What are your political views?

[Sibyl Vane]

In the political spectrum you're more inclined to the left, center, or right? What form of government do you think is/would be the best? What type of economical system do you think is/would be the most effective? Would you consider yourself to be a communist, feminist, anarchist, conservative, liberal or whatever it may be?

 

[narval]

ANCAP in my heart
Minarchist/libertarian in practice

 

[GentleJerk]

I roll around town with politicians in the trunk / boot of my car).

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Contrarian. Whichever group I'm predominantly around, I end up finding ways to oppose them and fixating on that.

 

[Symbiote]

What every Republican and Democrat hates the most....a Centrist.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

I'm pretty left, albeit not as hardcore as some. I'm pro choice, anti gun, anti religion, but financially conservative. I'm also getting a bit lost with the level of social justice we're at these days and although I catch myself rolling my eyes at some of this stuff I am by and large sympathetic since I know what some people go through. I guess overall I'd consider myself sort of old school European left, with a bit of dinosaur thrown in.

 

[user_name_here]

I'd say I'm pretty left. Not a communist per say but very left on nearly everything.

 

[mouthyindian]

Within 5 years, I went from dem -> conservative -> libertarian -> anarchist

It's been wild.

 

[whatevs]

I'm a reactionary (not a conservative since there's nothing to conserve) that despises religions and tradition but no more than modern culture.

I believe in eugenics as a viable pathway to rapid human progress (in a materialistic sense), but a sofocratic democracy where your voting power was defined by a rigorous examination would have the same effects over time.

A realistic and humane way to implement eugenics would be to only let people physically and mentally sound to procreate, decreasing suffering, bad parenting and the genes of suffering. I'm a partial antinatalist, only a few people should be born, those with the optimal environment.

Basically a political worldview based on efficiency (drastic solutions, quick results) over emotions.

But then I also have an spiritual side that probably is exactly the opposite of the above, so some kind of mystical world government that preached pacifism, monism, meditation, accepting others as part of yourself, accepting that we are all One, exploring our psyche, that would work for me too. Both of these timelines would be much more interesting than this flaccid dystopia.

I couldn't care less about the economic part of how we organize our society, I've always cared more about ideals and culture than specifics. But it's true that is very interesting to discover how much you want the government to impose things to the population. This was revealed as very relevant during the plandemic. People have been softened up to accept incredible levels of coercion and interventionism. Some of my ideas are authoritarian but freedom has it's benefits too. On the Internet I'm more of a free speech guy so I might be less authoritarian on the whole. But during an actual pandemic I would accept draconian rule, so I also believe in coercion and a big state when needed.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Contrarian. Whichever group I'm predominantly around, I end up finding ways to oppose them and fixating on that.

That's an interesting way to look at it

I personally love to see debates between people who disagree with each other, its a great way to expose the flaws or falsehoods of a point of view or to cement and disseminate further a good one.

What every Republican and Democrat hates the most....a Centrist.

We're living in a very polarized world but even when you're a part of one side there's always something to be found to hate you on. I've seen countless time people being persecuted by their own political side just for disagreeing with one aspect of the discourse. Even members of minorities, that some claim to protect and defend, are treated like garbage if they don't follow the full "book of rules". It's like a "how dare you not to agree or share every single opinion I have, you must be a communist, a fascist or hate your own kind".

 

[user_name_here]

The thing with centrists is they think they're more well balanced just because they always sit on the fence.

But like there's somethings that you need to either support or your genuinely on the wrong side of history.

I'll use homophobia for example. How can anybody be vehemently centred on wether or not 2 people should be allowed to love each other? There is no "2 sides of the argument" on that.

Same goes for say, interracial marriage/relationships.

Centrists aren't smarter or more rational simply because they always sit out.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

I'm pretty left, albeit not as hardcore as some. I'm pro choice, anti gun, anti religion, but financially conservative. I'm also getting a bit lost with the level of social justice we're at these days and although I catch myself rolling my eyes at some of this stuff I am by and large sympathetic since I know what some people go through. I guess overall I'd consider myself sort of old school European left, with a bit of dinosaur thrown in.

