Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (141800)	1/17/2002 2:50:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584984

Tim, the terminology I am using did not originate with me. Bad terminology is bad terminology whatever the origin. I never said that Hitler's conservatism is emblematic of American conservatism. I said their roots or seed are the same. If you mean they had some of the same sources then there might be some truth in that but only in the sense that homo sapiens, and oak trees have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. Hitler took his philosophy to lengths that American conservatives do not. That is true but also the fact that he had a different philosophy. His aims and ideas where different. Taking American conservatism to an extreme might result in the US spending half again more on the military, banning abortion, and just maybe restricting immigration (but conservatives are divided on that issue). It would not result in death camps or an attempt to invade Russia. A central point of Hitler's philosophy was that some people where genetically inferior and would weaken the state. This is not a more extreme version of American conservative thought, it isn't part of American conservative thought at all. (Yes some conservatives are racists, but racism is not part of conservatism, and some liberals are racist as well). Actually as much as they hate each other fascists and communists have more in common with each other then they do with American conservatives or liberals. American conservatives are not exactly classical conservatives anyway. They take aspects of classical conservatism and aspects of classical liberalism. For example they mostly argue for a smaller federal government which a couple of centuries ago would have caused them to be considered liberal. I think the word "conservative" is somewhat muddled, and the word "liberal" actually has diametrically opposed meanings. What is the point of going into this kind of detail? The only point I can think of is an attempt to gain a somewhat adequate measure of political ideas that can be used outside the context of 20th and 21st century America. If you just use it within that context conservative vs. liberal is somewhat useful. It might also be useful in another similarly limited context, but when comparing between these contexts or using the term to describe political ideas through history (or even throughout modern history say since the Renaissance or even since the beginning of the 20th century) the two terms have only limited usefulness. I am going to be really candid here. I have never seen you this defensive. What gives? I'm not sure if it is accurate to discribe supporting my position strongly as defensive. You are also supporting your own. I certainly have argued just as strongly for or against other ideas on SI. Some of those conversations have even been with you. The terminology I am using is not new and I certainly am not coming up with any original ideas. This stuff is what's discussed in political theory and philosphies. Its not new but it is very muddled and often inaccurate. It often isn't discussed much in political theory discussions or classes. It is rather often just assumed. Liberals have been trashed as well, but if you notice I just made a post defending liberals against one of these attacks (that they have no core beliefs). I'm not looking to fight a conservative vs liberal war in this conversation as much as I am pushing for accuracy and fairness from both sides. Tim