Here's a fun challenge

[Icedream]

Name a single time in history the right wing has spearheaded positive change.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Name a single time in history the right wing has spearheaded positive change.

Change isn't really their thing. That would be to judge the right by the standards and ideals of the left.

So how about the simple stability of centuries, allowing for things like the debt economy, enduring social and political institutions, &c. without which the modern world would not be possible.

Or if you're really intent on 'change', have a look at something like the National Efficiency movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - they were largely driven by what we would call 'right wing' military concerns, and led to broad social benefits.

 

[Wyote]

Change is inevitable.
The left thinks they are doing important things while the right thinks they are protecting important things.
The tension between the two is what drives things in a relatively safe direction.

 

[biwaly]

Easy: When they invented God so people who fear religion don't being annoying to me in particular aspects so I don't have to bother with them . Though God doesn't work much anymore, not even law. But still it's better than nothing considering it still works for some. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some people may think the right-wing is basically protecting tradition that's also protecting religion so they may seem like they actually keeping the balance by preventing bad change from happening and keeping the world being the same as ever was but what right-wing people really think is the world is constantly getting into chaos by Satan and its followers but only the right-wing people changing the world into its good old day's in a positive way. So don't say right-wing people don't cause positive change to their face or they'll explode due to blue screen of death because they really believe they improving society by going backwards into the cave our ancestors came from while no matter what everyone does the world goes far away from the cave because every life form is under the effect of adaptation and therefore evolution. But baby, it's not Windows XP so recovering to a previous point would make Cyberpunk 2077 work so you need to update it to Windows 10 and gotta buy some hardwares that can run the game but right-wing people are like trying to play Cyberpunk 2077 with some 30 years old calculator.

What right-wing people did was useful when there is no good way to go forward but now modern problems require modern solutions therefore right-wing deteriorates the world now because we don't live in an era fathers sacrificing their most beautiful daughter to gods just because to stop earthquakes from happening and whatnot BS. In this era source of the sense of morality is personal preference, not religious books; the gods are YouTubers; not The God, Allah, et cetera; the heaven is Hawaii, the hell is Afganistan or some other Arabian and African countries, even Canada if you prefer so ; what must do in this world is climbing the career ladder, not being a morally good person; these days the really good people are those who have giant ass houses who organizing parties in which people literally drink cocaine while the real bad people are some virgin who lives in their parent's basement; good people ain't those who help to some strangers anymore because our scientists consider them autistic while the real bad person ain't some woman who divorced you to suck your money until you die because it's called "females are secondary citizen in this world therefore go girls take back the world from men and show them your feminist spirit"; our Jesus ain't the Jesus, it's Keanu Reeves anymore ; the real religion of today's is capitalism so Christianity, Islam, etc. religions are just a tool to earn money more than ever anymore so right-wing doesn't work anymore other than being a placeholder function in governments for making easy money until someone invents a better way for stealing your money that your tooth fairy put under your pillow — Amen™, Hallelujah®, Preach©.

 

[Icedream]

Easy: When they invented God so people who fear religion don't being annoying to me in particular aspects so I don't have to bother with them . Though God doesn't work much anymore, not even law. But still it's better than nothing considering it still works for some. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some people may think the right-wing is basically protecting tradition that's also protecting religion so they may seem like they actually keeping the balance by preventing bad change from happening and keeping the world being the same as ever was but what right-wing people really think is the world is constantly getting into chaos by Satan and its followers but only the right-wing people changing the world into its good old day's in a positive way. So don't say right-wing people don't cause positive change to their face or they'll explode due to blue screen of death because they really believe they improving society by going backwards into the cave our ancestors came from while no matter what everyone does the world goes far away from the cave because every life form is under the effect of adaptation and therefore evolution. But baby, it's not Windows XP so recovering to a previous point would make Cyberpunk 2077 work so you need to update it to Windows 10 and gotta buy some hardwares that can run the game but right-wing people are like trying to play Cyberpunk 2077 with some 30 years old calculator.

