What I wonder about is if we currently see a bigger division in politics. It seems like where as the old order is falling apart, in which the moderate forces were trying to deal with the world, a combination of insecurity about our future, the development of AI, the development with the internet and the problems of the clash of civilizations (for example the clash between the United States and China, two highly developed cultures which are coming into conflict with each other).

Was this however always the case? Nowadays if we look at the situation not only with the right, but also with the left, it seems like both the far right and the far left became extremely influential, either beating up black people or beating up a mentally disabled white kid while you shout "F* Trump", seems to be a situation to which all the pressure has been developing which seems to be boiling in society. It seems like the democratization is not only leading to the people without any influence being able to express their voice, but also to a situation in which people with questionable ideas are able to express their ideas with a big platform. This is independent of what your personal political perspective is, it is not like this is only happening with the right or left, with capitalism or communism, the traditional tribal thinking of humans seems to be a revived phenomena with the coming of the internet, which gives a difference in comparison to ancient times, where as in ancient times we sticked together and tried to protect ourselves against other possible violent tribes, we nowadays have to deal with a situation in which the tribes are not only limited to a geographical territory, but can use the internet to come together in groups, and to share their ideas and plans both in an open field and in inaccessible groups in which the amount of participants is not limited to a geographical limit or a problem in distance, as everyone can come together through a central network, a central place.

This seems to have lead to a situation in which organization is possible, not only of products which in the pre-internet era were not possible within this time and scale, but also to power which can be problematic in the wrong hands. It seems like the increasing division in our society has to do, for a very big part, with the media and the possibility of participation in the media, as a reaction to this you can see how newspapers have shut down their comments section in the past. Does this mean that we shouldnt express our opinion or that it is ok to shut down comments sections? No, it is clear that the internet has given us a voice and enabled people to have the possibility to make a difference, to have the possibility to point towards injustice and issues with society and point others towards it. Here however we again have to make a difference between real followning and illusion. It is possible to buy followers and likes (and in this way indirectly influence) for Twitter and Facebook. This means that in the end the person with money can gain influence by expressing an opinion and simply buying the people to be concerned about it, bots which have no feelings or true participation in the democratic process. In fact they disrupt the democratic process because who buys and uses these bots? The fact is that anyone can do, from right and left, and where as some people might do this with noble intentions, like someone using bots to get more views for social justice or for freedom of expression, it in the end means that we are living in a fake world, it demonstrates how a fake world is influencing the real world, and how the real world is used by a fake world to influence this same real world. The real world however also influences the fake world, which shows how we are getting increasingly concerned with what happens in the fake world. The problem is where this leads to the limitation of basic rights, when channels and platforms are shut down which are not against the law or spreading hatred, but represent a certain political perspective which the leading power might not like (a right-wing authority shutting down left-wing platforms, or a left-wing authority shutting down right-wing platforms), this means a threat to the freedom of expression and the openness of a platform, the internet, which is supposed to easen the democratization and giving a voice to people, it means an infringement of the rights of people, and this is where we return to the start of this post. The limitation of expression which can lead to a division in society and politics. Why does this lead to a decision?

Either shutting down conservative platforms or a collective harassment of people with a liberal perspective and left ideas by the tribal power of the internet to form a collective which is not bound to a geographical territory, in the end leads to a problem with the freedom of expression, as this limits people in their possibility to express ideas in a way which feels safe. The threat of having a platform being shut down or getting threats due to certain political perspectives which are not against the law or promoting violence, will lead to a situation with an increasing tension and a bigger wish to express oneself in a situation in which this is not or barely possible. This will possibly, and this might be happening, make people resort to their own groups and having an increasing dislike for people which dont share the same perspective. People dont talk with each other anymore, instead they are trying to defend their own freedom of expression by expressing their opinions in either such an extreme way or with so much tension, that it leads to a situation in which people are becoming propaganda. It is not the people being individual aspects of a movement or of society, but it is people turning into objects which are used by the forces that be. The bigger political parties, the big political organizations, using the fueled hatred and the increasing tension to gain for their own movement and motives, their ideas with which they can become influential and have power.

