Again, you're playing semantic games. That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this. In fact when journalists want to use the sense you cited they generally have to call it out explicitly (c.f. "small-c conservative", by reference to the Conservative parties in commonwealth nations).
> I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian"
And for the same reasons, it doesn't help your case to invent new jargon here either. The word you're looking for, describing people generally predisposed to agreement with existing social and government structures, is "centrist". It's what I use, it's what everyone in journalism uses. It's probabaly what you use too when you're talking to people in the real world and not trying to score points with hyperbole on HN by likening centrists to Nazis and Communists.
First, I'm not "trying to score points with hyperbole on HN by likening centrists to Nazis and Communists", nor "playing semantic games". The meanings of terms we use are important, as they carry latent bias.
> That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this
I honestly don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean in the modern political discourse, besides simply referring to people who support the red team. Therefore, I think it's instructive to fall back to its general abstract meaning. For example, current Trump supporters are in no way actually conservative. Hence seeing ideological conservatives distancing themselves from that populist-reactionary ship of destruction.
> ["centrist" is] probably what you use too when you're talking to people in the real world
I've never heard the word "centrist" in the real world. As I said, it seems like a mainstream media term shifting the Overton window towards authoritarianism (away from libertarianism), following the idea that increased centralized control can be used to solve societal problems. I apologize for using this word that you are reacting strongly to, but I've yet to hear a different straightforward technical term that refers to ever-growing government involvement.
Misusing terms like that makes it harder to have a meaningful conversation about political beliefs. Someone might say "I'm not conservative, I'm liberal". But that is nonsensical. Liberal and conservative are on different spectrums. It would be like saying "I don't like white things, I like sweet things". The color/light spectrum is different from the taste spectrum, and vanilla ice cream is both white and sweet. Someone can be liberal and conservative.
The three political spectrums are:
- Progressive <-> Conservative
- Liberal <-> Fascist (Authoritarian)
- Left-wing <-> Right-wing
Progressive is someone who pushes are for change, major change, and rapid change. Conservative is someone who likes things how they are, wants to make changes slowly and carefully. People can be progressive on some topics (like pushing for civil rights), and conservative on others (like being careful about changing fiscal policy). But lots of people will default to one or the other.
Liberal is to allow, a true liberal would allow things they disagree with. A fascist (authoritarian) forces everyone to be like them, and passes laws to force everyone to do as they believe.
Left-wing and right-wing is less a spectrum and more clustering of ideologies.
Left-wing ideologies generally favor the community as a whole over the individual, and support those with less power or who are less well off. That results in things like pro environment, minority rights, and social welfare. Internationally left-wing could include going to war overseas to protect people from oppression and powerful aggressors.
Right-wing ideologies tend to favor the individual and those in power, more everyone for themselves. This could mean freedom to make individual choices that hurt the environment, pro big business, lack of social services. In the extreme it can be racism against minorities. Internationally it could result in isolationist policies.
I think if people actually understand the terms, and they are well defined, people can thinks about how they as an individual feel. And maybe that can help us break away from the two-party fighting we have now.
I think if people actually analyze there beliefs, they may come to better understand themselves, and people can better understand each other. For example I think some people that call themselves "Progressive Liberals" will find out they they are "Progressive Left-wing Fascist", and some people who call themselves "Conservative" will find that they are "Conservative Left-wing Liberals".
> I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian"
And for the same reasons, it doesn't help your case to invent new jargon here either. The word you're looking for, describing people generally predisposed to agreement with existing social and government structures, is "centrist". It's what I use, it's what everyone in journalism uses. It's probabaly what you use too when you're talking to people in the real world and not trying to score points with hyperbole on HN by likening centrists to Nazis and Communists.
Basically: you know what I meant.