What right-wing people did was useful when there is no good way to go forward but now modern problems require modern solutions therefore right-wing deteriorates the world now because we don't live in an era fathers sacrificing their most beautiful daughter to gods just because to stop earthquakes from happening and whatnot BS. In this era source of the sense of morality is personal preference, not religious books; the gods are YouTubers; not The God, Allah, et cetera; the heaven is Hawaii, the hell is Afganistan or some other Arabian and African countries, even Canada if you prefer so ; what must do in this world is climbing the career ladder, not being a morally good person; these days the really good people are those who have giant ass houses who organizing parties in which people literally drink cocaine while the real bad people are some virgin who lives in their parent's basement; good people ain't those who help to some strangers anymore because our scientists consider them autistic while the real bad person ain't some woman who divorced you to suck your money until you die because it's called "females are secondary citizen in this world therefore go girls take back the world from men and show them your feminist spirit"; our Jesus ain't the Jesus, it's Keanu Reeves anymore ; the real religion of today's is capitalism so Christianity, Islam, etc. religions are just a tool to earn money more than ever anymore so right-wing doesn't work anymore other than being a placeholder function in governments for making easy money until someone invents a better way for stealing your money that your tooth fairy put under your pillow — Amen™, Hallelujah®, Preach©.

I had multiple strokes reading this

 

[Icedream]

Change is inevitable.
The left thinks they are doing important things while the right thinks they are protecting important things.
The tension between the two is what drives things in a relatively safe direction.

could you define safe for me? Is it the fact that democracy was nearly thrown out in this last election? Is it the fact that there have only been three days this year where police haven't killed at least one person? Oh, I know. It's the student genital inspection law that would've passed were it not for the senate putting a stop to things.

 

[Icedream]

Change isn't really their thing. That would be to judge the right by the standards and ideals of the left.

So how about the simple stability of centuries, allowing for things like the debt economy, enduring social and political institutions, &c. without which the modern world would not be possible.

Or if you're really intent on 'change', have a look at something like the National Efficiency movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - they were largely driven by what we would call 'right wing' military concerns, and led to broad social benefits.

I think I get what your trying to say, but I hardly think it's praiseworthy to have kept stability in broken and corrupt systems, that only get progressively worse with time. If anything, you again have the left to thank for the world not going completely insane. Attempting to repeal marriage laws for the LGBT community and walking back trans rights for healthcare, or even the ability to live with a loving family, isn't the right showing they can keep a simple stability.

 

[biwaly]

I had multiple strokes reading this

I thought you like challenges so I created a reading challenge just for you.

The theme music of this thread regarding you and me :

Credits:

Directed by not Hideo Kojima

Icedream As Herself

Deleted member 16771 As Himself

Wyote As Himself

biwaly As Himself

No animals are harmed while writing the messages.

©2021 infjs.com

 

[Icedream]

I gather you're either a bad troll, or you're throwing a fit.

 

[biwaly]

I gather you're either a bad troll, or you're throwing a fit.

Nah. I'm making dad jokes even though I was never a dad before. But what if I'm but I don't know it?

 

[Wyote]

I had multiple strokes reading this

could you define safe for me?

I don't think you're capable of understanding

 

[biwaly]

I don't think you're capable of understanding

Opinions are like food: Not everyone gets it.

 

[Wyote]

Opinions are like food: Not everyone gets it.

I try to ensure everyone gets a share

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think I get what your trying to say, but I hardly think it's praiseworthy to have kept stability in broken and corrupt systems, that only get progressively worse with time. If anything, you again have the left to thank for the world not going completely insane. Attempting to repeal marriage laws for the LGBT community and walking back trans rights for healthcare, or even the ability to live with a loving family, isn't the right showing they can keep a simple stability.

