In a sense I agree with you. What the person you are responding to is trying to say, I assume, is the new status quo is liberalism. As in lgbt, blm, van life, cannabis culture, casual dating, multiculturalism, secularism, etc.
I labelled the above idea space “liberalism” but I’m not convinced it’s the right term. I am just lacking a better one. In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.
There is also another idea space, generally associated with christian identity, belief in God, the existence of two biological sexes with clear roles to fulfil, european heritage, abortion is murder, sex strictly within marriage, no homosexuality, gun rights, etc
This would be called conservatism. But, as in the “liberalism” mentioned above, it’s not really the best term. If we just take it as an idea space and assume liberalism to be the status quo, this would definitely be a counter culture.
It dislikes the current status quo, wishes to undermine it and shift it in a different direction.
And, in this sense, I agree with the person you responded too. “Conservative” is the new counter culture.
You’re mistaken if you think “liberalism” is the status quo. It might be in the internet, but real life is not the same as Twitter. Just look at the push against abortion, or the massive incarcerated population, or the constant killing of poor people by the police. Or the raising of the interest rate to freeze salaries in detriment of bigger unemployment which won’t target the rich people?
Honestly saying that being conservative is a counter-culture just shows how alienated conservatives are.
> In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.
It is true, but there is not only one or two directions, and it must be necessary to consider that there is no only one or two directions.
People can believe in God or not as they wish, and might or might not be Christian (and there is many different Christians anyways, as well as many different non-Christians, and you need not only necessarily one religion, also). Either way can result people do good things and bad things.
Furthermore, "God exist" is not even very clearly defined. They shouldn't shame people for believe in God, although to say that it is right or wrong to believe in God can be mistaken because many people fail to consider that it is not really well defined.
Although two biological sexes do have clear roles to fulfil (specifically, mother vs father), that is a simplification and also is sometimes expanded too much (especially in the past, more often than today). That fails to consider intersex, and also people who do things differently from each other, you can do such things which are not part of biological sex.
Some people have some European heritage but not necessarily all. However, "European" is not very specific compared with e.g. "Italian", I think.
Homosexuality is not such a bad thing and even if you do not like it, it is not what should be illegal. (But, they should not force you to like it or to hate it.)
About gun rights, I think that you should need right to have weapons (especially unpowered and improvised weapons, rather than guns, but guns too) and other devices (including clothing, pencil/paper for writing, etc), and the right to not have weapons and other devices (including clothing) in case you do not want it, but that they should not just sell guns to everyone without proper safety training, etc. Proper safety training is important. However, if you make up your own weapons and other devices then you can do that; the government should not get in the way of everything. However, such a thing should not mean that you can just shoot everyone or bring guns everywhere; the law would still need to prevent against such a thing, which they already do anyways.
There are some Canadian laws relating to guns. Some of these things seems like good ideas but should not be mandatory, and are often more restrictive than they should be.
Furthermore, even if guns are legal should not mean that they should be encouraged. Use of weapons should normally be discouraged, not encouraged.
(I do not want any guns and I do not like guns, but that is just my opinion.)
Too often they say they either want gun rights or gun restrictions, either yes or no, and fail to consider a more nuanced possibility.
Cannabis, also, they fail to consider a more nuanced possibility. Now, smoking marijuana is legal, and I also do not think they should make the drugs illegal, but unfortunately they can still harm the air outside, and make smell even inside someone else's house right next to it too, so there still need to be the restriction of that. But, usually the people just consider yes or no instead of the more complicated possibility like I have described.
Abortion also is complicated, often both side they fail to consider the nuance. Ideally, I think it should be something to be avoided (it is better to start to not be pregnant, if possible), but conditions are not ideal and never are ideal. If it is your body then you will have the right to do with it (although you should still consider whether or not it is a good idea; just because something is or should be legal does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea), and can be self-defense from your own body (in case you would die otherwise), but the government should not make it difficult by getting in the way.
And then, there are some things that neither "liberal" nor "conservative" governments tend to consider, or that both do.
I'm sure there are communities where stating this would be controversial, but the US public has never elected an openly atheist president. It's ridiculous to claim that believing in God is somehow countercultural.
