#conservatism

The tendency of becoming more religious in Indonesia is more present than ever, especially 2010 onwards... 20% of the students in Javasupportedthe establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Furthermore nearly 1 in 4 proclaimed themselves ready to wage jihad to achieve a caliphate. According toReuters, a survey published last December by the Institute for the Study of Islam and Society, showed that 78 percent of 505 religious teachers in public schools supported implementing sharia law in Indonesia. The survey also found that 77 percent backed Islamist groups advocating this goal. Identity politic is so common these days, more and more Moslems adapting Arabic culture, more and more frontal and openly provocating Moslems preach, Haram this and Haram that, Kafir this and Kafir that. Hoax and the presence of Muslim Cyber Army are increasing rapidly. Indonesian journalists often threatened. Btw, u look cute. Thanks.

---

-Unicorn☆

View more

Bonus Round: atheism & secular bigotry.

---

This is the simplest answer of all: because they're right-wing, conservative, whatever you want to call it in political terms. The same reason there are progressive Christians & conservative Christians. Your metaphysics aren't the sole determining factor of your politics.

---

So there are right-wing atheists, & we can see how their conservatism & their atheism combine in the way they argue. RW atheists will refer to the same shit as atheists always refer to: science. Women have less upper-body strength. Humans are designed to fight. Black ppl have inferior brains. Some bollocks about an imagined evolutionary past where men were Noble Savages & women were Permanently Terrified Assault Receptacles. Ahem, that is to say, bad evolutionary psychology.

---

Eugenicists are everywhere in right-wing atheist circles, because science is THE authority on what is or isn't justifiable. The important thing to note is that there was plenty of science proving black ppl were inferior when ppl wanted to hear that. There's less now, not because science "got less racist," but because PEOPLE got less racist. Science is not outside culture, & never has been.

---

This is why I'm on atheists, new or otherwise, to identify their relationship to atheism. There ARE good & bad atheists. Which are you? If you're a good one, who isn't a good one? What is it about atheism they're getting wrong that makes them bad atheists? How do you justify that?

---

At the moment, atheism can't police itself because it doesn't recognise itself as an ideological collective. It's toxifying at a dramatic rate, & no one can do anything because no one believes there's ever any justification for judging anyone's actions. It's "apolitical," like science is, naturally. Just the FACTS, thanks. Well, there's facts for every occasion, m8s. Believe that.

---

Racism, sexism, these battles aren't over. If you think they are, science won't contradict you, because there's no "science" of racism, unless you believe the honours thesis of a certain @TimMarshPhD, who I think went some distance to proving there actually is a science to xenophobia. Like I said, tho, there's a science for every occasion.

---

There's still good science & bad science, tho, just as there's good atheism & bad atheism. If you think that's not a real concern, then you're the answer to this question: your indifference is why there are still atheists who think it's acceptable to fight for the causes of racism & sexism. Why ppl will still argue that trans ppl are mentally ill, & act like that's an acceptable thing to say because "it's science." An automatic adulation of science is what allows that.

---

To argue that's "bad science" misses the point. It's an IMMORAL thing to say, because the God who demanded the gender roles we had is gone. Science doesn't give a shit, it's a question of whether *I* think these ppl deserve to be oppressed. Denied any & all social acceptance. No God chooses for you. I choose acceptance.

View more

wah guru macam apa itu?? ??.
INGGRISNYA...
SILVER has a feminine energy; it is related to the moon and the ebb and flow of the tides - it is fluid, emotional, sensitive and mysterious.
the color psychology of pink is unconditional love and nurturing. pink can also be immature, silly and girlish.
BLACK is a color of comfort to you, allowing you to retreat and hide from the real world.
RED is the color of energy, passion, action, ambition and determination. It is also the color of anger and sexual passion.
BLUE is the color of trust and peace. it can suggest loyalty and integrity as well as conservatism and frigidity. the color meaning of turquoise is communication and clarity of mind. it can also be impractical and idealistic.
GREEN is the color of balance and growth. it can mean both self-reliance as a positive and possessiveness as a negative, among many other meanings.
ORANGE is the color of social communication and optimism. from a negative color meaning it is also a sign of pessimism and superficiality.
WHITE is a soul color. that color is meaning Holy.
PURPLE is a WIDOW COLOR. is meaning if you are an adult, you are a widow.

