Based on the OP, you could say the lefties are trying to put the trump administration into a hole that doesn't fit and can't tolerate it.
So that would make them conservatives.
The only hole we want the Trump admin in is a maximum security prison. Which they're a perfect fit for.
EDIT: a hole in the ground would also work, but that's not something we can work for directly.
But according to the premise and logic of the OP, your views would be considered intolerant and therefore right wing and conservative.
Unfortunately, the RC did not have a person with the wisdom of Gamaliel.
The whole denomination? Seriously?
I accept that RC is a broad church and there have been cases such as our Mary McKillop, and Francis of Assisi where there has been a reversal of thinking, but in the microcosm of the hierarchy of the people involved in causing the exile, none emerged.
I think you’re also taking for granted here that there can be no good reason to limit receiving a Roman Catholic Eucharist to Roman Catholics. I would like it if they would open it to all baptized Christians, as my own Episcopal church does (technically, I started out RC myself (if I had to leave the Episcopal church, I’d likely return to Rome)), but again, it does not have to be due to a lack of wisdom that they have that rule. From some people’s point of view (which I do not share), they’re protecting people from receiving it inappropriately and from whatever harm they might be subject to as a result.
I was there when one of the antagonists came to attack the group, and I am sure that protection was last thing on his mind.
Why is there so often protection of the aggressors and blaming of the victims in institutional Christianity!
Based on the OP, you could say the lefties are trying to put the trump administration into a hole that doesn't fit and can't tolerate it.
So that would make them conservatives.
The only hole we want the Trump admin in is a maximum security prison. Which they're a perfect fit for.
EDIT: a hole in the ground would also work, but that's not something we can work for directly.
But according to the premise and logic of the OP, your views would be considered intolerant and therefore right wing and conservative.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
I think a fair bit of it is about pecking order and power.
Some of the worst situations I've experienced for bullies going after those a bit different from them but who were not harming them were in schools. Children as a group have many rules forced on them and lack powers to fight back if adults abuse them or pick on them or force conformity on them but bullying gives a chance to exercise power and agency and get a sadistic thrill out of doing to others what otherwise must be suffered and endured themselves from the more powerful, and it can give a sense of belonging and relief of being ' in with the in crowd' and not being the person who is othered and bullied.
The violence of forcing the square peg into the round hole is the point - it's enjoying the exercise of power over the weaker and if you pick a demonised group falsely accused of crimes then the bullies can feel joyous and self-righteous and know they won't face consequences and that they may even be praised or gain prestige.
It's often similar with adults. People who feel powerless or relatively powerless in their own lives or that they've not got the recognition they deserve, can feel power and agency and that they are praiseworthy for going after harmless others who are a bit different.
Though it should be noted, that they often stiffen their sinews with 'othering' and conspiracy theory that the harmless others aren't actually harmless but are actually engaged in eg. the worst crimes against women and children. This legitimises cruelty and when it's done in pursuit of people 'marked' by the media and powerful people as legitimate targets for odium, it can be a route to power and prestige.
It also distracts - if people being exploited are encouraged to direct their ire and disgust to the powerless but different and making them conform, then that's not flowing upwards against their exploiters.
There's also a touch of the Prodigal son's brother about it - 'well I chose to conform and do what was expected of me and I didn't like it, so you should be punished and not get away with it and how dare anyone embrace and accept you!' It needn't be people going abroad and partying immorally - just run of the mill things like working from home or being allowed to dress informally for work or flexible hours can set off spite or jealousy that someone is 'getting away' with something that the offended person didn't get away with in their day.
The other thing I'd say is that though it can be seen more in all it's horror on the far right for whom scapegoating harmless minorities and having a Procrustean bed view of the nation and enforcing conformity is a big thing, it's present in non political and left political spaces too. Look at how some ostensibly left- wing parties have jumped on the bandwagon of harming various minorities to curry favour with media, rich donors and people who get a thrill from bullying or who can be muddled into thinking bullying is righteous self- preservation.
But it's basically bullying. It can be state and media sanctioned as in the case of moral panics or it can just be for individual psychological reasons in non-political groups.
I think, sometimes, it is to do with non-verbal communication. If in culture A, for example, standing closer than 1m is a signal of aggression - if you from culture B do this because it is normal for you and you don’t know this, you will get a hostile or fearful reaction from others.
Because it is non-verbal communication, and likely mostly processed subconsciously - people from both cultures A and B will often not know why that’s happening.
We are often told, especially women, to trust our instincts if someone feels creepy or off in some way - we are being told to trust our subconscious reading of non-verbal behaviour. This often works when most people are communicating in the same way, it causes problems when they are not. Sometimes this situation is due to reasons of neurodiversity - but neither they nor the person reacting will necessarily know that.
Like wise, small talk is an “I am not a threatening signal”, if you do not attempt it, it is possible people be wary of you because you do not not seem to be signaling you are friendly or you appear to want to be left alone. This stuff goes right back to our primate ancestory and is not necessarily under conscious control.
In the same way we will automatically pay more attention to something novel and visually different - because that is how our brains are wired. This is really difficult for people with visible difference, because people look, realise they are looking, try not to stare and then the social awkwardness of that can be difficult to negotiate.
But according to the premise and logic of the OP, your views would be considered intolerant and therefore right wing and conservative.
There's a thing called "the paradox of tolerance." I suggest looking it up and reporting back. Any community, while functioning, depends on the enforcement of social norms. Tolerance is one social norm and it requires enforcement.
And leftists are very fierce in their defense of tolerance, centrists can waffle sometimes, but can often be depended on to hold the line; especially in the face of the kinds of heinous crimes we're seeing in the USA right now. Nobody is talking about jettisoning the notion of justice. The question is its enforcement.
Restorative justice is certainly an idea, but one of my observations as someone who can sometimes trend conservative is that it's rather costly in labor and resources versus the crimes being committed. And the crimes we are seeing publicly in the USA are rather extravagant.
I've certainly heard the right wing canard that leftists and liberals are relativist weather-vanes who will bend any which way whenever a strong opinion blows through the room. And I grew up in a conservative culture, so I've heard that tale rather a lot. But I've spent my adult life among liberals and leftists and I have yet to meet an actual moral relativist in the flesh. These are not people of weak conviction.
@Gramps49 : I think you should hang out with some leftists.
What you're describing isn't nearly the entire bunch. I'm pretty liberal and I'm rankling a little at your description of how "we" "think."
Then again, if you guys would like I could flip a few switches in my head and start highlighting the more conservative aspects of my way of thinking. Trouble is that these days...the political right in America has gone septic so it's kind of hard to interact fairly anymore. I do earnestly sympathize with the Republican never-Trumpers or what's left of them, but at this point I don't think they're good for much politically.
The RCC is not a clergy-run monolith; it’s too bloody big for that.
