"Cultural conservatism"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I identified as "culturally conservative" for a long time but no longer do, because the term seems to have come to mean "socially conservative but on issues not related to sex, and also, kinda racist". When I say or think "culturally conservative", this is, off the top of my head, the sort of thing I mean:

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.
• I think that America is losing something essential as its countrysides empty out and support massive explicitly-redistributive state-directed investment in rural communities to delay this loss for as long as possible, for its own sake.
• HOWEVER, I hate the "Southernization" of rural American culture outside the South, as evidenced by things like the spread of rebel-rag bro-country chic, the generic twang disseminated by AM radio the way mainstream movies and TV disseminate Californian uptalk and vocal fry, the fact that there are people north of the fortieth parallel who can drink sweet tea without gagging, and so forth.
• I think that idiosyncratic measurement systems like feet and inches, Fahrenheit, and so forth, encode important information about the history of our culture, and fully support their continued vernacular use even though I think for precise and formal applications the US should probably switch to SI.
• I think it's very unfortunate that a generalized disinterest in actual history in favor of advancing various kinds of ideologized narratives about the past, most of which are nakedly and needlessly hostile to people who lived in the past for purely political reasons, has become the norm among Americans younger than me.
• One of my least favorite things about climate change is that it no longer snows reliably on Christmas.
• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

This is what I think "cultural conservatism" should mean--a preservation-focused attitude towards culture, both "fine" and demotic. Unfortunately, it's become breathtakingly clear that very few other people see the expression this way, and indeed, on things like the third point I list here, many self-described "culturally conservative" politicians, pundits, and writers are actually turboliberal wreckers by the definitions that matter to me.

jao

[If my soul was made of stone]

My entire ideology is premised on the conservation of cultures that we ourselves have extinguished or otherwise marginalized, so I can resonate with your premise even though my personal instincts lead me more towards preserving prehistory, antiquity, and precolonial cultures. I take pride in my anachronistic idiosyncrasies of self-presentation and the spiritual precepts that I have inherited from distant ancestors. Even strictly within your frame of reference, I have a certain degree of pride in having distinctly Mid-Atlantic predilections:

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.

My speech is littered with enough schwas and glottal stops that I must sound completely inarticulate anywhere else but this particular corner of the world, but it's something that I, too, intentionally preserve. My accent is fairly indistinct in isolation, taking equally from Baltimore (my mother's side) and Philadelphia (my father's side) with vague New York admixture and a few Southern idioms I picked up during the year that I dated someone from Georgia with a drawl that I fawned over (she'd be up in arms over your comments on sweet tea, and expressed bafflement that there are parts of the country where iced tea isn't always tacitly implied to be sweet), but it's pretty clearly American when compared to other parts of the world and I take pride in that. My understanding of the world has always been centered on the Northeast and I relish in its unique institutions–Greek diners like the one just a block from me, distinctly regional cuisines (soft-shell crab, Smith Island cake, salt water taffy if I'm feeling like my formative years immersed in the joyous trash of the Jersey Shore) that I have to defend and evangelize to those disgusted by them on principle, the Jewish and Catholic heritage of the city of Baltimore that's still fighting the long defeat against megachurch-ism and dry secularism, the way of life centered on the great womb of the Chesapeake that's been ravaged for over a century now by agricultural runoff and sea level rise. I've promised to myself that if I ever move away I'll hang the flag of the City of Baltimore in my dwelling and/or office.

• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

One of the most emotional experiences of visual art that I've ever had was seeing Barnett Newman's Stations of the Cross in the National Gallery about a decade ago. I have a similarly strong memory of carefully perusing the modern/contemporary art exhibits at the Milwaukee Art Museum (I technically lived in Wisconsin for several weeks in the early autumn of 2017 for reasons I'd rather not touch on here), some of which I didn't resonate with at all but some of which I was rather taken by, with the constant background noise of those around me deriding everything in sight in a way suggesting that they weren't trying to engage with it at all. At least the Stuckists tried to use the capitalist extravagance of modern art as an excuse to peddle their works that so often resembled those that I saw hanging in my high school cafeteria. I think it's very important to encourage engagement with this art, the same way that I'm frustrated by my friends from music circles who refuse to think critically about Captain Beefheart (who I love dearly, but that's beside the point), though ultimately of course you cannot and should not teach anyone how or why to like any work of art.

