self-identity don't care for conservatism or progressivism. The antithesis of liberalism is authoritarianism. But, for the sake of clarity in this conversation, we'll refer to them as liberals.
What are you changing to? Do you even know? Do you even care?
>> As liberals, we don't care what each person changes into - provided it does not infringe on the rights of another. (You and I both know that Roe v Wade is another issue entirely, so let's just put a pin in that extremely long conversation).
Some changes are good and necessary. Other changes are disastrous.
>> Puritans are the embodiment of the conservative ideology. Which, is why our country tends to blush at topics surrounding sex, especially in the classroom. It is a trait that we've carried on through the generations. Slowly, over time, that has been eroding. It was progressive when divorces became normalized. It gave women more freedom in their lives. Men started to watch their behavior in other bedrooms and in their own.
Then, there's computer tech, robotic tech, software tech, medtech, etc. etc. I said earlier in a comment chain from which this image was derived that Conservatives have it rough in American politics.

Let me say that for the people in the back:

Conservatives have a hard job in American politics. They are pretty much the only braking system against societal change. In a society where everything is changing so rapidly, especially now that we're becoming all digitally connected, as a collective species, we're not able to keep up with what we're doing. It's all reaction off reaction.

Changing from liberty to tyranny is despicable and that is exactly the change that the Democrats are forcing on us. And they sell it as positive and all of their simple minded voters just follow along like good little sheep to the slaughter.
>> Sigh. Well this was a fun conversation. This is so much more complex than a political party versus another. Once you understand the mindset behind ethical/psychological conservatives, liberals, authoritarians, progressives, etc. you'll start to see there's a bigger issue people aren't taking time to stop and think about.

See, any form of law enforcement is intrinsically authoritarian.

(second page)

"Progressives, actually. Liberalism in reference to the rights of the individual and self-identity don't care for conservatism or progressivism. The antithesis of liberalism is authoritarianism. But, for the sake of clarity in this conversation, we'll refer to them as liberals."

Progressivism is a movement that started around the turn of the last century. It is a Marxist ideology. In the early 20th century Progressives openly and proudly praised Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler as men of the future. It started losing favor when the New York Times printed an article exposing Stalin as the homicidal maniac that he was. Later Americans found out about Hitler's atrocities (this was before he started exterminating Jews by the millions). Then when war broke out all but the die hard Progressives remained. To shift attention away from themselves they, knowing that fascism and Nazism was about a half a step to the right of socialism and communism, they pushed that off on the America right but that was never who the American right was. They weren't even the American right until the Progressives hijacked the name "liberal" to try to get people to believe that they were pro-liberty. They were so successful in mislabeling the American right that it is now taught in colleges and universities.

"As liberals, we don't care what each person changes into - provided it does not infringe on the rights of another."

No, that is just flat out wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of Libertarians but that is clearly not liberals. Liberals are all about telling you what you can and cannot do. It is all because they are trained into thinking that they have to "make a difference" and "something must be done". They have all of these campaigns to "change the world", to remake the world in their image. They don't care if it infringes on any one's rights at all. In fact if someone does not live up to the narrow liberal standards they lose their jobs. They try to justify it by saying they are making a better world.

The reason why libertarians don't call themselves liberals is because liberals have destroyed that word with their authoritarianism. The libertarian motto is "we want to take over the world and then leave you alone".

"Puritans are the embodiment of the conservative ideology. Which, is why our country tends to blush at topics surrounding sex, especially in the classroom"

Maybe you had somewhat of a valid point 50+ years ago when sex education was first was introduced to public schools. But what is happening now is trying to introduce sex to Kindergartners. Why? What is that about? Why is it "progressive" to take away parental rights?

"It was progressive when divorces became normalized. It gave women more freedom in their lives. Men started to watch their behavior in other bedrooms and in their own."

You are trying to make it sound like divorce is a good thing. I can understand divorce if there is an abusive spouse but divorce for just about any other reason, when there are children involved, is destructive to the children and society as a whole. It is not "freeing women", it is freeing men and women to neglect their children. Divorce is a tragedy not something to be proud of.

"Men started to watch their behavior in other bedrooms and in their own. "

It did nothing of the sort. It did the exact opposite. Not to mention the moral decline that is happening in society where people are increasingly becoming more and more narcissistic.

