Know-Nothing Conservatism

[Smallc]

Similarly, the victim survey is conducted by Statistics Canada - an agency you worship as unfailingly perfect in every way, shape and form.

Yeah There is more than one stat, also. Police agencies keep their own statistics.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[August1991]

Pol Pot? Yikes, that's a stupid comparison. No one ever accused them of being genocidal, just purposefully stupid. You also seem to be missing the point that it doesn't matter whether you're a smart politician but a smart person in general. New and innovative ideas can change the world. If those ideas can be found and are welcomed in the private sector, then why are we so hesitant to use the same approach to modernise our system of governance?

I agree that the Pol Pot idea was OTT hyperbole but the thread title is "Know-Nothing Conservatism" and the premise is that Harper is anti-modern. Many anti-Harper types seem to believe that Harper is a neanderthal.

Canada and the US legalized abortion at the same time and the first generation of criminals would've just been coming into their own during the late 80s and early 90s just when crime began to drop. Less situations of bad family upbringing which is a big cause of crime.

Are you suggesting that single-parent families cannot raise good children?

Heck, are you suggesting that good families are important in raising good children?

[Pliny]

I would guess nicky has no education at all.

It seems her indoctrination has been confused as an education.

She didn't include know-nothing liberals in her title but I think that is entirely an oversight on her part. Know-nothing liberals are perhaps the next target.

This is an interesting thread actually but steeped in the generalization that there is a know-nothing political movement. I could only say it is an elitist statement. Must be aligned somehow with political "science".

[Pliny]

Are you suggesting that single-parent families cannot raise good children?

Heck, are you suggesting that good families are important in raising good children?

I think she is suggesting we take a serious look at eugenics to reduce crime.

[August1991]

I think she is suggesting we take a serious look at eugenics to reduce crime.

I think Nicky is a closet Barbara Bush Republican who believes that good children only come from good families.

[Argus]

Yeah There is more than one stat, also. Police agencies keep their own statistics.

Police statistics are the ones Stats Canada uses. Where else do you imagine they get them from?

[nicky10013]

I think Nicky is a closet Barbara Bush Republican who believes that good children only come from good families.

First of all, definitely not a girl. Secondly, enjoying putting words in my mouth much? Secondly, yeah, children do in fact do better when they have 2 parents. Does that mean a single mother can't do well? Not at all. I think one of the major problems is that parents can't be at home as much as they should because they're out trying to make ends meet. The problem ends up being that there isn't one parent or two, but no parents around at all.

Secondly, I think the family notion about how it's some kind of right wing value is hypocritical. Right wingers claim that families are important and then scoff at when people say crime comes from kids who grow up in broken homes, as if that explanation somehow absolves all responsibility of the crime from the individual that committs the crime.

[nicky10013]

It seems her indoctrination has been confused as an education.

She didn't include know-nothing liberals in her title but I think that is entirely an oversight on her part. Know-nothing liberals are perhaps the next target.

This is an interesting thread actually but steeped in the generalization that there is a know-nothing political movement. I could only say it is an elitist statement. Must be aligned somehow with political "science".

Considering that you believe nazism is a form of communism, I wouldn't be so quick to point out other people's problems with their education. As for generalization, you clearly didn't read the article. It didn't say that all brands of conservatism are based on anti-intellectualism, just Harper's. There's a gigantic difference and you probably knew it. What does that say about your education and dedication to the truth?

