When will this meme of young people adopting conservatism to be edgy and unique stop...

Only conservatives don't hold onto values which are "thousands of years old". Just consider what most describe themselves as: "Classical Liberals", after the sort of people who were considered radical in their day.

Imagine being so edgy you don't want to burn your society you live in to the ground.

>be a fucking retard and mislabel a group of people
>draw a fucking retarded conclusion

>conservatives thinking they are edgy
>when they don't even want to rape children
they are so, ugh, silly
let's laugh at them, comrades!

>Only
Rather, values are a mish-mash and self-identification, or group identification, can only give you a partial sense of the truth. American conservatives are trying to conserve an essentially liberal political tradition. Conservatives, radicals, reactionaries, populists, reformists - these are all contextual labels, with only a few connotations that can be applied universally.

Everyone should have a little more insouciance with regards to these terms. The less personal significance, the better. Learning the history of ideas is sobering, and liberating.

Do you even know what conservatism is? Are you sure you're not a reactionary?

>Conservatives are under the misapprehension that those aspects of society which are good and hard-fought for, are in fact eternal (probably God-given), and it is foolish to try and improve on them
>Traditionalists/reactionaries feel that those aspects of society which are good and hard-fought for, are in fact eternal (certainly God-given), and it is high treason to try and improve on them c. 1600 A.D.

>He's still a /pol/fag
>He isn't a communist to be contrarian to his parents, peers and even contrarian to Veeky Forums

Get a load of this, pleb.

>do you even know

He asks after calling classical liberals conservatives.

>conservative and reactionary are contextual labels
of course I am a socialist! that's because I want the best for society as a whole! :)

>Get a load of this, pleb.
You have one too many commas.

Still not seeing anything more than outrage from you. You must be a very angry user.

>not falling for the nazbol meme
never gonna make it

>being a commie is contrarian
maybe if you are american and never went to college
here in south america everybody is a communist, not even exaggerating

How can they not be? They are dependent on time, place, on what people are involved. They are not really ideologies, but sentiments, or persuasions. The term Socialism more resembles Christianity, because it is more intentional, more dogmatic; so it's easier to mislabel someone or something as socialist or Christian for superficial reasons. And being a Christian or a Socialist doesn't rely too much on context, wherever you go historically and geographically they are going to share a lot of agreeable essential traits.

I was telling the pleb to get a load of my hot uniqueness.

I was not telling an unspecified audience to get a load of the pleb.

NazBol is pretty contrarian. But WATCH THIS.

Here in Europe everyone is either a SocDem that thinks they're radical or a plain old classcuck.

>he actually thinks that speculating on other people's human right is a-okay
>he says things like "these people should be oppressed, these people should be gassed" without noticing how disgustingly arrogant it is for a basement dweller to start deciding who gets to stay in his country and who doesn't
>all of his arguments have to completely discount morality and ethics for them to be considered acceptable
>his entire education comes from /pol/ infographics (stormfront propaganda)
>when he is opposed on the internet he immediatly assumes that he is debating jews or SJWs

take it to /pol/ buddy

I think the problem with anti-/pol/ memes of this type is attempting to be funny in an irreverent vein while also being a prudish moraliser. You could moralise, and still be funny, but it would have to be humane, not sterile, forced and contemptuous.

>meme

the first french and italian fascists were literally disaffected marxists who refused to sell out to democratic socialism. it was as countercultural and avant-garde as any other revolutionary movement. rejecting shit is the entire point of the whole thing. all politics is reactionary, and primarily aesthetic. nothing strange is happening, we just have a way to smell everyone's dumb bullshit now because of the internet.

Reactionaries certainly seem to be under the impression that they're edgy.

Oh but you are exaggerating. Maybe in universities and exclusively in the humanities courses, but not in general. At least here in br br hue, the herd mentality of the common people is still a conservative one.

If you're older than 16, and aren't conservative, then you're a fucking moron and your father failed in raising you.

