Reactionaries always attack the most vulnerable while pretending to be above “identity politics” because they don’t see “straight white conservative” as an identity, they see it as the default.

It’s pathetic how the most hateful people want to put everyone into tiny boxes that they can hold inside their diminutive minds.

You’re telling me that shocking one’s nards on a hunch and writing it down isn’t real research?

I’m starting to think I know nothing about science. What have I been doing?

Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, and agency the prerogative of the elite.

Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stands for freedom, this notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservative sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension. For in that extension, he sees a loss of his own freedom.

Corey Robin: The Reactionary Mind

Their mose basic instinct is to troll.

Pissing you off with bullshit is half the point to many of them; they get off on not being bound by the same rules they would impose on others.

There’s also a fantastic book called The Reactionary Mind that’s the best thing I’ve read on conservative ideology. The newest edition has updated chapters through the Trump administration. It’s essential reading, in my opinion, for understanding what drives them.

He also has a great chapter shredding Ayn Rand to bits.

I think they just whittled down their ideology into the most privileged and selfish extreme. They do believe the insane things they spout like “tax is theft.”

I think you’re right that the rank-and-file libertarians don’t really think their ideology through or educate themselves on its flaws or alternatives, because it really is about identity. I’m pretty convinced that it always has been though. Conservative ideology is based on hierarchy, and they think the right outcomes result from having the proper social stratification— this is usually wealth-based.

I’m not sure an honorific medal confers much prestige when you share it with the likes of a billionaire dragon like George Soros and a reactionary polemicist like Rush Limbaugh.

And giving it to Hillary Clinton makes it look like a DNC consolation prize.

“Transsexual” is kind of being phased out in favor of “Transgender,” I believe.

Remember when I said you weren’t up to the task?

Hit and run like a coward. You blocked me because you’re well aware that you’re unable to defend your position.

There are other people who have explained this to you already.

That’s stupid.

Gender and sex are not exactly the same thing, and you have to be purposefully obtuse to ignore the entire context of the conversation. I won’t entertain your faux ignorance. You’ve had multiple people correct you on this, and you haven’t responded to any of them, because you know you’re not up to the task.

If you say sex=gender, you are factually incorrect. Try again. If they were exactly synonymous, then words would also have a sex. Tell me where “telephone’s” genitalia are.

Who is rejecting biology?

Other than Dawkins I mean?

It seems like you’re confused between sex and gender?

But there’s nothing religious or dogmatic about what the FFRF did. Dawkins is just framing it that way because it’s how he became popular.

He’s just an asshole who constantly acts like an asshole, and people are done with his shit, so he’s having a little fit on his way out the door.

If anyone is acting “religiously” here, it’s Dawkins, who constantly lies and misrepresents medical science because it doesn’t match up the beliefs he grew up with.

Liberals always seem to be the first to ally with fascists against the left.

This was my original claim, which I really meant to apply to fascists taking over within a society: it seems to be universally true that when this occurs it’s because the liberal governments acquiesce to fascist creep because they’re seen as a useful tool against the left.

I did enjoy discussing the wider context of this, but it’s not really what I meant; I was emphasizing the first in the sentence.

What a simplistic world view for a simplistic mind.

You have no idea what fascism is. You’re a puppet for reactionaries and you don’t even know it.

It’d be sad if you weren’t so loathsome all on your own.

Hitler’s activities within Germany at his arrest were those of a street agitator akin to someone like Enrique Tario. The liberals in government liked that the fascist movement was wrecking the socialists in the streets and taking their rhetoric and twisting it towards right-wing projects.

Hitler didn’t get his minimal punishment to avoid a war.

And the Allies joined the war because they realized it would be devastating to their empires if they let the Axis take whatever they wanted.

That’s because your pseudohistorical nonsense is bunk.

Fascism isn’t just when an authority goes outside the bounds of the law. It’s a very specific reactionary ideology that harkens back to a mythical past and directs blame for imperial failures at minority populations within their control.

Nothing about that describes anything about Abraham Lincoln’s ideology or behavior.

In fact, it makes you look ridiculous and like you don’t know anything about reactionary ideology at all. It’s actually pretty funny if you think about it.

Sure, eventually. And then only because their liberal order was directly attacked by fascism.

But who capitulated within Germany? The liberal (small l) government gave Hitler a slap on the wrist, because they were more worried about socialists.

Appreciate the input, this is actually a great discussion point.

You have no idea what actual fascism is.

Ending slavery for four million people is in no way fascism. The fact that this confuses you so much is predictable, because the anti-intellectual ragebait that you listen to preaches that fascism is a leftist movement.

But I guess you believe that “work makes you free,” huh?

Thanks for playing along, I couldn’t have asked for a better demonstration of the vacuousness of reactionary “thought.”

Nope, it doesn’t piss me off that reactionaries get what is coming to them: if you abandon the social contract you shouldn’t get the protection that it provides.

The only good fascist is a dead fascist. Leave it to a reactionary to get it exactly backwards.

I’m sure you would have been among those who thought ending slavery no matter the cost was too radical.

Your surface-level understanding is, as usual, adorable.

Yeah, telling your superior to obey obvious ethical standards undermines their authority.

How dare he expect the highest court in the country abide by the same standards as the rest of the judiciary; doesn’t he know who they are??