this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
541 points (98.7% liked)
YUROP
714 readers
645 users here now
Welcome to YUROP
The Ultimate Eurozone of Culture, Chaos, and Continental Excellence
A glorious gathering place to celebrate (and lovingly roast) the lands, peoples, quirks, and contradictions of Her Most Magnificent Europa. From the fjords to the Med, the steppes to the Atlantic spray, this is a shrine to everything that makes Europe gloriously weird, wonderfully diverse, and occasionally passive-aggressive in 24 languages.
Here we toast:
πͺπΊ The progressive Union of Peace (and paperwork)
π§ The freest of health care
π· The finest of foods
π³οΈβπ The liberalest of liberties
π The proud non-members and honorary cousins
πΆ And the eternal dance of unity, confusion, and cultural banter.
Post memes, news, satire, linguistic wars, train maps, cursed food photos, Eurovision fever, propaganda and whatever makes you scream βonly in YUROP.β
Leave your stereotypes at the border control and enjoy the ride.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One might argue it is about maintaining constants through change.
Most ideological conservatives that I know are well aware change is inevitable (and probably the most constant thing out there). What separates and divides them are what constants they seek to maintain, and some systems are categorically more damnable than others.
What happens when conservatives lose this constant, or are threatened to lose it, is when they become reactionaries or fascists respectively.
EDIT: I misread the comment above, which I completely agree with. I ended up writing a reply about the dangers of allowing the meaning of concepts to change along with dominant narratives. Not really relevant to the discussion, but keeping it below because why not.
I understand this argument from an American point of view - if I were conservative I certainly wouldn't brand myself as such if I were American.
I have two counterarguments. First, this is a form of surrender, where we accept that the word has lost its meaning and we no longer have the vocabulary to talk about conservativism in its original sense. Language is essential for thinking, and by destroying the language and the words we use to understand concepts the ruling classes can keep us from understanding them at all. Everything becomes meaningless. Fascists, conservatives, nazis, libertarians, libarals, centrists all become the same as concepts are blurred and lose their meaning to the point where we cannot think of anything any more. This type of rhetorical class warfare is common in the US - there has been active efforts to destroy any word associated with socialism for a hundred years now. I think we should insist on the meaning of words and their distinctions because we should insist on thinking. The two are, fundamentally, the same thing.
My second counterargument is that this guy on the train was German. Europe is not America, we don't want to import your stupid politics. We are better off on our own. Call this a conservative argument if you will.
Please understand my point was a deference towards a more precise and accurate definition of conservatism and an appeal to understanding the difference of when conservatism becomes reactionary or fascist.
It was kind of a corroboration of your point.
...which now I am unsure of since you are so readily disagreeable with it on grounds of American.
Ah, yeah, sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. Misread it as being a point about constants through change in terms of understanding ideology, and that conservatives are becoming something new that they were not before. My bad! It has been a long day.
Totally agree with your point.