I really hope it’s in good faith, cause if it is, that may be a slimmer of hope that conservatives can co-exist amongst LGBTQ+. I’m more of a centrist (no, that does not mean I play the both sides are equally bad or I play both sides, get that out of your heads) and I have a few conservative opinions. This does not mean I agree with the extremism of the U.S. conservatives pushing laws and misinformation to opress LGBTQ+ and other minorities. It’s sickening.
I’d argue that the aging gay NIMBY community in San Francisco is an example of being both LGBT and conservative, though they vote almost 100% democrat. I don’t think Republicans and queer folks can coexist, given the whole “want to erase anyone not straight from existence” thing. But conservative and queer is definitely a thing.
I didn’t say there are no LGBTQ+ people who aren’t conservative, I said there is no definition of conservatism that is safe for lgbtq+ people, and also adequately describes conservatism.
There were jews who supported the nazi party. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get sent to concentration camps.
Conservativism just means not wanting things to change. If you grew up in a society where LGBT rights are already inviolate (such as San Francisco), it’s perfectly possible to just want to keep the status quo.
You’re mixing up conservativism and the Republican party. The fringe Republicans aren’t even conservative - they’re reactionary. They want to go backwards.
That is indeed what conservatives declare, but it’s a nonsensical position and doesn’t describe any conservative stance ever. Conservatives always have plenty of things they’re fine with changing, and the line between what’s okay to change and what they are not is where the actual definition comes in. It’s also always regressive, because it always includes opposition to changes that they perceive as being “new” when in fact they are not (such as, topically, drag shows).
“fiscal responsibility” never really existed from a government standpoint, macroeconomics has never made that much sense, but I’ll grant that “avoid deficit spending” could be the one conservative claimed trait that, while they don’t actually do, could be said to meet a definition of conservative. The other two are neither things they’ve ever been, nor things that the word means, so I think it’s straight propaganda that they’d ever be associated with those.
I really hope it’s in good faith, cause if it is, that may be a slimmer of hope that conservatives can co-exist amongst LGBTQ+. I’m more of a centrist (no, that does not mean I play the both sides are equally bad or I play both sides, get that out of your heads) and I have a few conservative opinions. This does not mean I agree with the extremism of the U.S. conservatives pushing laws and misinformation to opress LGBTQ+ and other minorities. It’s sickening.
What does “conservatism” mean to you? In my opinion there is no functioning definition of it that is safe for LGBTQ coexistence.
I’d argue that the aging gay NIMBY community in San Francisco is an example of being both LGBT and conservative, though they vote almost 100% democrat. I don’t think Republicans and queer folks can coexist, given the whole “want to erase anyone not straight from existence” thing. But conservative and queer is definitely a thing.
I didn’t say there are no LGBTQ+ people who aren’t conservative, I said there is no definition of conservatism that is safe for lgbtq+ people, and also adequately describes conservatism.
There were jews who supported the nazi party. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get sent to concentration camps.
Conservativism just means not wanting things to change. If you grew up in a society where LGBT rights are already inviolate (such as San Francisco), it’s perfectly possible to just want to keep the status quo.
You’re mixing up conservativism and the Republican party. The fringe Republicans aren’t even conservative - they’re reactionary. They want to go backwards.
Think of a spectrum:
Revolutionary - progressive - conservative - reactionary.
That is indeed what conservatives declare, but it’s a nonsensical position and doesn’t describe any conservative stance ever. Conservatives always have plenty of things they’re fine with changing, and the line between what’s okay to change and what they are not is where the actual definition comes in. It’s also always regressive, because it always includes opposition to changes that they perceive as being “new” when in fact they are not (such as, topically, drag shows).
This is why I asked how you define it, though.
Should mean secular small government and fiscal responsibility, but that party never existed.
“fiscal responsibility” never really existed from a government standpoint, macroeconomics has never made that much sense, but I’ll grant that “avoid deficit spending” could be the one conservative claimed trait that, while they don’t actually do, could be said to meet a definition of conservative. The other two are neither things they’ve ever been, nor things that the word means, so I think it’s straight propaganda that they’d ever be associated with those.