PJW obviously writes for teens, it's just normal that he sounds retarded if you are 18+, but he knows what he's doing

>past year + 1
>father
that's not how it works anymore

Typical /pol/ tactic: when the critique is spot on, attack the way in which it's formulated, and treat the content of the critique itself as pedantic common sense.
The result of this tactic? /pol/ can't be criticized, since every possible form of criticism will design you as a boring loser. It should also be noted that this strategy is entirely reliant on the affinity that Veeky Forums has for edgyness: for example, as you can see in this case, the character of a poster, or the contents of his ideas become an afterthought, something that is only barely relevant compared to how funny is the post to /pol/ users.

Conservativism is the less ethical option.

What if I just don't really care about social politics or justice and just want to sit at home reading books about people who eat metal to perform magic or elves and dwarves or some other fantasy shit?

>1950s values are 1000s of years old

Less ethical how?

When you say "conservative" what do you mean by that?
Seriously, what do you think conservative means?
I like the nation state and I think marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman. I also think that there are only two genders. Yet I also support gay and trans rights, but I find it hard to be vocal about it, since the current climate is full of transtrenders and retards who fight against every sibgle tradition and belief western countries are built upon. I like capitalism, but I also like the idea of a social safety net. I recognise the large global companies as a danger to the freedom of the common people, but I don't like big governments either.
I hate controlled economy and the fact that our current system is based upon debt. I don't like global institutions like EU or UN, I see them as a danger to the nation state.
I'd like the healthcare system to be more privatized, but I'm not sure how we could move out of the public sector.
I think free speech should be absolute, only DIRECT calls of violence should be punished and silenced. I'm for controlled migration of people who are ready to integrate into the country, take up the values of the nation and see themselves as a citizen of that nation first and foremost, before any other identity.
What am I?
My mother has called me a right winger, mostly because of my free speech ideals.
Can you even categorise me to any neat box?
See, when you start to categorising people to right or left, you lose all nuance that persons opinions might have. It's not useful for discussion.

Leftists were a mistake

>le everything is social construct meme
let me guess family is a bourgeois concept too right

shut up Dave Rubin

conservatives are the new wave of retards pretending to carve a place of self importance by seeming special. the true patrician concerns himself only with truth, and this, at a politicall level falls closer to a liberal, social democratic interpretation. Especially with regard to rights, healthcare, taxation, and most importantly foreign policy. Hence if you fall closer to liberal values you are a philosopher and if not, a baffoon. But it's hard not to be on the disadvantageous locus of historic cultural change. In a few years conservatism will become the norm and liberalism the edgy ideology with growing popularity. The fact remains though that the true intelectual sides more with liberalism than conservatism, and does not concern himself with the aesthetic cycle of popular opinion.

based falseflagteens

I don't want to oppress black people, women and gender freaks. Free markets turns disgraces and predatory practices into cashcows. The relevance of capital turns governmenrs into policy markets for investors and international conglomerates, whcih, by following the dictates of conservstivism are now destroying workers' rights, reducing man into a dumbed down (by demeaning culture that frolicks due to the now established connection between free global markers and Art) shadow of his potential self.

Not only was Pol Pot right, but Stalin did nothing wrong.

The nuclear family most certainly is.

yes, but the nuclear family is shit and already a degenerated concept. the extended family is the only construct that actually works and doesn't alienate everybody involved

It absolutely is reactionary because leftism has been forced by the media

It's still a social construct though.

>that actually works
If it works it wouldn't have faded away into the nuclear family, and subsequently single parent households. We've a point where economics are totally hostile to all but the most atomized concepts of family and there's no turning back on that one short of an apocalyptic event.

The nuclear family is human nature and is the most healthy

>I like the nation state and I think marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman
What about civil unions? Should they be banned too?

>I also think that there are only two genders.
By definitiom this is false, unless you are dishonestly equating gender and biological sex.

>since the current climate is full of transtrenders and retards who fight against every sibgle tradition and belief western countries are built upon.
Some of them are obnoxious so fuck their entire cause?

