Any conservative tropers?

Once again, you need to create and buffer with your own critics. Make mistakes, learn from them.

Recently I though I might be a “small-c conservative”. I don’t know, when hearing people talk about the term I felt some agreement with the concept, but less so when I looked up a technical description of it.

I’m still no fan of the GOP however.

Well? What entertainment have rightists created?

You know, despite all the times you've complained about the dearth of conservative-produced media, you've never once specified what exactly you want to see. What do you mean by entertainment created by rightists? Do you mean works with a clear conservative message? If so, what types of values do you want to see espoused in a work, and how do these values contrast with those in "left-wing" entertainment? For that matter, what makes you think that entertainment is dominated by liberals? What left-wing values do you see in entertainment that you find so irksome?

Yes, with a clear conservative message. A subversion of your garden variety adult cartoon on FOX or Adult Swim, as one example.

Yes, but what kind of message? What sort of aesops do you want this hypothetical entertainment to deliver? What sort of values do you want it to represent?

You're being very vague about what exactly you want to see so badly.

You have King of the Hill for that.

Exactly. Of course, there are also different degrees of conservatism, and I think King of the Hill has more of a moderate-conservative/center-right leaning.

Of course, anything farther right would probably be unsuitable for public broadcast.

Messages? Let’s see…

1. Marxism sucks.

2. Marriage and family are positives.

3. Christianity is NOT a trait of a stupid person.

4. One’s level of melanin or one’s sex DOESN’T make you superior to others.

5. Drug abuse isn’t glamorous.

6. Tradition isn’t a bad thing.

How’s that?

“For that matter, what makes you think that entertainment is dominated by liberals?”

Look at the Twitter feeds of the celebrity class over the years. Their donations, their comments. Being a Democrat or anywhere further left is a prerequisite to having a career.

Edited by OverwroughtDoeling on Dec 29th 2021 at 9:55:29 AM

I have never seen any indication that those messages aren't already widespread in entertainment.

Seriously, besides Family Guy, what popular entertainment has the message "Christianity is a trait of a stupid person"?

Robot Chicken.

Okay, so two for two. I still have no reason to see this as any sort of endemic problem in the media.

Also, "One's level of melanin or one's sex DOESN'T make you superior to others" — is there literally anything in today's entertainment that seriously endorses black supremacy? And no, black representation in media does not equal a supremacist message. In fact, I'd say that if there is any bigotry in entertainment, it's certainly not skewed in favor of minorities. Remember that the Hollywood committees that decide the ratings for pictures are notoriously conservative — hence why there are so few PG/PG-13 pictures that show same-sex couples.

Frankly, I am entirely inclined to believe that you are making a great deal over a nonexistent issue.

Not a conservative but I feel most media is way more moderate than either side of the political spectrum are willing to give it credit for. Plus, mainstream entertainment is deathly afraid of alienating audiences so most media is quite pro-status quo. In America that tends to be right-leaning.

As for work that is explicitly right-wing there is something to be said about the overall quality of right-wing media. Most of the politics presented in such media usually comes off as preachy, which alienates everyone on the left and some in the center. Lots of conservative media caters to a mostly conservative audience anyways. So why even worry about the mainstream when there's already a market that promotes conservative values?

Probabably because mainstrain while siding sightly conservative it dosent do that much, but in a sorta vague way. And is also why left want something more than media that pander to it, both want mainstrain to side with them and becoming the standar.

And I will said the diference is the left at least in media have lost the fear of being call "preachy" part for the whole "everything is politics", part for minority already sick of being unrepresented and so on have create this idea of "I want to be loud, represented, pander and all that shit and you will hear me!" I cant blame them for that.

I am of the opinion that minorities having their own works and being represented is all well and good and all, but it's like everything else; strong plot and characterization is important. There are works that do it right. But I do think people seem to focus too much on the diversity. People make such a big deal about it. They just think diversity is good enough. But it's not. I want characters and stories to be strong and be minorities, not just have being minority as the only prerequisite.

