It isn’t though? Conservatism has changed meanings quite a bit from the 17th century from 1620’s Massachusetts Puritans and later Loyalists to the crown. Note that neither of these have anything to do with imposing moral values and promoting censorship.
In fact, the push for “Religious values” like censorship in the case of this thread has only been around the US since the 1920’s. Which if that’s what you mean by “centuries” it’s a bit of a stretch since that is a single century.
Moreso, if you want to trace those ideologies back to politicians in the US, you’ll find maybe a couple of mentions of this in people like Buckley (in 1955) or Goldwater (in 1960) and of course from Reagan.
That is why I am saying “centuries” is an exaggeration.
You are interpreting everything extremely narrowly. I don’t care if “conservative” wasn’t what they used to be called, but there have always been groups of people imposing social control, and there’s a common thread running through that over time. The long game is paying off, because they have not let up. If you want to get super pedantic about it, everything breaks down here and I’m not sure what the point of that is.
You are not the OP, but let me take a stab at what you’re saying.
Conservative has always been a word to describe a train of thought or ideal to not change from how things are.
The objective of that can change wildly throughout the years to the point of it even being contradictory to itself. (for example Greek conservatism probably wanted sexual freedom and current conservatives want “traditional sexual values” from a Christian point of view which is absolutely contradictory. )
I’m saying that conflating a group of people, “conservatives” in this case, isn’t a group of people that have been around for centuries plotting against some idea. They have been different groups trying to hold on to the world that they know and dislike change.
If you mean “conservatives” as it is currently known in the US, then yes that is a group of people who have been plotting on how to force their “ideals” on us but it’s hardly “centuries” as how OP put it. It’s just been from the 1950’s.
This is why I’m saying that OP sounds like a conspiracy nut.
The reason why I want to point this out is because claiming a group is centuries old adds to the belief that they are an entity that has survived massive world view changes; Colonialism, Revolution, Civil Wars, World Wars. All of this makes them seem like an invincible group, but in reality they aren’t that. They’ve only been around since slightly before Reagan and they are not absolute and they can be overthrown and toppled.
We should not equate “conservatism” with groups that advocated for feudalism or monarchy, but we should totally treat them like both of these were treated at the end of their era. We should get rid of backwards, draconic ways of thinking and always move forward.
I appreciate that there are nuances here that aren’t even just pedantry, however I knew what they meant. Those imposing social control via morality. That idea transcends specific ideology imo. I used to believe this kind of thinking was on the decline, but in my lifetime I seem to have discovered that no it is not. I want to believe this is a temporary setback but I can’t bring myself to believe something unless I really see the evidence for it. I see a lot against it.
Aedis@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It isn’t though? Conservatism has changed meanings quite a bit from the 17th century from 1620’s Massachusetts Puritans and later Loyalists to the crown. Note that neither of these have anything to do with imposing moral values and promoting censorship.
In fact, the push for “Religious values” like censorship in the case of this thread has only been around the US since the 1920’s. Which if that’s what you mean by “centuries” it’s a bit of a stretch since that is a single century.
Moreso, if you want to trace those ideologies back to politicians in the US, you’ll find maybe a couple of mentions of this in people like Buckley (in 1955) or Goldwater (in 1960) and of course from Reagan.
That is why I am saying “centuries” is an exaggeration.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You are interpreting everything extremely narrowly. I don’t care if “conservative” wasn’t what they used to be called, but there have always been groups of people imposing social control, and there’s a common thread running through that over time. The long game is paying off, because they have not let up. If you want to get super pedantic about it, everything breaks down here and I’m not sure what the point of that is.
Aedis@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You are not the OP, but let me take a stab at what you’re saying. Conservative has always been a word to describe a train of thought or ideal to not change from how things are.
The objective of that can change wildly throughout the years to the point of it even being contradictory to itself. (for example Greek conservatism probably wanted sexual freedom and current conservatives want “traditional sexual values” from a Christian point of view which is absolutely contradictory. )
I’m saying that conflating a group of people, “conservatives” in this case, isn’t a group of people that have been around for centuries plotting against some idea. They have been different groups trying to hold on to the world that they know and dislike change.
If you mean “conservatives” as it is currently known in the US, then yes that is a group of people who have been plotting on how to force their “ideals” on us but it’s hardly “centuries” as how OP put it. It’s just been from the 1950’s.
This is why I’m saying that OP sounds like a conspiracy nut.
The reason why I want to point this out is because claiming a group is centuries old adds to the belief that they are an entity that has survived massive world view changes; Colonialism, Revolution, Civil Wars, World Wars. All of this makes them seem like an invincible group, but in reality they aren’t that. They’ve only been around since slightly before Reagan and they are not absolute and they can be overthrown and toppled.
We should not equate “conservatism” with groups that advocated for feudalism or monarchy, but we should totally treat them like both of these were treated at the end of their era. We should get rid of backwards, draconic ways of thinking and always move forward.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I appreciate that there are nuances here that aren’t even just pedantry, however I knew what they meant. Those imposing social control via morality. That idea transcends specific ideology imo. I used to believe this kind of thinking was on the decline, but in my lifetime I seem to have discovered that no it is not. I want to believe this is a temporary setback but I can’t bring myself to believe something unless I really see the evidence for it. I see a lot against it.