>I'd like the healthcare system to be more privatized, but I'm not sure how we could move out of the public sector.
More privatized? Why?

>only DIRECT calls of violence should be punished and silenced
It never works against fascism.

>My mother has called me a right winger, mostly because of my free speech ideals.
Centrist leaning to the right. More in general, someone who does not care about other people's human rights unless their cause is aesthetically pleasing, a typical fascist trait according to Walter Benjamin and Adorno.

>He thinks The Flintstones is a documentary about prehistoric people.

Things like 2 genders and roles of women

Its proven no matter how much you deny it

It won't. After going through HS being forced to fit in, young people want to be special and stand out, counterculture always existed and will always exist, and it's not that bad. Questioning the status quo is always good, even if you answer are /pol/ memes, as long the person is still open to learn. Most will grow out of it when lived enough to gain more perspectives and experiences. Just watch them rebel and play along, or don't. It doesn't matter. In 10-20 years they will be boring ass centrists.

>Can you even categorise me to any neat box?
Basic bitch right winger with some undercooked contrasting views (the business shit). You'd probably vote for the Torys/UKIP.

>social democratic
Are just conservatives light these days. Look what SPD became.

McCarthy was right

Your seriousness has rendered you almost as paranoid as a /pol/ack.
Pic related, something I made to shit on /pol/'s holocaust denial. You just seem wounded, and desperate. You're why /pol/ says "the left can't meme." It's not that you should be flippant - there's something indescribably sour about you. The way Communists on the internet try to outmatch /pol/'s edginess by going on about muh kulaks muh Stalin did nothing wrong - it's both ressentiment and cruel puerile imitation. The thing about Nazis is its so far beyond forgivability its jarring morality almost becomes plausible.

Maybe I'm just too much of an Anglo. Too much of an Australian.
Switch tactics

Seconding this. Altho id blame culteral marxism

>It's still a social construct though.
what is even your point
when everything is a social construct, being a social construct is not a bad thing
>hurr extended families are bad because they are social constructs
>therefore muh gay families are as good as them

>powerful pelple enslave the masses with deceitful narratives, while hoarding as many resources as possible for themselves, their family and those people who help him enforce his authority
>said people strive for power and wealth, and have very little consideration for the value of human lives (think about the omnipresent obusiness of war)

Seems like the same old story with different characters, gadgets and gimmicks.

>2 genders is thousands of years old
True. But additional genders are also thousand of years old.
>the roles of women are thousands of years old
In the most abstract and vague sense possible, which would by and large translate to the subservience of women to men. Otherwise the roles of women have been just a flexible and transient as the roles of men, they morph to suit the economic necessities of the time.

Nice deconstructions.

Its a sign of maturity. Leftism is quite literely a mental disorder if you are over a certain agel

>being a social construct is not a bad thing
It doesn't mean bad, it means that it's not something to take too seriously, since it's a meme one can always adjust.

>If it works it wouldn't have faded away into the nuclear family
yeah it's almost as if good things can be affected by historical processes too, right?

That the Flintstones is a documentary and cavemen actually did live with one cave dad, one cave mom, 2.5 cave kids and a cave dog?

>economics: liberal ideology
>academia: liberal and post-left ideology

yes, how dare one adopt a conservative or nationalist position!!

Three words
Get a job

The problem here is that /pol/ memes are so over the top, you can't deal with them with normal memes beyond complete reflection like "gulag them all" or hyper satyrical by taking their shit at face value and pretending to go with it with even more enthusiasm, which would be pretty confusing for a normal person.

>starting a healthy family is bad because my professor Mr. Goldbergstein told me it is!

God damn, how is it even possible to be this bluepilled?
This is your brain on Jewish Marxist indoctrination, folks.
Is everyone on this shithole 14?
Coming on here just makes my blood boil. /mu/ is even smarter than you guys and they're a bunch of drooling retards who worship Kanye.

My point is that since it's a social construct it's not an immutable fact of reality that we have to accept. It is subject to debate and possibly (in fact inevitably) change if we come to decide a different social construct would suit us better.