I also think people forget what "minority" really means: it's that they are indeed the minority, as in a smaller group. So in some ways it makes sense they're not as "represented". But there are plenty of works with them and they certainly deserve to be recognized as much as everything else.

A wise man once said “Don’t whine about the system, become the system.”

The ball has started rolling. Only time will tell if anything else will surface.

Honestly, at first I would say I am a conservative, but I don't know what the hell it means now after seeing all sorts of people under that name.

I can at least say I'm socially a conservative, mostly I think, but I don't try to force it on people. Maybe when it comes to certain areas of the law too. It's mostly because of my religion Islam and how I practice it and what I follow.

Edited by CardboardBot on May 10th 2023 at 5:10:16 PM

I think I've rather established I'm a bit of a neoliberal (as Twitter would say, "Hitler particles off the chart"). I have to wonder whether, e.g, rent control has externalities beyond the obvious immediate benefit to the lessee. When I hear people on NPR say things like "the concern with carbon fixing is that people might think they can keep burning fossil fuels," I have to wonder if they actually give a shit about the climate, or if they're scared their solution might lose its problem.

Also, while I'm not for an abortion ban (as the cliché goes, I'm "for" abortion in the same way I'm "for" chemo - also, to hell with euphemisms, the topic is abortion), I was as a teenage lapsus, and I strongly believe that, as I was then, the majority of those who are are simply disgusted by the willful destruction of something so like a child, not playing power games as so many insist. While I'm not keen on the effect of Dobbs, I can't say I'm uncomplicatedly against it as a matter of jurisprudence. James Corden pointed to Westminster saying something like "these hundreds established a right to an abortion, and would have to be accountable if they revoked it, unlike the six justices" - but if I'm not mistaken, there is no right to an abortion in the UK the way there was for 49 years here, and in the US, abortion is only illegal where similar hundreds have accountably voted against it.

Also also, I do have to think about Solzhenitsyn, "if the agents knew they might not have come home, could they have done it"? "Weapons of war" are the point. And while Heller and Bruen broadened the rights of the individual, even the dissents in Heller recognized the rights of the unorganized militia. Mass shootings are spectacular, but in the grand scheme of things, they're not that common. (Yes, if you believe the dodgy stats - I think counting four shot, not dead, shot - they're about daily and a half, but in a country of three hundred million and ten million square kilometers, that's still not that common.) I'm banned from owning a gun because I've been sectioned a few times, but even if that weren't the case, I don't think I'd think "mental health," at least in a clinical sense, were the answer. There's something deeply wrong with our society right now. Gladwell called it "a slow-motion riot," and (despite his infamous "Igon value problem") I think he's right about this. What's more, even I, a suburbanite banned from owning firearms, recognize that basically all gun proposals, except the repeal of the second amendment, are gibberish. Damned if I know what to do, but that ain't it.

(Also I have a sneaking suspicion we're giving the mods a hitlist.)

Edited by TwinBird on May 13th 2023 at 7:53:31 AM

I don't like "wokeness", mainly because wokes like to feel offended and talk by us. Let's be clear, we Méxicans like the Méxican Mario in Mario Odyssey. Those ones who said that it was offensive probably they were Americans.

I have seen conservatives and liberals saying fooleries, but that is not exclusive from USA. In Latam, that also happens. We even have words to call the extremists: "Fachos" ('fah'-chohs) for the ultra-conservatives, and "Progres" ('proh'-grehs) for "wokes". But sincerily, we hate political correctness, specially if that comes from Americans.

Lefty here. Wanted to reach outside my bubble and weigh in.

To me, rent control is a band-aid at best. There's comparatively little incentive to provide affordable housing with or without a price ceiling, especially with zoning laws that make it impossible to split the difference between a modest apartment and a single family home, and city planning that prioritizes cars above all else. If we want to solve homelessness, we need more homes, and ideally, guarantee everyone (or at least citizens) the right to free housing.

