Universities should be free speech zones!!!11!1one

[Jimmy Higgins]

And when you grow up with institutional racism all around you hating the people in power supporting the system is natural and good.

So you're saying that it is natural and good for women to hate men, and express a desire to shoot them in the head? Or does this special pleading only apply to race with respect to power, but doesn't apply to sex with respect to power?

untermensche is anti-establishment. So they'll applaud anything that is anti-establishment.

 

[laughing dog]

See? If they aren't allowed to incite a race riot on campus, how come they aren't allowed to fire people for literal thought crimes?

Huh? This college fired a student radio station manager for a non-racist, factual tweet.
On the other hand, rank racism by non-whites does not lead to firings.

The Yale speaker was not an employee, so there was no one to fire. The station manager was fired by students, not ASU.

The student sued ASU for $500,000 (those shyster lawyers) but settled for $7,040 (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2021/02/25/raelee-klein-and-arizona-state-university-settle-lawsuit-over-removal/6823292002/). ASU maintains the student was fired for her conduct after the tweets, not the content of tweets.

How is that just?

ASU is not Yale - they are two different universities, thousands of miles apart, do your question has no actual meaning.

 

[Bomb#20]

It may be true that a student expressing hatred for racial/sexual/gendered groups will be broadly *unpopular* on campus, but "free speech" can come with unpopularity. When it comes to outright censorhip, it's usually the right that wants governmnents to lay into various subject - see the howling over "CRT" as another example.

Are you seriously proposing that "howling" is a form of censorship rather than a form of unpopularity? What, when your outgroup says something that makes your ingroup despise them, no problem, they're just making themselves unpopular; but when your ingroup says something that makes your outgroup despise them, oh, mother-of-god, your outgroup are howling over it, that's outright censorship? Get over it.

As far as wanting governments to lay into various subjects goes, by all means, show us the right's bill to jail people for promoting CRT. Are you one of those folks who's under the impression that having a free-speech right to speak your mind means you have a free-speech right to make the public pay you to speak your mind? A government choosing not to let its employees promote CRT in the classroom is outright censorship in precisely the same sense that it's outright censorship for a government to choose not to let its employees tell gay kids in the classroom that they're going to Hell.

 

[Emily Lake]

And when you grow up with institutional racism all around you hating the people in power supporting the system is natural and good.

So you're saying that it is natural and good for women to hate men, and express a desire to shoot them in the head? Or does this special pleading only apply to race with respect to power, but doesn't apply to sex with respect to power?

untermensche is anti-establishment. So they'll applaud anything that is anti-establishment.

I've begun to suspect that being anti-establishment necessitates also being inconsistent and all around confusing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

untermensche is anti-establishment. So they'll applaud anything that is anti-establishment.

I've begun to suspect that being anti-establishment necessitates also being inconsistent and all around confusing.

*naw... too easy*

 

[Politesse]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

I think your premise is flawed. I don't think you can lay this at the feet of "conservatives". I also think it's lazy, disingenuous, and fallacious to just pin everything on conservatives then go attack that strawman.

For item 1: I'm not a conservative, and I don't think Metaphor is either. I'm not even all that sure that Derec of Tswizzle or Trausti would qualify as "conservatives" outside of this specific forum. "Not as far left as you" is not the same as "conservative".

With that said, I have no objection to Yale having Khilanani lecture there. I defend her right to say whatever she wants to. But I DO have a problem with the content of her speech, and I do think that she should not be placed above criticism for her expressed views. I also think that her expressed racist views call into question her ability to treat her patients fairly and objectively. And I think that's all worth discussing.

For Item 2: That's a dramatic mischaracterization of the topic. I mean, just not at all what's going on. The situation was prompted by an open letter from trans rights activists, insisting that a discussion of the effect of gender self-identification in law and the impact on sex-based rights was *inherently* dangerous. Not anything actually planning to be said, but the entire topic from the ground up. The current position of the university creates a situation where women are NOT ALLOWED to talk about their sex-based rights, and where failure to use a person's preferred pronouns - even if they are not a student - can result in job loss.

