I’m a right winger and I totally disagree with this comment.
For me, conservatism is about willingness to face up to the hard facts about reality. I’m just as cosmopolitan in my values as liberals are—but I’m not naive about how to go about achieving them. My goal is to actually help people, not show all my friends how progressive I am.
In practice I think US stability is extremely important for the entire world. Which means I’m against giving impulsive people the nuclear codes, and I’m also against Hillary Clinton’s “invade the world, invite the world” foreign policy.
Also: I don’t like Yudkowsky, but I would like him and the people in his circle to take criticism seriously, so… could we maybe start spelling his name correctly? It ends in a y. (I think Yudkowsky himself is probably a lost cause, but there are a lot of smart, rational people in his thrall who should not be. And many of them will take the time to read and seriously evaluate critical arguments if they’re well-presented.)
Very well—the reason I asked is because it seems to be not at all obvious with how accepting hard truths about race and immigration should be made to align with being
It’s puzzling that you’ve termed these risks “long term” when America is currently being rocked with race riots and Europe has an ongoing refugee crisis.
Well, you could see the issues America is facing as being a long-term effect of importing slaves from Africa and liberalization of immigration laws in the 1960s. But racial tension is not the only thing I’m worried about.
I’m a right winger and I totally disagree with this comment.
For me, conservatism is about willingness to face up to the hard facts about reality. I’m just as cosmopolitan in my values as liberals are—but I’m not naive about how to go about achieving them. My goal is to actually help people, not show all my friends how progressive I am.
In practice I think US stability is extremely important for the entire world. Which means I’m against giving impulsive people the nuclear codes, and I’m also against Hillary Clinton’s “invade the world, invite the world” foreign policy.
Also: I don’t like Yudkowsky, but I would like him and the people in his circle to take criticism seriously, so… could we maybe start spelling his name correctly? It ends in a y. (I think Yudkowsky himself is probably a lost cause, but there are a lot of smart, rational people in his thrall who should not be. And many of them will take the time to read and seriously evaluate critical arguments if they’re well-presented.)
Sorry about misspelling his name. Egg on my face.
Which in particular?
Lots of “politically incorrect” claims are true, and this matters for policy. E.g. for immigration.
Very well—the reason I asked is because it seems to be not at all obvious with how accepting hard truths about race and immigration should be made to align with being
Yeah, my current view is that long-term risks of high immigration outweigh near-term benefits.
It’s puzzling that you’ve termed these risks “long term” when America is currently being rocked with race riots and Europe has an ongoing refugee crisis.
Well, you could see the issues America is facing as being a long-term effect of importing slaves from Africa and liberalization of immigration laws in the 1960s. But racial tension is not the only thing I’m worried about.