"Then, there's computer tech, robotic tech, software tech, medtech, etc. etc. I said earlier in a comment chain from which this image was derived that Conservatives have it rough in American politics."

Explain this. I am a conservative who is involved in computer technology as a career. What are you trying to say? Are you saying that conservatives are opposed to technology? Conservatives are the cause of technology. Do you think that all of this modern technology came from Progressives? It came about in spite of Progressives. Did you not pay attention when Steve Jobs said before he passed away that if he tried to start Apple at that time he couldn't have. That is because of all of the new laws that the Progressives have inflicted on the private sector.

"This is so much more complex than a political party versus another."

I can agree with that. It is more than party politics. There are a lot of people serving in the government who are Republicans that would be better off as Democrats. But the issue is not complex at all. It is tyranny vs liberty. It is the same old argument that has been with mankind since the beginning. Unfortunately for most of the history of mankind, tyranny has won.

Maybe you had somewhat of a valid point 50+ years ago when sex education was first was introduced to public schools. But what is happening now is trying to introduce sex to Kindergartners. Why? What is that about? Why is it "progressive" to take away parental rights?
>> The earlier you teach children about sex education, the less likely they are to be quiet about adults trying to or successfully molesting them. Of course, by this I am talking about a curriculum that focuses on topics like the human body, puberty, and healthy relationships.

"You are trying to make it sound like divorce is a good thing. I can understand divorce if there is an abusive spouse but divorce for just about any other reason, when there are children involved, is destructive to the children and society as a whole. It is not "freeing women", it is freeing men and women to neglect their children. Divorce is a tragedy not something to be proud of."
>> Of course, divorce should be taken more seriously when children are involved. It can be more destructive to the children to stay in relationships that no longer work as it grooms them to be abused by their future partners as the toxic relationship between the mother and father have been normalized for them. Divorce should always be a last resort. It's an added bonus that it costs money, requires legal proceedings and signatures. Speaking from experience, abuse may not be present in the parent's relationships, but parents who have a toxic relationship shouldn't stay connected for the sake of the children. That's really archaic thinking.

"Explain this. I am a conservative who is involved in computer technology as a career. What are you trying to say?"
>> I am talking about advances in AI, Robotics, Genetic Splicing, Cloning, etc. The conservative who values tradition and is averse to change stands opposed to these concepts. The progressive wants to bring them forward to add to society - in spite of the arguments presented whether they are valid or not.

"Are you saying that conservatives are opposed to technology?"
>> No, I am saying that the fundamental conservative is aversed to change.

"Conservatives are the cause of technology."
>> Perhaps some who were instrumental in their development may have identified conservative in major part but their actions in software/hardware development is not conservative within the context of this discussion - the fundamental ideology of conservatism which states that a conservative is --

1) averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
2) political context -- (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.

As I said, I am not referring to political conservatism but the fundamental (primary) definition of conservatism as an ideology that you seem to be conflating with political identity.

"Do you think that all of this modern technology came from Progressives?"
>> Like I said, I think you're conflating party identity with fundamental ideology. In the political movement of progressivism (the idea; ideology) not the political identity of progressivism (the people who claim to represent the movement) is defined as thus: As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization.

Take this as you will, but the act of developing the computer is intrinsically progressive. Since we're talking about Apple, you should watch the imitation game. The man who invented the first massive transistor board to make calculations to decrypt enigma was a homosexual (well, one of the members of the team involved in its development.) Social conservatives found out who he was and chemically castrated him for being a pervert.

"That is because of all of the new laws that the Progressives have inflicted on the private sector."
>> I wonder if they had to enact the laws so that conservatives would vote for them? I'm starting to see a pattern where Democrats in US Politics see a need that needs to be addressed. They propose bill after bill revision after revision but get shot down again and again. Let's look at public healthcare. Obama rolled out his ACA after many passes at the legislative branch. He didn't get everything he wanted in there, now people are mad because of how it works. One wonders if Obama had his bill as he envisioned it, would it have worked better? We can't know.