In both of those cases, this isn't a "conservatives" versus "liberal" argument. And framing it as such is dishonest.

What is conservativism?

 

[Emily Lake]

What is conservativism?

It's the same thing as liberalism - a foil for a partisan argument.

Seriously, it has begun to lose meaning altogether. So have a lot of words. When I was younger, "conservative" generally meant that one held to traditional values, most of which were fairly protestant in nature - marriage between a man and a woman, patriotism, individualism, propriety in public, etc. Politically, it often included a focus on the individual being held as more sacrosanct than the collective, small government, and fairly strict interpretations of the constitution. That's not really what it means any more. It seems like more often, it simply means "not on board with this particular progressive idea" regardless of whether that idea is actually progressive or even liberal.

Post modernism is pretty much going to be the downfall of humanity

 

[Politesse]

What is conservativism?

It's the same thing as liberalism - a foil for a partisan argument.

Seriously, it has begun to lose meaning altogether. So have a lot of words. When I was younger, "conservative" generally meant that one held to traditional values, most of which were fairly protestant in nature - marriage between a man and a woman, patriotism, individualism, propriety in public, etc. Politically, it often included a focus on the individual being held as more sacrosanct than the collective, small government, and fairly strict interpretations of the constitution. That's not really what it means any more. It seems like more often, it simply means "not on board with this particular progressive idea" regardless of whether that idea is actually progressive or even liberal.

Post modernism is pretty much going to be the downfall of humanity

So you do not think that, for instance, "Post modernism is pretty much going to be the downfall of humanity" is a pretty clear declaration of conservative values? If it isn't, I'm certain I do not understand what the term means.

 

[Emily Lake]

What is conservativism?

It's the same thing as liberalism - a foil for a partisan argument.

Seriously, it has begun to lose meaning altogether. So have a lot of words. When I was younger, "conservative" generally meant that one held to traditional values, most of which were fairly protestant in nature - marriage between a man and a woman, patriotism, individualism, propriety in public, etc. Politically, it often included a focus on the individual being held as more sacrosanct than the collective, small government, and fairly strict interpretations of the constitution. That's not really what it means any more. It seems like more often, it simply means "not on board with this particular progressive idea" regardless of whether that idea is actually progressive or even liberal.

Post modernism is pretty much going to be the downfall of humanity

So you do not think that, for instance, "Post modernism is pretty much going to be the downfall of humanity" is a pretty clear declaration of conservative values? If it isn't, I'm certain I do not understand what the term means.

No, I don't think it's a declaration of conservative values. I think it's a declaration of post modern philosophy pretty much being nonsense that is the bane of critical thinking and reason.

I don't think I've ever run across someone who has insinuated that pomo philosophy is a liberal value. That's just a strange line to draw, imo.

 

[Politesse]

So you do not think that, for instance, "Post modernism is pretty much going to be the downfall of humanity" is a pretty clear declaration of conservative values? If it isn't, I'm certain I do not understand what the term means.

No, I don't think it's a declaration of conservative values. I think it's a declaration of post modern philosophy pretty much being nonsense that is the bane of critical thinking and reason.

I don't think I've ever run across someone who has insinuated that pomo philosophy is a liberal value. That's just a strange line to draw, imo.

So, a conservative would not think that post-modernism is "pretty much ... nonsense that is the bane of critical thinking and reason"?

Post-modern philosophy is inherently non-partisan in nature (given that it makes an open mockery of such systems of institutionalized dissent, and very few people actively ascribe to it especially in the context of political life). But it is a traditional liberal value to embrace new or challenging ideas at least to a point, and a conservative one to fear novelty and critique of systems of social order.