That whole "social justice" thing is only seeming to be beneficial to the ones that are gaining financially or socially from the unfortunates or situations of others. I've seen more damage than actual help being done by those people.

The thing with centrists is they think they're more well balanced just because they always sit on the fence.

But like there's somethings that you need to either support or your genuinely on the wrong side of history.

I'll use homophobia for example. How can anybody be vehemently centred on wether or not 2 people should be allowed to love each other? There is no "2 sides of the argument" on that.

Same goes for say, interracial marriage/relationships.

Centrists aren't smarter or more rational simply because they always sit out.

I don't look at a centrist as someone who is on the fence on subjects. I believe they just take a less ideological and emotional take on things, make a thorough examination of both sides and extract the good aspects of both to give a more moderate opinion. Also, sometimes we don't have all the information about a topic so to be "on the fence" is the correct thing to do.

We also need to be careful with the "My side holds the truth, I'm on the right side of history while my opposition is a (insert a pejorative and most likely false adjective here) type of thing, let's all remind that Hitler and Mao Tse Tung probably thought the same about their own views. But I get what you mean.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Yeah I agree. Both-sides is lame. Long live the Neither-side Party.

 

[user_name_here]

I don't look at a centrist as someone who is on the fence on subjects. I believe they just take a less ideological and emotional take on things, make a thorough examination of both sides and extract the good aspects of both to give a more moderate opinion. Also, sometimes we don't have all the information about a topic so to be "on the fence" is the correct thing to do.

Yeah but the problem is more often than not, they'll bend over backwards to always remain in the centre of every topic. Not necessarily because they always have a neutral opinion, more likely because they don't want to pick sides because, well that is their ideology.

Also, they're much easier to sway to the right than the left. Like take the George Floyd BLM event during 2020. Most centered people were much easier to distance themselves on this topic because right wing media pumped out the "George Floyd was a criminal" narrative. But even that is irrelevant. Previous convictions didn't justify his death. But to a centrist they will cling onto anything to remain in their middle seat. It's kinda cowardly. Grow a spine.

We also need to be careful with the "My side holds the truth, I'm on the right side of history while my opposition is a (insert a pejorative and most likely false adjective here) type of thing, let's all remind that Hitler and Mao Tse Tung probably thought the same about their own views. But I get what you mean.

Sure. Of course. But there's still some things that are simply right and wrong.

* Racism.
* Homophobia.

Can you imagine how r-wored centrists sounded back in the 50's trying to "rationally" consider the arguments for and against racial segregation?? There's nothing to consider. If me and my blonde gf want to make mixed babies, we can/should. Only a racist/right winger would argue that on the basis of race. But somehow, you can still find a centrist who would also consider the argument against that.

 

[Fragile]

The thing with centrists is they think they're more well balanced just because they always sit on the fence.

But like there's somethings that you need to either support or your genuinely on the wrong side of history.

I'll use homophobia for example. How can anybody be vehemently centred on wether or not 2 people should be allowed to love each other? There is no "2 sides of the argument" on that.

Same goes for say, interracial marriage/relationships.

Centrists aren't smarter or more rational simply because they always sit out.

You are coming from the assumption that most centrists don't already support all of those positions. Or that there's only one side that is compatible with them. Which is quite the example of the black and white polarized thinking that is currently plaguing the political discourse in general.

Keep telling them that they are in the wrong side of history and you'll see how fast they choose the side that isn't calling them bigots or other derogatory words just by not siding with them.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Sure. Of course. But there's still some things that are simply right and wrong.

* Racism.
* Homophobia.

Can you imagine how r-wored centrists sounded back in the 50's trying to "rationally" consider the arguments for and against racial segregation?? There's nothing to consider. If me and my blonde gf want to make mixed babies, we can/should. Only a racist/right winger would argue that on the basis of race. But somehow, you can still find a centrist who would also consider the argument against that.

Well, I think those who dared to venture out of the popular social norm of their times and analyze what was always believed to be true vs their new achieves perceptions were extremely important for the development of the notions we have today about racism, interracial marriage, slavery, and a platitude of other topics. If it wasn't for an ample debate (from both sides) the sparkled interest in advance towards scientific investigation in the matter might not have been there and we, today, might not have being so quick to say "there's nothing to consider"since the extensive resources to debunk these ideas might not been available.