[Sol]

• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

I'm always reminded of Ken Cosgrove's discussion of Bert Cooper's Rothko on Mad Men here--good abstract art makes me feel something, and that's worth something even it isn't something you could put in words. It's like instrumental music in that way.

That said, I usually prefer representational art, especially landscapes, since they're more accessible to someone with less artistic understanding.

[PSOL]

Well alright then

I identified as "culturally conservative" for a long time but no longer do, because the term seems to have come to mean "socially conservative but on issues not related to sex, and also, kinda racist". When I say or think "culturally conservative", this is, off the top of my head, the sort of thing I mean:

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

• I think that America is losing something essential as its countrysides empty out and support massive explicitly-redistributive state-directed investment in rural communities to delay this loss for as long as possible, for its own sake.

Like the above, this is a matter of perspective. It depends on context and scope, if the goal is for the better wellbeing of the inhabitants, is quite progressive in an age where “moving” to an area with a better job market is the norm.

• HOWEVER, I hate the "Southernization" of rural American culture outside the South, as evidenced by things like the spread of rebel-rag bro-country chic, the generic twang disseminated by AM radio the way mainstream movies and TV disseminate Californian uptalk and vocal fry, the fact that there are people north of the fortieth parallel who can drink sweet tea without gagging, and so forth.
• I think that idiosyncratic measurement systems like feet and inches, Fahrenheit, and so forth, encode important information about the history of our culture, and fully support their continued vernacular use even though I think for precise and formal applications the US should probably switch to SI.

You are critiquing cultural imperialism promoted by corporations somewhat, choosing to instead prefer more “egalitarian” and “progressive” music and dislike that everywhere is becoming the same. Caring about local traditions, like measurements, depends on a case by case basis.

• I think it's very unfortunate that a generalized disinterest in actual history in favor of advancing various kinds of ideologized narratives about the past, most of which are nakedly and needlessly hostile to people who lived in the past for purely political reasons, has become the norm among Americans younger than me.

All historiography has bias and a “narrative”, and even when uncovering the raw data, how you use and present it matters greatly in effect. I also doubt that many in the past who suffered from such things as structural discrimination would see much merit in showing their history and it’s “hostility” against the perpetrators.

• One of my least favorite things about climate change is that it no longer snows reliably on Christmas.

“Environmentalism” and its supposed political leanings depends on what is done in terms of policy and its desired effect and intent, but is generally opposed by those unwilling to change course in this body-term driven world by selfish shareholders.

• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

I’ll give this to you as a “conservative” position as you are unwilling to change your taste in art, but a “none of my business attitude” in this day and age is itself a minority view and at times could be interpreted as revolutionary given the personal is always political.

This supposed perception of the muddying of the waters between cultural and social conservatism is due to the fact that these terms do not have any real differences with one another, as culture is formed by societal pressure and the changes to natural and societal phenomena; whether environmental, resource-based, class structures, and demographics. Culture is not separate from society, no matter how localized it may be or how “trivial”, and society is “former” from ever changing conditions of the structure that is usually brought on top-down.

[Sol]

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

fwiw, because I'm an ass, I have to note that standard American English is emphatically not Transatlantic English, which is the largely extinct British-influenced dialect spoken by people like Audrey Hepburn. General American is most closely related to the English spoken in places like Iowa or rural Northern Illinois, but without the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and other such distinctively regional features.

[PSOL]

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

fwiw, because I'm an ass, I have to note that standard American English is emphatically not Transatlantic English, which is the largely extinct British-influenced dialect spoken by people like Audrey Hepburn. General American is most closely related to the English spoken in places like Iowa or rural Northern Illinois, but without the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and other such distinctively regional features.

That’s not transatlantic English? Huh

Either way, everything else fits in with that as during the age of the radio and especially WWII the radio companies and the government prioritized that as a “universally” understood accent.

[Samof94]

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

fwiw, because I'm an ass, I have to note that standard American English is emphatically not Transatlantic English, which is the largely extinct British-influenced dialect spoken by people like Audrey Hepburn. General American is most closely related to the English spoken in places like Iowa or rural Northern Illinois, but without the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and other such distinctively regional features.