I think it's kind of ironic that you are displaying post-modernist values - critique of traditionally accepted labels of social categorization, deep suspicion about how and why social categories are created and applied - while trying to portray post-modernism en entiere as folly.

 

[untermensche]

And when you grow up with institutional racism all around you hating the people in power supporting the system is natural and good.

So you're saying that it is natural and good for women to hate men, and express a desire to shoot them in the head? Or does this special pleading only apply to race with respect to power, but doesn't apply to sex with respect to power?

I am saying it is natural for oppressed people to fantasize about striking out at the oppressor.

 

[Metaphor]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

How do you explain your multiple dishonesties in a single post?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

How do you explain your multiple dishonesties in a single post?

Bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

How do you explain your multiple dishonesties in a single post?

Without an indication of what you feel are the "dishonesties", your questions appears to have been pulled right out of your ass.

 

[Metaphor]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

How do you explain your multiple dishonesties in a single post?

Without an indication of what you feel are the "dishonesties", your questions appears to have been pulled right out of your ass.

It may have that appearance to you, but seeing as you can't see the problems with your independent verification judge Don2's OP, I will enact the labour of detailing it for you and other parties in my next post.

 

[laughing dog]

Without an indication of what you feel are the "dishonesties", your questions appears to have been pulled right out of your ass.

It may have that appearance to you, but seeing as you can't see the problems with your independent verification judge Don2's OP, I will enact the labour of detailing it for you and other parties in my next post.

You have no clue what I do or do not see wrong with the OP. You made an unsubstantiated accusation about "dishonesties" which, in itself, is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Yale speaker was not an employee, so there was no one to fire. The station manager was fired by students, not ASU.

The student sued ASU for $500,000 (those shyster lawyers) but settled for $7,040 (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2021/02/25/raelee-klein-and-arizona-state-university-settle-lawsuit-over-removal/6823292002/). ASU maintains the student was fired for her conduct after the tweets, not the content of tweets.

How is that just?

ASU is not Yale - they are two different universities, thousands of miles apart, do your question has no actual meaning.

Her conduct afterwards? Yet they mention no such conduct. If there's anything to that it's that the students working there didn't like what she did--indirectly, fired for the tweet.

I can easily see why the low settlement--she doesn't really have much in the way of losses. She wouldn't be working there anymore anyway as she's graduated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

I think your premise is flawed.

My premise is not flawed.

I don't think you can lay this at the feet of "conservatives".

From context of the rest of your post, you mean to say _exclusively_ conservatives, but I am not laying at the feet exclusively of conservatives. It is clear that conservatives are majority for these efforts such as the anti-critical-race-theory legislation, criticism of cancel culture, anti-trans activity, making noise about college campuses and so-called brainwashing by academia, etc, etc.

I also think it's lazy, disingenuous, and fallacious to just pin everything on conservatives then go attack that strawman.

I accept sometimes I am lazy in wording something, but there is nothing disingenuous or fallacious at all, here except so far a mistake by you as I go through responding to your post.

For item 1: I'm not a conservative, and I don't think Metaphor is either. I'm not even all that sure that Derec of Tswizzle or Trausti would qualify as "conservatives" outside of this specific forum.

That's disingenuous. Both TSwizzle and Trausti are conservatives, but the thread isn't merely the end of everything to do with this topic as there are also many conservatives who have the same view to cancel the speaker.

"Not as far left as you" is not the same as "conservative".

That's not only a strawman but also a dishonest smear.

With that said, I have no objection to Yale having Khilanani lecture there. I defend her right to say whatever she wants to. But I DO have a problem with the content of her speech, and I do think that she should not be placed above criticism for her expressed views.

That's a strawman as I've said more than once that I don't agree with her 100%.

I also think that her expressed racist views call into question her ability to treat her patients fairly and objectively. And I think that's all worth discussing.