I think what you're attempting to ask is 'name a single time in history that people with opposing values to mine have spearheaded change in favour of my values', which is a strange thing to be puzzled about. It's like wondering why the Dodgers haven't done much to help the Yankees win the World Series - the goals are opposed; many of the values are different.

Even given these preconditions, however, there are still plenty of ways that 'the right' as traditionally defined have acted in accordance with your (probable) values, despite the fact that the left-right dichotomy hasn't been perfectly stable historically. The Republican-Democrat flip in the US is an example of this, just as is anti-Semitism being a position of the left at the end of the nineteenth century in France (since Jews were stereotyped as being associated with the international bourgeoisie). The advance of feminism was also opposed by labour movements in several instances, too, since women in the labour force were thought to weaken the bargaining position of unions, &c. There are many examples like this.

What the 'right' does tend to do well, however - as we might expect - is act as a stabilising force in societies by slowing the pace of change to a level managable for the population. That is, their buttressing of traditional intuitions and values regulates this pace to a human scale and prevents widespread civil unrest. If you've ever had to plan for the future, buy a mortgage or engage in any activity which requires future projection, you've likely benefitted from this conservative force. Occasionally, too, the resistance to change of conservative forces proves to be more beneficial on balance in the long run, though for obvious reasons there are few direct comparisons we can make.

One only has to take a look north and south of the 38th parallel in Korea, though, to see that in this case the conservative forces prevailed in ensuring a superior quality of life and set of freedoms for its people than the 'progressive' force was able to manage.

If you've any interest in studying the history of failed states, you will also come to see that the cause of collapse is typically the excessive strength of progressive forces and the comparative weakness of conservative forces, resulting in disintegrating institutions and widespread disorder. What tends to be thrown away in these cases are equilibria and balances that had been long selected-for and entrenched in tradition. The Cultural Revolution in China is a good example of this, though a better one might be Zimbabwe's expulsion of white farmers (leading to near economic collapse and hyperinflation). The history of decolonialisation in particular is replete with examples of failed states resulting from the dissolution of stable institutions at the hands of well-meaning but inept progressive forces.

You may be overly focused upon the niche issues most important to you, while ignoring the many benefits of conservatism that you currently enjoy.

 

[Wyote]

I think what you're attempting to ask is 'name a single time in history that people with opposing values to mine have spearheaded change in favour of my values', which is a strange thing to be puzzled about. It's like wondering why the Dodgers haven't done much to help the Yankees win the World Series - the goals are opposed; many of the values are different.

Even given these preconditions, however, there are still plenty of ways that 'the right' as traditionally defined have acted in accordance with your (probable) values, despite the fact that the left-right dichotomy hasn't been perfectly stable historically. The Republican-Democrat flip in the US is an example of this, just as is anti-Semitism being a position of the left at the end of the nineteenth century in France (since Jews were stereotyped as being associated with the international bourgeoisie). The advance of feminism was also opposed by labour movements in several instances, too, since women in the labour force were thought to weaken the bargaining position of unions, &c. There are many examples like this.

What the 'right' does tend to do well, however - as we might expect - is act as a stabilising force in societies by slowing the pace of change to a level managable for the population. That is, their buttressing of traditional intuitions and values regulates this pace to a human scale and prevents widespread civil unrest. If you've ever had to plan for the future, buy a mortgage or engage in any activity which requires future projection, you've likely benefitted from this conservative force. Occasionally, too, the resistance to change of conservative forces proves to be more beneficial on balance in the long run, though for obvious reasons there are few direct comparisons we can make.

One only has to take a look north and south of the 38th parallel in Korea, though, to see that in this case the conservative forces prevailed in ensuring a superior quality of life and set of freedoms for its people than the 'progressive' force was able to manage.

