Depends on what you mean by embrace. Even someone who is 99% liberal can be useful. Being nice and welcoming, while the woke crazies drive people away, can make people move more towards good things. Hell, 99% liberals seem to have helped the right move to the right on issues like transgenderism.
What should not be done is pander on substance to the 99% of these refugees.
By embrace, I pretty much meant the scenario portrayed here; things like inviting them to speak at big "conservative" conferences. I'm not saying drive them away with pitchforks, I'm not saying be dicks to them and drive them back fully into the arms of insane leftists. Tolerate them to some extent...don't showcase them, don't turn your party, movement, or conference over to them.
A great example would be Riley Gaines. Something I'll actually almost fully agree with Imp on, minus the standard Impsanity around murderous intent and genocide, of course. She's a liberal through-and-through, and that's fine. She's a feminist...less fine, but sure, you do you, Riley. But she's not a conservative, she's never claimed to be a conservative. Yet all these "conservative" people, talk shows, and conferences keep giving her the mic and, worse, trying to curry favor with her.
It's one thing to talk to her. It's another to invite her to everything, and agree with her on everything just because she doesn't want men in women's sports. The amount of times I've heard "conservatives" (I'm getting tired of putting that in quotes, but it must be done) talk about how important women's sports are is insane. That was never the goal. It's at best a biproduct of defending reality. Yet they're parroting feminist talking points, because they can't help themselves.
People are easily led. For better or worse (worse), these "conservative" leaders are thought leaders. I don't want them pushing literal feminism, and thus at least marginally shifting the whole movement leftward, just because they found a high profile woman who agrees with them (for different reasons) on one dang issue.
I want conservatives to stand on principle. Heck, I want everyone to stand on principle. I can respect a principled leftist or liberal. Say what you mean, don't shift your opinion to court people who disagree with you on everything else, and don't push your followers to believe more in line with your ideological opponents, and current scourge on civilization. That sort of embrace literally pushes the right leftward, and is incredibly damaging.
I don't care about women's sports in the slightest, at least in the professional sense. Sure, girls should be protected, and sports are good learning experiences. Absolutely protect school sports. But professional women's sports? The only reason I don't want men there is because men aren't women. I'm not going to go on at length about how important and vital professional women's sports are. Even outside of the 'lul women's sports' meme, as someone who appreciated the concept of a free market, women's sports can't really stand on its own, and certainly isn't something worth getting bent out of shape over. If there's a female category, males shouldn't play in it. The discussion can end there, without talking about female empowerment and the like.
And it's not just about Riley Gaines. There are tons of liberal, or feminist, or racialist, and similar grifters that the right keeps embracing wholesale. Have these people on, sure. Talk about the issues you agree on, sure. But I'd like a little bit of conservative pushback on nonconservative arguments, instead of changing from a conservative stance to try and court them. That's incredibly damaging in my opinion.
Hell, 99% liberals seem to have helped the right move to the right on issues like transgenderism.
I'm not so sure, as outlined above. Liberals have helped the right move to the left on transgender arguments. The right would be better served if they stayed on the right side of the argument, in my opinion.
Even someone who is 99% liberal can be useful. Being nice and welcoming, while the woke crazies drive people away, can make people move more towards good things...What should not be done is pander on substance to the 99% of these refugees.
Absolutely agreed, actually. But the only way they'll ever be more than at best useful puppets, and at worse saboteurs, is if they get a bit of (polite) pushback on their nonconservative ideas. A 99% liberal is indeed useful...for their potential to become a 98% liberal, a 97% liberal, and so on. But the tradeoff isn't worth it if they're channeling those 1%s back into a wider conservative audience.
Embrace liberals...don't embrace their ideas, would be a better way to put it, I suppose. But the right can't help but embrace the ideas, too, because they've had it drilled into them to care about the leftists. Even though they know it's bull, they seem to want to prove themselves to the "empathetic" side. And it's hurting them massively, and has been for decades...probably centuries and millennia, in fact.
Tolerate them to some extent...don't showcase them, don't turn your party, movement, or conference over to them.
Reasonable. But the question is, if the present case were accurate, would it be turning your party or conference over to Dave Chapelle by inviting him and having him perform for you.
Like you, I see the dangers. Particularly in seeing that because so much of the other side is totally vitriolic, I see people praise total nutjobs because 'they are willing to talk'. Eh, that is not praiseworthy. That's just normal. If you talk and total BS comes out of your mouth, that is not something in your favor.