And? That's still firing someone for their beliefs. It's firing them because their beliefs appear to be relevant to their work which makes it a subset of the total people who have such beliefs. This makes it the same subset under discussion of Professors or whoever else may get fired for abuses and harms in the classroom, except in those cases there is some tangible actionable item having come into evidence. There is always a difference in degree as well as other issues, but overall this still makes the conservatives screaming about an absolute right to free speech hypocritical. Is it "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it," or isn't it? Dr. Zoidberg is consistent.

For Item 2: That's a dramatic mischaracterization of the topic. I mean, just not at all what's going on. The situation was prompted by an open letter from trans rights activists, insisting that a discussion of the effect of gender self-identification in law and the impact on sex-based rights was *inherently* dangerous. Not anything actually planning to be said, but the entire topic from the ground up. The current position of the university creates a situation where women are NOT ALLOWED to talk about their sex-based rights, and where failure to use a person's preferred pronouns - even if they are not a student - can result in job loss.

In both of those cases, this isn't a "conservatives" versus "liberal" argument.

So? It never is a purely conservative vs liberal argument, nor have I claimed it to be. That isn't how wedge issues work. Conservatives such as Trump try to make a big deal out of something and get support from both within and outside the conservative movement.

And framing it as such is dishonest.

Then you appear to have been dishonest.

Moreover, what seems to have happened is that you got defensive because you took positions with conservatives you imagined that I was labeling you a conservative and then engaged in emotional thinking and fallacies. I suggest instead, you take a step back and figure out what it is I am getting at by the op question, calm down, and also Politesse was on the right track in response to your post which is my hint to you.

 

[Metaphor]

Don2 (Don1 Revised)[/B]]Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities.

The left wants to cancel people everywhere, not just at universities.

Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.

1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives

I suspect she offended a lot of not-conservatives too, like myself.

by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.

Some conservatives may want her to lose her job, but you will have to be more specific. Khilanani is a self-employed clinical psychiatrist and has no employer to fire her. However, to practise medicine in NY state requires a license, so she could be 'cancelled' from practising medicine if NY state decides that she does not qualify to hold a license. It is up to NY to decide if Khilanani fulfills the requirements:

• be of good moral character;
• be at least 21 years of age; and
• meet education, examination and experience requirements.

I can't speak for "conservatives", but my part in that thread was to question Khilanani's fitness to minister to the mental health of white people. In fact, if it is true her practise is permanently closed, I would say the market has cancelled her. I'm not surprised--I would change physicians if I thought mine had fantasised about murdering white people and was enraged by them and had pet theories about the origins of my problems due to my race and had cut 99% of white people from her life. I have always supported consumers's rights to not spend money on things that do not suit them.

2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.

I am an 'extreme' free speech advocate, so if there were actually some discourse that proposed that 'trans people are evil', my default position would be to let it be (or counter it with other speech) and not to forbid its utterance. But your characterisation is false; nobody at the University of Melbourne proposed that trans people are evil. Trans ideologues, have, however, objected to expressing the idea that "trans women are men", and to exploring the demarcation between treating trans people as if they were the sex they identify with for all purposes, or if it is proper to restrict trans people from access to some places where people are already divided by sex (for example, sports, women's prisons, women's intimate spaces, all-women shortlists, etc).

Now, it seems to me that universities have generally given free reign for some ideas to be promulgated (for example, that whiteness is psychopathic), and those ideas, while I find them both distasteful and false, I would not want a speech code banning them. It follows that I would not want a speech code banning ideas that I believe to be true.

3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized.

If prominent left-wing media figures have a problem with the new laws in Texas and Oklahoma and other places, they are perfectly welcome to criticise them with facts. But to criticise them with falsehoods is quite a different matter.