We tend to commit the mistake to look at the past with the eyes of today and forget that we are where we are thanks to what was done and discussed back then. Even if you don't like what this place is, you can also look back and don't repeat the same mistakes, we're always learning and evolving, no one was born perfect and with all the answers.

 

[Chinaski]

Keep telling them that they are in the wrong side of history and you'll see how fast they choose the side that isn't calling them bigots or other derogatory words just by not siding with them.

This is a bit weird, it suggests that the supposed centre ground of sensible grown-up moderate pragmatists always end up siding with the right, adopting right-wing positions beneath cosier language and superior table manners, embracing strict neoliberal economic policies, defending every aspect of the prevailing status quo and serially reneging on their promises to the electorate as a response to those who criticise them for doing precisely that.

 

[user_name_here]

You are coming from the assumption that most centrists don't already support all of those positions.

If they already support these two topics they're probably not centrists and more centre left.

Keep telling them that they are in the wrong side of history and you'll see how fast they choose the side that isn't calling them bigots or other derogatory words just by not siding with them.

If you're willing to support racism because some lefty said "you're on the wrong side of history".. you're probably already racist.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

This is a bit weird, it suggests that the supposed centre ground of sensible grown-up moderate pragmatists always end up siding with the right, adopting right-wing positions beneath cosier language and superior table manners, embracing strict neoliberal economic policies, defending every aspect of the prevailing status quo and serially reneging on their promises to the electorate as a response to those who criticise them for doing precisely that.

What if there's a topic where the right is correct? Side with it wouldn't be the reasonable thing to do instead of disagreeing just for the sake of it? I think the issue is that most people don't want solutions they just want to curse at each other and are so stuck in their ways that anything that even remotely confronts their views is taken as a very personal attack, a threat that needs to be eradicated by any means possible.

 

[user_name_here]

If it wasn't for an ample debate (from both sides) the sparkled interest in advance towards scientific investigation in the matter might not have been there and we, today, might not have being so quick to say "there's nothing to consider"since the extensive resources to debunk these ideas might not been available.

Omg stop!
Are you honestly suggesting slavery ended because slaves turned around and said
"hey plantation owner, can we do a zoom call about this cotton picking thing? Let's have a chat"
Of course not. Innocent black people were killed, tortured, mutilated, just for trying to escape or rebel. wars were fought! Civil discourse didn't end slavery. Loss of lives did. This is an example of that silly centrist enlightenment I'm referring too.

We tend to commit the mistake to look at the past with the eyes of today and forget that we are where we are thanks to what was done and discussed back then.

Civil rights era: dogs sicked on black people, water hoses, police beatings...
That's a weird method of discussion if you ask me.

Even if you don't like what this place is, you can also look back and don't repeat the same mistakes, we're always learning and evolving, no one was born perfect and with all the answers.

Which is why, sometimes, there really is a right and wrong side of history. Which is the point I made in my original comment.

 

[𝔧𝔞𝔫𝔢 ⛧]

I used to be far right until I learned about the reptilians, now I know better

 

[Chinaski]

What if there's a topic where the right is correct? Side with it wouldn't be the reasonable thing to do instead of disagreeing just for the sake of it? I think the issue is that most people don't want solutions they just want to curse at each other and are so stuck in their ways that anything that even remotely confronts their views is taken as a very personal attack, a threat that needs to be eradicated by any means possible.

This is something of a centrist trope tbh, the notion that ones politics should not be conducted on any kind of supposedly puerile and immature ideological underpinning but on chin-stroking pragmatism, by sensible nuance-spotters who weigh up all presented options on a case by case basis and makes a sound political judgement without any clouding of vision. This is sadly bollocks, a self-serving illusion conjured up by vapid centrists to present themselves as above the mob, the sensible Politics Understanderers of realistic pragmatism.