That’s not transatlantic English? Huh

Either way, everything else fits in with that as during the age of the radio and especially WWII the radio companies and the government prioritized that as a “universally” understood accent.

It doesn’t work today. The country is more diverse and with very different tastes. I never understood the appeal of a country that in addition to the obvious problems, came off as ”feeling” like Britain(of the time not today) without a crown and the transatlantic accent just doesn’t sound natural.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well alright then

I identified as "culturally conservative" for a long time but no longer do, because the term seems to have come to mean "socially conservative but on issues not related to sex, and also, kinda racist". When I say or think "culturally conservative", this is, off the top of my head, the sort of thing I mean:

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

• I think that America is losing something essential as its countrysides empty out and support massive explicitly-redistributive state-directed investment in rural communities to delay this loss for as long as possible, for its own sake.

Like the above, this is a matter of perspective. It depends on context and scope, if the goal is for the better wellbeing of the inhabitants, is quite progressive in an age where “moving” to an area with a better job market is the norm.

• HOWEVER, I hate the "Southernization" of rural American culture outside the South, as evidenced by things like the spread of rebel-rag bro-country chic, the generic twang disseminated by AM radio the way mainstream movies and TV disseminate Californian uptalk and vocal fry, the fact that there are people north of the fortieth parallel who can drink sweet tea without gagging, and so forth.
• I think that idiosyncratic measurement systems like feet and inches, Fahrenheit, and so forth, encode important information about the history of our culture, and fully support their continued vernacular use even though I think for precise and formal applications the US should probably switch to SI.

You are critiquing cultural imperialism promoted by corporations somewhat, choosing to instead prefer more “egalitarian” and “progressive” music and dislike that everywhere is becoming the same. Caring about local traditions, like measurements, depends on a case by case basis.

• I think it's very unfortunate that a generalized disinterest in actual history in favor of advancing various kinds of ideologized narratives about the past, most of which are nakedly and needlessly hostile to people who lived in the past for purely political reasons, has become the norm among Americans younger than me.

All historiography has bias and a “narrative”, and even when uncovering the raw data, how you use and present it matters greatly in effect. I also doubt that many in the past who suffered from such things as structural discrimination would see much merit in showing their history and it’s “hostility” against the perpetrators.

• One of my least favorite things about climate change is that it no longer snows reliably on Christmas.

“Environmentalism” and its supposed political leanings depends on what is done in terms of policy and its desired effect and intent, but is generally opposed by those unwilling to change course in this body-term driven world by selfish shareholders.

• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

I’ll give this to you as a “conservative” position as you are unwilling to change your taste in art, but a “none of my business attitude” in this day and age is itself a minority view and at times could be interpreted as revolutionary given the personal is always political.

This supposed perception of the muddying of the waters between cultural and social conservatism is due to the fact that these terms do not have any real differences with one another, as culture is formed by societal pressure and the changes to natural and societal phenomena; whether environmental, resource-based, class structures, and demographics. Culture is not separate from society, no matter how localized it may be or how “trivial”, and society is “former” from ever changing conditions of the structure that is usually brought on top-down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that by "conservative" I meant "identifying secular trends and opposing them or trying to slow them down". It's admittedly not very often that you have a more Americabrained definition of a political term than I do, but it does seem like in this particular case you're using "conservative" to mean "whatever the nihilistic right-liberals with boilerplate Evangelical characteristics who run much of this country are trying to shove down everybody's throats at the moment", whereas I'm using it somewhat more similarly to how, say, Roger Scruton did.

[Ferguson97]

Broadly speaking, I don't know many people who would describe (most) of what you said as being culturally conservative. Most of those things are not stuff that most people even think about, in my experience.

• I think that America is losing something essential as its countrysides empty out and support massive explicitly-redistributive state-directed investment in rural communities to delay this loss for as long as possible, for its own sake.

This is my biggest disagreement that you listed. I don't think that there is something inherently valuable about these communities beyond the utility that they provide for the rest of the country. Rural living is much worse than urban living from an environmental perspective, and it is far less efficient.

