Social Conservatism Officially Died

As I've stated, Social Conservatism officially died. I do not speak in idle terms. I'm not saying this metaphorically. It has died with the end of Don't Ask-Don't Tell. Now, there's not a single issue of importance in which Social Conservatism still has commanding control over. Women and Feminism have won - they get treated exactly the same as men in every important aspect and by everybody. You can't even say they're functionally obsolete during their periods - which is true. Minorities and multiculturalism has won - nobody publicly criticizes their antics anymore or their ability to reshape society in their own image. Globalization has won - the most powerful corporations have to have an 'international strategy' in order to make a profit. Nationality has lost - there's no unified national language, culture, or identity anymore. It's all either about 'me' or internationality - nothing about us. 'Overtechnologization', meaning being entirely dependent on high-tech devices, has taken over the workplace and nobody integrates older devices and/or methods to balance it out.

If you're going to tell me that Conservatism is 'thriving' or 'strong', you may. Just tell me, with the examples that were given, how you can still say it's thriving or strong at all?!? Everything Social Conservatism was about has been dashed as the very fabric of 1st World Civilization morphs into a disgusting, degenerate organism that in no way resembles the pre-1930s world. Don't Ask-Don't Tell was the last straw. Now, there are no more hard issues enacted in civilization that are reliably conservative. The Conservatives are relegated to discussing education; male/female issues; and regaining what was lost from the past.

Nothing important remains to discuss that hasn't already been corrupted. Marriage eventually becomes whatever the sick participants want it to be. Religion is not the bedrock of society anymore. Culture has been perverted. Venture self-reliance has been replaced by Nanny-State dependence. With Don't-Ask Don't Tell gone as the last straws, nothing social conservative remains - it's all just a wash of pet issues and a fabric of people with little power gradually becoming undone and it's pathetic in every way shape and form.

Libertarian here.

It would be great if it were dead, I've never really cared too much about it, you don't need to be a religious zealot or homophobe to value stable marriage and keeping sleaze under tabs. This isn't the case however, religious people have tons of kids while feminists move to the cities and die childless, in the future with all the looming problems we will see a lot more social conservatism despite the temporary dip in popularity.

Not really. You're just trying to play the victim card. One of the very things you claim to despise.

>>3
This.

>>3
You can't "play the victim card" when what you've seen your nation stand for has been PULVERIZED into the sands of time. We have had true Conservatism since the beginning of time. THEN, somewhere around the turn of the last century, it started to wain with the Industrial Revolution and Trustbusting (the government has no right to sever large industries just like it has no right to force all of the small ones into one corporation!) pretty much. Then the Women's Movement of the 1920s happened. Then post-World War 2 Capitalism probably ignited a 'I can do anything that's successful!' mentality that peaked during the Vietnam War, which made everybody feel downtrodden about Nationalism. The 1980s gave us Reagan who wasn't Conservative enough for me and now everything Conservatism truly stands for is dead.

I'm not playing a victimization card. Everything was better from the past until everything became FAGGED UP and we're now stewing in this miserable hell hole of Relative Morality. Call it victimization if you want - the only victim is society.

You can't "play the victim card" when... [sensationalized diatribe about how bad things are]
That's some funny shit right there.

Dear OP,

Greetings from the 21st century.  How are things in the 19th?  Bad?  Sucks to be you.

Sincerely,

The known universe

And nothing of value was lost

shorter OP: STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!

>>6
Not Sensationalized - a steady deterioration. Like I said in the OP, so many things were taken away time and time again. It's too late now. Once they disabled D.A.D.T., what else is there to fight for?!? Traditional Marriage is being taken away; The International Arms Trade Treaty gets rid of guns; Rampant Homosexuals; Minorities; People demanding "Rights".....

Goodbye America it was nice while you lasted.

>Traditional Marriage is being taken away; The International Arms Trade Treaty gets rid of guns; Rampant Homosexuals; Minorities; People demanding "Rights".....

Jesus Christ, how ever shall we cope!

>>11
Actually, it's the people demanding "Rights" that cheese me off the most. It's sort of like the Anonymous of 4chan - people who think a meaningless, worthless title improves their worth in any way shape or form is beyond me.

>>12
So it pisses you off to give it to them even though it's meaningless?

>Traditional Marriage is being taken away
How so? You're free to traditionally marry all you like.

>...when what you've seen your nation stand for has been PULVERIZED into the sands of time.
>Not Sensationalized
ಠ_ಠ

OP is completely right. There is literally nothing left to fight for. There is no concept of moral responsibility any longer.

The worst part is we stood by and watched this all happen in the name of openness and respecting differences.

>>1
It's all either about 'me' or internationality - nothing about us.
You want something about 'us'? Try socialism, dickhead.

>>10
Goodbye America it was nice while you lasted.

No, it wasn't. You neoconfags should do us all a favor and kill yourselves.

>No, it wasn't. You neoconfags should do us all a favor and kill yourselves.

Why do that when we can feed off your insane hatred and troll you every day instead?

>You want something about 'us'? Try socialism, dickhead.

Why infect yourself with AIDS?

Move to Russia, OP. It's a poor country, but perfect if you want to invest in business there. It's a young and fertile economy.

Faggots are not accepted in Russian society, they're not allowed to parade and marry. They're not allowed in the military either. Women also know their place as men's wives and caring for children.

The downside is the amount of druggies in Russia, but they generally keep to their abandoned buildings and really poor areas.

