Yeah, it’s the difference between relative and absolute conservatism. If after thousands of years of anti-conservative progress, you have a very liberal society, compared to dominance hierarchies in the wild, and some “conservatives” within that society oppose further adventures in liberal progress, saying their society should stick with their “status quo,” I think it’s about time we call out these “conservatives” on the arbitrariness and incoherence of their so-called school of thought.

We’d have here a conservative wanting to defend thousands of years of anti-conservative progress beyond many now-defunct status quos. This conservative would want to relativize conservatism and her cherry-picked status quo to the fruits of much anti-conservative progress.

I should add that you’re right, of course: not every social change is good. But we shouldn’t pretend there’s a conservative school of thought behind the foolishness of pursuing every option for change that’s available. For one thing, no society has the resources for changing itself in all possible ways.