NoneOfUrBusiness

Your post seems to echo this by saying the South’s main thing was they wanted to be separate, even though that happened to include slavery, there were other reasons too.

If so let me restate/reclarify: The South mainly or exclusively because they wanted to defend and further slavery as an institution (not even own states themselves; that’s a charitable way of putting it). However, the North didn’t give a shit about the South owning slaves; they just didn’t want them to secede and why both sides came to blows. To the North the slavery thing was kinda bad but really not the point; what they wanted to do is (to oversimplify) keep the South in the Union. That’s what I was trying to say.

Yeah obviously. I think I made that clear enough. I mean I put “slave” right there.

While the Southern states were ultimately fighting for slavery as an institution, the question the war was trying to answer wasn’t whether states can have slavery; it’s whether states can secede. If the North was willing to accept secession (which would’ve been a massive mistake don’t get me wrong) the war wouldn’t have happened. The Southern proposition that made the North go to war was, at least to my shallow understanding, “I’ll make my own Union with blackjack and (slave) hookers”, not “I wanna keep owning slaves”.

I mean fair enough up to a point but the thread side of the Fediverse simply doesn’t have the content for subscribes communities to be enough. I mean unless your subbed communities focus on politics, tech and star trek I guess.

liberal economy, but socially conservative,

I addressed this point here:

Those people are only small c conservative because of identity politics, and don’t subscribe to capital C Conservatism as an ideology.

Someone who wants to roll back social welfare and corporate regulation would be considered a conservative. Anti-immigrant sentiment, while bad for many reasons, isn’t incompatible with liberalism.

Not every comparison is whataboutism.

This particular comparison is one Zionists love to make to discredit the Palestinian cause, though, so I tend to view it with suspicion. That said, with the assumption that you’re talking in good faith I’ll try to address your point.

This looks like more “Israel Bad” virtue signaling than it does helping Palestinians.

Boycotting settlements is one way to either strongarm the Israeli government into not expanding settlements (which make no mistake are built with their blessing) or disincentivise their expansion by making it economically disadvantageous. To quote the article:

Critics say that doing business in these areas normalises and provides revenue for these settlements. Support which has landed Airbnb on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement’s list of international companies complicit with Israeli violations of Palestinian rights.

Another quote:

Sari Bashi, programme director at Human Rights Watch, said that, in allowing properties in Israeli settlements to be listed on their sites, “Airbnb and Booking.com are contributing to land grabs, crippling movement restrictions and even the forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, abuses that Israeli authorities commit in order to maintain oppression and domination over Palestinians as part of the crime against humanity of apartheid”.

This isn’t virtue signaling; it’s one of the few things someone in a Western country can do to help the Palestinian cause without getting into direct action. And how do you know it works? Because Zionists fucking hate it.

Like I said before, if a large number of Native Americans launched a credible campaign (as in one with specific, achievable goals like “we want X land for Y reservation”), they’d also be well within their rights to call for a boycott on that land until their demands are fulfilled and at least I personally would support that boycott. The logic in your comparison works, but not in the way you’re implying.

Edit: Aaand no reply.

then shouldn’t we be boycotting these platforms until they are out of non-native USA and Canada?

I mean if Native Americans launch a credible land return movement and ask for it then sure yeah. Right now that’s not the frontline of the Native rights movement, so you’ll need to find another whatabout (whataboutist???) argument.

Because it is. In many ways this is the West getting what was coming to it, but in any case you have rising evil and collaborationist “good” that’s too weak-willed or out of touch to stop it. Then you have the real good bickering among itself and too far up its ass to stop any of it.

Considering it straight up malice is also excessively reductive, because while assuming it is a good way to predict their actions it’s not quite what’s going on. They have certain (bigoted, obviously; I’m not trying to whitewash conservatism) axioms in their brains and their beliefs will freely change to suit those axioms.

What is inherently authoritarian about conservatism?

So the long answer is this. It’s a 20 minute video of a leftie analyzing what conservatives actually believe (as in what framework can be used to understand and predict their seemingly contradictory positions), with another 12 minute video next in the same series if you want to see the evidence. I strongly recommend it; he’s good at what he does.

Anyway, the short answer is this: Conservatism is an ideology built on hierarchies. It attempts to sort people based on their wealth and success within the capitalist system, with the people at the top of the hierarchy—aka the ultra-rich—being inherently deserving of their wealth and more capable of using it to the benefit of society. Think Reaganomics. This is why they don’t like social justice and welfare; to them it’s taking money—and therefore power—away from its rightful holders and giving it to people who don’t deserve it. Also, the guy who invented conservatism was a monarchist trying to find a way an aristocracy might exist within democracy in the wake of the French Revolution because he predicted that democracy would spread across Europe. His conclusion was that the new aristocracy would be the ultra wealthy, and they’d have power by virtue of having the most money*. I have to reiterate: The video is really good and you should watch it. Hell, watch the whole series; it’s downright prophetic.

*He used the subjective theory of value, or the assertion that the price someone is willing to pay for something is how much value it has. As a result, people with more money have more say in the value of things and therefore more power in society.

There are democrat conservatistes

Do you mean Democrat the party or democrat as in people who think democracy is good? If the latter then while they may say—and even think—that they’re democrats, you’ll still see authoritarianism in the the positions they hold and the politicians they support.

Economically liberal and socially conservative is a very common stance too.

Those people are only small c conservative because of identity politics, and don’t subscribe to capital C Conservatism as an ideology. Ideologically they’re much more accurately described as liberal/centrists who as an addon don’t like the idea of minority rights (which historically is a pretty common position).

The far left doesn’t just mean tankies. Tankies are authoritarian, which is why they have also don’t care about facts (conservatism is an inherently authoritarian ideology). That’s why a liberal right doesn’t exist; it’s a contradiction. The liberal far left (so anarchists and socialists) are pretty extreme and still care about facts.

Don’t forget to say no homo.

Admit what? Let’s hear it; where do they admit it?