The question is a practical one :
What chores for other people is worth saving a life?
Closely related, what chores for productive people are worth increasing standard for non-productive people?

Lots of people here born in warm, snug, semi-posh academical families with ”progressive” values, seemingly.

The sound parts of masculinity and femininity could well be something that both male and female should conform to.

What about toxic femininity... — Hanover

That need to be discussed heavily. Women having suffrage has not only influenced society in positive ways. Spoiling of kids have become institutional and has lead to the development of hailing of low effort and results. The typical academic woman will go to extreme measures to perform well herself (at work, at home, with friends) but will spoil her own kids severely, making them "snowflakes" if the husband do not put some sense in the kids. She will further push for "weaker people", not requiring any personal responsibility from poorer people, refugees, people in minorities or whatever.

Being from a background way more disprivileged than any group in current scandinavia, the poorer people still held a high sense of responsibility and industry. As did scandinavian people that emigrated to the USA.

A male view, like that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King is that Opportunity indeed should be equal, but people should also, regardless of situation do their best.

I do also doubt that, If female had suffrage from say 1750, that the mean lifetime and comfort would have been the same as the one we have now. Scientific discovery and industry are heroic activities, apart from also being team efforts.

As always, I do not say that all men are all masculine, and that all females are feminine. I love romance novels. But femininity as such is nothing that is all good.

Not being from a Academical family but a daytimejob background, a family that have made the scandinavian class journey from poor agricultural workers in the 1800-s to now in my generation (me, my brother and all my cousins being either medical doctors or civil engineer) made the class journey to the academics, now living in academic/posh neighbourhoods filled with people whose grandfathers were wealth can see masculiny from probably a better viewpoint than one that has been in a family without social movements:

Masculinity has, as I see it two main areas in which to exist: The family and the world.

In the family people like those brought up in something like a republican conservative family might look back on 1958 and seeing that as the wunderland, when dad worked, mommy made food and kids were grounded if smoking.

Having a dominant father, a rather humble mother and being from something as unusual as a Scandinavias actively Christian family I had my fair share of that. My Mother died just before the Covid and my 80+ yo father had to learn stuff like washing clothes and so. That my mother did all of until the day she passed away.

This was NOT very good, especially when we were kids (way back in another millenia), and my mother just couldn´t cope with two strong-willed sons. But the kids and the home was her resposibility, dad brought the cash.

Myself being married to a woman of equal education and salary as me, we have like shared everything. I wash the dishes and have forced her to be able to fix stuff that breaks down in the house, taking care of the economy and so. That works splendidly.
Even so more, because I have a very Male view on how children should be treated and she has a very feminine one. She is kind "want to do whats best for the kids" ask them "what they want to do with their lives", while I, being from a poorer background than my wife do not tolerate any traces in my kids of being spoiled or omnipotent. My daughter and son has got a little of each, and although they do have some more sense of pressure to produce results, they seem to do good in University, and will not be drones but people that really contribute to mean human lifetime and human comfortability.

Because the other area is the world. And the world is a place which, for humans have become a tremendously much better place than in the 18th century. And it continues to be better and better. Fewer and fewer people are poor. Fewer and fewer wars are fought. For sure there are problems with ecosystems and so, but the solutions to that will be in the same area as fixed mean lifetime.

And that is where Masculinity comes in. Face it - what big contribution to human welfare has a woman´s name? What really big scientific discovery? For sure, women have not had the same chances to education and such in earlier times, but they do have those chances now. Guys do invent stuff. That testosterone, Darwin published Origin Of Species earlier than he had intended, to make sure he got the honor, other guys were on the track too.
Women do great good too, but that is more in terms of making a case for humanity. I do not doubt that the reduction in warfare can be traced back to womenly influence including suffrage.

So guys push forward and girls moderate. We see a very interesting fight on this subject among caucasians in my Scandinavian home country. Among people of education, the people that will be politically influential - The question of refugees from middle east and Africa. We have admiitted a tremendous lot of immigrants to come to our country. Something that on a humanitarian point of view seem like a good idea, but at the same time, a very large crowd of people from a totally other culture has seen a tremendous lot of problems, murder, rape, beatings of "whities" and a very large unemployment. And through that, a Racism that did not exist before. Generally, a lot of guys goes to the half nazi party that used to be like 4% and now is like 20% in our elections, while women of academy tend to vote for the red-green party that hails Greta Thunberg and want to admit an unlimited number of refugees to our country.

There, some Yin and Yang for you... The solution? Governments that can take a Yin and Yang look at stuff. In my country the feminine view has been a little too dominant for a couple of decades, while the Middle East countries would fare well with a little more, probably.

taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.

not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.

imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.

ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.

and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances. — Isaac

Think Laws (and taxes) seems like a pretty good idea anyways. Gives people room for initiatives within given frames and still possibilities to give help for the ones really in need. You have a lot of stuff here, som that I approve of and some not, but the concept of a state with an effective framework of laws, taxes and government has proven to be a useful solution to the problems you mention.

The Globalized world makes this a little more tricky, of course.

But, this Christian obsession is annoying and plainly wrong - I can't believe that someone who usually is so determined to get to the bedrock of human understanding is stuck in this shallow paradigm. The Logos idea is not even Christian. It was certainly around in 5 century BC with Heraclitus and who knows how much earlier. The entire Christian creed is derivative. — yebiga

What exactly do you mean by Christian obsession? The Biblical series on youtube?

The birthrate has a double peak: women in middle management positions and semi-routine occupations are by far the largest contributors to the birthrate. The former will typically be in good, reliable, twin-income households (in couples in which only one person works, it is more likely the worker is male here; likewise the vast majority of couples contributing to the birthrate are heterosexual). — Kenosha Kid

Do I recognise that... Live in a community where both male and female mostly are academics... Me and missus have two great children(now in university age), but boy did she go on about having a third in the beginning of the millenia. All the neighbour women managed to wring a third(and some fourth) out of their husbands but I remained steadfast. Having neighbour gettogethers, the neighbour ladies even tried to convince me, and there were evil schemes laid out...

Yep, back when you died of toothache. The life expectancy was below 40 years iirc. Personally I'd take dentistry and medicine over self-rule, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism. — Kenosha Kid

A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalism, where the state tries to guarantee a reasonable standard of life for all citizens but still allows for personal initiatives. But maybe not the paradise for young offspring of lawyers, artists or capitalist, seeing saving the world as a possible meaning of life, daytime work working hours unthinkable.

We used to have that in the country where I live, considered leftist by most US people. But academical family born leftist have spoiled it all with dreams. Now racism is worse than ever and our political system is in chaos. A bit anarchistic, maybe. People shoot each other. They did not use to do that here.

Anarchism worked for most of the history of the human race. It just isn't practical now. — Kenosha Kid

When the mean lifetime was 40 ys and childs dying in infancy was a common thing.

Which is what the original left, the true left, stands for -- liberty and equality for all -- and what the original right, the true right, is against. — Pfhorrest

Being from at poor/working class family, grown up in a no-go area until 8yo, poor on all my grandparents sides back to the 17th century - What my ancestor and all my friends(i never made friends with the badasses) strived for was Equal Opportunity. And of course a stable state where institutions protected one from opressors of high and low type.

That "liberty and equality for all" sounds kind of good, and it somewhat relates to something I have seen. But most of all it sounds like a vision dreamt ut in the head of some bourgeoise kid looking for "a goal in life". Things have to work, and there is no such wonderland as that of Nozick or leftist/rightist Anarchist. But of course, if one can make it work, why not? Just haven't seen it.

As I see it, Those antifa, blm, congress invaders whatever they are called are really not on a left/right scale either. As the Nazis were not on a left/right scale.

Far right is the minimal state and far left is total equality. All those extremista just want to push for their own group’s well being. Not least the red wine environmental left, that primarily want to make their lives meaningful, Hägglund style.

When an anarchist is not a snowflake or a chaos familiy kid, I get surprised. There should be some islands in the pacific where those people could go living, anarcisming each other. Leftist and rightist.

And I believe this is aided more by great literature (and music and art study and practice, meditation and psychedelics) than by philosophy. Both are desirable though; sharpening of the critical faculties and cultivation of the affections. However one can live a good life, ethically speaking; while holding central beliefs that from a philosophical point of view, are absurd, just as one can have the sharpest critical intellect, hold few absurd beliefs, and yet be a total arsehole. — Janus

So what good does listening to music and eating magic mushrooms do?

Literature, employing metaphor, parable and profoundly affective depictions of human life, is most effective for this; much more effective than philosophy. That's probably why there is a Nobel prize for literature and not for philosophy. Philosophy is limited to exposing and correcting errors of reasoning and creating schematic worldviews, with the former function being more useful in my opinion. (Although the latter is not without artistic interest). That's my two cents anyway. — Janus

When i read stuff like Hägglund’s This Life, Pinker’s Enlightenment Now, Peterson’s 12 rules, Spinoza’s ethics (as well as Hayes Get out of your mind and Nilsonnes Vem är det som bestämmer i ditt liv, great CBT psychologist books on mindfulness) -

Do I only read stuff, and reflect upon it , do I not sharpen my philosophical knives, do I not do Philosophy?

So to enhance the present we are supposed to eat stuff like Psilocybe semilanceata?

Scrolling through this thread briefly, friday nightish. Suppose it spins down to new ways attack the present, as opposed to the ways of mindfulness(to observe, describe, avoid judgements, act)

I understand that my comment piqued your curiosity concerning just how Derrida or Levinas were able to ‘justify’ Heidegger’s political choices. And make no mistake, what they offered has to be considered a type of justification. Why? Because they begin with the claim that Heidegger’s philosophy, although they critique it , stands as perhaps the most enlightened worldview( ethically as well as conceptually) of this era. Since they connect Heidegger’s
politics with his philosophy, one has to conclude that , from their vantage, if Heidegger could be drawn into such entanglements, then all of us in the West are as vulnerable to similar thinking, not specifically with regard to Jews , but to others that we feel
alienated from. — Joshs

Thing is, Sein und Zeit was one of the first ”difficult” books I read after coming in contact with philosophy 12 years ago (wish it was 35 years) and I was really surprised to later learn that Heidegger became a member lf the NSDAP. It’s a book which gives me a deep feeling of solitude and an ernest look on life, not in any way racist. The only thing I see that could give me a clue are the chapters towards the end of the 1st part when he quite openly looks down on bourgeoisie gossiping, those kind of social mechanisms. One might maybe see a germanic indivuality preference, whereas Sartre, allegedly inspired by Heidegger, brought up with the support of a wealthy family saw greater value in the contact with the other. Which in turn might be more in line with the mediterranean and arabian greater emphasis on family(hijo de puta do not have a Scandinavian counterpart, here you are just personally stupid). Thats my best and it seems very far-fetched. The Nazis were a highly collectivist bunch,and I cannot for my life see why an author og S und Z would want to have any kind of philosophical contact with Hitlers. One can see other reasons to join the party...

↪Ansiktsburk I didn’t mean to be rude. Am not sure how to answer your question without summarizing the whole of Heidegger’s philosophy.

(Although
Sorry, I have a daytime job and a family
— Ansiktsburk
did strike me as a little abrupt.) — Joshs

Well, my comment wasn’t exactly top class...but when people tell me to read original works, well my time is limited. I read a blog post by a academical philosopher, who said that one pros with his profession is to have the possibility to read on office time. I do not have such time. My time to read is very limited. So when I saw your suggestion on reading Levinas and Derrida, I suppose thats what guys in the academy say to each other...

“ Far from establishing a rational consensus about what is morally right, and about what the ground and meaning of this rightness is, moral philosophers have produced a perplexing array of possible moral systems—consequentialist, deontological, con- tractualist, virtue ethical, you name it—but no agreed method to decide which of these system is the sound one. Indeed, it is even controversial what ‘soundness’ here is tantamount to, whether moral judgments can be true in the same sense as factual judgments, and true independently of our affective or conative attitudes, or whether moral judgments are merely non-cognitive expressions of such attitudes.

If it had not been for the fact that moral philosophy is often too esoteric to be grasped by the public, the substantial disagreement that is raging among its practitioners might have had a deleterious effect on public morality. Philosophical disputes about the foundation and content of morality might have eroded the authority that common-sense morality has acquired over centuries as a result of the exposure effect, and weakened the motivation to abide by it.

