It's almost illegal to have conservative opinions in theWest

Post Reply New Topic

The only sort of 'Conservative' opinions that seem safe to hold (or to express, perhaps) are those pertaining to the sphere of economics, ie support for 'free markets', consumerism and the pursuit of wealth. In the UK those ideals (essentially what became known as 'Thatcherism' in the 1980s) were embraced by the New Labour governments of Blair and Brown (1997-2010) and have been upheld by successive Conservative administrations since 2010. I think the same applied to the Clinton administration in the USA, which was nominally 'left of centre', but whose repeal of the Glass-Steagall law unleashed the free for all in investment banking which led to the 2008 crash. These sorts of policies have been the only game in town for the last 40 years, as far as economics goes.

In social and cultural matters on the other hand, it has been the case for at least the last 15-20 years (certainly in the UK) that social liberalism (and its increasingly illiberal offsprings identity politics and 'political correctness') have been taking root amongst the political classes, the media, and now in the business world. Socially conservative opinions have been marginalized, and the very expression of them has become so difficult (verging on illegal in some cases) that I think it's becoming necessary to question whether we still live in a fully democratic society.

This is depressing. I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, a time when it was possible to hold (and express) a far more diverse range of opinions. The ironic thing is that one of the clarion calls of those who have managed to roll back such diversity is the word 'diversity' itself.

Black is white. Truth is falsehood. 2+2=5.

You get the picture.

I agree with this idea. I have no patience with those who try to claim that lbgtq people shouldn't have equal rights. They have no argument. But here's a minor example of how I think this concept can be used to silence genuine discussion:

I was on a Broadway facebook group where the topic of "Tootsie: The Musical" came up. The show, which is about a straight, cis man who pretends to be a woman for absurd comedic plot reasons, was accused of being transphobic. That criticism should be addressed and discussed in such a group. However, there were people going around saying things like, "I don't care how much you support trans rights, if you like 'Tootsie: The Musical,' you are NOT a true ally!" So they were talking to other people who agree with them politically, saying that a difference of opinion over a single musical comedy was enough to render it all meaningless. Furthermore, members tried to dictate who was allowed to post their opinion AT ALL based on their gender identity, over the objections of the actual group moderators, claiming that trans people would come and see all the "cis opinions" and be too terrified to share their own opinion.

However, as I said elsewhere, this is not the same thing as Conservative (or, as in this case, not-quite-liberal-enough-for-their-standards) opinions being rendered "almost illegal." This is just more of an annoyance to people who wanted to have actual discussions about the topic of the group.

Except for things like being gay, right? A quick search says that it was until 1967 that it was illegal to be gay in the UK, and that did not extend to all of the UK, and I highly suspect it would have still been seen as socially immoral in general population. To say nothing about recognising trans people being seen as acceptable. I wonder what kinds of sh***y racism was seen as okay back then, like with race mixing. I know that the White Australia policy ended in 1973.

If you grew up in that time period, I highly suspect that you are looking back at it with nostalgia without having a big grasp of the sh***y parts of that time, and you probably would still have had plenty of people back then saying the same thing you are in that their times they might not have been able to get away with saying certain things.

In 1776, seven of the original 13 United States enforced laws against interracial marriage. Mixed-race marriages have been legal throughout the United States only since 1967.

Women's reproductive rights (the right to determine their reproductive status) were not legally recognized until 1973.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, establishing the Civil Rights Commission, which led to:
• Civil Rights Act of 1960, establishing federal inspection of local voter registration polls.
• Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.
• Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, creed, and national origin.

The far more diverse range of conservative opinions during the 1960s and 1970s seems to have been mainly the result of backlash against laws prohibiting overt expressions of bigotry (i.e., racism, sexism, et cetera) and the covert oppression of women and non-whites.

It is not so much that Conservatives are complaining that they are being suppressed, as it is that they don't seem to be happy with non-Conservative voices being heard and paid attention to.

Perhaps in some groups... I mean, even if you're not far-right and just have some right leaning opinions, you could and you should fear for your safety among radical left people. I know I do and I'm a centrist.

Like these few radical left dudes that I know who are horrible hypocrites; all about peace, anti-violence etc. and yet they talk about all the horrible things they think should happen to Trump and many other right wing politicans. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Trump, but I don't like hypocrites, either.

Also, it is illegal to have modern opinions in many countries, especially ones ruled by religions. Women don't have anywhere near same legal rights in some of those places as men do, for examble... so if I had to choose between living in a place like that and a place where people with conservative ideas are shunned, I wouldn't have to think twice which to pick.

Same here.  I would rather live in a nation where people are free to speak out against conservatism, stupidity, and anyone in power.

