How can any aspie be socially conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

that is why we all live a great distance apart, aside from my older sister who tolerates me.

the rightists are shouting "cry havoc! let slip the dogs of war." the left are holding on by the skin of their teeth. and everybody else is the grass getting tramped under the tussling elephants and the fleeing panicked donkeys who have forgotten how to kick the greedy old pachyderms in their teeth.

If you read anything in my first post, I was not talking about acceptance. I was talking about individual vs. community values.
Tolerance is not the same thing as free inquiry. Even if someone's viewpoint is repulsive, it should not be silenced by calling it hate speech (unless there are explicit threats of harm).

Last edited by petitesouris on 04 Dec 2010, 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When you come down to it, how can even fringe spectrals be comfortable with selfsatisfied unexamined uniformitarians of any description?

The envy from which Marxist values evolved has already been identified 100 years ago. But now resentment occurs among the opposite side of the spectrum. Some of it is logical (such as opposition to the "fairness" doctrine) but some of it also rejects classical liberalism. The advocates of Tradition despise the bourgeois class more than the working class because of their independent ways and preference for "rationalism" over spirituality. It is difficult to tell whether their rejection of rationalism is because of its narrow definition or because they want to regain authority. My very cursory familiarity with 19th century thinkers reveals that values before the Renaissance were based on a similar kind hatred, except it expressed itself as the antithesis of leftism. The lower classes would resent the capitalistic bourgeoisie while the church saw them as a threat, so they shared a common enemy.

So at least I could expect the democrats to espouse communism, but the conservatives are unpredictable. They speak of limited government, yet in the same breath, speak about their desire for a "well ordered" society. Therefore it is impossible to support one aspect of conservatism without supporting them all. They speak of minarchism because if they only spoke of the proper "natural order", they would get less votes.

My aspieness might be different from those of other aspies, but I do think that cogntive style affects one's opinions. I would never live in an atmosphere where authority twists logic to make reason a sin.

Last edited by petitesouris on 08 Dec 2010, 11:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I can never understand this stuff very well but I've always grouped communists, conservatives and even libertarians (pro-capitalist, free market ones) in the same camp. They know what's good for us. Isn't a better approach to politics/econnomic the experimental/scientific one. What I mean is the following:

Assumption: We don't have any preconceived notions of what is the best social/economic system.

Let's try communism (the real variety) and see how it works.
Let's try true free-market capitalism (not the sham we have today) and see how it works.
Let's try democratic socialism and see how it works.
Let's try whatever system
etc.

Then we decide which we like and we split each other up and live separately but don't bother each other. Why would anybody be opposed to this if they truly believe their political view is the best? Is this just naivity on my part?

Oh, like telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and condemning some relationships between consenting adults?

petitesouris:

"My aspieness might be different from those of other aspies, but I do think that cogntive style affects one's opinions. I would never live in an atmosphere where authority twists logic to make reason a sin."

Hear, hear on both points. My living in such an atmosphere has not been out of choice. It is POSSIBLE to survive - but I know several people who have had to drop out.

Look at what Trent Lot actually said...

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

He's not simply complimenting the man. He unnecessarily politicized his "compliment" to take an offensive partisan pot-shot. How else can you explain "we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either"? That was completely unnecessary and highly offensive.

I remember the actual footage as well. There was a clear undertone of "we don't care that you ran on a segregationist platform, we voted for you anyways and whoever takes offense can shove it". He slipped up and let his inner a**hole shine through.

The problem is politics isn't about what "works". It's about power and who gets what in a dog-eat-dog world. Most political differences come down to irreconcilable differences in values.

Last edited by marshall on 04 Dec 2010, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Or like telling people what is or is not acceptable art, or who can or cannot join the military, or get married? Or like telling Muslims where they can or cannot build a mosque?

You might be interested in reading Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which advocates exactly that solution. It's not a coincidence that this idea came from a leading libertarian philosopher.

That said, from a practical standpoint, people are limited in where they can move to by language. You might get something close to your idea in the U.S. by weakening the federal government and giving more power to the states, but you'd have to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, among others.

Unfortunately, because "racism" is used as a political insult 95% of the time, criticism of true racism is very difficult.

For example, affirmative action includes institutionalized racism against whites and, in educational contexts, asians. If you dare to criticize affirmative action on that basis, though, the knee jerk left will immediately descend into a name calling contest.

If you are referring to abortion you are dealing with more than just the woman's body. If you define the baby inside as human (since it is obviously alive), then you can argue abortion is murder.

@ number5

"Don't ask don't tell" means that okay you're gay big deal, just don't go around advertising it all over and make people uncomfortable about it. Let's face it would you feel comfortable showering in the same room as someone that you think may be interested in you from a sexual standpoint? Someone whom is homosexual can join the military they just aren't supposed to advertise the are gay because it would cause all kinds of problems. Further, it would give the Islamic Extremists yet another recruiting tool.

As to the mosque, you really need to do your research it isn't that far from ground zero and is intended to provoke people and celebrate 9/11. I have followed this a lot closer than you have.

Concerning your statements about art: Then I guess we have no business making kiddie porn illegal as long as the photographers have the parent's permission. Seriously there is a line when something is no longer art and is illegal or downright offensive. Furthermore, there are lines that cannot be crossed using taxpayer money.

@ marshall
It was at a guy's birthday party, what do you want him to do bash an old man at his own 100th birthday party?

Except that the policy as it stands has been badly abused. Of course the military isn't supposed to ask-- but that part of the bargain hasn't always been held up. In some cases, gay soldiers have been outed forcibly, and that has been used as grounds for discharge. Tell me how that strengthens the military or boosts morale?

The military has been polled, and the average soldier is fine with serving among openly gay servicemen. Even Adm. Mullen says the policy needs to be repealed. I take the word of the highest ranking officer in the Armed Forces pretty seriously when it comes to the shaping of military policy. Don't you agree?



The opposite argument can and has been made, though. As the policy stands now, DADT can be exploited to blackmail closeted gay servicemen, who live under threat of discharge if they are outed.

Sorry, I consider the woman's rights more important than the "rights" of embryos. That and I don't consider embyros people, and I don't consider the killing of non persons to be murder.

And, why is it that when someone is openly gay, they're flaunting their sexuality, but when someone is openly heterosexual they're not flaunting it?