Not just about “good works” but also about individual faith communities. Believe it or not the hierarchy are too busy trying to keep the show on the road without bothering about minor liturgical infractions.
Even the unspeakable ( and now deceased) George Pell reproved the (now thankfully deceased) chief Temple Policeman for his tale-bearing on the grounds that such behaviour was “un-Australian”. It could be that the late ++ George took exception to take-bearing from a mere layman, of course….
But of course the RCC is clergy-run, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
If you don't want to have to follow rules, don't join an institution with a lot of rules - it's quite simple. That is not to say that I agree with the rules, simply that it's hypocritical to reap the benefits of an institution while also disobeying it.
My next preaching assignment will be dealing with John 9, the story of the man born blind. Looking at the dynamics of the story, I can see how the Pharisees manufactured outrage over the miracle. The man was healed on a sabbath. Who was this Jesus? He must be a sinner, etc. What happened did not conform to their world view. The tried to pressure the man to get him to declare Jesus a sinner, the man refused. Consequently, they threw him out.
What I am seeing is what the Johannine community was experiencing at the time. The followers of Jesus no longer fit in to the expectation of the synagogues. They were like pegs that could not fit into a round hole so they were being thrown out.
I understand that the contemporary thinking in Jesus' time was that only God could cure the blindness of a person born blind. So the Pharisees tried to bad-mouth Jesus, then the man born-blind; and so his parents dissociated themselves from the arguments by just stating the facts as they knew them.
We had a Roman Catholic community of St Marys in Brisbane, being open and doing good works as the Micah Foundation. They outraged the religious authorities by allowing non-RCs to participate in communion and were thrown out of the church building. They continued their work and met in the Local Trades and Labour Building as St Marys In Exile. ISTM they were very much treated by their religious authorities as Jesus was by his!
.
Re St Mary’s South Brisbane: it was not the religious authorities who were outraged but the “ Temple Police” ( self-appointed traditionalist tattle tales who attended Mass, took notes and badgered the hierarchy into closing down that parish. The same Temple Police succeeded in getting rid of + Bill Morris of Toowoomba (SE Queensland) by reporting back to Rome.
They seemed to have taken a back seat recently thank God
I'm sure said groups did good work, but it's not like the RCC don't make their rules extremely clear. Following the rules is a pretty big part of being a Roman Catholic, otherwise why bother to sign up for a group with such an emphasis on the rules?
I think it's pretty normal and reasonable for members of a denomination to want their churches to follow canon law. Lots of RC churches do good works while not disobeying said rules - and everyone should be equal under said canon law.
I'm sure the Pharisees also made their rules extremely clear. But, like Peter and the Apostles, they chose to obey God rather than men. Unfortunately, the RC did not have a person with the wisdom of Gamaliel. The Catholics who ran the Chaplaincy Academy I trained in were frustrated with the hard view that some pushed upwards in the hierarchy.
Well the RCC is inherently an absolute monarchy - if you don't like a firm hierarchy, don't join. Complaining about having to follow the rules of a very rules-heavy institution seems very odd.
I think, sometimes, it is to do with non-verbal communication. If in culture A, for example, standing closer than 1m is a signal of aggression - if you from culture B do this because it is normal for you and you don’t know this, you will get a hostile or fearful reaction from others.
Because it is non-verbal communication, and likely mostly processed subconsciously - people from both cultures A and B will often not know why that’s happening.
We are often told, especially women, to trust our instincts if someone feels creepy or off in some way - we are being told to trust our subconscious reading of non-verbal behaviour. This often works when most people are communicating in the same way, it causes problems when they are not. Sometimes this situation is due to reasons of neurodiversity - but neither they nor the person reacting will necessarily know that.
Like wise, small talk is an “I am not a threatening signal”, if you do not attempt it, it is possible people be wary of you because you do not not seem to be signaling you are friendly or you appear to want to be left alone. This stuff goes right back to our primate ancestory and is not necessarily under conscious control.
In the same way we will automatically pay more attention to something novel and visually different - because that is how our brains are wired. This is really difficult for people with visible difference, because people look, realise they are looking, try not to stare and then the social awkwardness of that can be difficult to negotiate.
Also sometimes people's instincts will be flat-out incorrect, on either the more trusting side or the more paranoid side. This can be due to neurodiversity and/or mental illness (for some conditions like OCD there is more overlap between the two, in my experience) but also sometimes just due to personal experience. If you're from a very sheltered background for instance, your danger sensors (for want of a better term) might not be as finely-tuned as those of a more streetwise person.
The difference between the left and the right is generally:
that the left think that the government is not the only threat to individual liberty, so one is justified in using the government to restrict the ability of other actors to restrict liberties;
and that personal liberty without the means of living is meaningless, so one is justified in using the government to provide people with the means of living.
Sounds like you could be describing the right above.
Based on your comments above, how would you describe the right in general terms for the global current order? Not just America?
Well, the opposite of the above. The right are more likely to support strengthening the coercive arms of government: the police, the army, and so on, and to remove restrictions on the powers of the police. They're generally more likely to support government intervention in the private lives of consenting adults: restrictions on who can sleep with whom, on how people can identify themselves, and so on (maybe they're less likely to support intervention than they used to be, or maybe just the targets of the intervention have shifted).
On the other hand, the right is generally much less troubled by restrictions on liberty due to poverty, or the need to find and keep employment: it's happy for employers to impose whatever terms on employees the employers can get away with and is quite untroubled by the power differential. The right also is generally much less troubled by peoples' liberties being restricted by lack of money or poor health and so makes no effort to rectify this through government.
Well, there's a paradox going on. Conservatives, in my thought, were in favor of trade and free markets. The global right, at the moment, seems to be leaning into conflict and protectionism.
It is rather a confusing paradox. You can't love free markets while insisting on nativism. That's trying to have your cake and eating it too.
Looking at some very particular locales in the USA, I can see some reasons why some places are feeling pressured to go that way, but as a global philosophy it does not make any logical sense. It's a triumph of politics over reason, which I suspect leads very organically to war.
The RCC is not a clergy-run monolith; it’s too bloody big for that.
Not just about “good works” but also about individual faith communities. Believe it or not the hierarchy are too busy trying to keep the show on the road without bothering about minor liturgical infractions.
Even the unspeakable ( and now deceased) George Pell reproved the (now thankfully deceased) chief Temple Policeman for his tale-bearing on the grounds that such behaviour was “un-Australian”. It could be that the late ++ George took exception to take-bearing from a mere layman, of course….
But of course the RCC is clergy-run, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
If you don't want to have to follow rules, don't join an institution with a lot of rules - it's quite simple. That is not to say that I agree with the rules, simply that it's hypocritical to reap the benefits of an institution while also disobeying it.
Don’t have yourself on.