During the entirety of the Trump Presidency he said he had a health plan that he was designing. The one that he did offer as a plan was carbon copy the ACA - at the start of his presidency. After that, it was always "Two more weeks." He said it through the entirety of the pandemic too. But never offered anything.

So, do we criticize the Democrats for making a poorly designed system? Or do we praise them for getting SOMETHING done? As someone who suffers from chronic asthma---

I'm pretty sure this bill saved my life. I was able to afford the insurance I needed to make sure that I could breathe. For years since I had reached adulthood, I held a grudge against the government for permitting an economic system that makes me pay to breathe. I didn't choose to have asthma. And yet, to present day, I've heard some Republicans mention arguments along the lines of eugenics. That, if you are not meant to survive without medical care in this context, then who are we to argue with nature? Pretty interesting stuff, man.

So, in summation, what I see is that you're still making this about the definition of the people. I'm talking about the definition of the ideology and how it applies to people. The differences are nuanced but I assure you they exist and are important.

"Marxist." Always a red flag when someone brings it up in conversation because people treat him like a pariah when they haven't even read the first half of his first book. Yet, somehow he's bad because... someone else told them what they thought of him? What was Karl Marx's approach to establishing Capitalism as a viable economic model?

Then you go on to talk about how Progressives are the only people who praise Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, etc. until they find out what they were doing? Sounds responsible to me. I mean, Democrats today do that, they don't have issue with people until there's evidence without a doubt that points to wrongdoing. They realize who these people are and promptly ostracize them and they jump ship on those people. So you see, Cancel culture has been around for a long time, it's nothing new. This is the negative aspect of change. Change, as I said earlier is not intrinsically good or bad. It simply is. When people saw what these people were doing, they disagreed with their methods - justifiably so. However, that does not remove the fundamental principle of progressivism.

It's interesting you say that Americans hijacked the moniker "liberal" and then you go on to say that Nazis were half a step to the right of communism and socialism. If that were true, why did they put democratic socialists, communists, etc. in internment camps? Nazis were big on capitalism. Donno what you're talking about.

You go on to try to explain who and what Liberals are by painting them into an all-inclusive box despite the myriad of focuses within the political theatre, while at the same time not listing any examples. Just a lot of blanket statements and generalizations about ambiguous situations that take place. Can't really address something that you say nothing about.

So far, what I'm hearing is that liberals are people who disagree with you.

"Wake up and stop preaching the idea of change as if you are promoting something better. You're not. Freedom works just fine for me. Changing it is idiotic."

Change is in itself not intrinsically better. This isn't a tribalism issue, this is about understanding how ideologies work and interact with each other regarding American politics and understanding that each ideology serves a purpose. However, there's a problem with the system.

If conservatism is the only break against change, why is that? Why are other ideologies not interested in it, and how does this occur on a social level? I theorized that by and large, a majority of conservatives live in their own version of "gated" communities. Which, isn't to say that they are, but more that they are not as exposed to other cultures or ideologies outside of their own area. Of course, there is room for discussion with regard to conservatives in big cities and progressives in small towns etc. We can get to that later if you like.

However, with progressives, they're exposed to a great many more ideas living in their big cities, attending their schools that embrace cultural anthropology and diversity as something that can bring the best of all cultures represented and create an amalgamation of cultural traditions who the conservative does not recognize or value. The conservative is more concerned with tradition rather than the facts as there is a sentimental attachment to their traditions - which isn't wrong either. When I think about this, I start to understand the logic behind the conservative "White Replacement Theory" However, I still think that it is incorrect. We can talk about that later if you like.

The whole point of progressivism is sifting through iterations of societal and technological development is to sift through changes and to see what works and what doesn't. As a species, this is how we advance ourselves. Conservatives serve as the check and balance. So now, we reach the crux of the issue.

Because of the explosion in technology that has us changing in every single direction, conservatives have their back against a wall and are honestly overwhelmed. Because they have such difficult times getting traction in any direction to enact a slowdown of progress, they feel that our way of life is at risk. So, they turn to extremism. It isn't so much that the "left" is extreme, it's just that there's a lot of development going that way that is applying a lot of pressure.

I kinda feel bad'em tbqh.

Conservatives ALWAYS been like

Is america becoming nazi germany?

On the next Jerry Springer show

What are you talking about?