step into a closet or empty room

frequent bathroom breaks

hide it inside a notebook

switch the e-reader to dark mode and place the phone over another piece of similar-looking technology that you have a plausible reason to look at

Suffering doesn’t make one better. People are shitty by default and have to learn how to be better.

I don’t think I could become dictator at all, no.

Seriously, though, power corrupts. I’m not immune. Nor am I immune to being manipulated by those more evil than I, which is another big problem with concentrating power.

Just pick up a shift at work.

Chicago City Gov’t: Moderately unhappy in general, unhappy with my Alderman specifically.

Illinois State Gov’t: Very happy. Pritzker is amazing and I hope he doesn’t run for president because we need him here for a few more years to keep cleaning up these messes. I’m very unhappy with my State Representative specifically, but he runs unopposed in both primary and general so my options are limited. And by “unopposed” I mean he’s the stepson of my Alderman, the Alderman whose wife held the State Rep seat previously, and it’s a whole nepotism / Machine thing.

US Federal Gov’t: Very unhappy. You’ve read the news, you know why.

Yes. It would be stupid. You can always get married later if you change your mind, but for now focus on supporting her through the pregnancy and prepping to be good parent to the kid and a good coparent to the girl.

All battles are hopeless when no one fights them.

You’re not wrong, though. But even thirty years would be enough to make a change, perhaps… or maybe it seems that way to me because that’s when I started paying attention.

Friggen Tea Party bullshit was when it really started sliding downhill fast, IMO.

The government needs to adapt, yes, but carefully. You can’t just run with the first or second option, that’s a recipe for regulatory capture.

It’s not “no change is good” but rather “most change isn’t good, so we need to test them until we find the best change”.

that’s what your politics are, you’re basically just politically homeless…and have been since you started calling yourself that.

This, at least, is correct.

What is the point of labels like this if they don’t signal what it is you believe, relatively accurately?

This is exactly why it’s necessary to push back on those who would twist it to mean something else.

I’m sorry, did you need me to keep talking like you’re five?

I know what the generally accepted definition is, I just don’t accept it. Regressives don’t have a right to call themselves conservative and I won’t stop calling them out on it.

Your point remains unmade. If it was a defense of moral relativism, the arguments don’t support the conclusion. If it was something else, I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say.

Conservatives and progressives should agree on a whole lot, especially when we’re all trying to fight off an alarming resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, and illiberalism worldwide. The disagreement was rarely about goals, but rather methods. And right now the method is clear: Get these Nazi fucks out of power, ASAP.

Exactly right.

This list is all things under attack by the current administration that I want to push back and protect, that’s the point. That was the question I was answering.

A non-stacked Supreme Court

The Electoral College

Human Rights

Civil Rights

Checks on Presidential power

the American melting pot

Birthright Citizenship

Separation of Church and State

basically all of the Enlightenment ideals the country was founded on and have been working towards, it fits and starts, for most of her existence

I’m curious how you came to your conclusions, too, because the point of conservatism, to me, is to prevent destruction.

I’ve been a environmental conservationist my whole life. As I became an adult and aware of politics, I came to realize that just as the natural environment requires protection against the selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness of humanity, so too do all the social and political systems that take decades or centuries to build but only years or months to destroy (as we’ve seen under the current administration).

It’s been said many times that at the heart of all conservatism is fear. That’s not a very generous way to put it, but neither is it inaccurate. Fear of loss, fear of risk, fear of change. Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better, and so change is to be treated with suspicion, and people pushing for it doubly so, since altruism is rare.

A bicycle needs both pedals and brakes. We need to move forward, but not recklessly. Before a change is made, the case needs to be argued as to why it is necessary, what it will cost (and there’s always a cost), how to ensure it actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, and how it might be misused in the future. In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.

False dichotomy, those aren’t your only choices.

Further, lying isn’t automatically wrong. Deceiving or otherwise inhibiting a hostile, evil entity is virtuous.

Fiscal conservatism doesn’t work, any economist can tell you that.

You’re completely correct that conservatism destroyed its reputation when it allied with the religious right in an attempt at political power. The regressives took over the GOP, calling themself conservatives all the while. Terrible to watch from the outside, but like I said, giving up is not the answer. The only thing to do is push back, and try to save what can be saved.