Society didn't use to be "conservative". Like, the romans and the greeks were a lot more sexually free than we are right now. What they also had in their time is conservative people, as in, people that were against the changes in the society they were living in (like accepting Christianism during the Roman Empire, etc).
Being conservative can't be counter-culture because by definition it is preseving the CURRENT culture (which is not the "woke" one, even if boomers like to think different. All the people with power are conservatives). Being downvoted in HN doesn't mean anything, same as Twitter and Reddit. You can be "cancelled" in Twitter and still sell out the Madison Square Garden, like Louis CK. The real power is outside the social media, and that part is definitely conservative.
> Like, the romans and the greeks were a lot more sexually free than we are right now.
Not really, unless maybe we count their elites' exploitation of enslaved folks as a kind of "sexual freedom" but that's not something we would ever want to endorse. We know from ancient sources that their sexual behavior was highly constrained otherwise, and people who transgressed prevailing norms were widely seen as weak and lacking in self-control.
I didn’t use any adjectives to describe their society. Only commented that you can’t think that “conservatism” is always about believing in God, in monogamy, etc.
This in itself was the counterculture within conservatism. It used to be much more diverse before the goofball contingent took over. Uncle Phil on Fresh Prince was a conservative, and he would throw someone out of his house for this garbage. That was as recent as the 90s.
> Someone expressing the above sentiments in a non-sarcastic way anywhere on HN or Reddit would be downvoted to hell.
You'd be surprised. The only comments I get downvoted to Hell on are either explicitly anto-communist or are just dumb comments. Even comments where I evangelize about God are typically well received, with maybe a few triggered atheists in the replies.
If I lead with facts cutting against Bay Area Received Values narrative or highlight some of the inconsistencies of BARV themselves, I usually get quite a few upvotes.
> And I didn't even dare venture into the racial views of conservatives.
What views are these? The debate seems to be between those who think blacks, other non-whites and immigrants are typically inherently socially conservative; and those who believe these minority groups are irrevocably allied with the Democrat machine. A typical conservative view today is that non-whites have agency just as much as whites, but face constraints such as bad government programs and social pressures to conform. Ben Carson, for example, used to be hailed as a hero, a regular staple of Black History Month. But when he "came out" as a conservative, he's been belittled and seen his stature crumble, even to the point of schools removing his name.[0]
The mainstream can't tolerate a likable conservative or a non-white one, and has a lot of funny ideas about what conservatives in particular think. Most of it is projection based on a deranged (but consistent!) interpretation of Trump's presidency.
Conservatism can never be counter-cultural because it is concerned with enforcing pre-existing social hierarchies. If you are looking for an example of anti "degeneracy" counter-culture, one might be the DC hardcore bands of the early 80s.
Not really. Youth tend to gravitate toward counter-culture naturally as a form of rebellion against their parents growing up. Having kids going toward traditional values is exactly what this society needs to begin the healing process.
Genuine question from a gay person in a conservative country: What sort of healing would traditional values do? Is it the nuclear family sort of thing? I'm not familiar with those theories.
They are values which promote the functioning of a healthy and balanced society with people less inclined and/or enthusiastically supported for being inherently self-centered and self-destructive. Endless drug epidemics are a very prominent and visual symptom of the damage rampant degeneracy has inflicted upon society and that in general, things as they are currently are NOT alright.
This argument is contingent on things actually getting worse, whereas most social indicators like crime rates or life expectancy seem to indicate that things have improved over the last half century. I would not want to go back to the society of the 1980s, for example, because I'd be more likely to be robbed.
Also, what about the role that greed has played in the latest drug epidemic? The Sacklers were not driven by degeneracy but by the lust for money.
So do you believe gay people for example, are a threat to a healthy and balanced society?
edit:
Oh and conservative culture in my land means mostly lots of alcohol. The first time I vomitted from alcohol was as a teenager on a catholic wine fest, by wine gifted to us from the church. There might be conservatives, that are free from drugs, but mostly they just like other drugs. Drugs are a big problem in todays society, but conservatives as a whole are not a prime example if living sober. Puritans might be, but they are a subclass of "conservatives".
I think a lot of anti-gay thoughts today are more anti gay culture, such as many of the things people do and display in the pride parade that has nothing to do with liking people of the same sex.