Rural communities should be supported so that they do not completely collapse and that their people do not become destitute, but broadly speaking public policy should be centered around utility and increasing density.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I used to identify as "cultural conservative", and for me it meant personally socon but policy-wise libertarian. As such I abandoned the identifier when I became an actual socon because it was no longer necessary. Political labels are usually expansive things, and this one in particular seems to be vague to the point of uselessness in terms of how many different things it can mean for different people.

[PSOL]

Well alright then

I identified as "culturally conservative" for a long time but no longer do, because the term seems to have come to mean "socially conservative but on issues not related to sex, and also, kinda racist". When I say or think "culturally conservative", this is, off the top of my head, the sort of thing I mean:

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

• I think that America is losing something essential as its countrysides empty out and support massive explicitly-redistributive state-directed investment in rural communities to delay this loss for as long as possible, for its own sake.

Like the above, this is a matter of perspective. It depends on context and scope, if the goal is for the better wellbeing of the inhabitants, is quite progressive in an age where “moving” to an area with a better job market is the norm.

• HOWEVER, I hate the "Southernization" of rural American culture outside the South, as evidenced by things like the spread of rebel-rag bro-country chic, the generic twang disseminated by AM radio the way mainstream movies and TV disseminate Californian uptalk and vocal fry, the fact that there are people north of the fortieth parallel who can drink sweet tea without gagging, and so forth.
• I think that idiosyncratic measurement systems like feet and inches, Fahrenheit, and so forth, encode important information about the history of our culture, and fully support their continued vernacular use even though I think for precise and formal applications the US should probably switch to SI.

You are critiquing cultural imperialism promoted by corporations somewhat, choosing to instead prefer more “egalitarian” and “progressive” music and dislike that everywhere is becoming the same. Caring about local traditions, like measurements, depends on a case by case basis.

• I think it's very unfortunate that a generalized disinterest in actual history in favor of advancing various kinds of ideologized narratives about the past, most of which are nakedly and needlessly hostile to people who lived in the past for purely political reasons, has become the norm among Americans younger than me.

All historiography has bias and a “narrative”, and even when uncovering the raw data, how you use and present it matters greatly in effect. I also doubt that many in the past who suffered from such things as structural discrimination would see much merit in showing their history and it’s “hostility” against the perpetrators.

• One of my least favorite things about climate change is that it no longer snows reliably on Christmas.

“Environmentalism” and its supposed political leanings depends on what is done in terms of policy and its desired effect and intent, but is generally opposed by those unwilling to change course in this body-term driven world by selfish shareholders.

• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

I’ll give this to you as a “conservative” position as you are unwilling to change your taste in art, but a “none of my business attitude” in this day and age is itself a minority view and at times could be interpreted as revolutionary given the personal is always political.

This supposed perception of the muddying of the waters between cultural and social conservatism is due to the fact that these terms do not have any real differences with one another, as culture is formed by societal pressure and the changes to natural and societal phenomena; whether environmental, resource-based, class structures, and demographics. Culture is not separate from society, no matter how localized it may be or how “trivial”, and society is “former” from ever changing conditions of the structure that is usually brought on top-down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that by "conservative" I meant "identifying secular trends and opposing them or trying to slow them down". It's admittedly not very often that you have a more Americabrained definition of a political term than I do, but it does seem like in this particular case you're using "conservative" to mean "whatever the nihilistic right-liberals with boilerplate Evangelical characteristics who run much of this country are trying to shove down everybody's throats at the moment", whereas I'm using it somewhat more similarly to how, say, Roger Scruton did.

Let’s be clear on something, those right wingers with evangelical characteristics have a complete monopoly on conservatism, and anything challenging that is thus not conservative, not since the start of mass media telecommunications and the third great awakening.

It does not matter how localized it may be, or that you wish for local traditions themselves and even power structures to be conserved. It is opposed to the monopoly nonetheless.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well alright then

I identified as "culturally conservative" for a long time but no longer do, because the term seems to have come to mean "socially conservative but on issues not related to sex, and also, kinda racist". When I say or think "culturally conservative", this is, off the top of my head, the sort of thing I mean:

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.

Given that it is actually expected, and in cases of normal business and more formalized communication  mandatory in a de facto sense, to abide by the “transatlantic accent”, doing the opposite could be considered transgressive on this front and a political statement in favor of preserving regional culture the dominant society tries to destroy and sand down. I suppose it is a matter of perspective…

• I think that America is losing something essential as its countrysides empty out and support massive explicitly-redistributive state-directed investment in rural communities to delay this loss for as long as possible, for its own sake.