Instead of power to the people, it seems like it is people to the power in this situation. This works on both sides of the political spectrum, it is a two-sided sword which is turning people from both the left and right into pawns which are used for the bigger powers by trying to use democratization platforms, while in the end they are serving a force which is using the idea of democratization, in which the limitation of freedom of speech is used to increase the individual power of one of both sides, depending on the side of which the freedom of speech is limited and the side which gains from this. The end of the story is that this is not only leading to bigger parties gaining influence, but to a destabilization of the world. A situation in which one thinks to have democratic power and the possibility to express opinions and finally being heard, in the end is leading to a situation in which the opposite happens. The free platforms are used to impose an un-freedom, to reduce the power which people have and in the end take it away. Not only on a global scale we see a destabilization here, but also on a small, individual scale, as the people are losing power and in fact only serve a system in which they are reducing each others freedom of speech. It is a perfect system for the ones trying to gain power trough the new platform. It is a new era which we are facing in which the real and fake world not only influence each other, but in which this effect is increasing. People are becoming more and more divided, resort to tribal groups, try to stay in their own safe bubble, while talking with the other is not happening anymore as people prefer to sit together in their own groups and gain influence through platforms which claim to represent a democratization for the average citizen, which claim to give the possibility to everyone to express opinions and ideas, while this is only dependent upon changing rules which can again change what one is allowed to express. The system is broken and we can see an increasing division.

It's impossible to reverse it now. The divide will continue to grow, and get uglier.

At 10/12/18 08:12 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: It's impossible to reverse it now. The divide will continue to grow, and get uglier.

I am afraid that you are right, we might have made decisions as humanity which don't develop not with a linear speed but with an extrapolated speed, so that we cant anticipate what will happen anymore. I really wonder if Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking are right with their fear of AI and in how far AI will influence this process.

I think the division we see has only become more defined since 2001, and the entire cultural issue stemmed from the internet echo chambers where opinions consolidated into various groups of hug boxes that did not dare to challenge opinions that were then considered to be absurd or obtuse in regards to their policies or implementation.

We have a generation of youth in which a majority does not understand the benefit of honest and reciprocating communication to come to a consensus, coupled with the political machine dedicated to the mission of focusing on the divisions between people and shining an ugly light upon it, instead of attempting to fix itself, consumed in it's own hunger for wealth and influence from corporate lobbyists that find more benefit in the exploitation of such.

We have the Mainstream media, who are determined to not only be first, but the most visited in reference to the stories presented; clickbait, ad revenue, social media influence. No matter what you watch, they all desire to be on top. This is a direct result of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine during the Reagan administration, but they had been trying since the 50s to repeal it. The result of this repeal is the proliferation of advertising during the newscating hour, which turned into the newscasting "half-hour".

Our entire life revolves around the reinforcement of our hugbox perspective, never having our opinions challenged, always comfortable in the knowledge that we are right, no matter what.

I don't know what we can do to remedy our situation, but we need to remember that our opinions are only as strong as the evidence to disprove them. We must always attempt to dismantle our position to prove that it holds merit, as well as seeking compromise and common ground between ourselves and other people who seek the same...

So in other words, our politics are fucked. Yeah, never heard that one before.

Joking aside, our politics has always been divided over ideology, the difference is that there was some degree of common ground during certain times (WW2 after Pearl Harbor, Soviet Union, even 9/11 for a time.) that doesn’t exist now. Add the generational gap into the mix, where the older generations cling to past successes and refusal to pass the spotlight while the younger generations having to deal with constant broken promises and moving the goalposts by said older generations, it’s hard not to see a hard divide in our politics.

I would hesitate on saying that this is irreversible for this reason only. The modern conservative movement is falling apart day by day, even in places where they are normally strong in, whereas the more liberal (and even moderates) are gaining more steam at the same time. Most Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and are either bailing out now, or are desperately holding on as a final stand from a political standpoint. Of course, we have to wait and see if the liberals actually take advantage of the opportunity, or will they squander it away, but I’m going to believe more in the former than the latter.