The Church (RC) is run by the laity. The Pope may be the bishop of Rome (and the titular head) and both pope, bishops and other clergy are there to guide the faithful ( such as they might be) and to serve the faithful. The hierarchical model that you describe no longer applies ( apart from a noisy few-mainly traditionalist cardinals and bishops such as Robert Sarah, Raymond Burke and the “personal prelature” of Opus Dei.
As for “ don’t join the church etc” who are you bloody kidding? The vast majority of RCs are baptised as infants before they have any say in the matter.
It forces a hollow laugh to think of the like of CJ Vance as a convert: who the hell catechised him? Now there’s a hypocrite for you!
No despite your deluded thinking change continues-and not just from the pews.
The “ smaller purer church” which you appear to think is the ideal would be nothing more than another nasty little sect.
I grant that nearly all the responders on these boards are liberal. And, I would also grant many of Jesus principles and liberalism as we often think of it overlap. But I would also argue there are many areas where the principles of Jesus and liberalism diverge. Liberalism centers on the autonomous individual. Jesus calls for a self-giving person. Liberalism assumes moral neutrality; Jesus does not. See the Sermon on the Mount. Liberalism prioritizes consent. Jesus prioritizes covenant--there are obligations to God and neighbor. Liberalism treats harm as primarily material. Jesus treats harm as relational and spiritual. Liberalism is procedural; Jesus is transformational--restored relationships, healed communities, liberation for the oppressed.
I would argue instead of defining liberalism we should look at the self giving love of Jesus. I think this would impact how we understand rights, how we understand freedom, how we understand justice, and how we understand the good life
A lot of this is not how I understand at least a lot of liberal (US sense) political notions at all. Moral neutrality? No obligations to our neighbor? No relational harm? None of this sounds like the kind of liberalism I have encountered, though some versions of this can be liberal (particularly what I encountered in college in some contexts, decades ago). I would say that (for example) Martin Luther King would not see it all that way.
Liberalism is called “morally neutral” because it avoids endorsing any single comprehensive moral, religious, or philosophical worldview. Instead of defining the good life for everyone, it creates a public framework where people with different beliefs can coexist. The state protects basic rights and fair procedures but does not declare which moral vision—Christian, secular, traditional, progressive—is true. This neutrality emerged after centuries of conflict, aiming to prevent governments from imposing one group’s values on all others. Liberalism is not value‑free; it simply limits the state to procedural justice rather than prescribing ultimate moral ends.
Martin Luther King Jr was not a classic liberal. He approached discrimination from a Christian perspective.
Well, there's a paradox going on. Conservatives, in my thought, were in favor of trade and free markets. The global right, at the moment, seems to be leaning into conflict and protectionism.
It is rather a confusing paradox. You can't love free markets while insisting on nativism. That's trying to have your cake and eating it too.
Looking at some very particular locales in the USA, I can see some reasons why some places are feeling pressured to go that way, but as a global philosophy it does not make any logical sense. It's a triumph of politics over reason, which I suspect leads very organically to war.
Good job, guys!
Protectionism has always been one strand within conservatism, shading into autarky as conservatism shades in fascism. The Great Depression killed off protectionism in the west for a generation (though South Korea makes an interesting case for protection of developing economies), then Thatcherism/Reaganism supercharged the right's free market fetishism. What we're seeing from Trump (in so far as there is anything beyond ginned up grievance) is an attempt to wind the clock back to a point of US economic supremacy, forgetting that US economic dominance post-WW2 was largely built on every other large industrial economy being ravaged by war and in hock to the US for billions.
The RCC is not a clergy-run monolith; it’s too bloody big for that.
Not just about “good works” but also about individual faith communities. Believe it or not the hierarchy are too busy trying to keep the show on the road without bothering about minor liturgical infractions.
Even the unspeakable ( and now deceased) George Pell reproved the (now thankfully deceased) chief Temple Policeman for his tale-bearing on the grounds that such behaviour was “un-Australian”. It could be that the late ++ George took exception to take-bearing from a mere layman, of course….
But of course the RCC is clergy-run, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
If you don't want to have to follow rules, don't join an institution with a lot of rules - it's quite simple. That is not to say that I agree with the rules, simply that it's hypocritical to reap the benefits of an institution while also disobeying it.
You haven't met the powerful lay women who actually run many of the RCC parishes I have come across. Priests cross them at their peril!
But I kind of agree with your second point. The "rules" in the RCC apply more stringently when the rubbing point is public knowledge and causes "scandal." And when those "breaking" them are clerics. So a priest who regularly practices open communion can expect consequences, and a group ordaining bishops (to mention a current example) against the wishes of the Pope will be putting themselves into schism. But a lay person who is in an irregular relationship, for example can hope to find much more flexibility and pastoral sensitivity even when half the congregation are aware.
There is a profound difference between the regulations that are to do with the administration of the sacraments for example and the running of the organisation, and the "rules" that are to do with our individual growth and development as christians.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
Both the left and right can be guilty of intolerance in my view. It's just the flagship mantra of the left, so it's hypocritical. The right at least are usually up front about it.
Well, there's a paradox going on. Conservatives, in my thought, were in favor of trade and free markets. The global right, at the moment, seems to be leaning into conflict and protectionism.
It is rather a confusing paradox. You can't love free markets while insisting on nativism. That's trying to have your cake and eating it too.
Looking at some very particular locales in the USA, I can see some reasons why some places are feeling pressured to go that way, but as a global philosophy it does not make any logical sense. It's a triumph of politics over reason, which I suspect leads very organically to war.
Good job, guys!
The paradox is free markets are no longer working for the west. That's what's fueling the rise of nationalism and protectionism around the western world.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
I think a fair bit of it is about pecking order and power.
Some of the worst situations I've experienced for bullies going after those a bit different from them but who were not harming them were in schools. Children as a group have many rules forced on them and lack powers to fight back if adults abuse them or pick on them or force conformity on them but bullying gives a chance to exercise power and agency and get a sadistic thrill out of doing to others what otherwise must be suffered and endured themselves from the more powerful, and it can give a sense of belonging and relief of being ' in with the in crowd' and not being the person who is othered and bullied.
The violence of forcing the square peg into the round hole is the point - it's enjoying the exercise of power over the weaker and if you pick a demonised group falsely accused of crimes then the bullies can feel joyous and self-righteous and know they won't face consequences and that they may even be praised or gain prestige.
It's often similar with adults. People who feel powerless or relatively powerless in their own lives or that they've not got the recognition they deserve, can feel power and agency and that they are praiseworthy for going after harmless others who are a bit different.
Though it should be noted, that they often stiffen their sinews with 'othering' and conspiracy theory that the harmless others aren't actually harmless but are actually engaged in eg. the worst crimes against women and children. This legitimises cruelty and when it's done in pursuit of people 'marked' by the media and powerful people as legitimate targets for odium, it can be a route to power and prestige.
