Conservatives win by landslide

[turtlespeed 212]

Boris Johnson leads a vindicating landslide.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/uk/uk-election-boris-johnson-win-ge19-intl-gbr/index.html

Brexit will happen now.

What message does this send to the rest of the world?

I think it sends a distinct message. "Liberalism should slow down."

I don't think it should be stopped, as progress is necessary, Just slow down considerably.

 

Evidently, I'm not alone.

 

[gowlerk 1,923]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

"Liberalism should slow down."

Liberalism is a very broad term, as is conservatism. The message of Brexit and Boris is two fold. #1 is that people were sick and tired of the uncertainty. #2 is that although the original referendum was very close, in the end most English people who wanted it did not change their mind and some of those opposed did. It became easier and more sensible to just accept and move on. The people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland have more turmoil ahead.

Edited December 14, 2019 by gowlerk

[yoink 321]

 

.

Edited December 15, 2019 by yoink

[jakee 1,257]

On 12/14/2019 at 5:55 PM, gowlerk said:

Liberalism is a very broad term, as is conservatism. The message of Brexit and Boris is two fold. #1 is that people were sick and tired of the uncertainty. #2 is that although the original referendum was very close, in the end most English people who wanted it did not change their mind and some of those opposed did. It became easier and more sensible to just accept and move on. The people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland have more turmoil ahead.

That's not a valid conclusion. The Conservatives and the Brexit party combined won 46.6% of the vote. Pretty much everyone else voted for a party whose stated positions were not pro Brexit. This was an election, not a Brexit referendum. But if you want to treat it as one, you'd have to conclude that support for Brexit has dropped.

Edited December 15, 2019 by jakee

[jakee 1,257]

On 12/14/2019 at 4:54 PM, turtlespeed said:

Boris Johnson leads a vindicating landslide.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/uk/uk-election-boris-johnson-win-ge19-intl-gbr/index.html

Brexit will happen now.

What message does this send to the rest of the world?

I think it sends a distinct message. "Liberalism should slow down."

I don't really see what the election results say about what is right or wrong. But beyond the headline result of the election, the Conservative party actually won the exact same percentage of the national vote as the two mainstream left of centre parties put together. What message does that send?

[brenthutch 388]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

I don't really see what the election results say about what is right or wrong. But beyond the headline result of the election, the Conservative party actually won the exact same percentage of the national vote as the two mainstream left of centre parties put together. What message does that send?

The same message that Clinton got.  It doesn't matter how many votes you get.  If you don't end up in the White House or 10 Downing, it doesn't count for squat.

BTW Most Republicans were against Trump, but the anti Trump vote was split by too many candidates allowing a plurality to go for Trump.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by brenthutch

[mbohu 77]

On 12/14/2019 at 9:54 AM, turtlespeed said:

I don't think it should be stopped, as progress is necessary, Just slow down considerably.

Very consistent with your screen name! I didn't think about this before, but is that the reason you chose it?

 

Just wondering though, why WOULD someone want to slow down progress? That seems so counter-intuitive for me.

[headoverheels 291]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

...beyond the headline result of the election...

Headline: British lose right to claim Americans are dumber.

 

[brenthutch 388]

24 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Very consistent with your screen name! I didn't think about this before, but is that the reason you chose it?

 

Just wondering though, why WOULD someone want to slow down progress? That seems so counter-intuitive for me.

It is the backlash.  Open boarders, Obamacare, gay marriage, transsexuals in the military, radical climate change agenda, the "othering" of white working class men and evangelical Christians...….what do you get?   TRUMP

Edited December 16, 2019 by brenthutch

[mbohu 77]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

It is the backlash.

Yes. That, I understand. And based on your list, I assume that you consider none of these things actual "progress".

Turtlespeed seemed to say though, that he actually considers (at least some portion of) the progressive agenda progress; but he thinks it shouldn't move that fast. That is what my question to him is pointing at.

[brenthutch 388]

My opinion doesn't matter.  You asked the question "why would someone want to slow down progress" and I gave you the answer.

BTW do you consider the belittling and marginalization of large segments of the population "progress"?

Edited December 16, 2019 by brenthutch

[mbohu 77]

Yes. But I don't think you want to slow down progress--in your own mind...others here may see you that way, but to you none of this is progress. I'm interested in someone who actually does see some things as progress, but wants them to happen more slowly.
That is one definition of "conservatism" and I am trying to understand that aspect of it.

[Coreece 190]

47 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Just wondering though, why WOULD someone want to slow down progress? That seems so counter-intuitive for me.

Didn't you get the memo?  Haste makes waste.  There are plenty examples of businesses scaling too quickly for their own good.  From a societal perspective it would be referred to as progress traps.  A big one people seem to be talking about lately is this concept called AGW, maybe you've heard of it?

