This only makes sense when I realize that to conservatives, it’s an identity. They think it’s an identity that Taylor Swift should have because she’s (presumably) white, popular, rich, good looking, Midwestern, Christian, etc.
To them politics is not about ideas, or policies, or problem solving, or good governance. It’s all about identity.
The real identity politics were the Conservatives we met along the way.
I’ve heard this same thing said to me by Hitler humpers trying to recruit me based on what I look like, just because we’re blonde haired and blue eyed with fair skin does not make us want to be a part of their hateful bullshit.
Anti racists come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. That’s kinda the fucking point actually.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
“But you would be part of the in-group! So why don’t you help us make the out-groups life miserable?!”
Is there any tangible advantage to be in the ingroup? What’s that I have to give 10% of my income to the church? What’s that I have to donate money to a billionaire? What’s that I will literally die from treatable malidies?
Yayyyyy…
Damn right.
Well yeah, to them it’s a tribe instead of a moral failing
Right, and so many don’t seem to understand the difference between principles and affiliation. It’s why when they respond to allegations about Trump being associated with Epstein by saying Bill Clinton was too, they’re dumbfounded when liberals say, okay, he should be investigated too.
Generally, liberals are more likely to relate to things based on principles (e.g., people shouldn’t have sex with children, so we should investigate any credible allegations regardless of who they’re about). Conservatives are more likely to relate to things based on affiliation (e.g., I reject the allegations about that guy having sex with children because he’s on my team, but the guy on your team should be investigated). That’s why Al Franken isn’t in office anymore, even though he was more guilty of an appearance of wrongdoing more than actual wrongdoing.
I don’t know much about Taylor Swift, but I assume she is simply too smart to be conservative.
That is exactly correct
The problem is that plenty of smart people are conservative. Because conservatism is fundamentally a grift, and the smart ones use the dumb ones to get richer.
Swift just has enough empathy to realize she’s already rich.
Yep. Important to separate social and fiscal conservatives. Those Gays for Trump and Blacks for Trump types are fiscal conservatives who hope that the social conservatives will consider them “one of the good ones”.
That’s true.
The smart ones are just evil.
American “conservatives” are actually radicals by this point.
Neoconservative is the better term here.
I would disagree. I think the paleocons are just as insane
You think any given political bloc isn’t mostly made up of people that think it’s an identity? If so, you’re lucky to not have run into it.
Frankly, most people stick with whatever they are raised with, and that’s that. There’s just as many blind, inherited democrats as republicans in the US. Most people don’t even understand the policy platform of their party, much less bother to challenge the correctness of it for themselves.
There aren’t two party platforms anymore. There’s one political party, and one cult. The cult doesn’t have policy. They make decisions to make the richest in the country richer, and keep their voting block scared over fabricated issues or issues they don’t care that much about. They had 12 years since 2002 to build a border wall, why is it always an issue? Is it because it’s just a grift to pay out construction companies? Maybe. They can’t win democratically so they go after votings rights and make sure the wrong people can’t vote. They exploit the very undemocratic nature of the electoral college and senate to hold a majority of the power with a minority of the overall popular vote. And when that all fails they don’t abandon their bastardized conservatism, they abandon democracy.
Alrighty then.
Gotta be real with you, it took several reads for this to not seem like someone ranting a conspiracy theory.
And it’s still a rant even after I figured out what you were on about. Which is fine! Rant awat, it’s a shitty situation for damn sure.
But you miss the point.
Here’s my rant :)
The point is that we’re mired in a two party system, and held there by the electoral method. The electoral college is whatever, but as long as it’s the whole first-past-the-post mechanism underlying it, it really doesn’t matter what the college does because nobody other than those two groups are getting in.
Which is what I’m complaining about. I’m sick of voting for the the lesser of two evils out of desperation. Whether you (or anyone) likes it or not, the DNC is only useful in comparison to the other party. Without the Republicans as a boogeyman, a supposed opposite rather than just the farthest right section, the democrats are still a bunch of capitalist assholes as whole. They’re still voting for shit in Congress that’s absurd, and they have been my entire life.
That the democrats are at least willing to give lip service to human rights is great, yay. But it isn’t like that’s been the case all along. They were just better than the “other” side.
Fuck the two party system, and fuck the electoral mechanism that allows it is what I’m saying.
It is what it is. The Democratic primaries are the real elections in my mind where you can vote for the person you like the best. In the general it’s about stopping the cult from gaining power and taking away more of our rights. I dislike people spreading apathy like they did in 2016, because we see the result. The cult can do whatever it wants and their members will still vote for them. Democrats are held to a much higher standard comparatively. Does it suck? Absolutely. It is what it is.
I’ve never seen someone with Republican values call themselves a Democrat.
I’ve seen a lot of people with Democratic values call themselves Republicans.
LOL the idea that you should automatically be conservative because of wealth. They assume that everyone is just as selfish and unempathetic as they are.
I don’t think it’s exclusive to wealth.
That’s putting it mildly.
Removed by mod
It’s all they have, honestly. Poor pathetic things.
Ms private jet is performatively liberal at best.
Yeah, but that seems in line with the Democratic party leadership.
Uh what? Since when is Taylor Swift a party leader?
edit: Downvotes don’t make her a party leader. What is she then? What seat does she hold in the senate?
What part of the sentence made you think that Taylor Swift is a democratic party leader?
If that’s not what you meant, then what part of that sentence is relevant to what I said?
They’re saying that the actual Democratic party leaders are equally performative.
…Yeah I got that. Why is it relevant?
… you sure you got that?
I can clarify. I am pretty sure it was mentioned to position her outlook in a similar spot on the overton window as the conventional mainstream liberal representatives, so that it is clear that she’s aligned with other socially liberal and fiscally colonial oligarchs.
Taylor Swift is shadow majority leader in the Senate, it’s all part of the conspiracy yo.
Joking aside, I think what Shepherd meant was that Swift being performatively liberal made her more similar to Democratic party leadership than to any sort of conservatives.
You have an internet connection, so you’re performatively liberal at best too. You don’t even think about people that can’t afford an internet connection, how can you be on the left?
In fact everyone on the internet is performative. That’s what everything on here is, someone’s performance. You could be Jeff Bezos for all anyone knows.
I know I mentioned this a few days ago but some anonymous person on reddit said something like this a few years ago:
They [implying white supremacists] are just mad she doesn’t want to be their blue eyed goddess spokesperson
Honestly, I understand what he means. She’s from a stupid rich family and grew up surrounded by country music influences. Statistically speaking, she probably would be a conservative.
The higher the population moves up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the fewer conservatives in the population.
The problem is that FOX isn’t conservative, it’s reactionary. Conservative fundamentally means that you stick to what you know works, so they should all be social democrats. Because that is what worked the last 70 years. Not neoliberalism or magnifying fringe social issues