These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

You would have to point out the specific laws and clauses you are talking about, rather than this vague claim of 'stifling discussion' for me to address this.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

There's no uniting principle, conservative or otherwise, that links the three threads in the false way you've characterised them, but there would not need to be in any case. People can have multiple values and sometimes those values conflict. But you haven't even shown that there is an actual conflict. Here's the summary, I can:

* think that a guest lecturer who delivers a product that a university is not satisfied with doesn't need to be invited back, believe that her views are not immune to criticism, and that given her particular duty of care to her patients, her publically revealed theories and attitudes may prompt fair speculation about her fitness to treat people she is enraged by

* think that a university should not have a free speech policy that carves out an exemption for a particular group, or have a free speech policy with a shutdown mechanism triggered by mere claims of offense and harm

* think that media figures (or anybody) should peddle false narratives (either misunderstandings or lies) about the alleged affect of laws they don't like.

And there is no conflict between any of these positions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The left wants to cancel people everywhere, not just at universities.

That's dishonest.

I suspect she offended a lot of not-conservatives too, like myself.

That's a fallacious strawman.

by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.[/COLOR]

Some conservatives may want her to lose her job, but you will have to be more specific. Khilanani is a self-employed clinical psychiatrist and has no employer to fire her. However, to practise medicine in NY state requires a license, so she could be 'cancelled' from practising medicine if NY state decides that she does not qualify to hold a license. It is up to NY to decide if Khilanani fulfills the requirements:

• be of good moral character;
• be at least 21 years of age; and
• meet education, examination and experience requirements.

I can't speak for "conservatives", but my part in that thread was to question Khilanani's fitness to minister to the mental health of white people. In fact, if it is true her practise is permanently closed, I would say the market has cancelled her. I'm not surprised--I would change physicians if I thought mine had fantasised about murdering white people and was enraged by them and had pet theories about the origins of my problems due to my race and had cut 99% of white people from her life. I have always supported consumers's rights to not spend money on things that do not suit them.

2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.

I am an 'extreme' free speech advocate, so if there were actually some discourse that proposed that 'trans people are evil', my default position would be to let it be (or counter it with other speech) and not to forbid its utterance. But your characterisation is false; nobody at the University of Melbourne proposed that trans people are evil. Trans ideologues, have, however, objected to expressing the idea that "trans women are men", and to exploring the demarcation between treating trans people as if they were the sex they identify with for all purposes, or if it is proper to restrict trans people from access to some places where people are already divided by sex (for example, sports, women's prisons, women's intimate spaces, all-women shortlists, etc).

Now, it seems to me that universities have generally given free reign for some ideas to be promulgated (for example, that whiteness is psychopathic), and those ideas, while I find them both distasteful and false, I would not want a speech code banning them. It follows that I would not want a speech code banning ideas that I believe to be true.

3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized.

If prominent left-wing media figures have a problem with the new laws in Texas and Oklahoma and other places, they are perfectly welcome to criticise them with facts. But to criticise them with falsehoods is quite a different matter.

These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

You would have to point out the specific laws and clauses you are talking about, rather than this vague claim of 'stifling discussion' for me to address this.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

There's no uniting principle, conservative or otherwise, that links the three threads in the false way you've characterised them, but there would not need to be in any case. People can have multiple values and sometimes those values conflict. But you haven't even shown that there is an actual conflict. Here's the summary, I can:

* think that a guest lecturer who delivers a product that a university is not satisfied with doesn't need to be invited back, believe that her views are not immune to criticism, and that given her particular duty of care to her patients, her publically revealed theories and attitudes may prompt fair speculation about her fitness to treat people she is enraged by

* think that a university should not have a free speech policy that carves out an exemption for a particular group, or have a free speech policy with a shutdown mechanism triggered by mere claims of offense and harm

* think that media figures (or anybody) should peddle false narratives (either misunderstandings or lies) about the alleged affect of laws they don't like.

And there is no conflict between any of these positions.

None of your bullet list about your alleged personal views needs to be read or understood since it is irrelevant to why conservatives take the positions they do. I am not even going to look at how contradictory they may be since they are irrelevant.