If you've any interest in studying the history of failed states, you will also come to see that the cause of collapse is typically the excessive strength of progressive forces and the comparative weakness of conservative forces, resulting in disintegrating institutions and widespread disorder. What tends to be thrown away in these cases are equilibria and balances that had been long selected-for and entrenched in tradition. The Cultural Revolution in China is a good example of this, though a better one might be Zimbabwe's expulsion of white farmers (leading to near economic collapse and hyperinflation). The history of decolonialisation in particular is replete with examples of failed states resulting from the dissolution of stable institutions at the hands of well-meaning but inept progressive forces.

You may be overly focused upon the niche issues most important to you, while ignoring the many benefits of conservatism that you currently enjoy.

When icedream comes back and disregards your points, I am going to have a chuckle

 

[biwaly]

When icedream comes back and disregards your points, I am going to have a chuckle

This is what will happen :

 

[Icedream]

I don't think you're capable of understanding

rich coming from you

 

[Icedream]

man, moderates are crazy

 

[Icedream]

I think what you're attempting to ask is 'name a single time in history that people with opposing values to mine have spearheaded change in favour of my values', which is a strange thing to be puzzled about. It's like wondering why the Dodgers haven't done much to help the Yankees win the World Series - the goals are opposed; many of the values are different.

Even given these preconditions, however, there are still plenty of ways that 'the right' as traditionally defined have acted in accordance with your (probable) values, despite the fact that the left-right dichotomy hasn't been perfectly stable historically. The Republican-Democrat flip in the US is an example of this, just as is anti-Semitism being a position of the left at the end of the nineteenth century in France (since Jews were stereotyped as being associated with the international bourgeoisie). The advance of feminism was also opposed by labour movements in several instances, too, since women in the labour force were thought to weaken the bargaining position of unions, &c. There are many examples like this.

What the 'right' does tend to do well, however - as we might expect - is act as a stabilising force in societies by slowing the pace of change to a level managable for the population. That is, their buttressing of traditional intuitions and values regulates this pace to a human scale and prevents widespread civil unrest. If you've ever had to plan for the future, buy a mortgage or engage in any activity which requires future projection, you've likely benefitted from this conservative force. Occasionally, too, the resistance to change of conservative forces proves to be more beneficial on balance in the long run, though for obvious reasons there are few direct comparisons we can make.

One only has to take a look north and south of the 38th parallel in Korea, though, to see that in this case the conservative forces prevailed in ensuring a superior quality of life and set of freedoms for its people than the 'progressive' force was able to manage.

If you've any interest in studying the history of failed states, you will also come to see that the cause of collapse is typically the excessive strength of progressive forces and the comparative weakness of conservative forces, resulting in disintegrating institutions and widespread disorder. What tends to be thrown away in these cases are equilibria and balances that had been long selected-for and entrenched in tradition. The Cultural Revolution in China is a good example of this, though a better one might be Zimbabwe's expulsion of white farmers (leading to near economic collapse and hyperinflation). The history of decolonialisation in particular is replete with examples of failed states resulting from the dissolution of stable institutions at the hands of well-meaning but inept progressive forces.

You may be overly focused upon the niche issues most important to you, while ignoring the many benefits of conservatism that you currently enjoy.

Regarding the second paragraph: Are you saying that historically during the switch of the democratic and republican parties, that the political compass also inverted to match them?

Maybe I've been uncharitable to the general idea of conservatism, but I'd be shocked if you disagreed that the American right as a whole, has gone too far right. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Regarding the second paragraph: Are you saying that historically during the switch of the democratic and republican parties, that the political compass also inverted to match them?

Not in general.

Maybe I've been uncharitable to the general idea of conservatism, but I'd be shocked if you disagreed that the American right as a whole, has gone too far right. Do you disagree with that?

No I don't disagree (according to my own political tastes), but that's a quite different statement from your OP. This would be a substantial moving of the goalposts.

I tend to see the rise of right-populism in the United States as more a failure of the left, however. What is notably lacking in that country is the existence of a proper labour movement and any serious political discourse about class (though there's been a largely positive awakening to these realities in the past decade, it's still something quite nascent).