It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do conservatives believe in adaptation?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I realize the term "conservative" should make the answer to this question obvious, but I'd rather have a conversation about this rather than just assume. I realize this may be painting with a broad brush but...Do conservatives/right-wingers believe in adaptation?

Decades ago, America thrived in its capitalistic ways - We took risks, we made advancements, we pushed forward and progressed on so many issues and in so many ways. There's arguments that today's advancements are minor compared to this time - A lot of things are basically the same, most technology is just built upon technologies made decades ago, rights for minorities, women, and the like have almost halted in progress when they made huge leaps and bounds back then, or take much, much more time to make any progress on.

My question is - The old ways that pushed us forward, are they now holding us back? Is it as if the mentalities of decades ago.. Are meant to stay there? Should we learn from their exact ways, or rather learn from their desire to push forward, be better, make this nation a better place?

Would America be more successful if we say implemented Switzerland-style socialism - Or is our path to greatness a different path, and not the emulation of others - Regardless, it seems the very definition of "conservative" would mean we would have a large number of people against advancements, against progression, against achievement and becoming better as a nation - No, instead they focus on what used to be and insist on focusing on nostalgia rather than reality?

Would America progress more on the issues if we had a forward-thinking plan, rather than idolizing the golden years? It seems conservatives focus on how things "used to be" without realizing that it was "progressive" mentalities that brought us to greatness in the first place.

Am I over-generalizing, or is it as if they cannot adapt, and cannot realize that adaptation is what made America great?

Just curious. I'd like to hear from anyone on this topic, whether you agree with me, disagree with me, or any other stance.

Thanks for reading.

-Deadlyhope

edit on 19-3-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I consider myself an anomaly, a mixture of both conservative and left beliefs. The conservative in me will fight an agenda of change just for the sake of change, done so we can pat ourselves on the back and feel good about ourselves. I believe we have a responsibility to our fellow man, but object to being responsible for those who make poor life choices and show no self-responsibility for those choices.

I can go on and on, but ultimately I'm not opposed to change, if it will have a meaningful impact or is an effective solution to the problem at hand. I will never support change that rescinds rights for the illusion of safety--that's a non-starter for me.


edit on 9862016232016-03-19T17:40:23-05:0020166pm230540 by Boscowashisnamo because: none given.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Nevermind.
edit on 3/19/2016 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Conservatives believe that change is not something to be done lightly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever change at all.

For the most part, we believe that change is something that should be undertaken cautiously, not simply because what you are changing is "old." Old ways are not always bad just because they are old. In fact, sometimes, it turns out that the old ways got that way because they wound up being the best ways to do things as discovered over time. They lasted through the ages because they are, in fact, the soundest ways.

If conservatism were actually as you say, then we would still be riding around in horse drawn carriages. Well, actually no ... we'd be living in caves, wearing unsewn skins and still afraid of fire.

And of course, you are comparing technology to culture and social structures, too. You won't unmake the fabric of civilized society in new and unanticipated ways if you simply buy a more powerful smart TV, you will if you unravel the basic family unit.
edit on 19-3-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I'm a firm believer in .....If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But if it's obsolete and only kept around because it's "traditional" That BS.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The problem here is that you have stacked the deck with your wording. Take the word "progressive," for example. By itself, without the political implications, it's a pretty good, positive word. It implies one who is "progressive" is, of course "for progress." "Progress" is a "good thing," therefore "Progressives" are good. And furthermore, anyone who is not "a progressive," must therefore be "regressive," or at least standing still. We've been inculcated with that definition. Witness: "Progress is our most important product." Where did that phrase come from? Ronald Reagan shilling for General Electric, that capitalist monster corporation in the 1960's.

You see, the word "liberal" wasn't working out so well. It was beginning to be a bit tainted. You know: "libtard" and so forth. And people began to understand that "liberal" in its original meaning had kind of morphed into socialist, or even communist in what self-proclaimed liberals were actually advocating. So "liberals" re-branded themselves as "progressives," a self-serving term that MAY not incorporate the original dictionary definition of what "progressive" used to mean anyway.

And now here you are suggesting that "conservatives" are not "adaptable," with the same sort of connotation. "Adaptable" is good because "only the adaptable survive" and willing to try new things to meet new circumstances. From an evolutionary perspective, a species adapts to a new environment, or it dies. Isn't that pretty much where you're going with this?

Well, I see what you did there.

But to a conservative, which is a pretty general term, "progressives" aren't progressive at all. They seem hell-bent on getting government control to take over more and more of our lives. They want to take away individual responsibility and incentive. If any individual does better than anyone else, we must take the fruit of their wealth away from them and give it to someone who is less "fortunate," the idea being that only "fortune" has provided it for them. It's not the result of hard work or determination.

And when you look at "adaptation" of, say new technology, the conservative sees it's always the liberals who block it and say we shouldn't go there. It's the liberal progressives who stage protests, not the conservatives. It's the "progressives" who are so afraid to hear Donald Trump that they block the freeway leading to his rally to prevent anyone else from hearing him. Now I don't know a Progressive alive who doesn't believe in "free speech" and the First Amendment. But it's only for Progressives--not for Donald Trump. He isn't ALLOWED to speak because why? Because Progressives don't like his message.

And that leads conservatives to labeling progressives hypocrites and increasingly, thugs. It's just funny that Progressives say Trump is inciting violence when it is they who try to stop Trump from speaking by yelling him down. Who is violent here? The progressives, of course!

