Isn't conservatism basically forcing people to not progress? Some might see that as a nearly violent act against their freedom. But really, what else is there to conservatism than "do not change"?
Does the above re-wording make the problem with your characterization more obvious? I hope that it is obvious that both "progressive" and "conservative" philosophies are qualified by necessary and persuasive reasons to do one thing or the other. You should not change the status quo unless there is a good reason to do so, changing things carries the risk of making the current situation worse. Obviously the reverse is also true, you should always critically assess the current status quo because it may not be working as intended or has outsized negative impact on certain groups/institutions and we should change it.
I think your sentence is needlessly inflammatory, you're essentially straw manning the idea of conservative when we should always do our best to assume good faith in hackernews commenters until proven otherwise.
What you list as positive traits seem to be just rational politics. That's how it's known in my country, not as something conservative or else. So is that conservatism, being rational and pragmatic instead of... Irrational as progressives? Or is the key message of conservatism something else? The word conservative suggest a stop of change. I thought the message of conservatism would be more related to that.
It depends on the conservative. It's a broad camp. Some people who call themselves 'conservative' are really just super reactionary people who hate any kind of change while others are reasonable people who want to be careful. US politics is highly partisan right now so there is a lot of conflict that has more to do with team or tribal affiliation (republican or democrat) than with actual ideological or philosophical differences.
Traditionally, though, conservatism as a school of thought originates with the writings of Edmund Burke on the French Revolution, where he pointed out, not that social and political change were bad in themselves, but that the Revolution in his opinion, was going too far too fast, breaking with too many traditions, and was thereby sowing the seeds of its own destruction. He argued that because the French Revolutionaries were attempting to replace widely held (in France at the time) principles of political legitimacy with novel principles of the political legitimacy, that politics in France would break down into practical power politics and would result in a military dictatorship. His prediction turned out correct, though people still debate his reasoning.
So, in this sense, conservatism is the idea that traditional political institutions have value because they are traditional political institutions. Change is not inherently bad, but must be undertaken carefully because if you overtly discredit the current institutions you court instability and the new system might not be better.
To some degree I suppose. Given the natural tendency in politics to produce two opposing groups the monikers always become overloaded. In eras where 'conservatives' represented the mercantile class, change went hand-in-hand with building the huge trading companies, the industrial revolution, modernization and 'rightsizing' of farming practices, etc. so it depends.
If, 20 years ago or before, you had told me that the West was practically going to civil war over the question of the value vs harm of mass third world immigration, I'd have laughed at you. The rest of the disagreements are window dressing at this point I think.
No doubt it's all very confusing to the Chinese.
What?