I'm about fucking tired of this fucking tired-assed argument.

https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1418234543304282113

https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1418240421201842190

Anyone that still thinks they can lay absolute claim to how general (somewhat fluid) concepts are defined from one generation to the next is probably taking their understanding from an authoritative dogma that is only empowered by the willful submission of it by those that wish to be led towards what to think by those they consider their superiors. But that's not even the problem with everyone chiming in with their opinion on the matter, and possibly an ignorant (hopefully not willful) obfuscation of the issue at hand; getting our country back.

If conservatism (specifically your view of it) is the hill you're willing to figuratively die on in order to call out shenanigans when shenanigans ensue, then you, yourself, are a part of the ongoing series of shenanigans attempting to keep people divided along the lines of concepts that can, and will continue to evolve as subsequent generations and divergent cultures choose to allow them to be redifined. You'll constantly be moving along with the goal post that is the argument of which you fight to define how you see fit, while the ultimate goal, the Republic, is lost to the people that use their collective energies and focus to achieve their envisioned end state of the union thereof.

In other words, please stop having arguments over how to define concepts that are (in YOUR opinion) based on doctrine or dogma that you've trained yourself to accept because you imbue that ideology as authoritative (read: subjective) and grounded in what you think to be objective (ordained by God). Why don't you folks, instead, turn your eyes to the prize, the Union, and be more honest, publicly, about what these debates are really about. Admit to yourself and others, publicly, that it's a contest of perspective and opinion over concepts you all wish to frame in your view, rather than having any proof of absolute fact.

>>14175386

No, porn stars aren't "conservative". Someone that is a pornstar can have some conservative views, though.

No, trannies aren't "conservative". Someone that is a tranny can have some conservative views, though.

No, you cannot actually define "conservative" because it's based on your subjective view in how it should be defined - again, in your opinion. These concepts are subject to change from generation to generation based on how their perceptions of these and other concepts are subject to change as time goes on and knowledge is exchanged and enhanced. I'll say this as a plea as much as a warning:

Let's not exchange unhinged and culturally subversive liberalism for authoritative religious rule as we seek to reconcile the future of the Republic for all.

Don't get me wrong, I like Emerald, but she's sucking down the doctrine Kool-Aid a little bit too hard. So is everyone else that believes they can lay claim to whatever movement they think is "happening" that's relevant to their world view. I guarantee you that if Richard Grenell were to show up to these events, you fuckers would welcome him with open arms while sweeping your harsh criticisms of homosexual predilections under the rug.

>>14175408

But these conservatives that are standing up for their specific brand of conservatism do profit off the influence of the minds of others.

>>14175432

No, they profit from influencing people's perceptions over a concept (or concert of concepts) that seek to solidify as theirs being authoritative. Again, these arguments are side-shows to the real goal of getting our republic back. If they were simply honest about their positions as opinions on which they seek to define, and fully acknowledge fuckery (up front) that comes about over these controversies, instead of seeking to lay claim to being the authoritative source of what these terms are defined as, they'd get a great deal more support from those not directly affected by their endeavors. Instead, they let subversives toy with them on the public stage, and end up making themselves look like the TV pastors they should be seeking to distance themselves from in the process.

>>14175498

I pointed out that they would make exceptions to their list of attendees so long as it benefited them from a standpoint of furtherance of their political ambitions/agendas. The comparison I made was to their organization's likeness to that of tv preachers profiting off shaping the definition of terms they don't control. They have no more right to do that than anyone else out there that wants to define any other concept as they please. No moral comparison to Mr. Grenell was implied or intended, and if offense was taken it was not meant. The intent was to demonstrate how these organizations can and often will make the compromises they need or as they see fit when the timing is opportune.