At 10/12/18 10:53 PM, orangebomb wrote:

I would hesitate on saying that this is irreversible for this reason only. The modern conservative movement is falling apart day by day, even in places where they are normally strong in, whereas the more liberal (and even moderates) are gaining more steam at the same time. Most Republicans can see the writing on the wall, and are either bailing out now, or are desperately holding on as a final stand from a political standpoint. Of course, we have to wait and see if the liberals actually take advantage of the opportunity, or will they squander it away, but I’m going to believe more in the former than the latter.

Yeah. Sure. The DNC has been in self destruct mode since Trump won. They're starting to eat each other, and the temper tantrums they constantly throw aren't helping. #WalkAway is actually happening, and many are going to the other side.

At 10/13/18 12:01 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: #WalkAway is actually happening, and many are going to the other side.

No, it isn't, and no they're not. The "Trump's support hasn't really wavered over two years" argument cuts two ways - sure, it means he hasn't lost much support despite the musing of liberal sites (good for y'all), but it also means he hasn't suddenly gained fresh Democrat support, either. It isn't a thing.

Not that you care in your self-delusional bubble of a worldview, there, but when a hash-tag is spread among conservatives, by conservatives and for conservative, that doesn't mean liberals care about your movement. Pop your bubble for a bit, especially if suddenly you care about politics dividing.

Part of the problem today is that people don't want to sacrifice anything to heal the divide, and come together. Everyone is looking out for themselves, thinking how the world should revolve around them and their needs. And their views of giving up something amounts to them arguing that they'll be giving up too much, or more than the other side - that it's not fair. There is no trust, just a lot of selfishness, excuses, and accusations for not working together.

And now, people treat politics as if it was a football game, becoming a fan of team, and rooting for that team to beat the shit out of the other team, no matter what it takes. Unsportsmanlike like conduct, scandals, and other things they know are wrong, but simply don't care, as long as their team wins. This is what today's politics seem to have devolved into, that keeps this division growing.

Unless there is something that is world changing, catastrophic, something than can bring people together to work together for everyone survival, this current division is not going to go away anytime soon.

At 10/13/18 03:12 PM, MrPercie wrote: I'd say politics is a unifying thing, you talk about politics with someone and you have disagreements, but the way in which politics is avoided at table discussions and left to brew makes politics a dirty word rather than a social discussion

Hey, I kinda like that way that sounds. I'll stick with that mindset.

At 10/13/18 01:06 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: from what i can tell democrats and republicans are virtually the same party...

Except that they’re not. Republicans and Democrats has always been two separate sides of ideology, and while they have occasional overlap, (moreso on the local and state level) they are definitely NOT the same party or even close to each other. If they acted like the same party, they wouldn’t have spent all their time and effort to break each other down.

the only division thats happening is that folks are waking up to that fact... if you want the democrats to change now would be a good time to actually get engaged with them parties dont change while winning...

Well, considering that your knowledge about American politics (and America in general) is rather dubious at best, I would probably say that your deduction is quite faulty.

It`s generally what happens when the political establishment does not adapt to fit changing times.

At 10/14/18 12:49 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:

At 10/13/18 11:57 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 10/13/18 01:06 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: from what i can tell democrats and republicans are virtually the same party...

Except that they’re not. Republicans and Democrats has always been two separate sides of ideology, and while they have occasional overlap, (moreso on the local and state level) they are definitely NOT the same party or even close to each other. If they acted like the same party, they wouldn’t have spent all their time and effort to break each other down.

the only division thats happening is that folks are waking up to that fact... if you want the democrats to change now would be a good time to actually get engaged with them parties dont change while winning...

Well, considering that your knowledge about American politics (and America in general) is rather dubious at best, I would probably say that your deduction is quite faulty.

they both sit in the authoritarian right... there is no difference between them other than the occasional platitudes democrats make to minorities... thats the only difference...