It also distracts - if people being exploited are encouraged to direct their ire and disgust to the powerless but different and making them conform, then that's not flowing upwards against their exploiters.
There's also a touch of the Prodigal son's brother about it - 'well I chose to conform and do what was expected of me and I didn't like it, so you should be punished and not get away with it and how dare anyone embrace and accept you!' It needn't be people going abroad and partying immorally - just run of the mill things like working from home or being allowed to dress informally for work or flexible hours can set off spite or jealousy that someone is 'getting away' with something that the offended person didn't get away with in their day.
The other thing I'd say is that though it can be seen more in all it's horror on the far right for whom scapegoating harmless minorities and having a Procrustean bed view of the nation and enforcing conformity is a big thing, it's present in non political and left political spaces too. Look at how some ostensibly left- wing parties have jumped on the bandwagon of harming various minorities to curry favour with media, rich donors and people who get a thrill from bullying or who can be muddled into thinking bullying is righteous self- preservation.
But it's basically bullying. It can be state and media sanctioned as in the case of moral panics or it can just be for individual psychological reasons in non-political groups.
A lot of what you say is true.
The trouble is, criticism these days is often equated with bullying. And that usually shuts down the conversation, hiding any potential truth.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
But according to the premise and logic of the OP, your views would be considered intolerant and therefore right wing and conservative.
There's a thing called "the paradox of tolerance." I suggest looking it up and reporting back. Any community, while functioning, depends on the enforcement of social norms. Tolerance is one social norm and it requires enforcement.
And leftists are very fierce in their defense of tolerance, centrists can waffle sometimes, but can often be depended on to hold the line; especially in the face of the kinds of heinous crimes we're seeing in the USA right now. Nobody is talking about jettisoning the notion of justice. The question is its enforcement.
Restorative justice is certainly an idea, but one of my observations as someone who can sometimes trend conservative is that it's rather costly in labor and resources versus the crimes being committed. And the crimes we are seeing publicly in the USA are rather extravagant.
I've certainly heard the right wing canard that leftists and liberals are relativist weather-vanes who will bend any which way whenever a strong opinion blows through the room. And I grew up in a conservative culture, so I've heard that tale rather a lot. But I've spent my adult life among liberals and leftists and I have yet to meet an actual moral relativist in the flesh. These are not people of weak conviction.
Read the article. Agree with it. Responded above to Karl.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
Except it didn't pose a threat. That's the point.
It would have for social conservatives.
What would that threat be? No-one is making them wear a frock to their prom. It doesn't affect them in any way.
Not endorsing this way of thinking but just pointing out that it existed and still exists - if you have an old-style providential view that God punishes collectively for tolerated and encouraged sin, then a believer would consider themselves harmed because God is angered by sin - citing Old Testament verses like Deuteronomy 22.5. and God can be expected to collectively punish the country/ community/ society which allows this with defeats, disasters and loss of life etc.
I research the early modern witch hunts and this is something that's very much alive then and it is still a way of thinking you can expect in eg.denominations who take their Westminster Confession seriously and full-fat
Of course you might wonder why people home in on the kid with the dress and aren't furious and active all the time about injustices to the poor and the stranger - some are- but for every one of those people there are many who get furious about other people's lifestyles and dont interrogate their own much. There are also plenty people who wouldn't know providential thinking if it kicked them up the backside but who are very keen on persecuting nonconformity.
The paradox is free markets are no longer working for the west. That's what's fueling the rise of nationalism and protectionism around the western world.
I don't know about that. Free trade works really well for a lot of us, east or west.
I also question whether "the west" is such a coherent whole as people say it is. In two words: "Pond War."
Nobody is threatening social conservatives. Social conservatives passive aggressively threaten other people by pretending to be victims whenever someone does something they disapprove of.
Protectionism has always been one strand within conservatism, shading into autarky as conservatism shades in fascism. The Great Depression killed off protectionism in the west for a generation (though South Korea makes an interesting case for protection of developing economies), then Thatcherism/Reaganism supercharged the right's free market fetishism. What we're seeing from Trump (in so far as there is anything beyond ginned up grievance) is an attempt to wind the clock back to a point of US economic supremacy, forgetting that US economic dominance post-WW2 was largely built on every other large industrial economy being ravaged by war and in hock to the US for billions.
That's pretty much what I've seen. If you look at his policies and style, he's trying to forcibly drag us back to the 1920s.
The funniest experience was reading an odd little novel called Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis and realizing that I was seeing the president described right down to the "crooked real estate developer." Then I realized that the book was so popular back in the day that the title became a trope.
You also had rampant racism, political violence, corruption, gangs, a negligent federal government, and all kinds of problems that made The Great Depression practically a foregone conclusion.
And now, it's like the generation that lived through the nicer side of the 20th century suddenly tried to erase all of the hard-earned lessons their parents had learned so we have to go through the horrors of the early 20th century all over again. All for greed?
The weird thing is that it makes me feel like a conservative, because now "we" are the ones holding onto the better parts of the past for the sake of a better future while it feels like the "conservative" right is flailing for a mythologized past that was never real. When I was in high school, a teacher talked about how "reactionary" was what you got when conservatives got too extreme, just as "radical" was what you got when liberals got too extreme. Instead of trying to hold to the better parts of tradition, the dominant political right is trying to drag us back to a pre-modern reality for reasons that - to me - just plain do not make any sense.
Nobody is threatening social conservatives. Social conservatives passive aggressively threaten other people by pretending to be victims whenever someone does something they disapprove of.
I'm not sure I agree with this. It does depend on how you define the term "social conservative" but one could say that it includes various religious groups who have less permissive practices than are common in the rest of society.
For example religious Orthodox Jews. They are conservative in the sense of wanting to continue with their practices.
If one was to identify groups who have a strong grip on these practices, I think one could fairly easily say that they are threatened.
Many people dislike the clothing and practices of Orthodox Jews. Many associate conservative Muslims with debased practices. Generally speaking Western societies tend to frown on polygamous Mormons.
It is something of the nature of being in a free western society that socially conservative people are considered strange.
Nobody is threatening social conservatives. Social conservatives passive aggressively threaten other people by pretending to be victims whenever someone does something they disapprove of.
I'm not sure I agree with this. It does depend on how you define the term "social conservative" but one could say that it includes various religious groups who have less permissive practices than are common in the rest of society.
For example religious Orthodox Jews. They are conservative in the sense of wanting to continue with their practices.
If one was to identify groups who have a strong grip on these practices, I think one could fairly easily say that they are threatened.
Many people dislike the clothing and practices of Orthodox Jews. Many associate conservative Muslims with debased practices. Generally speaking Western societies tend to frown on polygamous Mormons.
It is something of the nature of being in a free western society that socially conservative people are considered strange.