---

INDONESIANYA...
PERAK memiliki energi feminin; hal ini terkait dengan bulan dan pasang surut dan aliran pasang surut - itu adalah cairan, emosional, sensitif dan misterius.
psikologi warna merah muda adalah cinta tanpa syarat dan pengasuhan. merah muda juga bisa menjadi dewasa, konyol dan kekanak-kanakan.
HITAM adalah warna kenyamanan kepada Anda, yang memungkinkan Anda untuk mundur dan bersembunyi dari dunia nyata.
MERAH adalah warna energi, gairah, tindakan, ambisi dan tekad. Itu juga merupakan warna kemarahan dan gairah seksual.
BIRU adalah warna kepercayaan dan perdamaian. itu dapat menyarankan loyalitas dan integritas serta konservatisme dan frigiditas. warna makna turquoise adalah komunikasi dan kejernihan pikiran. itu juga bisa menjadi tidak praktis dan idealis.
HIJAU adalah warna keseimbangan dan pertumbuhan. itu dapat berarti baik kemandirian sebagai positif dan posesif sebagai negatif, di antara banyak arti lain.
ORANYE/OREN adalah warna komunikasi sosial dan optimisme. dari warna negatif yang berarti juga merupakan tanda pesimisme dan kedangkalan.
PUTIH adalah warna jiwa. warna yang berarti Kudus.
UNGU adalah WARNA JANDA. adalah berarti jika Anda adalah seorang dewasa, Anda seorang janda.

View more

It hasn't. Old ppl know a lot of shit about the world, having been in it for a long time; unless it fundamentally changes every couple of decades. A generation who can barely get their head around Facebook has little understanding of a generation who grew up on smartphones connected to wireless internet at all times. While there's always been differences between generations, the differences in the WORLD each generation inhabits have increased exponentially.

---

This consistently erodes the authority that elders have traditionally been assumed to have, for better or worse. It's easy to castigate Boomers for their essentially useless character - & I do so, at length - but it's not like they were all born w/ some kind of genetic defect that makes them politically & culturally dead-weight. They're as much a victim of cultural shift as the younger generations they consistently undermine. There's a good reason elders inherit an assumed authority - they supposed to know shit. If nothing else, seeing the way the world has changed - regardless of the nature of those changes - gives them a certain psychological perspective on the nature of change itself. It brings an awareness of the things that DON'T change, & how change occurs. In contrast, for a young person, regardless of their position in history, change is the norm. Your life IS change as you transition from a child into an adult, you literally embody change itself.

---

This is the relationship that's supposed to exist between the young & old: differing perspectives on the nature of change. Even that has been undermined by the rapid shifts in technology & consumerism in the modern society. Change is now normal, permanently - stability is a privilege that the old habitually hoard for themselves, thus the antagonism between "Boomers & Millennials" in my social context. The young have always resisted the conservatism of the elders, this negotiation is what allows progress to occur whilst being restricted, enabling the continuation of traditions. This is a delicate balance in any society.

---

In ours, that balance has been obliterated, resulting less in a "generation gap" & more in what we popularly call "intergenerational warfare." You can see this unfolding in the current "Brexit" leave or stay European Union stuff in Britain right now, for example. It plays out loudly & constantly in media coverage of Sydney's housing crisis, in Australia. It's a common political subtext that simply doesn't have a great deal of historical precedent, like a lot of our current political conflicts.

