= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psy-Kosh comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
In context its perfectly obvious. The second quote has a implied "eventually".
Don't be silly. On economic matters yes, on cultural and social matters the right has utterly lost except perhaps on the issue of abortion. The very fact that today's debate is about gay marriage (to borrow the issue the OP brought up), should be an indicator of how far to the left 2012 is from 1982 on such issues. How many democrats would have even considered supporting such a notion then?
Mark my words in 2042 conservatives will be defending gay marriage as an integral part of the bedrock of Western civilization.
Thank you for explaining it despite considering it perfectly obvious.
I didn't mean to be rude, so I hope I didn't come of as such. It seemed obvious to me because in the context I was talking about them being "ok with anything" after several decades passing in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, while in the first one I was describing a proposal I'd like to see implemented right away and how people would currently feel about it.
As to the meaning of the quotation marks in the first one, I put them there because I think conservatives aren't very good at conserving much of anything.
The entire movement he and those like him helped create, has only proven itself capable of standing athwart history and yelling “Retreat!”. The politicians associated with that intellectual group are best characterized as standing behind history, yelling: "Wait! Let my voters catch up!"
Everything I see says that Buckley was a really honorable man, simply a good person. That ought to count, a little. (I agree that his movement did little good in practice, though.)
My impression is rather more mixed. Buckley, 1986:
Buckley, 2006:
[Edited to fix paragraph break in that first Buckley quote.]
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." - Robert Anton Wilson
I understand why it seemed obvious to you.
I also understand that your dismissive rhetorical tone isn't intended to be rude.
Getting back to content:
I agree with you that if we wait long enough everyone who considers themselves conservative will approve of whatever social changes we make, supposing those social changes last that long.
I don't believe that implementing your proposal right away will make conservatives currently happy.
I don't have a clear sense of what you mean by "traditionalists."
There exists a non-empty set of issues X such that 1982 conservatives agree more with 2012 conservatives on X than they do with 1982 anti-conservatives. There also exists a non-empty set X2 such that 1982 conservatives agree the same or more with 1982 anti-conservatives than with 2012 conservatives on X2. I am not sure whether (X2 > X1) or (X2 < X1) by any interesting metric, and I'm fairly certain that (X1 > .1X2).
We agree on these points.
Basically people who are nerds about adhering to some older traditional style Christianity. Some of them are protestants but their intellectual core as you may have guessed from the blogs are Catholic and Orthodox. As odd as this might sound American Evangelical fundamentalists are actually mostly practising a young take on the religion.
I think X1 probably consists mostly of economic issues.
That is certainly consistent with a popular narrative about American conservatism now and 40 years ago. Whether statistics back it up, I don't know.