Yes, but they're not threatened simply by other people being different from them. They're threatened by other people unwilling to let them be despite it not harming them.
In fact, they're threatened by other social conservative of a different kidney. We're seeing this in the UK even now by all the anti-islamic rhetoric from Reform and Reform adjacent socially conservative parties.
I don't think the Faragists are socially conservative, I suppose. It's like Trump in the sense of taking on some of the language of the religious conservatives with none of the.. other stuff
Not endorsing this way of thinking but just pointing out that it existed and still exists - if you have an old-style providential view that God punishes collectively for tolerated and encouraged sin, then a believer would consider themselves harmed because God is angered by sin - citing Old Testament verses like Deuteronomy 22.5. and God can be expected to collectively punish the country/ community/ society which allows this with defeats, disasters and loss of life etc.
I research the early modern witch hunts and this is something that's very much alive then and it is still a way of thinking you can expect in eg.denominations who take their Westminster Confession seriously and full-fat
Of course you might wonder why people home in on the kid with the dress and aren't furious and active all the time about injustices to the poor and the stranger - some are- but for every one of those people there are many who get furious about other people's lifestyles and dont interrogate their own much. There are also plenty people who wouldn't know providential thinking if it kicked them up the backside but who are very keen on persecuting nonconformity.
Yeah - I'm aware of that dynamic, but interestingly I didn't see many people who were ladling on the hatred of this poor lad invoking God's judgement on the UK if they didn't.
It does strike me that this really just puts the phenomenon back one step - it sort of assumes that God is very much on the side of pegs having to change to fit holes rather than the other way around where people don't fit into conventionally shaped holes.
Then of course there are the "I'm not homophobic/sexist/transphobic/racist/religiously bigoted but God is and I'm forced to side with him" people.
Finally, I'd suspect that the number of people described by your final sentence outnumbers the genuinely terrified of God splatting our country for being naughty by a sizeable multiple.
I don't think the Faragists are socially conservative, I suppose. It's like Trump in the sense of taking on some of the language of the religious conservatives with none of the.. other stuff
They seem extremely socially conservative to me - at least amongst their supporters. They're going after Trans folk as an easy target at the moment, and half their anti-Islamicism is no more than "calls to prayer and minarets aren't very British".
Generally speaking Western societies tend to frown on polygamous Mormons.
It is something of the nature of being in a free western society that socially conservative people are considered strange.
Describing Mormon polygamy as socially conservative is an interestingly revisionist viewpoint. Mormonism is centered in Utah, because that's where the Mormons fled when they were persecuted, largely over their polygamy, by social conservatives in the mid-19th century.
Mormon polygamy is patriarchal, certainly, and social conservatism also tends to support the patriarchy, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
I don't think the Faragists are socially conservative, I suppose. It's like Trump in the sense of taking on some of the language of the religious conservatives with none of the.. other stuff
Yeah, I'll admit I'm operating in an American context and referring to socially conservative American Christians. I'm not as versed in British politics, but I think Farage is a decent analogy. I'll accept semantic quibbles on what "social conservative" means. The way @KarlLB is describing them smells very familiar.
@The_Riv : Yep. Religion meets politics and stuff like this comes up. I'm also picking that up.
I grant that nearly all the responders on these boards are liberal. And, I would also grant many of Jesus principles and liberalism as we often think of it overlap. But I would also argue there are many areas where the principles of Jesus and liberalism diverge. Liberalism centers on the autonomous individual. Jesus calls for a self-giving person. Liberalism assumes moral neutrality; Jesus does not. See the Sermon on the Mount. Liberalism prioritizes consent. Jesus prioritizes covenant--there are obligations to God and neighbor. Liberalism treats harm as primarily material. Jesus treats harm as relational and spiritual. Liberalism is procedural; Jesus is transformational--restored relationships, healed communities, liberation for the oppressed.
I would argue instead of defining liberalism we should look at the self giving love of Jesus. I think this would impact how we understand rights, how we understand freedom, how we understand justice, and how we understand the good life
A lot of this is not how I understand at least a lot of liberal (US sense) political notions at all. Moral neutrality? No obligations to our neighbor? No relational harm? None of this sounds like the kind of liberalism I have encountered, though some versions of this can be liberal (particularly what I encountered in college in some contexts, decades ago). I would say that (for example) Martin Luther King would not see it all that way.
Liberalism is called “morally neutral” because it avoids endorsing any single comprehensive moral, religious, or philosophical worldview. Instead of defining the good life for everyone, it creates a public framework where people with different beliefs can coexist. The state protects basic rights and fair procedures but does not declare which moral vision—Christian, secular, traditional, progressive—is true. This neutrality emerged after centuries of conflict, aiming to prevent governments from imposing one group’s values on all others. Liberalism is not value‑free; it simply limits the state to procedural justice rather than prescribing ultimate moral ends.
Martin Luther King Jr was not a classic liberal. He approached discrimination from a Christian perspective.
I think we’re talking about different meanings of the word “liberal.” What I’m referring to above is “liberal” in the sense of wanting environmental protections, welfare and government aid for the poor, universal healthcare, and so on, at least in the US.
I grant that nearly all the responders on these boards are liberal. And, I would also grant many of Jesus principles and liberalism as we often think of it overlap. But I would also argue there are many areas where the principles of Jesus and liberalism diverge. Liberalism centers on the autonomous individual. Jesus calls for a self-giving person. Liberalism assumes moral neutrality; Jesus does not. See the Sermon on the Mount. Liberalism prioritizes consent. Jesus prioritizes covenant--there are obligations to God and neighbor. Liberalism treats harm as primarily material. Jesus treats harm as relational and spiritual. Liberalism is procedural; Jesus is transformational--restored relationships, healed communities, liberation for the oppressed.
I would argue instead of defining liberalism we should look at the self giving love of Jesus. I think this would impact how we understand rights, how we understand freedom, how we understand justice, and how we understand the good life
A lot of this is not how I understand at least a lot of liberal (US sense) political notions at all. Moral neutrality? No obligations to our neighbor? No relational harm? None of this sounds like the kind of liberalism I have encountered, though some versions of this can be liberal (particularly what I encountered in college in some contexts, decades ago). I would say that (for example) Martin Luther King would not see it all that way.
Liberalism is called “morally neutral” because it avoids endorsing any single comprehensive moral, religious, or philosophical worldview. Instead of defining the good life for everyone, it creates a public framework where people with different beliefs can coexist. The state protects basic rights and fair procedures but does not declare which moral vision—Christian, secular, traditional, progressive—is true. This neutrality emerged after centuries of conflict, aiming to prevent governments from imposing one group’s values on all others. Liberalism is not value‑free; it simply limits the state to procedural justice rather than prescribing ultimate moral ends.