---

History is important, but it's also important to acknowledge that our society is not, in many profound ways, like anything that's ever happened. Nuclear weapons had an unprecedented effect on war. Climate change is unprecedented. The internet is unprecedented. We must acknowledge the fundamentally NEW aspects of a lot of the things capitalism has thoughtlessly thrust upon us.

View more

I honestly have nfi what's going on behind the doors of the Labor party. The left is fractured as hell more or less everywhere, so factional disputes & so on are far more prevalent there than on the right, where the only real disagreement is the relative emphasis of social conservatism vs plutocratic interests. Abbott was more of an old school Catholic social conservative guy, whereas Turnbull's straight-up 21st century capitalist. Both were aligned on most issues tho.

---

The progressive side of shit, meanwhile, is undergoing a reformation, again. Still, as it has been since '68, pretty much. Neoliberalism has been walking up & down progressivism since then, w/ not much slowing it down. It just has more resources & less moral fiber. That's a very bad combo to have to go up against w/ nothing but a confused set of constantly-changing principles & the dregs of a corrupt & vestigial union apparatus.

---

So would Albo get it? I dunno, that seems like the obvious choice, but in an arena where constant backstabbing & compromise is necessary like the political left, anything can happen. I'd love to see Penny Wong get stuck holding the bag, but that seems like a pretty outside possibility. She'd take a huge bite out of the Greens I reckon, but possibly chase a few of our disgusting fence-sitter caste further to the right. She is a gay Asian woman, after all, & this is Australia, the land of casual -isms.

---

Labor's fucked either way tho, tbh. Gillard was a very capable statesman; if they couldn't make anything happen with her in charge, they'll struggle to make bank with anyone else. Except maybe Wong, like I said, but even she'd need the party to unite behind her & I don't see them uniting behind anyone in the near future. There simply isn't a single candidate that could unite the various factions in the party. Maybe if they could chase their entire right-wing faction out, but then like a 3rd of the party would be gone.

---

That's the point of a reformation, tho. We'll get it together eventually, even if we have to do it in the streets w/ sticks & stones.

View more

Oh yeah, that's my bad.

---

I get good reactions from women, not so much in terms of sexual interest (which I still can't really read accurately, because women are so guarded compared to dudes & women in fiction), but in terms of just being more friendly. They'll compliment me, usually on my hair, which is unchanged from how I'd usually wear it. I think the makeup & stuff stands out, & they want to be encouraging, but feel weird drawing attention to my strangeness so reliably comment on my hair instead. When I'm not wearing makeup & so on tho, ppl generally just try to be neutral whilst giving the strong impression they want me to leave peacefully.

---

I've had a few men call me a "f*g" & similar terms, but generally at a distance because men are cowards. I put this to the test whenever anyone has the rocks to say something within distance, generally just by flatly walking towards them. Most will generally try to look innocuous at that point, look at their phone or just pretend nothing's up, refusing to make eye contact. One guy continued to lock eyes, so I got up in his face & asked him if he said something. He just said "nah nothing man." Chicken shit. That was on a train, so probably for the best. Not sure what I would've done otherwise tbh.

---

Oh yeah, a guy in the Macca's parking lot called me a "tr*nny" one time, but I was just wearing a tight-ish shirt & cargo pants. Not sure what that was about. His friend dragged him away loudly insisting he shut the fuck up. I think he might've been drunk. That was really the first time I copped abuse of that kind randomly.

---

Oz men are pretty limited in our options, especially since luxury goods tend to be quite expensive here, so the range of available options is even more slanted towards reliable selling. Very middle of the road shit. Plus the climate is a bit weird too I think. Also the culture is garbage, as I've said, so conservatism is the norm. Lots of khaki shorts & polo shirts.

---

LAN's going well. Mostly been playing GTA V, which is a piece of shit. Would not recommend for PC.