My interpretation of the NPR statement is "something is better than nothing, but this doesn't get to the heart of the problem." That said, it's common for people on the left to feel mainstream figures are just paying lip service to the issue. Fighting climate change requires large systemic changes, and ordinary people can only do so much to help, so while I encourage everyone to do their share environmentally, the people up top inherently have a much larger share of work to do.

I do agree that the majority of people against abortion probably equate it to murder, in good faith. I once held this position, and will not accuse someone of faking it without compelling evidence. That being said, the effect of limiting women's freedoms cannot be overlooked. I hold a broad interpretation of the ninth amendment — for the court (or anyone, for that matter) to rule you do not have a certain right, there has to be a compelling reason, and when, generally speaking, an abortion is beneficial (in a least bad option kind of way), I don't see that bar as being cleared.

Just because guns cause a comparatively small amount of injuries and fatalities doesn't mean the problem doesn't disproportionately affect the US. While making it harder to get a gun would reduce fatalities, the deeper problem is a cultural one, where violence is too quickly the answer. I cannot provide a solution in a reasonable blurb. (This doesn't make me against gun control, just saying that alone won't cut it)

Also, the term "woke" and its derivatives have gotten to the point I associate them with people complaining about vaguely inclusive things they don't like more than anything else. As for the underlying point though, my general stance is that cultural borrowing is okay as long as it's respectful. That line is hard to draw, but I suspect most people are okay with sombrero Mario because it's lighthearted and doesn't step in anyone's toes, and the people you've pointed to are a vocal minority within a minority.

I mean that the majority of who are offended by the Mexican Mario probably are Americans, not Mexicans nor Chicanos. It's like with the Encanto controversy, when Americans got offended because a person drawn the movie's characters with a some lighter color (and the difference was practically inexistent), and saying that Latins are not white, despite in México, Colombia and Latam in general there are people of any color.

About abortion, I would rather another solutions (adoption, by an example) instead of killing a fetus. When Roe vs Wade was derogated, I agreed with Dubbs, because now the States have the legal right to legislate about that and to ban abortion.

Edited by TheGiantIceCream on May 26th 2023 at 3:20:34 AM

I'm not American so I don't really have anything relevant to say concerning most situations, except abortion.

I don't like abortions done for convenience. If you can't take care of the kid, put them up for adoption.

If the pregnancy is possibly lethal/fatal (more than the standard, I know that childbirths sometimes cause death), I feel like that is when it is valid. Or when the baby is already dead and there's no saving them.

That is literally my stance. That is the only case when it's acceptable.

I'm not familiar enough with the Encanto situation to weigh in without a link or something.

As for abortion, I recognize there's a big difference between personally finding non-medically-necessary abortions wrong and wishing to legislate against them. I'll start with the latter, then hit the former.

For starters, immediately after Dobbs, we saw a wave of high-risk pregnancies carried out, some fatally, because the doctors didn't have the legal okay to follow through. Regardless of whether ignoring the law would be the right thing, it shouldn't ever come to that, and I'd expect anti-abortion legislature to have specific protocols in place to prevent these issues from happening in the future.

Setting aside high-risk and miscarried pregnancies, though, I'd still support the right to an abortion. The idea of adoption seemed reasonable to me for a while, but it falls apart on (at least) two fronts:

1. We have more people up for adoption than people actually being adopted.
2. Even outside a high risk pregnancy, a mother can still due of complications from childbirth. No one should be forced to risk their life for a child they don't want, even if the risk is slim.

Also, while this opinion is pretty unpopular, between climate change, expected depletion of fossil fuels, and overall political uncertainty, the very idea of having children, regardless of home life, is very morally gray at the moment, especially if adopting someone who will live through it anyway is a possibility.

I feel the same way