She's a liberal through-and-through, and that's fine. She's a feminist...less fine, but sure, you do you, Riley. But she's not a conservative, she's never claimed to be a conservative. Yet all these "conservative" people, talk shows, and conferences keep giving her the mic
Do they do that to 'curry favor' or to showcase what they view as the problem with the transgender insanity? I had never noticed that she is a feminist, if she is. At the very least, she is downplaying it.
I don't see the downside.
The amount of times I've heard "conservatives" (I'm getting tired of putting that in quotes, but it must be done) talk about how important women's sports are is insane.
The Spartans had women's sports. Health is important. Professional women's sports isn't, because they are not very good. That said, I think these conservatives are pretending in order to have a stick with which to beat the left.
"Men are invading this thing that is totally ridiculous and unimportant" would not strike as hard. And besides, what exactly is the problem even if they legitimately believed that women's sport is important?
I want conservatives to stand on principle
I don't. I want them to win. Of course, the tension is that winning is meaningless unless you stand for something. The important things have to be OK. Feminism needs to be opposed, as you say, but pretending - or really believing - that women's sports is important, meh.
Also, abortion seems to be killing the American right.
Absolutely protect school sports. But professional women's sports? The only reason I don't want men there is because men aren't women. I'm not going to go on at length about how important and vital professional women's sports are.
Haha, you have the exact same opinion that I just expressed before viewing this part. That said, is it really an important matter if some conservatives pretend that professionel women's sports are important? Does it have a bearing on literally anything?
I realize that you may just be using this as an example. There may be more important issues they are compromising on. If so, I do condemn that. But this?
If there's a female category, males shouldn't play in it. The discussion can end there, without talking about female empowerment and the like.
The word 'empowerment' just makes me cringe.
I'm not so sure, as outlined above. Liberals have helped the right move to the left on transgender arguments. The right would be better served if they stayed on the right side of the argument, in my opinion.
Just a few years ago, DJT was saying that he's fine with men going to women's facilities, and no one on the right cared. The right allowed corporate scum to intimidate North Carolina into repealing its law. And even "based" governors like that creep in South Dakota were vetoing laws.
We have made progress. This has coincided with some people from the left joining in on this cause. Is there cause and effect? Maybe not, but even the leftists make stronger statements on the issue than the right was making a short while back.
But the only way they'll ever be more than at best useful puppets, and at worse saboteurs, is if they get a bet of (polite) pushback on their nonconservative ideas. A 99% liberal is indeed useful...for their potential to become a 98% liberal, a 97% liberal, and so on.
Assume for a moment that they will stay 99%. The 1% can be very useful. If they're not actively burning down the 99%, I really don't see the problem. If conservatives are so incontinent that they cannot but pander to them, that is a conservative-problem, not a big tent problem.
As an aside, I've never found conservative pushback to be the least bit persuasive. The people persuading me that conservatives have a point are the left and their insanity, as well as Thomas Sowell. Actually, the only time someone here changed my mind was when you opposed the French retirement reform by saying that people should always protest when the government makes their lives worse. Ironically, you moved me slightly to the left, as that position is coded left in Europe.
Embrace liberals...don't embrace their ideas
I wasn't at all suggesting to embrace liberal ideas (except when ideas held by liberals happen to be right).
. But the right can't help but embrace the ideas, too, because they've had it drilled into them to care about the leftists. Even though they know it's bull, they seem to want to prove themselves to the "empathetic" side.
I think this is because the total domination of media by the left. You can't help but be influenced by it. Furthermore, if you control the discourse, you dictate what is seen as empathetic. It is not a law of nature that going easy on rapist refugees is 'empathetic', that is just what is force-fed to us.
I see this all the time when trolling through the firearm forums on reddit - the joke about 'liberal gun owners' being 'temporary gun owners' is almost always true. Ask them what they'd do if thier guy made guns illegal, and 99% of the time they'd just fall over themselves giving up those guns they bought to protect themselves from all those scary conservatives.
Pandering to your enemy does not work, and it just pisses off your constituents when you try to make compromises to court a larger base that only go one way.
I see this all the time when trolling through the firearm forums on reddit - the joke about 'liberal gun owners' being 'temporary gun owners' is almost always true.
But you discount how many of them become conservatives. There are many leftists in Europe who are critical of immigration. There are fewer of them each year, because some of them go to the right and some of them start following the party line.
Pandering to your enemy does not work
I didn't talk about pandering. I talked about circumstances where people who disagree with you on most issues can still be very useful to one cause.
and it just pisses off your constituents when you try to make compromises to court a larger base that only go one way.
It requires no compromise. Just for people to keep their spaghetti in your pocket. If someone is a liberal on all issues, but has seen the light on transgenderism, he can be very useful.