View more

Like the Maginot Line in France during WWII, classical liberalism - which is the basis for both libertarianism and modern conservatism - has all its defenses pointed in only one direction; that is, rightward. All of its philosophical guns are aimed against anything to its right - monarchism, aristocracy, Christian theocracy, even populist fascism. This is because, in a massive failure of imagination, the Enlightenment philosophers and revolutionaries who came up with, and acted on the ideas of, classical liberalism simply could not conceive of anything further left than themselves. Thus, they built no defenses against anything further left into either their philosophy or the systems built upon them. This is what permits (as Moldbug put it) Cthulhu to forever swim left in a slowly creeping Whig/Puritan holiness spiral that has unfolded over centuries.

---

Ironically, then, outright Marxism actually has more leftward-pointing defenses built into its system than classical liberalism does. Moscow in the 1920s was hedonistic, libertine, full of all manner of freethinking dreamers - and ironically, it was Stalin who put a stop to all of that, sending the libertines to gulags and reigning in their excesses (which he understood would undermine his society in short order). Similarly, it was Mao who sent the PLA to massacre the Red Guards after their holiness spiral got out of control (One wonders how many young Red Guards, their bodies riddled with PLA bullets, died with a slogan praising Chairman Mao leaving their lips with their last breaths).

---

This is why none of the trappings of classical liberalism - elections, pluralism, free speech, capitalism, public education - none of that will save you from seeing your society pulled into a hellish nightmare of libertinism, atheism, egalitarianism, and degeneracy. The Constitution won't save you. The spirit of the Founding Fathers won't save you. With apologies to Alex Jones, the answer to 1984 is most definitely *not* 1776. Only once the last Harvard professor is strangled with the entrails of the last member of the New York Times editorial board will we be returned to decent, sustainable governance.

View more

continued...side ng boobs ni girl? I wanna tell them to get a room, kaso nakakahiyang mag-ingay at makialam. But I feel na na-aasiwa na yung mga ibang clients na nakapila. I know di dapat maki-alam sa buhay ng may buhay, but it's a bit too far na diba po? Or masyado lang kasi tayong conservative?

---

A:
Hindi sexual orientation, gender identity/gender expression (SOGIE) ang isyu mo dito, kundi isyu ito ng PROPRIETY. Not really about conservatism as well, but about decorum, respectability, decency, appropriateness, at iba pang terms na ibig sabihin ng proriety, sabi ng dictionary ko.

---

Ako din isyu sa akin ito, dahil di ko bet ang SINUMAN na masyadong OA na sa PDA, mapa-hetero man yan o homo. Walang kaso sa akin ang SOGIE at gora magmahalan kayo. Pero para gawin yang mga bagay na yan in public, off din sa akin lalo na kapag excessive na, tulad nung na-witness mo.

---

Check mo na lang sa sarili mo kung SOGIE-based o PROPRIETY-based yung dismaya mo sa nakita mo. Kasi kanya-kanya din yan ng lente sa pagtingin sa mundo.

---

Sana'y nasagot ko ang tanong mo nang mahusay.

View more

1. woy kalo mau debat bawa fakta yang bener, jangan ngibul, dan jangan males research.
according to World Bank GDP Malaysia 313.2 Billion USD, sementara Indonesia 868.3 Billion USD.
balik ke SD gih buat tau mana yang lebih tinggi. Kalo perkapita ya jelas kita lebih kecil, wong kita ada hampir 250 juta jiwa, Malaysia cuma sekumprit gitu populasinya.
Gross national income kita 2.315 trillion PPP Dollars, Malaysia cuma 669.5 billion PPP Dollars.
hellooooo ini bukan debat kusir yang bisa ngibul fakta. be smarter later.
2. aku ga ada bawa agama ya di awal, btw Indonesia bukan negara sekuler, kita negara berbasis Ketuhanan yang maha esa, bzzzz jangan ngibul melulu dong. kalo kita sekuler itu mbak-mbak pada ga bisa pake jilbab di jalan, rumah ibadah ga boleh berbentuk rumah ibadah.
3. tapi kalo lo mau compare, fine, kita compare yang ekstrim sekalian.
sana lo compare negara yang menurut lo negara 'islam' sama negara scandinavia yang banyak atheis, sekuler, dan mereka when it comes to literacy rate, atau ekonomi deh sekalian.
the world knows who is the winner when it comes to economy/literacy rate kalau mau banding2an.
4. lagian kenapa pertanyaan tes keperawanan untuk polisi/tentara lu alihin ke masalah social justice dan ngasih makan orang susah deh? kalo jadi debater skor lu 20 kali ya, ga nanggapin issue sama sekali.
5. lagian, lu kira conservatism dan fanaticism bisa ngasih makan orang susah? ngga kan? jadi lu jangan bacot dah, apalagi di question bar gue, bacot sana di profile lu yang kayanya sengaja dibikin buat ngebash gue aww so flattered n;)

