posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Ghost375
I think we all knew this site has Conservative tendencies, but recently I realized this site houses a specific type of conservative, Reactionaries.
But you cannot say that this website is "filled with reactionaries" because the description fits less than the majority of posters.
Merriam Webster defines them as:
relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
Another source I found describes them in more detail, and I think you will agree, it describes the majority of people on this site rather well:
“Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism, especially that which wishes to
return to a real or imagined old order of things, and which is willing to use coercive means to do so. The term is primarily used as a term of
opprobrium (groups rarely identify themselves as reactionary), meant to assert the idea that the opposition is based in merely reflexive politics
rather than responsive and informed views. More specifically, the term "reactionary" is frequently used to refer to those who want to reverse (or
prevent) some form of claimed "progressive" change.
These descriptions fail to account for a significant proportion of this websites membership. How many people on this website did not trust George
Bush, did not believe what they were told by the media about certain events leading up to the war in Iraq, the war itself, the reasons for going? An
ultra-conservative would believe that any excuse to stain sand with the blood of "strange foriegn types" would be a good excuse, believe blindly in
any story told them by Bush, and wouldnt question anything that was preceeded by a fifteen second display of the star spangled banner. You could tell
them that from next week, gravity will be reduced to save money, and they would start wearing lead boots, if you played some marching music and asked
the announcer to put a 1950's lilt in his voice.
Then they rephrase it as(site was seemingly written by a reactionary): A Reactionary is a rational moralist combating cultural and political insanity.
I think they would favor the second description, even if both are rather accurate.
That source has a chart that compares Reactionaries, Neocons, Progressives, and Fascists.
For government, they choose state's rights and individualism.
For Foreign policy, they are very American centered and oppose immigration.
For taxes, very anti-tax in all forms.
For education, they generally support homeschooling, and oppose the public school system.
I won't go into all the details, but I find the chart to be very descriptive and accurate of the people on this site.
You can see how people who hold these political views, received the name reactionary. Look at this site. People respond very reactively,
particularly those who hold these ultraconservative views.
They sit around waiting for something to respond to. When something happens they don't like, they respond vigorously.
None of this is necessarily good or bad, it just is.
Knowing oneself does not cause a person to place others in boxes. It is a deep lack of self knowledge, which informs a persons need to do this, a
total lack of self awareness, which leads a person to desire simple answers to complicated questions, like how the demographic of a website works in
reality for instance. The truth is there are left leaning socialists here, massively right wing doom cultists too, and every stereotype in between,
all contributing to this one massive edifice which you and I know as ATS. Knowing oneself leads to a total absence of that need to know everyones
"type". If you know yourself, you dont need to know how a group of people you will never meet, tick. Hell, if you really know yourself, thats about
all you need to know at all!
I just found it interesting that the more research I did on reactionaries, the more accurate I found the term to apply to the people on this site.
Dont get me wrong. I can understand why you might make an error of this sort, but an error it surely is. Like I said, there are literally all sorts
here, a fact of which we should be intensely proud as a community of people. The term is not accurate, unless you are willing to be accused, rightly,
of tarring a great mass of people, with a brush they do not deserve to be marked with.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)