The reality is politics *is* often tribal and one must pick a side, between labour and capital. It is therefore unlikely that anyone who picks the side of labour will find themselves supporting the policies of capital, and vice versa. Centrists always make this same choice ultimately and they always pick the side of capital, as we've seen regarding the Corbyn/Sanders/Melenchon campaigns, they just put a hell of a lot of effort into pretending it's for sensible, mature, pragmatic and definitely non-ideological reasons, and it's for this reason someone who considers themselves a centrist will find agreeing with the right to be a regular and not uncomfortable occurrence. As centrists generally lack conviction and political ingegrity and view politics as a spectator sport of empty rhetoric it's often important to them to pretend they've done so for noble and pragmatic reasons, and that such a manoeuvre is illustrative of their higher strategic nous or bigger political brain rather than it is either rank cowardice or a broader ideological agreement.

 

[waitingforrest]

Within 5 years, I went from dem -> conservative -> libertarian -> anarchist
View attachment 93333
It's been wild.

Just sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch the chaos unfold

 

[Fragile]

If they already support these two topics they're probably not centrists and more centre left.

Sure, that's fair.

If you're willing to support racism because some lefty said "you're on the wrong side of history".. you're probably already racist.

You are talking about examples of hot button issues and political extremism, there are many other ideas that can be discussed without the extreme polarization that this topic brings. It's very unfair to immediately associate racism with right leaning ideologies. Also, being left leaning doesn't necessarily means not racist. I've received my fair share of slurs coming from "right side of history" leftists.

Besides, these are US-centric conversations. The racial topic is nowhere near as prevalent where I come from.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Omg stop!
Are you honestly suggesting slavery ended because slaves turned around and said
"hey plantation owner, can we do a zoom call about this cotton picking thing? Let's have a chat"
Of course not. Innocent black people were killed, tortured, mutilated, just for trying to escape or rebel. wars were fought! Civil discourse didn't end slavery. Loss of lives did. This is an example of that silly centrist enlightenment I'm referring too.

You're completely distorting what I said so I suggest you read again your response and my whole answer to it because I think you didn't understand it.

I was not talking specifically about slavery, it was just one of the examples given in a more ample situation so the specificities of it may have been left out.

Also, I believe it was made very clear in my arguments that when I mention "ample debate between opposite sides" I was referring to those in society who were prominent in the public discussions of their times and, as consequence, somewhat responsible for the change of perception in the general population (that carries out to this day) in a variety of subjects.

If you want to start a debate specifically about slavery we could do that but I warn you that are other countries outside the US (shocking information, I know) and we may have dealt with the subject in different manners.

 

[Chinaski]

You're completely distorting what I said so I suggest you read again your response and my whole answer to it because I think you didn't understand it.

I was not talking specifically about slavery, it was just one of the examples given in a more ample situation so the specificities of it may have been left out.

Also, I believe it was made very clear in my arguments that when I mention "ample debate between opposite sides" I was referring to those in society who were prominent in the public discussions of their times and, as consequence, somewhat responsible for the change of perception in the general population (that carries out to this day) in a variety of subjects.

If you want to start a debate specifically about slavery we could do that but I warn you that are other countries outside the US (shocking information, I know) and we may have dealt with the subject in different manners.

Taking the individual example of slavery away, the fundamental point here is that the ruling classes rarely give us anything through sheer generosity, and that dissent rather than agreement with the established status quo has historically been the driver of progress.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Generally utilitarian, but I certainly support certain fundamental rights. Depending on where I am and who is doing the labeling, that can equate to socialist, progressive, liberal (in the American sense), moderate, liberal (in the European sense), or center-right.

I do favor policymaking based on empirics over faith. Politics, economics, and sociology are not magic, but can be studied scientifically. It's silly to blindly follow prophets of past ages on these topics. Leave blind faith to the spiritual/religious sphere.

Far more important, however, is the question of how policymakers are selected. Provided a system that accurately allows majorities to implement their preferred policies (given the protection of minority rights), outcomes tend to be good over time.

 

[ornitier199]

Neither, I am neither 1 2 or 3 of the "spectrum". I am simply me.

 

[Pluto]

This picture of me sums up my political perspective.

 

[DynamicDepression]

The right thinks I'm left-wing, the left thinks I'm right-wing, and the center thinks I'm one or the other depending on the topic at hand. Suffice to say, I'm not welcome in any political group.