Better than the authoritarian left, and it doesn't promote policies that target other races and religions in a negative way. When people say the Democrats are quite mixed, that is an understatement in comparison to the Republican party, from race, to the political spectrum from left to right, on the federal level.

The Democrats are more open to unions/worker rights, environmental concerns, gun control, consumer protections, and social safety nets - while Republicans are all against those things, and would get rid of most of those things if they could. Hell, Trump has done a great job dismantling,or attacking a lot of these things in favor of conservative, corporation, and the wealthy.

At 10/14/18 12:49 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: they both sit in the authoritarian right... there is no difference between them other than the occasional platitudes democrats make to minorities... thats the only difference...

Democrats are a lot closer to the center than you realize, and while they may be positioned to the right compared to most Western European parties, Democrats aren’t that authoritarian. If they really were, they wouldn’t have adjusted their policies the last 40 years, let alone recently compared to Republicans.

Sorry if it isn’t as left as you want it to be, but there is a significant difference in our parties, and it’s clear your ignorance is showing.

At 10/14/18 03:04 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:

At 10/14/18 01:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: The Democrats are more open to unions/worker rights, environmental concerns, gun control, consumer protections, and social safety nets - while Republicans are all against those things, and would get rid of most of those things if they could. Hell, Trump has done a great job dismantling,or attacking a lot of these things in favor of conservative, corporation, and the wealthy.

by your very own definition the democrats are authoritarian left...
since suppression of economic freedom requires the suppression of individual autonomy...

No, they would be authoritarian liberal by Conservative Republican standards - which would be anything they think disagrees with them.

Democrats, despite what Conservatives say, are very pro capitalist, but they believe that it should be on a level playing field that benefits all, while Republicans favor an uneven playing field that benefits certain groups. Democrats are also less authoritarian when it comes to different religions, LGBT, race, gender, Immigrants, while Republicans are often at the polar opposites because they are Conservatives. Basically, Democrats are a lot closer to the UK Labor party (but are more centrists) while Republicans are closer to the Tories (but are more conservative).

This is what it looks like:

At 10/14/18 06:46 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: the democrats usually support social liberalism and conservatism

Wait what? They are conservative and liberal at the same time? I can tell right from that statement that you don’t know what your talking about, as I expected. But I’ll humor you and explain the key differences. (Lets just take regional nuances aside.)

Both Democrats and Republicans are pro capitalism, but Democrats believe in balance and a relatively even playing field on economic levels, whereas Republicans prefer tax cuts for the rich as a trickle-down effect. Most Democrats are also open to improving social programs (even if they are watered down versions) whereas Republicans favor the private sector to pick up the proverbial slack over public services.

As for social issues, Democrats are usually supportive, or at very least tolerant of abortion, LGBT, immigration and race whereas Republicans are generally dismissive at best and hostile to minorities, save for the occasional outlier or situation on both sides. It has been a point of focus for Democrats to get the minority vote, knowing that the Republican voters tend to be a combination of white, male, uneducated and/or wealthy.

I could go on and on, but I’ve made my point, so I’m not going to waste my time with stating the obvious and the nuances that you don’t even acknowledge.

as political knowledge becomes more accessible and common among our people we become more divided politically . its normal. what we can't do is let demagogues scare us into hating each other enough to cause violence .

Polisci major here.
the political divide has absolutely grown.

what we need to focus on in order to change this is to focus on policy instead of party and backing our people instead of the singular politician .

we are parts of a whole country, as parts of this whole country it is our responsibility to criticize and find faults in our representatives ..but without attacking those who support their ideas PERSONALLY.

At 10/14/18 06:46 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:
you still haven't explained what that difference is...