View more

To answer the question directly, I'd say it's because feminism is typically more aligned with the political left than the political right, and religious fundamentalism is typically more aligned with the right than the left, so someone trying to "debate" (read: fight with) feminism in a typical Internet setting has probably realized that feminists, more than other political groups, find it particularly insulting to be compared to religious fundamentalists.

---

Apart from its use as ammunition from people who don't know the difference between processing and comparing political ideologies and fighting and name-calling, the comparison is pretty hollow. While it's true that feminists may be feminists because of groupthink and social pressure, and that how the ideology is advertised and what it actually stands for can be very different, these are things that are true of any radical political movement, whether that's feminism or liberalism or fiscal conservatism or religion.

---

Comparing feminism to a cult is going to be more of an attempt to land effective insults than it is a serious and specific criticism of the ideology.

View more

I think it has to do a lot with vested interests, clear and simple, which includes religion and culture. It's been too long taught that this is bad and that is good, that duality of thinking that gets in many shapes and forms as time progresses. A continuous pattern in religious or cultural conservatism is the rejection of reconstruction and reanalysing of ideas, because most people are too lazy to think beyond the laid down scope of thinking, because thinking takes a lot of effort, and not everyone is willing to put that effort forward.

---

Which is why great thinkers are often thought as insane by the general public. They think in boxes. They are stamped in normalcy. And if someone 'transgresses' those laid-down boundaries, that would mean...well, one of results would be discrimination.

---

Because it is easy for human beings to not consider what doesn't affect them. They think as long as they're following the guidelines they are safe. And people are too lazy to think for themselves often enough that they turn to political leaders, religious figures, and become 'followers', and they're not doing thinking, they're just accepting somebody else's views. And then it becomes an orthodoxy in society. And then it will be difficult for it to change.

View more

The main issue of word-use and LGBT aside and I stride off to a (blatantly but actually seemingly) unrelated topic, I love my generation. Who says kids today are {insert cliche and overused word to describe the youth here}?

---

I sincerely believe, despite the trials and challenges faced, linear evolution and progress is bringing forth generations that are continually becoming more and more critical, open-minded and aware of the world they live in. And that's just fine.

---

By law of social culture, I guess there will always be disagreements on trends and recent happenings, the values that are associated with them, how to deal with them, so and so, dealing with hobbies, social media and gadgets, lifestyles...and I think that's where you have to stop and ask yourself, isn't this how conservatism and dogma is born? That sense of 'I know better than you because it's been like this for some time', however open-minded and liberating we've been? Think of how different the feminists of the 1960s and the suffragettes of the 1910s would think about certain things despite essentially fighting for related, if not the same causes?

---

We look back in history and see the dawn of mainstream culture and the sub-cultures that are born and parting their own ways and eventually progressing or dying out. Think of how they thought of flappers in the 1920s? The hipsters of the 1940s? The beatniks in the 1950s? The hippies, the yippies?