>therefore muh gay families are as good as them
Woah, buddy. I'm a futurist fascist who thinks all children should be raised communally by the state. In that case there's only one family and everyone is part of it.

>>If it works it wouldn't have faded away into the nuclear family
Well, now the nuclear family model is fading. What's your point? If your argument is based on utility and suitability why the hell are you defending this institution?

You're an idiot and your mother hates you.

Read He actually responded to your inanity with something thoughtful.

>Coming on here just makes my blood boil.
You're always free to go back, you know.

>doesn't alienate everybody involved
What about women who do not want to live as subservient wives?

Because I want to follow the traditions of my people without my culture being destroyed in the name of social justice

Go. Away.

Good goy

I don't think you understand my point. It's not that it never worked, it's that the economic conditions that made the extended family obsolete are still in place. We can't just try to resurrect it as a social institution while we still have the economic framework that killed it, it would quickly develop back into the nuclear family.

Likewise there was a time swords worked great for fighting battles, now that would just get you shot and the army would go back to using guns.

You are right, dont listen to the minority of trolls

I literally mentioned that the nuclear family is fading into single-parent households in the following part of that same sentence. I don't know why you brought that up unless you're trying to misrepresent my point.

> If your argument is based on utility and suitability why the hell are you defending this institution?
What institution?
Do you think I'm defending the nuclear family?

>y-yeah w-well just go back to your containment board!!

This mindset is why liberals will keep losing. When faced with a challenge, you just give in and pussy out.
You call /pol/ an echo chamber, yet you people are afraid of even the most slightly dissenting opinions that challenge your precious worldview.

But hey, don't take my advice. I like my enemy uninformed and arrogant. It just makes it easier.

these are a mere social construct of modern feminism
these kind of women are useless and only do not want to accept their subservient nature because they are resentful

>tfw you're traditionalist left-wing (i.e. anti-capitalist, care deeply about social issues, helping the oppressed, but have traditionalist moral views on sex, life, duty, etc.)

Seriously though, everyone I know thinks I'm on their side politically. I've somehow accidentally become a political chameleon

At this point you're wallowing on unfounded ideal speculations. You're talking about nothing.

>It doesn't mean bad, it means that it's not something to take too seriously, since it's a meme one can always adjust.
something being a social construct doesn't mean you have the capacity to improve on it, that's the key failure of the left, they will rant about material conditions but will never take responsibility for the material consequences of their actions.

You're clearly an idiot because the guy you're responding to is a reactionary that wants to go back to the extended family, which is what we had before the nuclear family.

Like shooting fish in a barrel

Explain why.

>economic determinism

It is frankfurt school lies

>these kind of women are useless and only do not want to accept their subservient nature because they are resentful
Are you going to argue this thesis or what? And on what ground are you assuming that you have the knowledge and the authority to make such claims? Why shouldn't I treat you as a megalomaniac lunatic?

lol youre a faggot traditionalist, go larp a WW2 officer elsewhere

are you retarded? the nuclear family is already a concept to slave you, you fucking retard. a mother living alone with her kids in a flat in a grey city with no social support except a bunch of bills that her husband brings from time to time to the house is not natural in any way and has never existed historically until the industrial revolution.

the extended family, the tribe, is the real traditional one, no one woman should ever have to raise kids alone, heck, after the third kid they should pretty much raise each other and stop bugging you.

>Epicly trolled! I was merely pretending to be retarded!

>being concerned for your mental health
>DIS IS WHY DA LIBRULS LOSE
You really should just go back. This isn't good for you, user, as you were self-aware enough just a minute ago or so to point out. Time to take the next logical step.

Diseases are natural too. Surely you wouldn't take medicine and visit a doctor to go against mother nature like some progressive cuck?

in the traditional family wives are not subservient, they have their own social circle where they occupy a position of their own? women not working is just a modern meme, that never existed historically except for very rich women.

women raising kids alone is also a post-industrial meme, the whole social group raised kids communally and supported women traditionally

being subject to change != you are able to decide the changes