Conservative

363 readers

36 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee

-5

The American Conservative: If Your Side Wins, Do You Care How the Winner Was Selected? (www.theamericanconservative.com)

submitted 7 months ago by PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com to c/conservative@lemm.ee

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The great constitutionalists, from Aristotle to Montesquieu to Madison, believed that the populace should have a voice, but they also thought, with Cicero, that the well-being of the people was the highest law. Survival and flourishing is most important, not pandering to popular passions.

Any small “r” republican knows that a good society divides up power among authorities, repositories, and mysteries, such that all are checked and balanced; neither the bounder nor the mobile vulgus can become tyrannical. Pluralist theory seeks both safety and stability in multiplicity. The wisdom of crowds—and brokering institutions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Except that the premise is untrue. He is repeating the big lie:

At the risk of heresy, this author is on record: QAnon’s graces notwithstanding, the Democrats are unlikely to yield power to a figure they increasingly regard as authoritarian, Putinian, even Hitlerian. So, yes, Scott Adams’ followers are probably right

He can't fully bring himself to say it outright, but what is the meaning a reasonable person would take from this? He "is on record" saying yeah, the 2020 election was probably rigged.

I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.

It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication. The 202O election was not rigged, no matter how many hair-dye dripping landscaping parking lot press conferences you hold.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.

Esteemed, you say? Why, aren't you kind!

Anyway, yes, and an invalid argument doesn't make dialogue impossible, contrary to the entire virtual world of social media. His argument is invalid. I posted the article and I ultimately disagree with the conclusion, even if I were to treat the argument as valid. Nonetheless, there's still value in considering the other premises of his arguments.

It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication.

Yes, but people who believe this are who we have to deal with. It doesn't matter how stupid it is or how misinformed we believe them to be, American politics is going to be influenced by this absolute fabrication. It is being influenced by it now. The choice for is how we handle it.

And, if the lesson isn't clear, I'm against disenfranchising these people just because I think they're completely removed from reality, and, in fact, would prefer that everyone have a real opportunity to (consider perspectives they fundamentally disagree with and) engage civically and politically.

[–] Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca -1 points 7 months ago

Yeah that was sarcasm. Still, I admire your optimism.

I myself view these examples of rhetoric - which would have been unthinkable a scant few years ago- as yet more signs of the impending and imminent collapse.

Rev 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning