[flagged]
I labelled the above idea space “liberalism” but I’m not convinced it’s the right term. I am just lacking a better one. In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.
There is also another idea space, generally associated with christian identity, belief in God, the existence of two biological sexes with clear roles to fulfil, european heritage, abortion is murder, sex strictly within marriage, no homosexuality, gun rights, etc
This would be called conservatism. But, as in the “liberalism” mentioned above, it’s not really the best term. If we just take it as an idea space and assume liberalism to be the status quo, this would definitely be a counter culture.
It dislikes the current status quo, wishes to undermine it and shift it in a different direction.
And, in this sense, I agree with the person you responded too. “Conservative” is the new counter culture.
Honestly saying that being conservative is a counter-culture just shows how alienated conservatives are.
It is true, but there is not only one or two directions, and it must be necessary to consider that there is no only one or two directions.
People can believe in God or not as they wish, and might or might not be Christian (and there is many different Christians anyways, as well as many different non-Christians, and you need not only necessarily one religion, also). Either way can result people do good things and bad things.
Furthermore, "God exist" is not even very clearly defined. They shouldn't shame people for believe in God, although to say that it is right or wrong to believe in God can be mistaken because many people fail to consider that it is not really well defined.
Although two biological sexes do have clear roles to fulfil (specifically, mother vs father), that is a simplification and also is sometimes expanded too much (especially in the past, more often than today). That fails to consider intersex, and also people who do things differently from each other, you can do such things which are not part of biological sex.
Some people have some European heritage but not necessarily all. However, "European" is not very specific compared with e.g. "Italian", I think.
Homosexuality is not such a bad thing and even if you do not like it, it is not what should be illegal. (But, they should not force you to like it or to hate it.)
About gun rights, I think that you should need right to have weapons (especially unpowered and improvised weapons, rather than guns, but guns too) and other devices (including clothing, pencil/paper for writing, etc), and the right to not have weapons and other devices (including clothing) in case you do not want it, but that they should not just sell guns to everyone without proper safety training, etc. Proper safety training is important. However, if you make up your own weapons and other devices then you can do that; the government should not get in the way of everything. However, such a thing should not mean that you can just shoot everyone or bring guns everywhere; the law would still need to prevent against such a thing, which they already do anyways.
There are some Canadian laws relating to guns. Some of these things seems like good ideas but should not be mandatory, and are often more restrictive than they should be.
Furthermore, even if guns are legal should not mean that they should be encouraged. Use of weapons should normally be discouraged, not encouraged.
(I do not want any guns and I do not like guns, but that is just my opinion.)
Too often they say they either want gun rights or gun restrictions, either yes or no, and fail to consider a more nuanced possibility.
Cannabis, also, they fail to consider a more nuanced possibility. Now, smoking marijuana is legal, and I also do not think they should make the drugs illegal, but unfortunately they can still harm the air outside, and make smell even inside someone else's house right next to it too, so there still need to be the restriction of that. But, usually the people just consider yes or no instead of the more complicated possibility like I have described.
Abortion also is complicated, often both side they fail to consider the nuance. Ideally, I think it should be something to be avoided (it is better to start to not be pregnant, if possible), but conditions are not ideal and never are ideal. If it is your body then you will have the right to do with it (although you should still consider whether or not it is a good idea; just because something is or should be legal does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea), and can be self-defense from your own body (in case you would die otherwise), but the government should not make it difficult by getting in the way.
And then, there are some things that neither "liberal" nor "conservative" governments tend to consider, or that both do.
Also, what about the role that greed has played in the latest drug epidemic? The Sacklers were not driven by degeneracy but by the lust for money.
edit:
Oh and conservative culture in my land means mostly lots of alcohol. The first time I vomitted from alcohol was as a teenager on a catholic wine fest, by wine gifted to us from the church. There might be conservatives, that are free from drugs, but mostly they just like other drugs. Drugs are a big problem in todays society, but conservatives as a whole are not a prime example if living sober. Puritans might be, but they are a subclass of "conservatives".
As things are currently, society is well below the minimum and ideal birth replacement rates (scarily low in fact). So from that perspective, promotion of homosexuality runs directly counter to what is best for society as a whole versus what is currently seen as best for any one individual.
The global human population reached 8.0 billion in mid-November 2022 from an estimated 2.5 billion people in 1950,
Believe me or not, it makes no difference to me. I know I'm right.
Even the resident HN golden boy Elon Musk has been very outspoken recently about his significant concerns regarding the forthcoming population collapse. So it's happening whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
And about birth rates in general, that is a way longer debate. I would start with world population and limited ressources, but rather leave it at that.
Of course, this is "real" traditional values; not surface-value "traditional values" co-opted by people: who aren't in-tune with their emotions; people with a void a that needs filling; people who need to feel better about themselves; those who would use it as a banner to gain more power for themselves; and true believers without an ounce of introspection.
With the looming bans and restrictions on social media, and the current atomization of social interactions: it's possible we're beginning a period of great isolation, where man will finally have to deal with sitting in a room all by himself.
Maybe this will spur some self-reflection in a few, leading to a resurgence in deep traditional values and beliefs; rather than the shallow, surface-level stuff, such as the nuclear family or some made-up duty to one's abstract family or some frothingly and puritanically mad ideas about sex.
Not everyone I disagree with is a nazi, but everyone who wants all queer people to stop being publicly visible, everyone who would rather immigrants, muslims, and jews to stop coming to the country or become invisible in daily life, anyone who would think about the problems that disabled people have and come to the 'solution' that they should not reproduce? They're Nazis. To call them anything else would do the memories of those already lost a disservice.
And those who buck at being called Nazis should genuinely detach and reexamine their views to see whether they resemble those of the Nazi party. If they don't, if the people calling them Nazis are simply being reactionary, then fine. But to ignore it without giving the most basic consideration to one's own views is deeply foolhardy at best.
Consider for yourself what you term as 'degenerate', and whether those things have any material impact on your life. Consider what solutions that are non-authoritarian for that degeneracy may look like. Is it offering better mental health services? Is it providing community that doesn't shun, but helps rehabilitate maladaptive practices? Is it allowing general differences of opinion on what counts and doesn't count as degenerate behavior? Is it minding your own goddamn business?