Like the above, this is a matter of perspective. It depends on context and scope, if the goal is for the better wellbeing of the inhabitants, is quite progressive in an age where “moving” to an area with a better job market is the norm.

• HOWEVER, I hate the "Southernization" of rural American culture outside the South, as evidenced by things like the spread of rebel-rag bro-country chic, the generic twang disseminated by AM radio the way mainstream movies and TV disseminate Californian uptalk and vocal fry, the fact that there are people north of the fortieth parallel who can drink sweet tea without gagging, and so forth.
• I think that idiosyncratic measurement systems like feet and inches, Fahrenheit, and so forth, encode important information about the history of our culture, and fully support their continued vernacular use even though I think for precise and formal applications the US should probably switch to SI.

You are critiquing cultural imperialism promoted by corporations somewhat, choosing to instead prefer more “egalitarian” and “progressive” music and dislike that everywhere is becoming the same. Caring about local traditions, like measurements, depends on a case by case basis.

• I think it's very unfortunate that a generalized disinterest in actual history in favor of advancing various kinds of ideologized narratives about the past, most of which are nakedly and needlessly hostile to people who lived in the past for purely political reasons, has become the norm among Americans younger than me.

All historiography has bias and a “narrative”, and even when uncovering the raw data, how you use and present it matters greatly in effect. I also doubt that many in the past who suffered from such things as structural discrimination would see much merit in showing their history and it’s “hostility” against the perpetrators.

• One of my least favorite things about climate change is that it no longer snows reliably on Christmas.

“Environmentalism” and its supposed political leanings depends on what is done in terms of policy and its desired effect and intent, but is generally opposed by those unwilling to change course in this body-term driven world by selfish shareholders.

• I do occasionally wonder what the "point" of completely nonrepresentational and even nongeometrical art is, and I think Damien Hirst seems--and looks--like a complete douchebag. However, I still support the production of such art, because just because I don't get it doesn't mean nobody does.

I’ll give this to you as a “conservative” position as you are unwilling to change your taste in art, but a “none of my business attitude” in this day and age is itself a minority view and at times could be interpreted as revolutionary given the personal is always political.

This supposed perception of the muddying of the waters between cultural and social conservatism is due to the fact that these terms do not have any real differences with one another, as culture is formed by societal pressure and the changes to natural and societal phenomena; whether environmental, resource-based, class structures, and demographics. Culture is not separate from society, no matter how localized it may be or how “trivial”, and society is “former” from ever changing conditions of the structure that is usually brought on top-down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that by "conservative" I meant "identifying secular trends and opposing them or trying to slow them down". It's admittedly not very often that you have a more Americabrained definition of a political term than I do, but it does seem like in this particular case you're using "conservative" to mean "whatever the nihilistic right-liberals with boilerplate Evangelical characteristics who run much of this country are trying to shove down everybody's throats at the moment", whereas I'm using it somewhat more similarly to how, say, Roger Scruton did.

Let’s be clear on something, those right wingers with evangelical characteristics have a complete monopoly on conservatism, and anything challenging that is thus not conservative, not since the start of mass media telecommunications and the third great awakening.

It does not matter how localized it may be, or that you wish for local traditions themselves and even power structures to be conserved. It is opposed to the monopoly nonetheless.

We're going in circles, PSOL. You're showing every sign of knowing what I mean, and the terminological choices you're attacking are exactly what this thread is about to begin with.

[PSOL]

Oh I know what you mean, you just are defining it wrongly as “culturally conservative”, a term that does not exist. You also are putting up mainly progressive desires, or at least those with different meanings on a case-by-case basis, and opinions that are against the wishes of the monied forces driving these changes. That alone was the end of the argument.

The idea that “conservatism” is against erasing regional culture or for all sources of romanticism, like wanting it to snow on Christmas, and not a component of the superstructure driven by real world conditions and actions is wrong.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh I know what you mean, you just are defining it wrongly as “culturally conservative”, a term that does not exist. You also are putting up mainly progressive desires, or at least those with different meanings on a case-by-case basis, and opinions that are against the wishes of the monied forces driving these changes. That alone was the end of the argument.

The idea that “conservatism” is against erasing regional culture or for all sources of romanticism, like wanting it to snow on Christmas, and not a component of the superstructure driven by real world conditions and actions is wrong.

Okay, that's your position on the definitional issue that the thread is about. You've made that abundantly clear. Now can we please move the hell on?

[parochial boy]

• I consider myself proudly "from" New England as opposed to anywhere else, and actively monitor regionalisms in my speech and writing for the purpose of deliberately reinforcing them, rather than for the purpose of sanding them down.

Other people have commented on it, but I found this one particularly interersting in part because I was reading something recently, that chimed with my own experience in terms of how there has been a massive increase in interest and use of regionalisms in French, epitomised by things like this instagram account or endless internet fights about the correct term for pain au chocolat. Certainly in my own life, I've seen people around my age and younger increasingly using various Swiss French terms that has meant certain expressions and words that seemed to be dying 5-10 years ago (some, others are still a little bit too geriatric) finding their way back into mainstream use.

I think this is something of a very widespread, and your point about imperial measurements seems thematically linked, for example how the word "soccer" as died in British English because it is perceived as American. That is is so far as these local and regional ways of speaking, or cultural touchstones, are a kind of way of affirming your own cultural identity against the perceived homogenisation brought about by globalisation and internet culture and all the rest. It's nice in that way, that people are proud of the way they talk and how that shows where they come from.

[sting in the rafters]

snip

Reading while chowing on a cold cut hoagie and sippin a snapple in a row house gangway
F---in right. In a lot fewer words "what's the point of growing if ya ain't love the soil?"

Only caveats on everyone here is don't reduce the cultural to consumption of entertainment. For example certain traits like Midwestern niceness, Mid-Atlantic sensor for BS, New England preppiness, West Coast chill/relaxed vibe and Southern hospitality all permeate from their ways of life just as much as their cuisine/leisure activities.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nathan, please stop appropriating my environmental reactionism.

[PSOL]

Oh I know what you mean, you just are defining it wrongly as “culturally conservative”, a term that does not exist. You also are putting up mainly progressive desires, or at least those with different meanings on a case-by-case basis, and opinions that are against the wishes of the monied forces driving these changes. That alone was the end of the argument.

The idea that “conservatism” is against erasing regional culture or for all sources of romanticism, like wanting it to snow on Christmas, and not a component of the superstructure driven by real world conditions and actions is wrong.

Okay, that's your position on the definitional issue that the thread is about. You've made that abundantly clear. Now can we please move the hell on?

Fine, let us now dispel the notion that this Roger Scruton fellow is any different from modern Conservatism in the United States. How having the same views as these Nihilist evangelicals—from disliking secularism, current feminism, immigration and immigrant-descended populations (especially from areas where the Islamic faith is the majority), and viewing homosexual relations as an abberation—wrapped up in an intellectual-sounding, gobbledygook mantras differs much from the more vulgar, non-obscurantist way they say the same concepts here. How are these concepts not determined from real world variables.

You still have not defended whether these views are conservative, much less in a “cultural” way differing from a “social” standpoint.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh I know what you mean, you just are defining it wrongly as “culturally conservative”, a term that does not exist. You also are putting up mainly progressive desires, or at least those with different meanings on a case-by-case basis, and opinions that are against the wishes of the monied forces driving these changes. That alone was the end of the argument.

The idea that “conservatism” is against erasing regional culture or for all sources of romanticism, like wanting it to snow on Christmas, and not a component of the superstructure driven by real world conditions and actions is wrong.

Okay, that's your position on the definitional issue that the thread is about. You've made that abundantly clear. Now can we please move the hell on?

Fine, let us now dispel the notion that this Roger Scruton fellow is any different from modern Conservatism in the United States. How having the same views as these Nihilist evangelicals—from disliking secularism, current feminism, immigration and immigrant-descended populations (especially from areas where the Islamic faith is the majority), and viewing homosexual relations as an abberation—wrapped up in an intellectual-sounding, gobbledygook mantras differs much from the more vulgar, non-obscurantist way they say the same concepts here. How are these concepts not determined from real world variables.

Scruton was an offhanded example. You're the one treating this interaction as a zero-sum war of attrition over the definition of an expression that you claim to think is meaningless.