Edit- There was a documentary awhile back called "Surviving Progress,"  check it out.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Coreece

[mbohu 77]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

A big one people seem to be talking about lately is this concept called AGW, maybe you've heard of it?

Yes. Exactly. For example:

For me Electrical Vehicles with motors that are quiet, yet have 100% torque available from (practically) 0 revs on, do not require fossil fuels (which WILL eventually run out, be it in 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years) and have a myriad of other technical advantages and exciting technologies--are in and of themselves extremely exciting. They are something I would be interested in, NO MATTER if they are urgently needed or if they (by themselves) would make a big dent in climate change or anything else. Why wouldn't ANYONE be excited about progress like that?! 
Sure, with any new technologies we do need to look if there are downsides that outweigh the benefits and need to make sure we progress in the right way BUT even just emotionally, this is a direction I would want to move in. It's hard for me to truly feel myself into the mindset of someone who would want--by their nature--to stay with the old (and BORING--clearly that is MY word for it)

So again: for me, my initial emotional reaction would be to be drawn to the new and the more advanced. I would want to step on the gas pedal. It's where the INTERESTING and FUN stuff is. THEN, after that initial attraction, I will have to use my rational mind to possibly temper that and look at the possible downsides and dangers, if there are any.
It seems to me that the initial emotional reaction of a "conservative" that wants to slow down progress is the opposite. At first he will be put off by anything new and any suggestion to change what is currently there. He will naturally want to "step on the brakes". He will be suspicious of any attempt to change the status quo. Only THEN, may he think about it in more depth and consider if there are actually some benefits to SOME kind of change--but SLOWLY!

 

[brenthutch 388]

 If you want to make social change/progress you have to bring the people along with you.  Just ask Tomas Paine, his ideas were revolutionary and inspired the American Revolution.  But he went too far too fast and the end result was;

"One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred – his virtues denounced as vices – his services forgotten – his character blackened"

Push things to far too fast you don't get conservatives you get reactionaries 

 

[mbohu 77]

AGW is a good example, because you can see why people who want to "move forward" are very open to the idea, while it goes against the ideas of people who are of the opposite persuasion:

The idea that there are global problems that we will have to work together as all of humanity to solve, is an idea that perfectly fits with someone who wants to move forward and into larger and larger circles of togetherness and into more and more capability as humanity as a whole.
If it isn't AGW, it would be asteroids or air pollution (in a more general sense) or the nuclear threat or a myriad of other issues.

On the other hand if you don't want change, if you'd rather stay in smaller, more limited circles, the needs of global cooperation that AGW would demand would go opposite to the wish to stay "small" and "safe" (yes, I know, I use words that show my bias, but I think you get the drift!)

So while the question of "is AGW" scientifically real and proofable, seems to be an objective, scientific question, that is not where the discussion is really happening from. It probably has much more to do with these basic psychological predispositions.

 

[mbohu 77]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 If you want to make social change/progress you have to bring the people along with you.  Just ask Tomas Paine, his ideas were revolutionary and inspired the American Revolution.  But he went too far too fast and the end result was;

Yes. Again: cognitively I understand it. I try my best to take that into consideration. 

But emotionally it goes against my nature, and I am trying to imagine what it would be like to be a person that "wants to step on the brakes". Even more so: A person who jumps out of airplanes and wants to step on the brakes! 

Seriously though: The thing about "bringing people along" is actually what I find to be the most compassionate aspect of conservatism. I think we progressives often miss that point and in that way make ourselves the ones missing that kind of compassion (which of course we wouldn't want to admit) BUT I STILL wish people would just want to go a little faster!

[brenthutch 388]

Do you consider the fracking/shale oil revolution to be progress?  The US is now the worlds largest oil and gas producer.  It has created thousands of jobs.  It has given the US energy security we have not seen in our lifetimes.  In my book that is real tangible progress.  What about the liberalization of gun control laws?  Is that progress?  What about protection religious liberties?  Is that progress?  What about opening up federal lands for mineral exploration?  Is that progress?  What about the illimitation of draconian regulations?  Is that progress?

Please don't conflate you personal political views with progress.  Progress is not the exclusive domain of the left.

Edited December 16, 2019 by brenthutch

[normiss 622]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you consider the fracking/shale oil revolution to be progress?  The US is now the worlds largest oil and gas producer.  It has created thousands of jobs.  It has given the US energy security we have not seen in our lifetimes.  In my book that is real tangible progress.  What say you? 

Based on the reduced price of oil, the added cost of extraction due to the additional work involved with fracking, and the environmental risks, haven't fracking efforts been reduced?

Isn't there less of it than the initial efforts?