One party (specifically Republicans) have walked past conservatism and straight into basic Facism, led by Mitch McConnell, and the other is simply conservative, doing it's best to maintain some semblance of following the Constitution as intended. Sounds harsh, but the Republican party has become religiously jingoistic (even moreso recently), under the Tea Party they've evolve into reckless Nationalism and American Exceptionalism, and all the while they've used the powers they wield to cheat themselves into a position of obscene power (Mitch holding judge positions until a Republican became the executive, Republican states purging voter rolls to take away Democrat's ability to vote, the 2010 Gerrymandering, Republican Senate changed rules thay Democrats weren't willing to change so they could simply ignore Democrats once they were in power, etc.). Democrats, in contrast, do their best to follow the rules as they see fit, actively fearing any changes that are difficult to reverse (even when they really should make changes, just to combat this radical change over the last few years). Frankly, it's safe to say that Republicans hate America unless they get to shape it under their twisted image, while Democrats do their best to keep some level of normalcy whenever they're in power in an attempt to preserve what they believe America has always been, even at the cost of pressing their own agenda.

Republicans work harder than ever to separate American families (not just the punitive separations to migrant families - another difference if you're lookin', by the way), with their spokespeople telling their listeners that Democrats are all lying to them, and to not listen to any of them, even if they're family. By forcing this separation, they transform their followers into a cult, blindly listening only to them and nothing else, making up their own version of the "truth". Democrats, while they will tell you Republicans are wrong and that you shouldn't pay them any attention, do not actively encourage their members to dismiss the other side as brazen liars immediately (outside of a few fantastic exceptions) - there is always the benefit of the doubt given until the speaker has proven to lie time and again. Hey, it's hard to enact Facism unless you make your followers believe that the leadership's word is equal to God's holy word (on that note...).

Policy-wise, Democrats are fiscally conservative, even to a fault, often skimming off the top of our taxes to pay pf their donors. Republicans are reckless spenders to the benefit of the very wealthy ("Tax Cuts" that cost trillions of dollars fuckin' annually while increasing military spending to heights not seen since the Iraq War), while being dangerously austerious to the middle class and the poor. Recently, their leader has turned to using national economics as a stick for his own vindictive purposes (since he doesn't quite have absolute power yet), costing thousands of jobs and billions of US dollars already, with no goal in mind at all (his stated goal of "decreasing the trade deficit" literally makes zero sense, considering this is fucking impossible when you have more resources than every other country) - I blame Republicans as a whole a little less for this, but they'll adapt and adopt his policies eventually.

Socially Democrats and Republicans are worlds apart; I'd hope I don't need to explain that one too much. On homosexuality, marijuana, transgenders people, rights for different races, general equity for everyone... Republicans are fucking terrible with it while Democrats at least try to move forward on most of these things, even if imperfectly. The fact that Facism often uses marginalization as a method of consolidating power to one privileged class is a pretty nice way to bookend this whole thing.

Over the last eight years Republicans have evolved into a bona fide party for Facists (term used literally, not as an insult), pushing for literal Authoritarianism, while Democrats have become the party for Conservatives in it's most basic form (Liberals simply don't have a party at the moment), pushing for a representative Republic more often than not. Republicans hate America unless they can reform it in their twisted image, while Democrats do their best to respect what they think the founding fathers may have meant with the constitution.

It's pretty hard to see what you're missing, here, on the differences between the two parties, unless you're being obtuse on purpose. You might not like either party, but if you think they're the exact same then you're actually, literally a fucking moron. And yes, my dialogue is probably divisive, but fuck it: we're already here, ain't we? Whatever I say now ain't going to change a damn thing, so why bother sugar coating it? I do my best not to be THIS divisive, giving credit when due wherever possible, but a fat lot of good that's been doing me so far, eh? Being blunt has it's place every once in a while.

At 10/15/18 02:33 AM, Zornuzkull wrote:
id consider any party further right than the British Tory government fascist...

So Britain and America were fascist countries in WW2?

great

😂

Unless of course you don`t just mean the current government and your arbitrary definition of fascism arbitrarily changes as the Conservatives drift left and right.

But that would be a bit arbitrary wouldn`t it?

At 10/15/18 05:50 AM, Zornuzkull wrote:

id consider any party further right than the British Tory government fascist...

So Britain and America were fascist countries in WW2?

could have easily gone that way working men and women only managed to get the vote 1928...
so it could quite easily have descended into fascism... especially if the nazis got the upper hand or even if Hitler was taken out of the loop entirely...

I meant that by modern standards the ideology of the government back then would be considered pretty far right, but then you seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of what is right wing that would not be accepted by any right winger.

i know what i said and i meant it as for a continual clawing away at civil liberties you dont need to look any further than out own prime minister... or did you miss all the shit shes been up to?

The difference is fascists have standards, not pleasant standards but still they have standards.

Just look at this disaster area, this is what I would call liberal hypocrisy trying to pretend that you are progressive while being repressive is what communists do, not fascists.

Interesting links btw

At 10/15/18 02:33 AM, Zornuzkull wrote:
nice rant and you explained your position well...
you consider the republicans fascist and the democrats conservative...
id consider any party further right than the British Tory government fascist...

Okay, stop - don't go any further, we've diagnosed a critical issue with your line of thinking. Did you just decide on a whim that a fully defined word means whatever you want it to mean? "Facism" doesn't arbitrarily mean "Everything right of the Tories". Jesus Christ, I even linked the goddamn dictionary definition of facism to avoid doing this very thing, and we still go down this stupid rabbit hole.

Just like that, literally everything you say after this means precisely nothing, because on the fly you're redefining words to mean different things in order to make them fit your definition. That's some Orwellian level of word-fuckery, right there.

*Breathes deep*

Okay, life lesson: do not hinge your beliefs on personal definitions of real words. Without context (which we mercifully have here) people will not understand what you are talking about when you discuss it, even if the dots are connecting in your mind. You're not making any compelling sense by redefining words so that they conform to your already predetermined conclusion.

At 10/15/18 02:42 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:
are you fucking kidding me facists arnt repressive? civil liberties are being cut back in real fucking terms...

Right, can you point out exactly where I said the contrary?

and you point at slactivists on twitter like they are the major problem...

I do?

yeah focus on these idiots while the government chips away at your rights genius... the communist party doesnt have a political presence in the uk...

I know, but certain elements of the current conservative party have far more in common with communists than fascists.

For reference here are some well known facists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isq6YltjRRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UlkS3GP7Bw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syI_B8a5IV4

and here is treason may

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KqD1ilsjEo

This is an extract from the gulag archipelago (which I would recommend reading if you haven`t already)

https://youtu.be/QuhrQ74TEyU

\/ \/ \/ Good old uncle joe \/ \/ \/ \/

https://youtu.be/3nMDjKtTigQ

They are all clearly different but I can`t help feeling the modern political establishment has more in common with the USSR than NAZI germany.

next youll be telling me Hitler was a socialist despite allowing capitalism to flourish under his rule...

Next you`ll be telling me Norway isn`t democratic socialism because it allows capitalism to flourish.

But honestly we`re just arguing over semantics and you appear to be confusing semantics with reality.

At 10/15/18 04:01 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: yeah the tories are not right wing enough

authoritarianism & neo-liberal economics (paradoxically) =/= conservatism & right wingism.

This speech in my last post was by the leader of the British Union of Fascists It sounds slightly familiar eh?

https://youtu.be/Isq6YltjRRU?t=50

The point I`m trying to make is the whole left - right thing is pretty arbitrary.

At 10/15/18 02:25 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:

the only thing saving your asses is the constitution... nobody has had the balls to wipe there asses with it yet...
give it time...

Not really. Why do you think people were so pissed off about Kavanaugh - it wasn't the sexual assault allegations. It was because he was a partisan ass licker. He, along with the conservative majority in the supreme court, interpret the Constitution - or make up a lot of BS to justify their partisan decisions. Outside the president, they may be the 2nd most powerful government institution in the US, with lifetime positions. This imbalance of power enables them to influence policies that they think will give more power to their party by having the final say so on what laws, or policies, should live or die.

