Stupid is as stupid does and stupidity votes Obama

[Asher]

Said the person whose last post was a brave defense against the encroaching tide of Luddism?

If it was obvious, no one would be voting for the assclowns who passed the DMCA.

I contribute something valuable to society but foreign to you: personality.

[Jaguar]

If it was obvious, no one would be voting for the assclowns who passed the DMCA.

That would be... our entire government.

[Asher]

Yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

MrFun is certainly not a radical. There is an important qualitative difference between him, and, say, Fake Boris.

I miss calling him Fake Boris. Why did we stop that?

[MRT144]

To me, the observation in favor of conservatism is that most systems and traditions are in place for a reason, and that reason was probably good at the time, and probably still is now, and that changing them is not likely to actually make things better. It's not always the case, of course--this is not a blanket statement. It seems to me that liberals tend to operate from the reverse hypothesis--if it's old, it's inherently archaic, and we need to change it.

I don't think that's the case at all.

1. the assertion that social systems in place are there for good reason therefore we must adhere to those same social systems at all times is pretty circular and is pretty subjective.
2. liberals operate on the notion of there being an ideal society that we can achieve through change. It's not a spiteful, old is bad, kind of thing. It's a "How can we make a better society that isn't bound by the same biases and limitations of our current world." You don't see many liberals advocating for the removal of democracy or republic, a many thousand year old form of government.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think that's the case at all.

1. the assertion that social systems in place are there for good reason therefore we must adhere to those same social systems at all times is pretty circular and is pretty subjective.
2. liberals operate on the notion of there being an ideal society that we can achieve through change. It's not a spiteful, old is bad, kind of thing. It's a "How can we make a better society that isn't bound by the same biases and limitations of our current world." You don't see many liberals advocating for the removal of democracy or republic, a many thousand year old form of government.

Democracy really isn't very old. The United States is for all intents and purposes the oldest democracy, and only had universal suffrage as late as the 20s.

That said, I think it's reasonable to say conservatives have more faith in the validity of incumbent systems and less faith that change will be positive. Liberals have more faith that there new ideas will work.

What bothers me is that many times, those new ideas are really old ideas (leftism in particular). And they've never worked.

[MRT144]

Democracy really isn't very old. The United States is for all intents and purposes the oldest democracy, and only had universal suffrage as late as the 20s.

That said, I think it's reasonable to say conservatives have more faith in the validity of incumbent systems and less faith that change will be positive. Liberals have more faith that there new ideas will work.

What bothers me is that many times, those new ideas are really old ideas (leftism in particular). And they've never worked.

Universal Suffrage might be young ~100 years old but my god, the concept of electing people to positions predates the discovery of the new world and the birth of christ.

[Lorizael]

It predates written history, really. HC is just defining democracy in a way that begins with the US. It's not an unreasonable definition, but it's clear that there have been elements of democracy for many, many thousands of years.

[giblets]

To me, the observation in favor of conservatism is that most systems and traditions are in place for a reason, and that reason was probably good at the time, and probably still is now, and that changing them is not likely to actually make things better. It's not always the case, of course--this is not a blanket statement. It seems to me that liberals tend to operate from the reverse hypothesis--if it's old, it's inherently archaic, and we need to change it.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, because societies in the past were very hierarchical and allowed very destructive institutions to be created for very selfish reasons, like, say, slavery. And technology has changed at a rapid pace, meaning a lot of traditions that made sense in the past are now obsolete and harmful. For example the invention of far better forms of contraception made traditional sexual norms obsolete. People shouldn't defer to what someone who lived hundreds of years ago thought because they lived in completely different circumstances and probably had an unpalatable bias anyway.

[Asher]

It predates written history, really. HC is just defining democracy in a way that begins with the US. It's not an unreasonable definition

Isn't it?

The first democracy was something like 500 BC, and it was even called "democracy".

To claim the US invented it is typical, though.

[MRT144]

It doesn't make a lot of sense, because societies in the past were very hierarchical and allowed very destructive institutions to be created for very selfish reasons, like, say, slavery. And technology has changed at a rapid pace, meaning a lot of traditions that made sense in the past are now obsolete and harmful. For example the invention of far better forms of contraception made traditional sexual norms obsolete. People shouldn't defer to what someone who lived hundreds of years ago thought because they lived in completely different circumstances and probably had an unpalatable bias anyway.

Stop pissing on ancient traditions out of spite you dirty liberal.

[Asher]

Stop pissing on ancient traditions out of spite you dirty liberal.

If it was good enough in the middle ages, it's good enough now.

[MRT144]

If it was good enough in the middle ages, it's good enough now.

If they weren't good enough for now, they would have never existed in the first place.

[Lorizael]

Isn't it?

The first democracy was something like 500 BC, and it was even called "democracy".

To claim the US invented it is typical, though.

You can argue that America's democracy is qualitatively different from (or more democratic than) Athen's democracy, but it's much harder to argue that Athens wasn't a democracy at all.

[Asher]

You can argue that America's democracy is qualitatively different from (or more democratic than) Athen's democracy, but it's much harder to argue that Athens wasn't a democracy at all.

Wait.

You can argue that America's electoral college system is more democratic than Athen's direct democracy? I'd like to see you try.