[billvon 2,426]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It is the backlash.  Open boarders, Obamacare, gay marriage, transsexuals in the military, radical climate change agenda, the "othering" of white working class men and evangelical Christians

Rights for blacks and women, vaccines, rights for religions other than Christianity, justice for all, loss of white male privilege, the me too movement . . . there's a lot for the deplorables to dislike.

[wmw999 2,146]

54 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW do you consider the belittling and marginalization of large segments of the population "progress"?

Works when white people do it against minorities.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 388]

Just now, billvon said:

Rights for blacks and women, vaccines, rights for religions other than Christianity, justice for all, loss of white male privilege, the me too movement . . . there's a lot for the deplorables to dislike.

Just who is your president?  End result.  Hope your happy.

[billvon 2,426]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Just who is your president?  End result.  Hope your happy.

Hmm.  So we should compromise our principles because Trump is so bad?  I think not.  I'd prefer educating people so they see the benefits of (for example) letting blacks marry whites.

 

[mbohu 77]

Well, as you probably guessed, I am not too excited about it. So, let me explain why--or why I THINK it doesn't excite me (just so you know how this works in a progressive's brain)

Let's first address your particular points:

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The US is now the worlds largest oil and gas producer.

Now, not saying that this isn't a good thing, but it does not excite me that much. Emotionally, I am not very concerned with the advantages of one country over another--yes: of course I can "think straight" and can want it to be better in the country I happen to currently live in, so I hope you know what I'm saying--but I am much more concerned with something that is better for all of humanity. So The US being better off than others, in itself does not excite me quite THAT much.

 

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It has created thousands of jobs.

Yes (if that's true, which it probably is) But not tremendously exciting, because "jobs" is kind of an old paradigm. I am aware that we are still far away from this, but in the long run the paradigm of "jobs" (=having to spend most of your life doing something that is often not in alignment with what you would naturally want to offer the world) are something I hope we will move away from (and yes, that sounds like hippy-dippy ideas, but with increase in automation, AI and changing economic landscapes I think we are actually at the beginning of the time where this movement may start)  --now again: I can see how jobs for thousands RIGHT NOW is a good thing.--not sure if it outweighs the dangers though.

Lastly: It is still based on old (boring) technology, using a resource that is limited (yes: everything is limited, but this one is relatively MUCH more limited than others) and emotionally I am drawn towards much more advanced technologies and resources.
So in summary: I would at most see it as a stopgap and this would even be WITHOUT considering any of the negative impacts on environment and people who live close to fracking operations. 

[Coreece 190]

44 minutes ago, mbohu said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

A big one people seem to be talking about lately is this concept called AGW, maybe you've heard of it?

Yes. Exactly. For example: 

For me Electrical Vehicles with motors that are quiet, yet have 100% torque available from (practically) 0 revs on, do not require fossil fuels (which WILL eventually run out, be it in 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years) and have a myriad of other technical advantages and exciting technologies--are in and of themselves extremely exciting. They are something I would be interested in, NO MATTER if they are urgently needed or if they (by themselves) would make a big dent in climate change or anything else. Why wouldn't ANYONE be excited about progress like that?! 
Sure, with any new technologies we do need to look if there are downsides that outweigh the benefits and need to make sure we progress in the right way BUT even just emotionally, this is a direction I would want to move in. It's hard for me to truly feel myself into the mindset of someone who would want--by their nature--to stay with the old (and BORING--clearly that is MY word for it)

So again: for me, my initial emotional reaction would be to be drawn to the new and the more advanced. I would want to step on the gas pedal. It's where the INTERESTING and FUN stuff is. THEN, after that initial attraction, I will have to use my rational mind to possibly temper that and look at the possible downsides and dangers, if there are any.
It seems to me that the initial emotional reaction of a "conservative" that wants to slow down progress is the opposite. At first he will be put off by anything new and any suggestion to change what is currently there. He will naturally want to "step on the brakes". He will be suspicious of any attempt to change the status quo. Only THEN, may he think about it in more depth and consider if there are actually some benefits to SOME kind of change--but SLOWLY!

This is a good example of why you might need to slow down a bit.  I'm sorry I even mentioned the AGW thing because now this is just going to be another climate change thread.  You just picked up the shinny object and ran with it and missed the point that it was that rush for progress that got us into this mess in the first place - hence the progress trap.

 

30 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I am trying to imagine what it would be like to be a person that "wants to step on the brakes"

I'd say it's more about easing off the gas a bit than it is stepping on the brakes, you'd do the same if it was your money.  An investor typically isn't going to give you millions for an emotional high.  You better have the kinks all worked out or be a good enough salesman to snag them on the FOMO.

So maybe look at it from that perspective?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Coreece