>>19
I'd also recommend the middle east. I hear social conservatism is popular there.

If you're not a traditionalist/conservative why the fuck do you call yourself that? "I support libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism so that makes me a conservative"...what the fuck? Read a dictionary.

>>21
>If you're not a traditionalist/conservative why the fuck do you call yourself that?
liberal buttrage

>I'd also recommend the middle east. I hear social conservatism is popular there.

That's only true as long as you ignore the context and social differences between the sand nigger world and Western civilization. It's like asking white liberals to go live in a inner city ghetto filled with rabid niggers.

>>23
That's not a fair comparison. Niggers, especially poor ghetto niggers, are social conservatives too. They only vote democrat because it's in their best interest.

>>22

Actually you're the "liberal" one. You want to be able to do whatever you want economically and socially with no repercussions making you the "liberal".

I say it's the Supreme Court's fault. Are they even necessary?

Actually it's Freedom's fault, get rid of freedom and you can enforce whatever 'values' you want.

>Niggers, especially poor ghetto niggers, are social conservatives too.

Somehow I think niggers might even be able to point out the obvious contradiction in that statement. That's an openly intentionally retarded thing to declare.

>>25
Yes, that is the very definition of a liberal.

>>28

the obvious contradiction in that statement.
What contradiction? Point it out for me. They hate gay rights and love Jesus. They're harsh disciplinarians with their children and they're even racists. Not just towards whites but even towards other niggers. How is that not social conservatism?

>>30
Because it's only racist when you go against the facts. As for the other things, well they're pretty normal, niggers do normal things like eat, realize homosexuality is a mental illness, drink, realize there is a creator, shit, try to stop their kids acting like crazy motherfuckers (granted this would be easier if they had a dad), piss, look out for their own kind and fuck. Only heavily indoctrinated wine sipping liberals who are sheltered from the real world think otherwise.

>>30
Ah, I see. You're just trolling then. Pointing a few vague similarities while intentionally ignoring the obvious differences. It's like saying liberals and Muslim terrorists are one and the same politically. This is an issue about political views and affiliations, not wishful thinking.

Niggers are openly racist and protected by the liberal media. Conservatives get called racists by libfags no matter what the issue really is.  

Both dislike gays, like most normal heterosexuals. Not a political thing really.

Niggers love welfare/socialism and hate rich people/jews. Conservative hate socialism and don't like class warfare propaganda. Conservative love Israel.

Niggers don't raise kids or believe in family values, Jesus or obeying the law. Conservatives shoot niggers for acting like retarded monkeys.

Niggers are pro abortion and rape. Conservatives shoot niggers for acting like retarded monkeys but like pro-life for real humans.

Niggers and liberals always vote for Democrats. Conservatives don't. So you're full of shit and knew it. Have a nice day.

>>31
>>32
All that text and you managed to not refute any of my points. Keep being deluded. It's fucking hilarious.

>>33
Have you ever herped so much that you actually derped?

>>33
2/10 for persistence. Nice act, but no one would buy it.

Not really.

>>33
>32 isn't me and I did refute all your points, for example you said "[niggers] hate gay rights" and I pointed out this isn't due to social conservatism, it's just normal. It's like saying "niggers think 1+1=2 therefore they are nazis because hitler thought 1+1=2".

My argument isn't what you were expecting but it's still logical, it's also airtight.

>>37
That analogy would only work if liberals didn't also think 1+1=2. I see that logic isn't one of your strong suits though so I doubt you'll even see why.

>>37
>I did refute all your points,

So niggers are neocons now? Eh? You didn't refute anything. OP's statement is based on vast assumptions that are blatantly contradictory to reality. In short, it was a blatant troll post.

If blacks were conservatives, they'd vote republican. It's really that simple.

>>38
splitting hairs
I was illustrating a seperate point that simply sharing an opinion with someone else doesn't mean you share their entire ideology.

If you want another example, how about this, it's like saying "niggers think the white man owes them and hate gay rights, therefore they are both liberals and social conservatives". You will find everything is well structured in my mind and I happen to be right, I will pick apart everything you throw at me and disprove it quickly and easily, then one day you'll wake up and find out you're an all American red-blooded nigger-hating southern white man.

>>39
I was speaking hypothetically, "I pointed out this isn't due to social conservatism".

>>39
I'm pretty sure he was using it as a way to try and find holes in conservatism in general, in which case it's worth shooting down. If just to reinforce my own beliefs.

>I'm pretty sure he was using it as a way to try and find holes in conservatism in general

Sure, right! That's the ticket.

>>40

If you want another example, how about this, it's like saying "niggers think the white man owes them and hate gay rights, therefore they are both liberals and social conservatives".
I completely agree with you here. However, when it comes to social issues they share more in common with conservatives than liberals. Welfare is an economic issue. As for them being "pro rape" or "pro crime," there really is no such stance. You (or whoever wrote that) have just deluded yourself into thinking that's what liberals think because it's easier to argue against straw men than a real liberal.

>>39

If blacks were conservatives, they'd vote republican. It's really that simple.
No, it isn't. People vote for different reasons. Above all, niggers will vote pro-nigger. Since there is rarely a 100% pro-nigger candidate, they have to decide which issues are most important. And they're usually willing to vote democrat because welfare is more important to them than social issues.

>>41
Nope. Things aren't so black and white. I'm quite moderate actually. I try to look at things as an outsider.