But you discount how many of them become conservatives.
I've never seen them turn conservative.
It's always some distribution of 'I'm [insert-right-leaning buzzword here] BUT-' that basically code word for 'I like this thing but going to vote it away at the voting both, every time'.
Even the ones that are of the 'I used to be a liberal but the overton window keeps shifting' eventually has a mask-off moment. Like clockwork.
If they exist, they're in the minority, and I have no patience to pander to minorities.
Europe
I'm not talking about Europe, and I don't care about them. They're big boys and can take care of themselves. I'm more focused on my own backyard, thanks.
Even the ones that are of the 'I used to be a liberal but the overton window keeps shifting' eventually has a mask-off moment. Like clockwork.
You mean something that you disagree with. It's not the same as a "mask off" moment, which suggests deception on their part. It makes sense that people who used to be a liberal except for them getting more extreme would not agree with you on everything.
I'm not talking about Europe, and I don't care about them. They're big boys and can take care of themselves. I'm more focused on my own backyard, thanks.
I'm giving an example, not demanding that you care about Europe.
Depends on what you mean by embrace. Even someone who is 99% liberal can be useful. Being nice and welcoming, while the woke crazies drive people away, can make people move more towards good things. Hell, 99% liberals seem to have helped the right move to the right on issues like transgenderism.
What should not be done is pander on substance to the 99% of these refugees.
By embrace, I pretty much meant the scenario portrayed here; things like inviting them to speak at big "conservative" conferences. I'm not saying drive them away with pitchforks, I'm not saying be dicks to them and drive them back fully into the arms of insane leftists. Tolerate them to some extent...don't showcase them, don't turn your party, movement, or conference over to them.
A great example would be Riley Gaines. Something I'll actually almost fully agree with Imp on, minus the standard Impsanity around murderous intent and genocide, of course. She's a liberal through-and-through, and that's fine. She's a feminist...less fine, but sure, you do you, Riley. But she's not a conservative, she's never claimed to be a conservative. Yet all these "conservative" people, talk shows, and conferences keep giving her the mic and, worse, trying to curry favor with her.
It's one thing to talk to her. It's another to invite her to everything, and agree with her on everything just because she doesn't want men in women's sports. The amount of times I've heard "conservatives" (I'm getting tired of putting that in quotes, but it must be done) talk about how important women's sports are is insane. That was never the goal. It's at best a biproduct of defending reality. Yet they're parroting feminist talking points, because they can't help themselves.
People are easily led. For better or worse (worse), these "conservative" leaders are thought leaders. I don't want them pushing literal feminism, and thus at least marginally shifting the whole movement leftward, just because they found a high profile woman who agrees with them (for different reasons) on one dang issue.
I want conservatives to stand on principle. Heck, I want everyone to stand on principle. I can respect a principled leftist or liberal. Say what you mean, don't shift your opinion to court people who disagree with you on everything else, and don't push your followers to believe more in line with your ideological opponents, and current scourge on civilization. That sort of embrace literally pushes the right leftward, and is incredibly damaging.
I don't care about women's sports in the slightest, at least in the professional sense. Sure, girls should be protected, and sports are good learning experiences. Absolutely protect school sports. But professional women's sports? The only reason I don't want men there is because men aren't women. I'm not going to go on at length about how important and vital professional women's sports are. Even outside of the 'lul women's sports' meme, as someone who appreciated the concept of a free market, women's sports can't really stand on its own, and certainly isn't something worth getting bent out of shape over. If there's a female category, males shouldn't play in it. The discussion can end there, without talking about female empowerment and the like.
And it's not just about Riley Gaines. There are tons of liberal, or feminist, or racialist, and similar grifters that the right keeps embracing wholesale. Have these people on, sure. Talk about the issues you agree on, sure. But I'd like a little bit of conservative pushback on nonconservative arguments, instead of changing from a conservative stance to try and court them. That's incredibly damaging in my opinion.
I'm not so sure, as outlined above. Liberals have helped the right move to the left on transgender arguments. The right would be better served if they stayed on the right side of the argument, in my opinion.
Absolutely agreed, actually. But the only way they'll ever be more than at best useful puppets, and at worse saboteurs, is if they get a bit of (polite) pushback on their nonconservative ideas. A 99% liberal is indeed useful...for their potential to become a 98% liberal, a 97% liberal, and so on. But the tradeoff isn't worth it if they're channeling those 1%s back into a wider conservative audience.
