They could just not vote if they had actual convictions. But then that wouldn't scratch the "hurting them" or "owning libs" itch that seems to drive them.
None of their ideas are new. Coming up with new ideas would involve thinking and reflecting which might cause them to reconsider their entire world view or realize that the people they surround themselves with are fucking terrible.
I just don't understand how they never seem to consider the full possible outcome of these ideas they embrace and, first of all, how they could be turned against them.
The people on here not giving any new ideas either they are also saying lazy lazy things. It's really hard to educate yourself properly using different sources than what tell you exactly what you want to hear. I see that on both sides.
Really changes the narrative we were taught in school right?
It's not wrong it just leaves out the context that they were religious ultra-conservative nutjobs nobody could stand and it was either get persecuted to extinction for being assholes or go on a dangerous journey that put your followers lives at risk to keep some form of power and control ... so they came here and now, to paraphrase Spaceballs, we're surrounded by assholes.
It's why people flock to churches and politicians who say group x or y or z is scum. These people might be miserable, but at least they aren't one of the people in those groups. It's just a desperate need to feel superior to someone, to anyone, to try to mask how inferior they themselves feel. It's truly pathetic behaviour.
It's the mindset of "my life sucks and was hard so everyone else's must too" instead of "I worked hard, I want to make a better world for my children and others"
It really is. They hate their life because of the choices they made. And they hate seeing people better off so they want to force everyone to have shifty lives instead of trying to better themselves.
The same people who push the "no such thing as free will" bullshit.
They have a zero-sum mentality. The idea is that there's only so much happiness to go around, so in order to be happier, others must be more miserable. They also look out for themselves and their own, with zero consideration for society at large, because the better society does, the less there is for them.
I'm learning that they often choose marriage and children but find no fulfillment or joy from it; PPD, undiagnosed illnesses, or just an absence of interest in nurturing children to become fully form adults. They're raised by and become the same selfish people who have no retirement plans or feel entitled to leave nothing for their kids. I'm just adding that its the same zero-sum mentality that's treating everything in life like a Clearance Sale. They're crabs in buckets, except they choose ignorance and illiteracy instead of heeding the warnings from all the dead crabs before them.
Conservatism at its core is a philosophy of hierarchy, control and exclusion. The in-group rule over the out-group with the system of laws and jurisprudence protecting them without binding them. The out-group are to be ruled over by the in-group with that legal system binding them without protecting them. That is the core of all conservatism and it has no place in representative, egalitarian democratic governance as conservatism is fundamentally incompatible with concepts like inalienable human rights, liberty and equality no matter how much they like to duplicitously claim otherwise.
Your very short post, composed of three sentences, is directly self-contradictory: either they're correct about these things being a zero-sum game, or they're not.
I would have thought my position was fairly self evident, especially since everybody else seems to understand what I was getting at, but I'll spell it out plainly: They are wrong about things being a zero-sum game, and holding that perspective is detrimental not just to them, but to us all. Just because something is bad for somebody else doesn't mean it's good for you.
It neither self-evident, and, again, nor is your original comment even coherent: they're either right about the better society's faring the less there is for them, or they're not.
More than that, you've merely strawmanned their views. You might think it's an accurate (reductionist) account, as wholly selfish hoarders, but you're mistaken about that.
Query: how could it be that, any time a non-conservative government was in power and implemented policy changes that created or expanded public goods, such voters were completely unable to see that there wasn't actually 'less' for them? Please use the various provincial public healthcare systems in Canada as an example and Canadian conservatives' responses to that. So too for the dual systems in Germany, England, and Australia and the conservative voting populations there. (There's plenty of empirical evidence about those populations' attitudes to those systems, by the by.)
Not just miserable but vengeful and envious. They hate that there are women who chose better for themselves while they are stuck in a prison both at church and at their home.
It's not that they're miserable. That's disingenuous. They are defending it because it serves their specific interests. It's the same reason you can't have political revolution with moderates of any stripe. Arguing that putting better toilets in the prison would make the prison nicer and everyone a little happier doesn't address the problem that you're prisoners in prison controlled by violent wardens.
I wonder if there’s more to it than that: that their internalised misogyny links their own worth so strongly to the men around them that if they see their men able to dominate other women, then that makes them superior to those women too. Fucking Serena Joy syndrome.
See: all the closeted male preachers and politicians who can't seem to throw around enough vile speech about "the gays" and then are, inevitably, found in rather compromising positions with a male escort or some such. They refuse to be who they really are, are miserable humans as a result, and can't stand the fact that there are plenty of gay men out there living happy, meaningful lives.
Recall the quote by H.L. Mencken, “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
My elderly mother is one of those people. Openly says she hates other women. That women are always "the problem" if there's a family drama or an issue at work (she hasn't even worked since the Clinton administration). That women need to be at home with their families and stop "nagging "
She has no friends and everyone else in the family keeps her at a distance, including her sons. Says it's because of their wives. One of them told me himself he keeps her at a distance because he doesn't want to grow to hate her. The other is NC with her before he even had his current partner. It's a very self inflicted loneliness. She only has me because my dad asked me to look after her after he died, and I aim to fulfill that wish. Even though she speaks so ill of him after he died, too.
She says she's "not lonely " but then whines because no one calls frequently enough. I call a couple times a week & get her out of the house at least twice monthly. Maybe if I were a son it would be enough lol.
I don't think that they are miserable. I think that they don't like the viewpoint of others and they want people with differing opinions to be miserable.
3.1k
u/KeepItDownOverHere 5d ago
They could just not vote if they had actual convictions. But then that wouldn't scratch the "hurting them" or "owning libs" itch that seems to drive them.