As an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it’s frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.

I’ve had multiple arguments with liberals who say I’m not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.

So yeah, I’m not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me!

What you described is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.

There no polite way to put it, that’s dumb, stupid, and very wrong take. Conservatives want to regress. We aren’t in the Nixon times anymore where GOP will launch the EPA, nowadays conservatives are all about regression.

That’s because they are reactionaries not conservatives.

At best you are relying on comically outdated and outmoded definitions/ideas. What part of the current GOP do you see as wanting gradual progress? None. They want to regress.

Do I need to repeat it again? They are not conservatives, they are reactionaries. Two different things.

Conservative does not = GOP except as political shorthand. It’s like saying socialist = Democrat. Both parties are coalitions of many different views.

Do I and everyone else need to repeat it again? You are trying to rely on fucking hilariously outdated and outmoded ideas and definitions.

They don’t want progress. You are wrong.

Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.

That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeless, have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats in a few cases, but they still exist.