Embrace liberals...don't embrace their ideas, would be a better way to put it, I suppose. But the right can't help but embrace the ideas, too, because they've had it drilled into them to care about the leftists. Even though they know it's bull, they seem to want to prove themselves to the "empathetic" side. And it's hurting them massively, and has been for decades...probably centuries and millennia, in fact.
Reasonable. But the question is, if the present case were accurate, would it be turning your party or conference over to Dave Chapelle by inviting him and having him perform for you.
Like you, I see the dangers. Particularly in seeing that because so much of the other side is totally vitriolic, I see people praise total nutjobs because 'they are willing to talk'. Eh, that is not praiseworthy. That's just normal. If you talk and total BS comes out of your mouth, that is not something in your favor.
Do they do that to 'curry favor' or to showcase what they view as the problem with the transgender insanity? I had never noticed that she is a feminist, if she is. At the very least, she is downplaying it.
I don't see the downside.
The Spartans had women's sports. Health is important. Professional women's sports isn't, because they are not very good. That said, I think these conservatives are pretending in order to have a stick with which to beat the left.
"Men are invading this thing that is totally ridiculous and unimportant" would not strike as hard. And besides, what exactly is the problem even if they legitimately believed that women's sport is important?
I don't. I want them to win. Of course, the tension is that winning is meaningless unless you stand for something. The important things have to be OK. Feminism needs to be opposed, as you say, but pretending - or really believing - that women's sports is important, meh.
Also, abortion seems to be killing the American right.
Haha, you have the exact same opinion that I just expressed before viewing this part. That said, is it really an important matter if some conservatives pretend that professionel women's sports are important? Does it have a bearing on literally anything?
I realize that you may just be using this as an example. There may be more important issues they are compromising on. If so, I do condemn that. But this?
The word 'empowerment' just makes me cringe.
Just a few years ago, DJT was saying that he's fine with men going to women's facilities, and no one on the right cared. The right allowed corporate scum to intimidate North Carolina into repealing its law. And even "based" governors like that creep in South Dakota were vetoing laws.
We have made progress. This has coincided with some people from the left joining in on this cause. Is there cause and effect? Maybe not, but even the leftists make stronger statements on the issue than the right was making a short while back.
Assume for a moment that they will stay 99%. The 1% can be very useful. If they're not actively burning down the 99%, I really don't see the problem. If conservatives are so incontinent that they cannot but pander to them, that is a conservative-problem, not a big tent problem.
As an aside, I've never found conservative pushback to be the least bit persuasive. The people persuading me that conservatives have a point are the left and their insanity, as well as Thomas Sowell. Actually, the only time someone here changed my mind was when you opposed the French retirement reform by saying that people should always protest when the government makes their lives worse. Ironically, you moved me slightly to the left, as that position is coded left in Europe.
I wasn't at all suggesting to embrace liberal ideas (except when ideas held by liberals happen to be right).
I think this is because the total domination of media by the left. You can't help but be influenced by it. Furthermore, if you control the discourse, you dictate what is seen as empathetic. It is not a law of nature that going easy on rapist refugees is 'empathetic', that is just what is force-fed to us.
This will never work.
I see this all the time when trolling through the firearm forums on reddit - the joke about 'liberal gun owners' being 'temporary gun owners' is almost always true. Ask them what they'd do if thier guy made guns illegal, and 99% of the time they'd just fall over themselves giving up those guns they bought to protect themselves from all those scary conservatives.
Pandering to your enemy does not work, and it just pisses off your constituents when you try to make compromises to court a larger base that only go one way.
But you discount how many of them become conservatives. There are many leftists in Europe who are critical of immigration. There are fewer of them each year, because some of them go to the right and some of them start following the party line.
I didn't talk about pandering. I talked about circumstances where people who disagree with you on most issues can still be very useful to one cause.
It requires no compromise. Just for people to keep their spaghetti in your pocket. If someone is a liberal on all issues, but has seen the light on transgenderism, he can be very useful.
I've never seen them turn conservative.
It's always some distribution of 'I'm [insert-right-leaning buzzword here] BUT-' that basically code word for 'I like this thing but going to vote it away at the voting both, every time'.
Even the ones that are of the 'I used to be a liberal but the overton window keeps shifting' eventually has a mask-off moment. Like clockwork.
If they exist, they're in the minority, and I have no patience to pander to minorities.
I'm not talking about Europe, and I don't care about them. They're big boys and can take care of themselves. I'm more focused on my own backyard, thanks.
You mean something that you disagree with. It's not the same as a "mask off" moment, which suggests deception on their part. It makes sense that people who used to be a liberal except for them getting more extreme would not agree with you on everything.
I'm giving an example, not demanding that you care about Europe.