It seems unlikely that this substantial disagreement will subside, for even though our moral responses must converge to some extent if we are to be able to live together in functioning societies—which is a pre-requisite of our evolutionary success—they are surely not so finely attuned that we should expect them to converge with respect to the manifold of fanciful scenarios that our philosophically trained cognitive powers could construct. — Brett

Cannot see the quote mark, so I don’t know if its all Persson or partly you.
But anyhow, reading this nice text reminds me of reading the dialogues of Plato. Seldom do they end up in consensus. A something is discussed, and a heap of arguments for and against are presented. And you end up in a kind of tradeoff situation. Isn’t it like that with all the isms, and with the life in society in general? All countries are ruled by a local mix of socialism, liberalism, conservatism and some other. And people born in rural parts will think one thing, hipsters in the city another. And isn’t that what philosophy kind of is? Getting a lot of info in an area and wisely finding the best possible tradeoff? If there is a simple answer to something, like a formula for something in physics, it’s not philosophically interesting, really?

And converging into something common, Its not really what we have seen in Washington, is it?

Do you have any cats? — Joshs

Why rude?

You may want to read Levinas’ Totality and Infinity. The whole book is essentially an attempt to show how Heidegger’s way of understanding Being lent itself to his political entanglements. Or Derrida’s “Heidegger and the Question” — Joshs

Sorry, I have a daytime job and a family. Can you give me a resume?

59% lefties... one would suppose that few were left or right, a person identifying oneself as a philosopher ought to see the world as a more complex place than so. But OK, the progressive left agenda is maybe too much of a good answer to the question ”what do I want to do with my life”, the above-daytimejob-classes favourite mantra during adolescence. To be resisted.

Splitting their philosophy off from their actions gives readers an excuse to avoid having to interpret their actions in a more complex way than just :’ Heidegger wrote Being and Time but he was a Nazi.’ — Joshs

Thats an interesting one. Where do you find Hitler in Sein und Zeit? I’m not ironical, I am seriously interested.

Heidegger snuggled up to the Nazis, Sartre treated young women as objects, Schopenhauer had a problem with Jews and looked down on women, Aristotle thought women were “deformed men”, Hume and Kant were racists, Nietzsche despised sick people, Rousseau abandoned his children, Wittgenstein beat his students, Mill condoned colonialism, Hegel disparaged Africans and Frege was anti-Semitic. (https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/07/17/responding-to-morally-flawed-historical-philosophers-and-philosophies/). — Brett

And all the scientists in say medicine and physics are good guys? Einstein asked Roosevelt to make nuclear bombs. He was quite a bad husband too. Pretty sure Fleming and Semmelweis were azzholes in some way too.

A lot of uninteresting petty details to answer the innate question in the thread start :
Do people that make the effort to inhabitate a philosophy forum, maybe also philosophy institutions, tend to be left leaning?

If so, why? My best guess is that my fellow countryman Martin Hägglund in his book This Life(Vårt enda liv) might give a clue as to why.

What a stupid comment. — Xtrix

Why stupid? How can a persons Utopia be stupid?
That is also a very rude thing to post.

So I suppose you support a socialist economic model with a jobs guarantee? — Garth

Good question. What I am pretty sure about, leaning on Rawls, Nozick and Marx, that there are some kind of feeling for justice in our DNA. Probably has been a good model since huntergatherer days. A good work should be rewarded. After all, grades in school is a fairly accepted system. Feminists strive for "equal pay for equal work". So there is - after all - some kind of feeling that good work should be rewarded. You may call it Meritocracy. Growing up in striving lower middle class, I got that in my upbringing as in my genes. Having done the class journey to a semi-wealthy academical environment it is NOT so obvious. Simply said, the concept of Property, paramount to libertarians do not exactly promote meritocracy, since Property primarely is inherited. Having a semi-successful father (who made the 2nd stage of our family's class journey) I have had some short cuts from that.

But yeah, I am not all that fond of this "liberty" thing. Nozick made a big case for capitalism being "organic", but a society that is not all that all about choices could be just as flexible, I think. My dream is - everyone does what one is supposed to do rather than want to do. Guys in my newer, richer neighborhood is running around trying to get gut feelings for what they "really want to do". I had a bit of that too, and that really just confused me.

Let me give you an Utopia: Everyone is born with personality traits. Parents dont fiddle around with that just gives their kids a lot of love, w/o pushing anyone in any direction. You enter school as a tabula rasa. Teachers, rather than stuffing info into kids, monitors the kids and nudge them in directions where the kids perform well and get energy from that subject. You don't care about class, gender, skin color or whatever, you end up in classes where people share the brain. And you specializes in that.