[nicky10013]

I've heard this from innumerable liberal types over the years. Yet I've never seen any data which is anything like conclusive on that score. Canadian liberals tend to use the US as their trump card on this score but they're hardly a good comparison because of their vast inner city slums of misery and hopelessness. Further, a disproprionate amount of those incarcerated for long sentences in the US are drug dealers/smugglers. Prisons are likewise poorly maintained and overcrowded to the extent states are forever releasing people early. Ten year sentences often have people back on the street in two years. It's very difficult comparing nations and cultures on this score because so much influences crime besides incarceration rates. What one can say without question is that if you put a violent person into prison he or she will not hurt anyone (outside of the prison) for the duration of their stay. And really, a little common sense and logic must enter into things. If you take a career criminal, whether it's a habitual B&E artist, mugger, shoplifter, or whatever, take those people who are doing life under the installment plan and just lock them away forever, how can that NOT lessen crime? Some of these individuals have thirty or forty convictions and will no-doubt continue causing harm and then costing enormous legal expenses each time they are arrested, processed, paroled, then re-arrested.

You realise you're shooting yourself in the foot with this, right? It basically affirms that good communities reduce crime, and considering the difference between the US and Canadian cities, and our 30 years of liberal policies, you're essentially admitting that it's worked.

We know no such thing. There have been no independant studies I'm aware of which confirm they do a damn thing. They certianly don't deter people from being drug addicts. And drug addicts are going to have a comparatively short lifespan, whether they have a nurse looking over their shoulder as they inject themselves or not. We also know that drug addicts commit crime to feed that habit. If they don't do it around the injection site it's merely due to the increased police presence.

New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet from the UK. Prestigious, no?

I can think of another. Affirmative Action programs. There's no real evidence they achieve anything of substance other than on an individual level, where they clearly benefit those individuals who get jobs they would otherwise not have gotten. But then again, they harm those individuals (in equal number) who would otherwise have gotten a job they should have gotten. And they instill resentment of the minority by the majority, and suspicion of anyone who is in an equity group that they got their job undeservedly and are thus incompetent.

But, the individual is what matters. You couldn't have any idea of how hard it may be for some people to break through. I'm not saying affirmative action is a perfect tool, it does have problems, of resentment, but if it wasn't necessary we wouldn't need it. There are entrenched racial biases everywhere that make it difficult for people to get ahead. In the end, the white people who wouldn't have gotten said job will have a much easier time getting employment elsewhere.

[nicky10013]

I would guess nicky has no education at all.

Woah. Just woah. I don't know how I'll recover from this barb.

[Argus]

You realise you're shooting yourself in the foot with this, right? It basically affirms that good communities reduce crime, and considering the difference between the US and Canadian cities, and our 30 years of liberal policies, you're essentially admitting that it's worked.

Uhm, no, because their crime rate has been reducing just as ours has - at least officially, in terms of police reported crime. And outside of the gang areas their crime rate is actually lower than ours.

But there's no way of actually comparing us with them which will determine what would happen if we greatly increased (for example) our punishments for violent offenses. I'm thinking it would be worthwhile to try it and see.

New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet from the UK. Prestigious, no?

In terms of health, perhaps, not in terms of criminal behaviour.

But, the individual is what matters. You couldn't have any idea of how hard it may be for some people to break through.

Because it's hard we should grant them the right to jump over top of some other individual who might have worked just as hard if not harder?

I'm not saying affirmative action is a perfect tool, it does have problems, of resentment, but if it wasn't necessary we wouldn't need it.

That's circular reasoning. We do it because it's necessary. How do we know it's necessary? Because we do it.

There are entrenched racial biases everywhere that make it difficult for people to get ahead.

I have seen no evidence that minorities or women are unduly affected by predjudicial behaviour in terms of jobs or promotions. Oh I know it happens on an individual basis. But the lower levels of employment among women and minorities are all too easily explained by, on the one hand, work habits and motherhood, and on the other by the fact the great majority of visible minorities are immigrants.

[Pliny]

Considering that you believe nazism is a form of communism, I wouldn't be so quick to point out other people's problems with their education.

I don't believe I ever said that Nazism is a form of communism. I have said they are both forms of totalitarianism but Nazism a form of communism? It is as the name "National Socialism" says, a form of "socialism".

Because Stalin described them as a party of the corporatists, and they did differ economically, does not make them less socialist. They were undeniably just as much a party of the worker as any socialist party.

