Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:Well, I guess we're Gilead now. There is no other logic to social conservatism.
gisambards wrote:Social conservatism is not inherently oppressive to anyone. It can be abused in such a way that it is, but so can any ideology - so can social liberalism.
cmsellers wrote:gisambards wrote:Social conservatism is not inherently oppressive to anyone. It can be abused in such a way that it is, but so can any ideology - so can social liberalism.
Can you define "social conservatism"?
Because when I hear the term, I think of the use of religion to justify government action which A. legislates morality and B. enforces the existing social hierarchy. Basically, I picture the driving ideology of the American South from John Calhoun to Roy Moore, and similar strains in other societies such as Wahhabism. I can say categorically that I can think of no example where such an ideology has ever been a force for good.
However a principled resistance to social change and a preference for tradition, as Crimson defines it, definitely can be a force for good. I can respect Edmund Burke and William Buckley and recognize them as valuable contributors to the discussion of their day, but they did not derive their defense of tradition from old religious texts and did not instinctively seek government action to defend it: far more often they sought a repeal of government action. I would describe the ideology which mounts a principled defense of tradition as "conservative" rather than "socially conservative," because to me, social conservatism as an ideology requires both a religious dogma and a reflexive desire to enforce it via government action.
cmsellers wrote:Can you define "social conservatism"?
gisambards wrote:Further, I think actually adherents of most ideologies support some degree of legislation of morality based on their beliefs, and this is not always a bad thing.
gisambards wrote:Further, enforcement of the existing social hierarchy can sometimes be the lesser of two evils.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:I think we can all agree that social conservatism is evil, and the more evil a policy is the more social conservatismer it is.
cmsellers wrote:gisambards wrote:Further, enforcement of the existing social hierarchy can sometimes be the lesser of two evils.
Could you give an example, please?
A Combustible Lemon wrote:I think we can all agree that social conservatism is evil, and the more evil a policy is the more social conservatismer it is.
gisambards wrote:An immediate example is if the hierarchy is clearly going to be replaced with something worse - as bad as modern America can be, it's definitely not the worst it could be.
But more commonly, if the changes are very radical but ill thought-out, then I think there's a solid possibility that maintaining the status quo in the short-term will be better, to allow for a more orderly long-term transition.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests