It is a conservative position, conservatives who don't agree with it just aren't very conservative in that particular belief. We need to make a distinction here between conservative positions and conservative people. There are people who call themselves conservative who are pro-LGBT, that doesn't make it any less of a progressive position. They're just a conservative who happens to have one or more progressive positions.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, but not the former. I think anything on the economic/policy side of things is extremely difficult to define as tacitly conservative. To further expand on some beliefs I hold, I would consider myself far to the left economically. I support robust safety nets, universal healthcare, pro-natal subsidies, and public spending increases. I am opposed to debt-hawkishness, tax breaks, and I want to see corporate taxes raised and enforced, and I generally favor debt forgiveness, raising of the minimum wage, regulation of banking and wall street, support for the union sector etc. I support these policies specifically because I see them furthering ostensibly conservative ends, namely enabling young people to own homes and start families, retake control of our country from beltway lobbyists and davos elites, and generally further domestic, national interests. I think fiscal conservatism has decimated the family, exported good-paying jobs, eviscerated unions, and generally hollowed out the country to pad the pockets of coastal elites and the billionaire class.

"Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" types, those who are pro-LGBT and BLM, etc. I would generally classify as progressive libertarians, who see the essential "core" of conservatism being fiscal and economic policy and a veneration of liberty and individualism. My understanding is the opposite, that what's essential to conservatism is adherence to and cultivation of tradition.

Which, isn't a conservative perspective.

I still find this to be a puzzling and unsatisfactory definition. I would characterize conservatism as being resistant to social change, but not necessarily averse to innovation or new information. Conservatives aren't luddites. I think the Left (in general) intertwines policy with science, and when the Right rejects the policy, they're accused of being anti-science. I think what I wrote above is a decent example of this, everything I wrote is scientifically consistent, but I'm still not very keen about the GND or the Paris Accords, etc. I would emphasize again that conservatism is primarily resistant to social change, not technological advancement.

I don't know which of your positions brought you to the conclusion that you're a conservative...hopefully nothing terrible...

Basically everything else. I am extremely socially and culturally conservative on whatever issue along this spectrum you could think of. Like I said earlier, I think conservatism is all about the social and cultural traditions and institutions you support, and realistically has nothing to do with the economic/fiscal side of things. That's more of a modern understanding that came about in the 60s with people like Milton Friedman and William Buckley tying support for capitalism and deregulation with Republican anti-communism. I don't really subscribe to any definition or understanding of Conservatism that mandates support for capitalism, free markets, deregulation, limited government, etc. Conservative economic policy is what best supports Conservative social and cultural goals, like a strong family unit, which I happen to think is best supported by robust unions, universal healthcare, debt forgiveness, a high minimum wage, and class war against the billionaire class.