Why do historians call the Nazi's right wing? How did they end up there? They have nothing to do with conservatism, either the maintaining of the status quo or reactionary policies. It was indeed "nationalist" which is not a platform of communism. Communism is an international revolutionary movement. But- it was "socialist" as it's name implies.

As for generalization, you clearly didn't read the article. It didn't say that all brands of conservatism are based on anti-intellectualism, just Harper's. There's a gigantic difference and you probably knew it. What does that say about your education and dedication to the truth?

The title of the thread makes no differentiation between "brands" of conservatism. If it were more honest it would not be headed "know-nothing" conservatism. There is no brand that labels itself know-nothing conservatism. It should be entitled "Harper's Conservatism is know nothing conservatism" if you wanted to avoid generalization.

I will say that Harper is not elitist and if that is anti-intellectual, then yes it is anti-intellectual. However, the absence of an elitist attitude is not anti-intellectual. I see it as a refreshing inclusion of the rest of the population in the governance of their country. Some intellectuals may feel that an insult to their intellectualism and their attitude that the rabble has no idea how ill-equipped they are to deal with their own governance. The do-good, know-best liberal intellectual, or even the conservative elitist, would feel the most hurt by such an anti-elitist platform. And so that is expressed in the article. It is no surprise you enjoyed the article.

[Pliny]

There are entrenched racial biases everywhere that make it difficult for people to get ahead. In the end, the white people who wouldn't have gotten said job will have a much easier time getting employment elsewhere.

What gives an entrenched racial bias it's power? For years it was Jim Crow "laws". "Laws" about segregation. You will find "laws" reversing discriminatory laws will only "entrench" resentment. If slavery had not existed at the time the Constitution had been drawn up then perhaps it would have stated that "congress shall make no laws regarding race" just as they make no laws regarding an establishment of religion.

It is making "laws" that entrenches biases. Everyone should be treated equal under the law.

It is unfortunate that blacks and women were not considered persons and laws could be made that were discriminatory. They have gained that status since. I would suggest that should we continue to make laws that do not treat all equal under the law, such as affirmative action, we are creating tension and resentment.

[Keepitsimple]

What gives an entrenched racial bias it's power? For years it was Jim Crow "laws". "Laws" about segregation. You will find "laws" reversing discriminatory laws will only "entrench" resentment. If slavery had not existed at the time the Constitution had been drawn up then perhaps it would have stated that "congress shall make no laws regarding race" just as they make no laws regarding an establishment of religion.

It is making "laws" that entrenches biases. Everyone should be treated equal under the law.

It is unfortunate that blacks and women were not considered persons and laws could be made that were discriminatory. They have gained that status since. I would suggest that should we continue to make laws that do not treat all equal under the law, such as affirmative action, we are creating tension and resentment.

It's true - just look at little kids playing - they don't care who they play with - black, white, orange. It's amazing how a little 4 year old who plays regularly with a Chinese playmate, can actually start to speak Chinese phrases and learn to communicate. If children pick up biases, they do so through their family or society in general.....and these affirmative action policies clearly perpetuate the idea that there IS racism and bias. We can't just throw cold water on the whole process but we need to wean ourselves off these policies.....the status quo no longer applies - we're moving forward.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Kanadischer]

harper is a nazi, and his conservative gestapo are right up there with the goose steppers of the TURD reich.

he's made of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, elitism and probably has penis envy.

did I mention he hates minorities too?

his platform is how best he can take away money and benefits OWED to minorities and natives... he has no leg to stand on.

we should have a nuremburg trial for him and his evil right wingers...

not to worry though, canada is getting more and more democratic (and less and less eurotrash white)... and only whites vote conservative... (the racist, hater ones)... the more progressive the country gets racially, well the more progressive itll be!

If Harper despised minorities, I don't think we'd have such high immigration and I don't think we would have references to multiculturalism and diversity in virtually everything. I can't take a walk around the block without something screaming diversity and equality. He most certainly is not a racist, however he is homophobic. Heil Harper.

[Argus]

He most certainly is not a racist, however he is homophobic. Heil Harper.

What's homophobia today in light of years of gay-friendly propaganda from media? It used to be someone who hated gay people, who actively discriminated against them, said vile things about them, and maybe even attacked them physically.

Now it seems to be anyone who has any doubt whatever about full support of every single item on the agenda of gay activists.

I could not possibly care less what gay people do to or with each other. I would not care if one moved in next door, or if one worked next to me. But I despise the whininess of the gay activists, who are without a doubt the most pampered, coddled and protected minority group in history. Gays are very prominent in media, and it seems every time some gay guy steps on a rock and breaks his ankle we get breathless reports. Every time there's an attack on a gay guy it's time to put together a movie to dramatize his plight. Gay activists have the biggest victim mentality of anyone on the planet, forever basking in the nobility of the poor, downtrodden martyr.

[Kanadischer]

What's homophobia today in light of years of gay-friendly propaganda from media? It used to be someone who hated gay people, who actively discriminated against them, said vile things about them, and maybe even attacked them physically.

Now it seems to be anyone who has any doubt whatever about full support of every single item on the agenda of gay activists.

I could not possibly care less what gay people do to or with each other. I would not care if one moved in next door, or if one worked next to me. But I despise the whininess of the gay activists, who are without a doubt the most pampered, coddled and protected minority group in history. Gays are very prominent in media, and it seems every time some gay guy steps on a rock and breaks his ankle we get breathless reports. Every time there's an attack on a gay guy it's time to put together a movie to dramatize his plight. Gay activists have the biggest victim mentality of anyone on the planet, forever basking in the nobility of the poor, downtrodden martyr.

I couldn't agree more. What happens in the bedroom is not the business of the state. However, when you have Gay activists filing "Hate crimes" at every possible moment, it starts to get a little much.

[Peter F]

Gay activists have the biggest victim mentality of anyone on the planet, forever basking in the nobility of the poor, downtrodden martyr.

It appears that you're basking too. Getting a little crowded on the rock? No room for more baskers?

[nicky10013]

I don't believe I ever said that Nazism is a form of communism. I have said they are both forms of totalitarianism but Nazism a form of communism? It is as the name "National Socialism" says, a form of "socialism".

Because Stalin described them as a party of the corporatists, and they did differ economically, does not make them less socialist. They were undeniably just as much a party of the worker as any socialist party.

Why do historians call the Nazi's right wing? How did they end up there? They have nothing to do with conservatism, either the maintaining of the status quo or reactionary policies. It was indeed "nationalist" which is not a platform of communism. Communism is an international revolutionary movement. But- it was "socialist" as it's name implies.

Hahahah and there it is. Hitler was a socialist leftist because his party name had socialist in it. Wow. Making fun of my education when you clearly have none; classy.

The title of the thread makes no differentiation between "brands" of conservatism. If it were more honest it would not be headed "know-nothing" conservatism. There is no brand that labels itself know-nothing conservatism. It should be entitled "Harper's Conservatism is know nothing conservatism" if you wanted to avoid generalization.

I will say that Harper is not elitist and if that is anti-intellectual, then yes it is anti-intellectual. However, the absence of an elitist attitude is not anti-intellectual. I see it as a refreshing inclusion of the rest of the population in the governance of their country. Some intellectuals may feel that an insult to their intellectualism and their attitude that the rabble has no idea how ill-equipped they are to deal with their own governance. The do-good, know-best liberal intellectual, or even the conservative elitist, would feel the most hurt by such an anti-elitist platform. And so that is expressed in the article. It is no surprise you enjoyed the article.

Ah, so you came here to comment simply on the title. Again, another reason why you're piercing insight in the end shouldn't be listened to. Read the article, that's the purpose of this thread, maybe you'll learn something, then come here and actually be able to comment intelligently.

[nicky10013]

What's homophobia today in light of years of gay-friendly propaganda from media? It used to be someone who hated gay people, who actively discriminated against them, said vile things about them, and maybe even attacked them physically.

Now it seems to be anyone who has any doubt whatever about full support of every single item on the agenda of gay activists.

I could not possibly care less what gay people do to or with each other. I would not care if one moved in next door, or if one worked next to me. But I despise the whininess of the gay activists, who are without a doubt the most pampered, coddled and protected minority group in history. Gays are very prominent in media, and it seems every time some gay guy steps on a rock and breaks his ankle we get breathless reports. Every time there's an attack on a gay guy it's time to put together a movie to dramatize his plight. Gay activists have the biggest victim mentality of anyone on the planet, forever basking in the nobility of the poor, downtrodden martyr.

I had a friend who was gay in a small town. The townspeople knew it. They had to move out. Why? At one point he was chased down the street with people flinging flaming toilet paper at him. If that's being coddled, well, damn, perhaps we need to change the definition of the word?

[Kanadischer]

Hahahah and there it is. Hitler was a socialist leftist because his party name had socialist in it. Wow. Making fun of my education when you clearly have none; classy.

Actually, he's right. National Socialism is a form of Socialism, but only economically. Socially it is right winged, while economically it is very left. It's a Syncretic political view, meaning it takes from both left, and right winged political views and combines them into one.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Kanadischer

[nicky10013]

What gives an entrenched racial bias it's power? For years it was Jim Crow "laws". "Laws" about segregation. You will find "laws" reversing discriminatory laws will only "entrench" resentment. If slavery had not existed at the time the Constitution had been drawn up then perhaps it would have stated that "congress shall make no laws regarding race" just as they make no laws regarding an establishment of religion.

It is making "laws" that entrenches biases. Everyone should be treated equal under the law.

It is unfortunate that blacks and women were not considered persons and laws could be made that were discriminatory. They have gained that status since. I would suggest that should we continue to make laws that do not treat all equal under the law, such as affirmative action, we are creating tension and resentment.

Just because they have gained that status doesn't mean the bias goes away. If you get rid of affirmative action, you honestly think that everyone is just going to be happy? The bias will still be there, minorities won't be able to get work or education nearly as easily and they're communities will begin to crumble. When that happens, racial prejiduce will only increase, not decrease. To ignore that is to be willfully blind.

[nicky10013]

Actually, he's right. National Socialism is a form of Socialism, but only economically. Socially it is right winged, while economically it is very left. It's a Syncretic political view, meaning it takes from both left, and right winged political views and combines them into one.

No, no he's not. Private companies flourished. The only example of any state owned industry was volkswagon, but even then that's arms length. Everything in Germany at that time was private. All their war materials was built on contract by private industry. Not very left wing at all.

[Alta4ever]

No, no he's not. Private companies flourished. The only example of any state owned industry was volkswagon, but even then that's arms length. Everything in Germany at that time was private. All their war materials was built on contract by private industry. Not very left wing at all.

I don't know what they taught you in school, but the german economy was a centrally planned economy. Does Goering's 4 years plans ring a bell. They told factories what to make, installed supporters as owners and so on. They allowed private ownership if you towed the party line otherwise you wouldn't own it any more another party supporter would.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Kanadischer]

No, no he's not. Private companies flourished. The only example of any state owned industry was volkswagon, but even then that's arms length. Everything in Germany at that time was private. All their war materials was built on contract by private industry. Not very left wing at all.

It was private only if it benefited the Reich. With Private Property; you could not purchase land and own it privately if it did not benefit the Reich in some form or another. In National Socialist Germany, private property was still regulated and monitored by the Government. It was not "private" as we know it today.

An example of this government-regulated private business would have been "Junkers" the plane company. Where Junkers was arrested for not allowing the government permission to oversee his work. He was paid for his Nationalized business later on however.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Kanadischer