Martin Luther King Jr was not a classic liberal. He approached discrimination from a Christian perspective.
I think we’re talking about different meanings of the word “liberal.” What I’m referring to above is “liberal” in the sense of wanting environmental protections, welfare and government aid for the poor, universal healthcare, and so on, at least in the US.
@Gramps49 is talking about classical liberalism, you're talking about reform liberalism. See my earlier mentioned category of "Lloyd George Liberalism".
I think Gramps49's description covers the liberalism of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. Rawls' theory would certainly support universal welfare provisions, health care, environmental protections, and so on. In fact, I think it may have been Rawls who first made explicit the idea that liberalism avoids endorsing any one moral or religious theory.
Whether Rawls' theory is neutral between moral and religious worldviews has been debated; I believe in later life Rawls decided that it wasn't.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
Except it didn't pose a threat. That's the point.
It would have for social conservatives.
What would that threat be? No-one is making them wear a frock to their prom. It doesn't affect them in any way.
It's a threat to the social norms of the status quo of definitions of masculinity and femininity as well as rewarding attention seeking behaviour.
It affects the whole community if you let it go unchecked so you say something. Same as the lefties say something and become "intolerant" if they think something is bad for everyone.
The paradox is free markets are no longer working for the west. That's what's fueling the rise of nationalism and protectionism around the western world.
I don't know about that. Free trade works really well for a lot of us, east or west.
I also question whether "the west" is such a coherent whole as people say it is. In two words: "Pond War."
I spent a wasted month of my life on the china Australia hell thread describing why the old free trade status quo developed after ww2 is no longer working for the west. Don't want to rehash it here. Maybe have a look at the thread.
The long and short of it is economic stagnation, falling wages, hollowed out manufacturing abilities as they've all been sent overseas and now we are prey to supply chain issues by non-western countries like China that do not share our values of free trade. The west is now ham strung by things like critical minerals (China produces 90% of refinement and restricts access to the west for defence spending and regularly floods and dries up the market to influence price so we can't start our own).
High end chips for AI is crucial too. We are hamstrung there when China invades Taiwan who produces 90% of the world's supply.
"The West" only becomes a real thing again when other countries and blocks like BRICS++ are actively working against it. Because we, until now, have had the upper hand.
Again, you're repeating the unfounded "attention seeking behaviour" accusation.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
Except it didn't pose a threat. That's the point.
It would have for social conservatives.
What would that threat be? No-one is making them wear a frock to their prom. It doesn't affect them in any way.
rewarding attention seeking behaviour.
Surely you "reward" by giving attention? If you ignore the guy's frock then the reward is gone. No point seeking attention if there is none to be had.
Again, you're repeating the unfounded "attention seeking behaviour" accusation.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
It would be helpful if it was just projection discomfort or identity threat, but I suspect it's more a case of people in default majorities realizing they can't so easily shame or bully others into compliance anymore. Power is eroding. So they throw tantrums.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
Conservatives don't take a humanist approach to being human. Many of them accept a divine order to things that doesn't acknowledge many different holes at all. I know you know this, Karl. Religion can be terribly harmful.
I recently became aware of brain scan research that revealed that conservative and progressive brains are 'wired' differently, namely that conservatives show more gray matter and stronger activity in the amygdala where the brain processes threats and axiety, and progressives show more gray matter and stronger activity in the anterior cingulate cortex where the brain manages risk, conflict, and emotional regulation. This is a simplification, of course, but that's the gist. Make of it what you will.
It does make us progressive religious types a weird bunch. Maybe I should get someone to look at my brain. While I think the "west is threatened" argument mentioned above is really bad, I do recognize some of the local economic circumstances that are feeding it in particular places.
And that's a neat conversation if we can get away from the stereotypes. Perhaps another thread.
One of the notable takeaways about the brain scans is that researchers were able to predict the political affiliation of their subjects with 80-82% accuracy. I'm interested in this, because I was once a very conservative person, both socially and politically. Today I'm the opposite, and I'm curious about any neurological changes I may have undergone from roughly 2010-2014.
There's not a 0% chance, though, that re: pegs and holes, many conservatives experience fear/threat both first and strongest, and respond accordingly.
Comments
But according to the premise and logic of the OP, your views would be considered intolerant and therefore right wing and conservative.
Why is there so often protection of the aggressors and blaming of the victims in institutional Christianity!
Only if you deliberately misinterpret the OP.
Wanting murderers in prison is not intolerant.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Some of the worst situations I've experienced for bullies going after those a bit different from them but who were not harming them were in schools. Children as a group have many rules forced on them and lack powers to fight back if adults abuse them or pick on them or force conformity on them but bullying gives a chance to exercise power and agency and get a sadistic thrill out of doing to others what otherwise must be suffered and endured themselves from the more powerful, and it can give a sense of belonging and relief of being ' in with the in crowd' and not being the person who is othered and bullied.
The violence of forcing the square peg into the round hole is the point - it's enjoying the exercise of power over the weaker and if you pick a demonised group falsely accused of crimes then the bullies can feel joyous and self-righteous and know they won't face consequences and that they may even be praised or gain prestige.
It's often similar with adults. People who feel powerless or relatively powerless in their own lives or that they've not got the recognition they deserve, can feel power and agency and that they are praiseworthy for going after harmless others who are a bit different.
Though it should be noted, that they often stiffen their sinews with 'othering' and conspiracy theory that the harmless others aren't actually harmless but are actually engaged in eg. the worst crimes against women and children. This legitimises cruelty and when it's done in pursuit of people 'marked' by the media and powerful people as legitimate targets for odium, it can be a route to power and prestige.
It also distracts - if people being exploited are encouraged to direct their ire and disgust to the powerless but different and making them conform, then that's not flowing upwards against their exploiters.
There's also a touch of the Prodigal son's brother about it - 'well I chose to conform and do what was expected of me and I didn't like it, so you should be punished and not get away with it and how dare anyone embrace and accept you!' It needn't be people going abroad and partying immorally - just run of the mill things like working from home or being allowed to dress informally for work or flexible hours can set off spite or jealousy that someone is 'getting away' with something that the offended person didn't get away with in their day.
The other thing I'd say is that though it can be seen more in all it's horror on the far right for whom scapegoating harmless minorities and having a Procrustean bed view of the nation and enforcing conformity is a big thing, it's present in non political and left political spaces too. Look at how some ostensibly left- wing parties have jumped on the bandwagon of harming various minorities to curry favour with media, rich donors and people who get a thrill from bullying or who can be muddled into thinking bullying is righteous self- preservation.
But it's basically bullying. It can be state and media sanctioned as in the case of moral panics or it can just be for individual psychological reasons in non-political groups.
Because it is non-verbal communication, and likely mostly processed subconsciously - people from both cultures A and B will often not know why that’s happening.