In 2000, instead of waiting for the results of the election, they got involved in deciding the winner of it, in an unprecedented move, by all 5 conservative justice, who sided with George Bush over Al Gore. The Conservative justices often sided with portions of the Patriot Act, after 9-11, by allowing mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping, by rejecting to hear the cases against those things. Then there is their ruling over Citizen United, with the conservative justices declaring that corporation are people to, and they can donate unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns - while destroying union power. And they have been chipping away voting right for decades, even getting rid of the voting rights act. Then there is their ruling that sided with Trump's travel ban, claiming it's national security issue.

And that's what a lot of this shit comes down to.... Partisan nonsense, attack on civil liberties by arguing national security concerns, and favoring small and powerful groups over the masses, and making some BS that a 250 year old document somehow supports it all. And all this stuff is being done by the right in this country to secure their power and influence in it for a generation or more.

At 10/16/18 01:55 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:
you do know neo liberalism is basically thatcherism right? and those policies were carried on by new labour...
especially those related to privatization and deregulating the markets...

Conservatism was a word before the Conservative party got their name and long before thatcher was born.

its lais a fair capitalism with a fancy new name... how is that paradoxical to conservatism?

Being laissez faire is not a really part of conservatism, you can be economically liberal and conservative yes, but you can be conservative and be protectionist.

In fact conservatives (ideologically conservative not necessarily Tory) historically opposed lassiez faire economics.

when its been the modus operandi of the conservative party since 1979...

They started off as protectionist.

Anyway the Conservative party does not own the definition of conservatism.

Honestly if you go by the dictionary definition of conservatism:
"Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."

Then it`s questionable whether Thatcherism is particularly conservative at all.

At 10/16/18 03:10 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:

Conservatism was a word before the Conservative party got their name and long before thatcher was born.

its always stood for one thing the rich get rich and the poor get poorer...

No, not really that might have often been a side effect but that was rarely the intention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism

neither do you whats your point? its still a right wing ideology that suppresses public service spending and negativly effects those at the bottom of the economic ladder...

Not necessarily it`s really more ambiguous and complicated than that.

At 10/25/18 03:37 PM, Dynastywarriors5 wrote: I hear a lot of talk about how America is becoming more divided, while I also hear it's becoming more diverse

i'm sure that's just a cohencidence haha DON'T LOOK INTO IT :)

At 10/25/18 03:39 PM, Radaketor wrote:

At 10/25/18 03:37 PM, Dynastywarriors5 wrote: I hear a lot of talk about how America is becoming more divided, while I also hear it's becoming more diverse

i'm sure that's just a cohencidence haha DON'T LOOK INTO IT :)

It's almost as if white supremacists who preach a white ethnostate and push toward it whenever possible cause more derision and chaos when they see more colored people with basic rights.

You're not helping your white-supremacist case, here.

At 10/25/18 03:50 PM, Gario wrote:

At 10/25/18 03:39 PM, Radaketor wrote:

At 10/25/18 03:37 PM, Dynastywarriors5 wrote:

It's almost as if white supremacists who preach a white ethnostate and push toward it whenever possible cause more derision and chaos when they see more colored people with basic rights.

You're not helping your white-supremacist case, here.

What gated white community do you live in, you 33 year old boomer? Living among "diversity" is what leads most of us to wanting segregation. Both whites AND blacks. You have any idea the amount of blacks I know irl that have 100% same ideals I do and just want to go back to Africa and not deal with whites, you goddamn cracker?

At 10/25/18 03:58 PM, Radaketor wrote:
What gated white community do you live in, you 33 year old boomer? Living among "diversity" is what leads most of us to wanting segregation. Both whites AND blacks. You have any idea the amount of blacks I know irl that have 100% same ideals I do and just want to go back to Africa and not deal with whites, you goddamn cracker?

You sure do make a great case that people like you are absolutely not responsible for the degree of division in our communities in this country with comments like that, yes sir!