many things aren't considered on their merits simply because the conservative face has done or said things they disagree with even though it is completely unrelated to lawmaking or anything congress would even consider.
any dissent is seen as support for the current administration.
any dissent is seen as TACIT consent for race-based discrimination, xenophobia, and gender based assault and inequality.
any dissent elevates you to being the spokesperson of everything they hate.
I understand why. Everyone's entire political party needs to operate as a unit to swing power in their favor.
but it is so one dimensional that many people reject it, since there always is a gradient for each separate issue.
conservative in this context doesn't mean anti-progressive, or risk averse, or traditional. it is just a political grouping, but in the bay area it means even slightly considering the merit behind a not-democrat party proposal.
I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. This is also how history books divide political forces when describing past societies.
but thats what we are talking about, thats what context means
its as fluid as any variable name you add to a program, in this case that variable's name is conservative.
if your observation became "hey that party self-identifies with the wrong word and maybe there is a historical reason for this" then yes, that is correct
They do certainly apply wholly to ideas, though.
But if you vote republican, I do very much agree with the first 2 points.
which is funny because now all sides, of two, think each other as fascists.
democrats think republicans are fascist because the lack of reprimanding against insensitive ideas, while the republicans continue to promote bigotry with no focus on civil rights
republicans think democrats are fascist because democrats want to reprimand any voters that don't vote democrat and didn't waste their vote on a non-republican party
all while nobody actually does what fascists actually did