We are often told, especially women, to trust our instincts if someone feels creepy or off in some way - we are being told to trust our subconscious reading of non-verbal behaviour. This often works when most people are communicating in the same way, it causes problems when they are not. Sometimes this situation is due to reasons of neurodiversity - but neither they nor the person reacting will necessarily know that.
Like wise, small talk is an “I am not a threatening signal”, if you do not attempt it, it is possible people be wary of you because you do not not seem to be signaling you are friendly or you appear to want to be left alone. This stuff goes right back to our primate ancestory and is not necessarily under conscious control.
In the same way we will automatically pay more attention to something novel and visually different - because that is how our brains are wired. This is really difficult for people with visible difference, because people look, realise they are looking, try not to stare and then the social awkwardness of that can be difficult to negotiate.
There's a thing called "the paradox of tolerance." I suggest looking it up and reporting back. Any community, while functioning, depends on the enforcement of social norms. Tolerance is one social norm and it requires enforcement.
And leftists are very fierce in their defense of tolerance, centrists can waffle sometimes, but can often be depended on to hold the line; especially in the face of the kinds of heinous crimes we're seeing in the USA right now. Nobody is talking about jettisoning the notion of justice. The question is its enforcement.
Restorative justice is certainly an idea, but one of my observations as someone who can sometimes trend conservative is that it's rather costly in labor and resources versus the crimes being committed. And the crimes we are seeing publicly in the USA are rather extravagant.
I've certainly heard the right wing canard that leftists and liberals are relativist weather-vanes who will bend any which way whenever a strong opinion blows through the room. And I grew up in a conservative culture, so I've heard that tale rather a lot. But I've spent my adult life among liberals and leftists and I have yet to meet an actual moral relativist in the flesh. These are not people of weak conviction.
What you're describing isn't nearly the entire bunch. I'm pretty liberal and I'm rankling a little at your description of how "we" "think."
Then again, if you guys would like I could flip a few switches in my head and start highlighting the more conservative aspects of my way of thinking. Trouble is that these days...the political right in America has gone septic so it's kind of hard to interact fairly anymore. I do earnestly sympathize with the Republican never-Trumpers or what's left of them, but at this point I don't think they're good for much politically.
But of course the RCC is clergy-run, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
If you don't want to have to follow rules, don't join an institution with a lot of rules - it's quite simple. That is not to say that I agree with the rules, simply that it's hypocritical to reap the benefits of an institution while also disobeying it.
Well the RCC is inherently an absolute monarchy - if you don't like a firm hierarchy, don't join. Complaining about having to follow the rules of a very rules-heavy institution seems very odd.
Also sometimes people's instincts will be flat-out incorrect, on either the more trusting side or the more paranoid side. This can be due to neurodiversity and/or mental illness (for some conditions like OCD there is more overlap between the two, in my experience) but also sometimes just due to personal experience. If you're from a very sheltered background for instance, your danger sensors (for want of a better term) might not be as finely-tuned as those of a more streetwise person.
On the other hand, the right is generally much less troubled by restrictions on liberty due to poverty, or the need to find and keep employment: it's happy for employers to impose whatever terms on employees the employers can get away with and is quite untroubled by the power differential. The right also is generally much less troubled by peoples' liberties being restricted by lack of money or poor health and so makes no effort to rectify this through government.
It is rather a confusing paradox. You can't love free markets while insisting on nativism. That's trying to have your cake and eating it too.
Looking at some very particular locales in the USA, I can see some reasons why some places are feeling pressured to go that way, but as a global philosophy it does not make any logical sense. It's a triumph of politics over reason, which I suspect leads very organically to war.
Good job, guys!
Don’t have yourself on.
The Church (RC) is run by the laity. The Pope may be the bishop of Rome (and the titular head) and both pope, bishops and other clergy are there to guide the faithful ( such as they might be) and to serve the faithful. The hierarchical model that you describe no longer applies ( apart from a noisy few-mainly traditionalist cardinals and bishops such as Robert Sarah, Raymond Burke and the “personal prelature” of Opus Dei.
As for “ don’t join the church etc” who are you bloody kidding? The vast majority of RCs are baptised as infants before they have any say in the matter.
It forces a hollow laugh to think of the like of CJ Vance as a convert: who the hell catechised him? Now there’s a hypocrite for you!
No despite your deluded thinking change continues-and not just from the pews.
The “ smaller purer church” which you appear to think is the ideal would be nothing more than another nasty little sect.
Liberalism is called “morally neutral” because it avoids endorsing any single comprehensive moral, religious, or philosophical worldview. Instead of defining the good life for everyone, it creates a public framework where people with different beliefs can coexist. The state protects basic rights and fair procedures but does not declare which moral vision—Christian, secular, traditional, progressive—is true. This neutrality emerged after centuries of conflict, aiming to prevent governments from imposing one group’s values on all others. Liberalism is not value‑free; it simply limits the state to procedural justice rather than prescribing ultimate moral ends.
Martin Luther King Jr was not a classic liberal. He approached discrimination from a Christian perspective.
Protectionism has always been one strand within conservatism, shading into autarky as conservatism shades in fascism. The Great Depression killed off protectionism in the west for a generation (though South Korea makes an interesting case for protection of developing economies), then Thatcherism/Reaganism supercharged the right's free market fetishism. What we're seeing from Trump (in so far as there is anything beyond ginned up grievance) is an attempt to wind the clock back to a point of US economic supremacy, forgetting that US economic dominance post-WW2 was largely built on every other large industrial economy being ravaged by war and in hock to the US for billions.
You haven't met the powerful lay women who actually run many of the RCC parishes I have come across. Priests cross them at their peril!
But I kind of agree with your second point. The "rules" in the RCC apply more stringently when the rubbing point is public knowledge and causes "scandal." And when those "breaking" them are clerics. So a priest who regularly practices open communion can expect consequences, and a group ordaining bishops (to mention a current example) against the wishes of the Pope will be putting themselves into schism. But a lay person who is in an irregular relationship, for example can hope to find much more flexibility and pastoral sensitivity even when half the congregation are aware.
There is a profound difference between the regulations that are to do with the administration of the sacraments for example and the running of the organisation, and the "rules" that are to do with our individual growth and development as christians.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
Both the left and right can be guilty of intolerance in my view. It's just the flagship mantra of the left, so it's hypocritical. The right at least are usually up front about it.
The paradox is free markets are no longer working for the west. That's what's fueling the rise of nationalism and protectionism around the western world.
Except it didn't pose a threat. That's the point.
A lot of what you say is true.
The trouble is, criticism these days is often equated with bullying. And that usually shuts down the conversation, hiding any potential truth.
It would have for social conservatives.
Read the article. Agree with it. Responded above to Karl.
What would that threat be? No-one is making them wear a frock to their prom. It doesn't affect them in any way.