You still have not defended whether these views are conservative,

I've said this over and over again. I think of "cultural conservatism" as a conservative--that is, preservation-focused and change-averse, stance towards culture--that is, not the quasi-satanic anticulture most people currently experience that you seem to believe absolutely has to be the term's referent regardless of the context or subject of conversation. I also think of the term "conservative" in relationship to history, a concept in which you appear not to believe, with your indignant insistence that the up-to-the-minute current situation is what all political terminology has to orient itself around.

much less in a “cultural” way differing from a “social” standpoint.

Don't insult your own intelligence by pretending that you don't know what the term "social conservative" commonly means in US discussion and how it differs from what this thread is about; we both know that you do, and I hope we both know that I think that common usage is idiotic just like you (presumably) do. We've stated our preferred definitions and frameworks here over and over again in increasingly argumentative terms; one of us is willing to let the conversation end naturally and the other is evidently not. My advice to you is to make like Elsa and let it go.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't think that there is something inherently valuable about these communities beyond the utility that they provide for the rest of the country.

What a horrifying statement.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Strongly identify with much of this. In particular, it has been very sad to see the "Southernization" of rural areas north of Mason-Dixon and the disappearance of an independent rural Midwestern culture.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think that there is something inherently valuable about these communities beyond the utility that they provide for the rest of the country.

What a horrifying statement.

Real Josh Gottheimer moment right there from our D-NJ friend!

[Ferguson97]

I don't think that there is something inherently valuable about these communities beyond the utility that they provide for the rest of the country.

What a horrifying statement.

I don't really see why it is. The argument that the OP is making seems to be coming from a place of romanization rather than wanting to help the actual people in the communities, which is what I'm talking about.

It's like all of the coal towns in Appalachia. We know that coal is on its last legs. So instead of subsidizing a dying industry, we should give those miners great jobs in renewable energy. We don't need to preserve mining for cultural "that's what my daddy did and his daddy before him" reasons. That's now how public policy should operate.

And not sure why you ignored the rest of my comment, where I specifically said we shouldn't leave these communities in the dust.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think that there is something inherently valuable about these communities beyond the utility that they provide for the rest of the country.

What a horrifying statement.

I don't really see why it is. The argument that the OP is making seems to be coming from a place of romanization rather than wanting to help the actual people in the communities, which is what I'm talking about.

It's like all of the coal towns in Appalachia. We know that coal is on its last legs. So instead of subsidizing a dying industry, we should give those miners great jobs in renewable energy. We don't need to preserve mining for cultural "that's what my daddy did and his daddy before him" reasons. That's now how public policy should operate.

And not sure why you ignored the rest of my comment, where I specifically said we shouldn't leave these communities in the dust.

I’d be fine with a green infrastructure program on the condition that the first priority for jobs go to the people in Industries it will be displacing further .


 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think that there is something inherently valuable about these communities beyond the utility that they provide for the rest of the country.

What a horrifying statement.

I don't really see why it is. The argument that the OP is making seems to be coming from a place of romanization rather than wanting to help the actual people in the communities, which is what I'm talking about.

It's like all of the coal towns in Appalachia. We know that coal is on its last legs. So instead of subsidizing a dying industry, we should give those miners great jobs in renewable energy. We don't need to preserve mining for cultural "that's what my daddy did and his daddy before him" reasons. That's now how public policy should operate.

And not sure why you ignored the rest of my comment, where I specifically said we shouldn't leave these communities in the dust.

The problem with America's land usage (especially as pertains to environmental issues, but also financial solvency and quality-of-life issues) is suburban sprawl, not rural communities. Especially since a lot of what's commonly described as "rural America" is actually made up of medium-large towns and small cities, which might often have higher densities than the suburban expanses that surround every major cities. From all the sources I've seen, the infrastructural cost and environmental impact per inhabitants is much higher in the latter than in the former. A policy of actively seeking to develop small regional centers that are currently left out of the current model of development in America could have extremely beneficial impacts, both economically as well as in terms of mending the country's divide. The "just moooove" model is clearly not working, and while I agree coal jobs have to go (I don't think Nathan ever said otherwise) there's no reason why those same places couldn't become home to new, sustainable industries, if the state is willing to put in the investment to make that happen.