Then, when ready you do not search for a job. Your search for a place to live. Then, the guys who during school have shown a talent to coordinate people will assign you a job that you do. That is in line with your personality and education. Some jobs, highly specialized, like medical doctors, those jobs will be for the guys that had the best personality to do that job, they will be doctors. Or other specialized professions that require one to build up competence for just that. But there is a heck of a lot of jobs that the right guy learns in no time.

And then, you get paid as you get rewarded in school or in a large organization. Someone rate what you have done and you get paid for the job done rather than the result.

I suppose this vision is far closer to Socialism than the Invisible Hand... so yeah, I suppose I do support some kind of socialism. But a daughter or son in an academic home envisioning their life´s meaning to be a SJW would not thrive in this environment. This is more a Chinese or Stalin like system.

BLM, BLM-supporters, Environment activists, Senate Invaders

Same shite kind of people. Persons that due to too much or too little money in their families focuses energy on other stuff than their daytime 9-5 work.
— Ansiktsburk
Why do you assume that they have a daytime 9-5 work?

Have you seen the stats for unemployment these days during the pandemic? — ssu

I assume that the toomuch people never envisioned a 9-5 job, rather making plans on "what they want to do with their lives". The toolittle people, well, question is if they feel they CAN get a 9-5 job. Tougher to be in that position, granted. But still...
Protests of this kind did not start with the virus. And guys doing this kind of hullabaloos dont seem to care about the virus being spread. Social distancing does not seem to be the name of the game in "protests"

You ain't much if you ain't Dutch (or Norwegian, Swedish, Finish, Danish or German). All these countries have far superior, functional democracies, welfare, happiness, legal systems etc. than the US could ever achieve. And they're still problematic in a lot of areas. — Benkei

Scandinavain and aint so sure about that.

What 'ya doin' hangin' around PF, get to work! — Tobias

And you?

BLM, BLM-supporters, Environment activists, Senate Invaders

Same shite kind of people. Persons that due to too much or too little money in their families growing up focuses energy on other stuff than their daytime 9-5 work.

Everyone thinks, and people of intellectual professions - such as engineers and managers - can think their way through certain kinds of problems better than most. Philosophers are specialists too. They are better than most at solving certain kinds of intellectual problems (most of which are, like chess, games of their own invention). They are not all head and shoulders above everyone else in any intellectual task that you throw at them. I wouldn't trust a random Plato scholar with making decisions about lockdown, I would want people with relevant skills and experience. — SophistiCat

As a matter of fact, I am an Engineer and do from time to time work as a manager. I am also a family father. I do take a lot of decisions that is NOT scientifically grounded.
Those are however small decisions. There are much larger decisions, Covid strategy, Global warming handling.
And OK, lets say that the random Plato scolar might not be the best to decide Covid strategy for a country - Isn't it still a question that should be handled as wisely as possible? These are questions where science give NO answer on how to act. One scientist say this, another that, and you have the complexity of people living their lives.
How to do this best, solve large questions where there are no nice little truths around virtually philosophical questions? Isnt the issue here - how to be wise?

So let me counter the random Plato Scolar with a philosophical department, where the members are the most prominent philosophers from the country, highest paid in the country, giving up all their personal political beliefs, just there to think as good as possible on the most difficult and urgent problems.
Can you give me an example of people better suited than philosophers? Is it better now, in states with democracy, going this or that way, Having an Obama, then a Trump, and the US situation is way better than in my Scandinavian home country.

One might say that "our culture" does do pretty well. Consumer products are all over the place, Megacities all over the world look like little (or rather, large) Manhattans, more an more people speak english and you can get chummy with almost anyone. Sure, what guys saw for 2020 when reading "End of History" when it was published wasn't probably the situation we have now. Thing is, the spreading of the culture has kind of eaten its children. Most prominently jobs going away from the western countries, but also one might say that the global warming is a product of our culture spreading. At the same time, the global warming and the virus as well as jobs going away seems to have given a rise to some kind of increased sense of responsiblility among citizens. Being a super leftist by US standards, I still like the concept of MAGA, and countries coming together to fight the Virus. Globalization might have it's merits, but a national state is a construct that definitely does have theirs too. Trump (I think, as the leftist I am) might not have been in my opinion much of a president, but he did touch on things that I think are hoasome for a western national state to thrive, and consequently for the western civilization.