So... by that argument isn't "gay culture" actually counter-cultural? As in it goes against the mainstream opinions held by a fairly conservative society?
Oh, that makes sense. I have other gay friends that express the same concern privately. In my country (no gay rights yet; it just got decriminalised) I tend to say that "the best gay pride protest is no gay pride protest", because if we have equal rights, there's no need to protest, and we just want equal rights.
Well, it's a simple equation from a societal health perspective.
As things are currently, society is well below the minimum and ideal birth replacement rates (scarily low in fact). So from that perspective, promotion of homosexuality runs directly counter to what is best for society as a whole versus what is currently seen as best for any one individual.
> Your opinion and the actual growth rates do not seem to be in agreement.
Believe me or not, it makes no difference to me. I know I'm right.
Even the resident HN golden boy Elon Musk has been very outspoken recently about his significant concerns regarding the forthcoming population collapse. So it's happening whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Human society survived just fine with one quarter the current population 70 years ago. Why can't it survive with that again? Especially now that we have better technology that makes each human much more productive? Unless you can only look at the world through the lens of capitalism (which requires infinite growth)... but capitalism is definitely not required for humanity in general (human society existed before capitalism and will continue to exist after it).
It is a bit telling, that you perceive it as "promoting of homosexuality". I am not gay and I don't see anything like it. What I see, is promoting of a idea, that people are free to live their (consented) sexuality, whatever that might be, instead of forcing them to live an unhappy life not fitting to them. That is not really good, if you want stable people. And without stable people you won't have a stable society.
And about birth rates in general, that is a way longer debate. I would start with world population and limited ressources, but rather leave it at that.
Stop gay people from being treated as beneath the "normal" people.
Of course, this is "real" traditional values; not surface-value "traditional values" co-opted by people: who aren't in-tune with their emotions; people with a void a that needs filling; people who need to feel better about themselves; those who would use it as a banner to gain more power for themselves; and true believers without an ounce of introspection.
With the looming bans and restrictions on social media, and the current atomization of social interactions: it's possible we're beginning a period of great isolation, where man will finally have to deal with sitting in a room all by himself.
Maybe this will spur some self-reflection in a few, leading to a resurgence in deep traditional values and beliefs; rather than the shallow, surface-level stuff, such as the nuclear family or some made-up duty to one's abstract family or some frothingly and puritanically mad ideas about sex.
> This is a very offensive question for someone from my counter culture, Christianity.
Which recent US president was not Christian again? Is the correct answer "none of them"? It's very counter-cultural when the "leader of the free world" consistently shares (or has to pretend to share) your faith.
I think it's inaccurate to call a group that has large political parties in essentially every democratic country "counterculture". To me that seems like calling the moderate left counterculture. Maybe neo-nazis and other radicals are, but that's because nobody likes them except for themselves.
Referring to everyone as a nazi or radical that holds a different opinion from one's own is a huge reason why conservatism is growing so quickly as the new counter-culture, especially amongst youth. Societies simply cannot grow and thrive with degenerate movements which are inherently built on being immoral, self-centered, and self-destructive to both one's self and society as a whole.
When the difference of opinion involves the minimization to the point of eradication of specific groups within society, most of which are predisposed to oppose the political views you hold, then there is No Other Term for it than Naziism.
Not everyone I disagree with is a nazi, but everyone who wants all queer people to stop being publicly visible, everyone who would rather immigrants, muslims, and jews to stop coming to the country or become invisible in daily life, anyone who would think about the problems that disabled people have and come to the 'solution' that they should not reproduce? They're Nazis. To call them anything else would do the memories of those already lost a disservice.
And those who buck at being called Nazis should genuinely detach and reexamine their views to see whether they resemble those of the Nazi party. If they don't, if the people calling them Nazis are simply being reactionary, then fine. But to ignore it without giving the most basic consideration to one's own views is deeply foolhardy at best.
Consider for yourself what you term as 'degenerate', and whether those things have any material impact on your life. Consider what solutions that are non-authoritarian for that degeneracy may look like. Is it offering better mental health services? Is it providing community that doesn't shun, but helps rehabilitate maladaptive practices? Is it allowing general differences of opinion on what counts and doesn't count as degenerate behavior? Is it minding your own goddamn business?