---

Think of it in an evolutionary sense, like the amphibians who felt that they were fine with how things were, and the amphibians that needed more, that wanted to perfect their attributes in order to thrive in their habitats and through thousands or millions of years, evolved into reptilians, and then the same thing happens, and mammals evolved.

---

What were we talking about, again?

View more

READ THE WIKI .....

---

LaVeyan Satanism or Atheistic Satanism, often referred to simply as Satanism among most adherents, is a tradition in Satanism founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its core beliefs and philosophies are based on individualism, freethought, skepticism, atheism, epicureanism and "eye for an eye" morality.....

---

it is an atheistic philosophy that uses the character of "Satan" as a symbol of pride, carnality, enlightenment, undefiled wisdom, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be permeated and motivated by a force that has been given many names by humans over the course of time. Also the "Satan" character was chosen for representing defiance to the conservatism of mainstream philosophical and religious currents, mainly Abrahamic religions, that see this character as their antithesis

---

Zini tādu lietu kā filozofija?

View more

Okay your saying stuff with no evidence behind it. What has Obama done thats good? Reagan was a true conservative and actually put conservative ideals into government. He lowered taxes for everyone and that was very successful. You might be right about other presidents and Obama did inherit a country in a lot of trouble. So your saying he doesn't have to do anything to make this country better? If Obama is just gonna sit there and complain about the terrible country he inherited then he should get the hell out. Give the presidency to someone who is going to make the country better. All he has done is move the country further towards communism with welfare, the affordable care act, common core and advocating gun control. If this country was actually controlled with conservatism we would have freedom and the economy would improve greatly. We are not a free country anymore. 40,000 new laws went into effect in 2012 alone. We need to elect leaders that will get us away from the terrible path this country headed down. Im only arguing with you because im scared for the future of the United States. I could go on about the bad things Obama has done Benghazi, the Irs scandal, the associated press scandal. Obama should have been impeached because of these things but he is protected by the media and the arrogance of America.

View more

I'm not sure any of those are particularly well-defined. As you just argued, "socialism" and "Communism" are widely regarded as all-purpose political slurs in the US currently (and even when applied correctly, their exact definition depends on the society and time period where they were used, and are nebulous in many cases). Liberalism and conservatism are well-defined in the US primarily because they serve as the basis of the two major political parties - they effectively mean "things similar to what the Democrats support" and "things similar to what the Republicans support" respectively. Currently, libertarianism is pretty strongly tied to the Tea Party, so its definition is stable for similar reasons.

---

Feminism isn't used strictly as a platform for a political party, which explains some of why its definition is nebulous. Part of it comes from the fact that the "third wave" of feminism (depending on whether you even agree that such a thing exists) is very poorly organized in comparison to previous versions of feminism, effectively being a catch-all name for all the disparate and conflicting political groups that call themselves "feminist," or even more broadly, any modern-day individual who styles themselves a "feminist." Remember that second-wave feminism collapsed in the mid 1980s as a coherent movement primarily over fundamental ideological disagreements about what feminism should mean - disagreements between sex-positive and sex-negative feminists over whether female sexualization was liberating or oppression, and disagreements over egalitarianism, between equity feminists and gender feminists. These disagreements were never resolved; eventually, all these disagreeing groups started calling the current era "third wave," even though there's no coherent, united movement to speak of.

---

So feminism gets defined by the things that major remaining feminist political groups tend to support: modern feminism is known for laws like the Violence Against Women Act, for individuals like Julia Gillard, and for policies like Title IX and affirmative action, since there's no longer a coherent underlying ideology to speak of. These few scattered individuals, policies and laws probably don't adequately summarize anyone's idea of what feminism is, but since self-styled modern "feminists" have fundamental, long-standing, massive disagreements over what feminism means, those things are what most people know it by.

---

The real answer is that "feminism" doesn't mean much of anything in this decade, other than being a buzzword that people sometimes use alongside political issues like abortion and rape laws.

View more