So, Progressives have once again attempted to shape the dialog by perverting words to their own use. But by traditional definitions, Progressives are not progressives and Conservatives are not conservative. (And Trump is not "a" conservative, either.) You're all playing with definitions here and not dealing with the real issues.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I did write the post more aimed at a response to another thread, so it does seem I'm biased - But I'm actually conservative in my own life and prefer capitalism, small government, etc - But when looking at the issues, how I think others lives should be lived - I don't. I don't think people nor the government should have the right to tell others what to do - not unless they are threatening the life or liberty of others in ways defined in the constitution, for instance.

When it comes down to it, I'm a libertarian.

But - Libertarianism is not gaining ground, the realist in me says there's not going to be a president, let alone a senate or house with libertarian views implemented, so for the moment, I lean towards socialistic collectivism, I suppose you could call it.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Oh, I'm not sure such things are anomalies exactly.

I'm a conservative right-wing christian in my own life.

However, I don't think my views, my opinions, my morality needs to be followed by others. If I were a law-maker, I would be called a liberal for sure.

If I had to be branded, I guess libertarian fits.

However, libertarianism is not going to thrive in DC any time soon - So, for the moment, I lean towards the left, and socialistic collectivism I suppose you could call it.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

So basically because you don't believe it will ever happen, you'll stop fighting for what you say you truly believe and sell us all out?

Gee, thanks.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Here's the thing - collectivism IS advocating for ONE morality and that morality is determined by the collective as determined by the state.

You want to live your own life as a conservative, right-wing Christian? Too bad! The collective has decided that those views are hateful, bigoted and outside the norm and are against the values of the greater good, so if you don't "adapt," you will be sacrificed to the greater good. See you at the ovens because that's always where collectivism ends up sooner or later.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I realize the term "conservative" should make the answer to this question obvious, but I'd rather have a conversation about this rather than just assume. I realize this may be painting with a broad brush but...Do conservatives/right-wingers believe in adaptation?

Decades ago, America thrived in its capitalistic ways - We took risks, we made advancements, we pushed forward and progressed on so many issues and in so many ways. There's arguments that today's advancements are minor compared to this time - A lot of things are basically the same, most technology is just built upon technologies made decades ago, rights for minorities, women, and the like have almost halted in progress when they made huge leaps and bounds back then, or take much, much more time to make any progress on.

My question is - The old ways that pushed us forward, are they now holding us back? Is it as if the mentalities of decades ago.. Are meant to stay there? Should we learn from their exact ways, or rather learn from their desire to push forward, be better, make this nation a better place?

Would America be more successful if we say implemented Switzerland-style socialism - Or is our path to greatness a different path, and not the emulation of others - Regardless, it seems the very definition of "conservative" would mean we would have a large number of people against advancements, against progression, against achievement and becoming better as a nation - No, instead they focus on what used to be and insist on focusing on nostalgia rather than reality?

Would America progress more on the issues if we had a forward-thinking plan, rather than idolizing the golden years? It seems conservatives focus on how things "used to be" without realizing that it was "progressive" mentalities that brought us to greatness in the first place.

Am I over-generalizing, or is it as if they cannot adapt, and cannot realize that adaptation is what made America great?

Just curious. I'd like to hear from anyone on this topic, whether you agree with me, disagree with me, or any other stance.

Thanks for reading.

-Deadlyhope


Technology and out sourcing has narrowed down the work force so much, with the only sector fattening up being anything technology, its hard not to want the good old days back, such as when typing was viewed as such a necessary skill, just the fact you could type with no other skills or experience guaranteed employment. This goes for a lot of other skills that are not seen as valuable. One of the major problems now is most employers do not provide on the job training and people have to take out loans to go back to school to get with the changing times, but that even doesn't promise employment any more.

I think the real problem is there are too many people willing to work who are smart and all these hyped up welfare rat stories sbout people being lazy are to keep the attention off the real problem, which is there are not enough jobs available along with established businesses both big and small, not receptive to new business due to over saturation of the most typical new small businesses forming, created because the owner couldn't find employment themselves or one that paid them enough to meet the living standard of the surrounding communities. Over inflated rent and so forth.

Conservatives have adapted to this change but it just kicks them in the ass. There's no where to go from any point and the only adaption that follows is recovering from your ass kicking and trying to hide a now permanent limp and try to pretend everything is ok so you don't freak out your kids. But hey, that's what the media is doing too. Pretending its other problems holding the U.S. back and not speaking of or addressing the real truth which is technology took away jobs and is going to continue doing so. Those involved in technology will experience a huge downsizing in their sector due to AI being able to do what they did.

The only sector that would be deemed remotely safe from AI in the future is entertainment and very personal services where the audience or client enjoys human to human interaction. Massage therapy, concerts, plays and such, but then again, who's going to be able to pay for the service or show? Other entertainers and those working in the whittled down to nothing, technology sector. Not very many political conservatives and conservative personalities are going to feel excited about that.

The old ways that pushed us forward was a small period of time that settled into the perfect use of both technology and human workers. Would have been nice had it politely stopped there. It is out of control now. The fear we feel is real and the real is genuinely real, not a fantasy or a skewed perception. Many sense but are too scared to gather all the facts and see it for what it really is, purposely being in denial to keep their sanity. And what we are experiencing now, assed kicked but more or less ok, more less ok, will make us look back at this time in the future as a peaceful time if this technology blob from hell is allowed to grow bigger; eventually consuming us all.




top topics



 
3

log in

join