I research the early modern witch hunts and this is something that's very much alive then and it is still a way of thinking you can expect in eg.denominations who take their Westminster Confession seriously and full-fat
Of course you might wonder why people home in on the kid with the dress and aren't furious and active all the time about injustices to the poor and the stranger - some are- but for every one of those people there are many who get furious about other people's lifestyles and dont interrogate their own much. There are also plenty people who wouldn't know providential thinking if it kicked them up the backside but who are very keen on persecuting nonconformity.
I don't know about that. Free trade works really well for a lot of us, east or west.
I also question whether "the west" is such a coherent whole as people say it is. In two words: "Pond War."
Nobody is threatening social conservatives. Social conservatives passive aggressively threaten other people by pretending to be victims whenever someone does something they disapprove of.
That's pretty much what I've seen. If you look at his policies and style, he's trying to forcibly drag us back to the 1920s.
The funniest experience was reading an odd little novel called Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis and realizing that I was seeing the president described right down to the "crooked real estate developer." Then I realized that the book was so popular back in the day that the title became a trope.
You also had rampant racism, political violence, corruption, gangs, a negligent federal government, and all kinds of problems that made The Great Depression practically a foregone conclusion.
And now, it's like the generation that lived through the nicer side of the 20th century suddenly tried to erase all of the hard-earned lessons their parents had learned so we have to go through the horrors of the early 20th century all over again. All for greed?
The weird thing is that it makes me feel like a conservative, because now "we" are the ones holding onto the better parts of the past for the sake of a better future while it feels like the "conservative" right is flailing for a mythologized past that was never real. When I was in high school, a teacher talked about how "reactionary" was what you got when conservatives got too extreme, just as "radical" was what you got when liberals got too extreme. Instead of trying to hold to the better parts of tradition, the dominant political right is trying to drag us back to a pre-modern reality for reasons that - to me - just plain do not make any sense.
I'm not sure I agree with this. It does depend on how you define the term "social conservative" but one could say that it includes various religious groups who have less permissive practices than are common in the rest of society.
For example religious Orthodox Jews. They are conservative in the sense of wanting to continue with their practices.
If one was to identify groups who have a strong grip on these practices, I think one could fairly easily say that they are threatened.
Many people dislike the clothing and practices of Orthodox Jews. Many associate conservative Muslims with debased practices. Generally speaking Western societies tend to frown on polygamous Mormons.
It is something of the nature of being in a free western society that socially conservative people are considered strange.
Yes, but they're not threatened simply by other people being different from them. They're threatened by other people unwilling to let them be despite it not harming them.
In fact, they're threatened by other social conservative of a different kidney. We're seeing this in the UK even now by all the anti-islamic rhetoric from Reform and Reform adjacent socially conservative parties.
Yeah - I'm aware of that dynamic, but interestingly I didn't see many people who were ladling on the hatred of this poor lad invoking God's judgement on the UK if they didn't.
It does strike me that this really just puts the phenomenon back one step - it sort of assumes that God is very much on the side of pegs having to change to fit holes rather than the other way around where people don't fit into conventionally shaped holes.
Then of course there are the "I'm not homophobic/sexist/transphobic/racist/religiously bigoted but God is and I'm forced to side with him" people.
Finally, I'd suspect that the number of people described by your final sentence outnumbers the genuinely terrified of God splatting our country for being naughty by a sizeable multiple.
They seem extremely socially conservative to me - at least amongst their supporters. They're going after Trans folk as an easy target at the moment, and half their anti-Islamicism is no more than "calls to prayer and minarets aren't very British".
Describing Mormon polygamy as socially conservative is an interestingly revisionist viewpoint. Mormonism is centered in Utah, because that's where the Mormons fled when they were persecuted, largely over their polygamy, by social conservatives in the mid-19th century.
Mormon polygamy is patriarchal, certainly, and social conservatism also tends to support the patriarchy, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
Yeah, I'll admit I'm operating in an American context and referring to socially conservative American Christians. I'm not as versed in British politics, but I think Farage is a decent analogy. I'll accept semantic quibbles on what "social conservative" means. The way @KarlLB is describing them smells very familiar.
@The_Riv : Yep. Religion meets politics and stuff like this comes up. I'm also picking that up.
I think we’re talking about different meanings of the word “liberal.” What I’m referring to above is “liberal” in the sense of wanting environmental protections, welfare and government aid for the poor, universal healthcare, and so on, at least in the US.
@Gramps49 is talking about classical liberalism, you're talking about reform liberalism. See my earlier mentioned category of "Lloyd George Liberalism".
Whether Rawls' theory is neutral between moral and religious worldviews has been debated; I believe in later life Rawls decided that it wasn't.
It's a threat to the social norms of the status quo of definitions of masculinity and femininity as well as rewarding attention seeking behaviour.
It affects the whole community if you let it go unchecked so you say something. Same as the lefties say something and become "intolerant" if they think something is bad for everyone.
I spent a wasted month of my life on the china Australia hell thread describing why the old free trade status quo developed after ww2 is no longer working for the west. Don't want to rehash it here. Maybe have a look at the thread.
The long and short of it is economic stagnation, falling wages, hollowed out manufacturing abilities as they've all been sent overseas and now we are prey to supply chain issues by non-western countries like China that do not share our values of free trade. The west is now ham strung by things like critical minerals (China produces 90% of refinement and restricts access to the west for defence spending and regularly floods and dries up the market to influence price so we can't start our own).
High end chips for AI is crucial too. We are hamstrung there when China invades Taiwan who produces 90% of the world's supply.
"The West" only becomes a real thing again when other countries and blocks like BRICS++ are actively working against it. Because we, until now, have had the upper hand.
No longer.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
Surely you "reward" by giving attention? If you ignore the guy's frock then the reward is gone. No point seeking attention if there is none to be had.
Persecution generally makes people double down and reinforce their beliefs. Just look at the early Church.
It would be helpful if it was just projection discomfort or identity threat, but I suspect it's more a case of people in default majorities realizing they can't so easily shame or bully others into compliance anymore. Power is eroding. So they throw tantrums.
Conservatives don't take a humanist approach to being human. Many of them accept a divine order to things that doesn't acknowledge many different holes at all. I know you know this, Karl. Religion can be terribly harmful.
I recently became aware of brain scan research that revealed that conservative and progressive brains are 'wired' differently, namely that conservatives show more gray matter and stronger activity in the amygdala where the brain processes threats and axiety, and progressives show more gray matter and stronger activity in the anterior cingulate cortex where the brain manages risk, conflict, and emotional regulation. This is a simplification, of course, but that's the gist. Make of it what you will.
And that's a neat conversation if we can get away from the stereotypes. Perhaps another thread.
There's not a 0% chance, though, that re: pegs and holes, many conservatives experience fear/threat both first and strongest, and respond accordingly.