Change will always happen. The old will often resent it, the young will often resent having the old stalling or pushing back on what they what they view as inevitable progress.

All change is not progress sometimes it is the opposite.

Old people when resenting change do it for the stereotypical reasons of just not liking change, not understanding the changes, understanding the changes will negatively effect themselves. Sometimes it is the old people understanding the changes will have negative consequences for all due to having lived experiences the young don’t.

“Conservatives” face negative consequences of bullying, cyberbullying, vandalism, loss of employment/career opportunities if they are to public. And yes in certain places there is a risk of being physically assaulted if you wear MAGA stuff. The tables have turned it was “liberals” that faced these negative social consequences in the forms of book burnings, book bans, and loss of jobs and violence for holding certain views. Replacing one form of social censorship with another is not progress.

True conservatives don’t face the level of physical violence liberals have and do. As defenders of left wing intimidation will gladly remind you right wing terrorism is much more lethal at the moment. But at the rate “progressive” censorship is expanding that fear of it becoming lethal is realistic, “left wing” violent censorship has happened in the past elsewhere, America and the UK is not immune like they too often think of themselves as.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 07 Aug 2020, 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Starts as reply then goes all over the place:

Racist views in that time period were considered “right wing”. Conservatism was being for more negative consequences for bad behavior be it lazyness whining, excuse making, and criminality. Conservatism at the time was heavily conflated with support of the ongoing Vietnam War effort, patriotic symbolism, pro military etc. Conservatism at the time also meant things like thinking too much government deficits is a bad thing. Some racists hid behind conservatism most notably in opposing judicially ordered school busing and other government mandated integration.

Nowadays conservatism is conflated with Trumpism and the alt right. “Deficit Hawk“ ehh what, can you visit them in zoos with rare animal collections?. This is the fault of those Trump supporters whom made him a cult of personality. A cult who is centered around destroying things and owning the libs. The old fashioned conservatives have been put out to pasture just as ingloriously as the regressive left is attempting to do to non purists. It is also the fault of the conservatives who know this as bad but just cannot pass up the opportunity to get some policies they want implemented.

Yes it is understandable and inevitable that people would be radicalized, want to destroy and eliminate any element of conservative thought because conservative thought equals racist thought because that is the thought most seen.

And it sure looks like at some point in the near future those Trumpian conservatives are going to be owned in ways they can’t even imagine. The left are younger and understand how to use technology better and they are masters at altering language for their purposes in ways the makes most attempts at resisting look stupid and bigoted.

That does not make it right. It makes it compounding the problems. It makes it inevitable that those celebrating the seemingly inevitable owning of conservatism will be owned themselves and faster then they think. Final result everybody loses.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 07 Aug 2020, 11:41 am, edited 3 times in total.

Call it what it is: the "Alt Right" is a sub-class of "White Supremacist".

Nowadays Conservatism is being identified with White Supremacism: the belief that white people are superior to all other races and should therefore dominate every facet of society -- education, employment, housing, and the media.  Their goal is a white-ruled ethno-state where each race lives in a separate nation -- separate, but not necessarily equal.

White supremacists also see racial diversity as a direct threat to the very existence of the white race.

This, among other things, is what has been conflated with Conservatism in the minds of non-Conservatives.

I thought I covered that.

Deephour , how dare you be so nostalgic about the 70 & 80's

Oh.  So you did.  Never mind.

Well it was almost illegal not to be racist/homophobic in the village I used to work in then.

If you don't like the social circle you're mixing in online, change it. If you don't like the circle you're forced to live in offline, maybe time to consider moving to another town etc? I moved here cos it was more liberal. I'd rather live somewhere where saying 'Enoch Powell was right' would get you socially disapproved of than somewhere where coming out gay/trans would.

And it's not that "conservative" completely fits my ideas all the time either, but sometimes it does as matter of fact have a point.

What you call "identity politics" is nothing more than a matter of necessity. People of color, gay people, trans people, disabled people, whoever you want, DO have a different experience to more privileged groups, and acknowledging it as such is necessary for improving people's lives. And "political correctness"? What are you talking about? Sorry you can't openly say slurs I guess.

The reason why so-called "socially conservative views" are marginalized is because few can deny any longer that they're bigoted and harmful. Campaigning against LGBT rights, demonizing immigrants, hand-waving away racism as anything besides racism, are undeniably harmful. That is what "socially conservative" views are. Funny how you and the op are only talking about them in the abstract. I'm not going to entertain bigoted ideas out of politeness.



Maybe you should find another justification for your reactionary ideology than a book written by a socialist who fought with anarchists in Spain.

You can always change where or even if you go online. That is often not true IRL. Often the only realistic options are bad and not as bad. Trying harder improves the chanches for an improved outcome, it does not guarantee it.