Not being a philosopher but an engineer of education, and a manager by employment as well as a family father, I am in the position of making decisions without having all the facts at office and at home. These choices are often not easy. But they often have a significant impact on people around me. The choices are often important. Kierkegaard like.

And for a country to shut down all schools, all restaurants.... This is a heavy decision, that mean life or death for a substantial part of the communities where the choices have to be made.

Now, why should not the people best suited to THINK make significant contributions to that? And who is more suited to think, than philosophers? Philosophers actually created science. Philosophy - is that not what comes closest to investigate a difficult task and try to come up with the best possible answer? Reasoning?

In the TS Humanism is given an explanation. Thats pretty bold IMHO. What humanism is, is up for the grabs even more than misantropy. Some fluffy benelovent feelings toward people in general. The wealthy left do have kind of kidnapped the term for the moment, but "work together" does not seem to cover that contemporary version. Or any version I have heard about.

But common for the two, Humanism and Misantropy seems both to want to construe a simplified, holistic view of the world, to escape from the messiness world have.

I can say that Sweden, my home country had a development like that from say 1920 up til 2010 after which globalization issues with a very large immigration and unstable job market has caused a very unstable poltical landscape and a lot of frictions.
— Ansiktsburk
So... nothing dramatic happened until 2010???

Even if off the topic, I'd argue that a lot has happened in Sweden before that. Perhaps starting from the huge influx of Finns, half a million, coming over in the late 60's and early 70's to your country. Half a million is still a large number. We tend to overemphasize the changes of the present. — ssu

I'm not saying that nothing happened. Of course it did. But in a slow, structure'sconservative kind of manner. A slow, steady move left until the 60s. Then towards the end the madness that has struck the western world - rich young people going left - destabilized things. That was probably the biggest stir politically, but the effects wasnt all that dramatic. The immigration from finland was people seeking jobs, people with basically the same culture as the swedes. Gradually, people from southern europe came as work immigrants, The left/right positions wasnt all to affected by that.

Then, of course, effects of globalization and automation struck hard against the working classes, jobs going to low salary countries, and immigration took off dramatically, notably since 2015, people with a totally different culture than the northern europe individual and work ethic moral.

The politics, therefore, consists of a big ultranational party with nazi roots having 20-25% of the votes, and the right and left trying to manoever within that landscape. The last elections have been a total catastrophy.

A lot of the problems are, of course, due to the globalized world, not much to do about that, but also on the policies of the rich, theoretial left wing of the socialistic and environmental parties. There is a lot of flower power dreams that makes the very successful slow developments in our country fail. Not much have been done right the last 10 years.

By definition, they're in favor of the status quo and those whom it benefits; changes away from the status quo to benefit others is definitionally progressive.

The same is true of e.g. states' rights, where when that's a state's right to keep things the same and entrench existing power structures, conservatives are in favor of that, but as soon as it's states' rights to do new things that disrupt those power structures, conservatives are all in favor of federal intervention to stop it. — Pfhorrest

Thats depends on how you define ”conservative”. In a version of conservatism I highly adept to, probably called Structure Conservatism in English, the status As Is is appreciated. Changes are appreciated but introduced slowly and carefully. This naturally requires that the current state is generally accepted. I can say that Sweden, my home country had a development like that from say 1920 up til 2010 after which globalization issues with a very large immigration and unstable job market has caused a very unstable poltical landscape and a lot of frictions.

In a more traditional conception of Conservatism, that, say, USA 1958 is what was end of history, conservatives would not mind revolutions to quickly reinstall that preferred state

its so weird to hear the woman, it could be me speaking upto a point slightly more than halfway through the video where she suddenly starts talking about “pro-life”, conservative genders views and stuff, in a kind of hesitantly religious way. Did not sound good. First part with schooling I was with her but towards the end she lost me completely.

Voting for Biden or Trump seems like chosing between the plague and the cholera, to use a Scandinavian saying.

Seeing this slightly viral video
https://youtu.be/flp7gKg5G4E

Do you have to be conservative to be a republican? A Scandinavian asks.