Explain yourself


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    There seems to be a bit of a tendency on this forum to assume everyone you disagree with in a :trolleybus: topic is right to the extreme of whatever wing you don't like (or at least to represent them that way to more easily shoot down their strawmen), but the reality is, as always, a bit more complicated than that.

    So, in a few sentences, explain your political leanings. Please try to keep it civil and not get into arguments about specific policies or politicians. I'm interested in what people identify as and why. I'll go first.

    I'd say I'm a left libertarian. I believe in helping out the less fortunate but not interfering in people's lives if they're not harming anybody else.


  • sockdevs

    I did an online test thingy that told me I'm a liberal lefty.

    I don't disagree with it.


  • sockdevs

    @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    So, in a few sentences, explain your political leanings.

    If the left is red and the right is blue (or are they the other way around? i've lost track.) i am a VERY pale purple.

    or in picture form:

    0_1486051641249_upload-36a8d3e5-ec18-4af3-8fce-2e017799ac2e

    but like the vertical axis is compressed by a factor of 10


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I'm not sure what the term is, but I'm in favor of decentralizing as much as possible, and letting each group of people have whatever socioeconomic system they want, as long as it's still possible for people to vote with their feet.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @accalia said in Explain yourself:

    If the left is red and the right is blue (or are they the other way around? i've lost track.)

    Depends where you live. In the UK, Labour (the more left wing of the two main parties) is red, and the Tories (further right) are blue.

    @accalia said in Explain yourself:

    0_1486051641249_upload-36a8d3e5-ec18-4af3-8fce-2e017799ac2e

    What's the vertical axis? Just trying to distance yourself from the left/right dichotomy?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    As I have said multiple times before, I identify as a social liberal. Which means, as a liberal (in its original sense), I think the governments main (maybe only) job is to ensure that citizens can exercise their constitutional civil rights; and that it must not interfere with people's private lives. However, as a social liberal, I also think that civil rights cannot be reasonably exercised without a strong social network and free education system that ensures equal chances for everyone; and that therefore a government has to make sure this is provided as well.



  • @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    Just trying to distance yourself from the left/right dichotomy?

    The left and right are clearly flinging poo at each other, and @accalia is trying to remain above the fray.



  • @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    I'd say I'm a left libertarian. I believe in helping out the less fortunate but not interfering in people's lives if they're not harming anybody else.

    Same here. We would be pretty solidly in the mainstream left-wing European parties (which the US doesn't have).

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 has pretty good descriptions of various people (historic and current politicians) on the economic and social axes.


  • sockdevs

    @RaceProUK said in Explain yourself:

    I did an online test thingy that told me I'm a liberal lefty.

    I don't disagree with it.

    I found the picture:
    0_1486052163243_upload-6aabcc6a-2947-4424-9aaa-896a1c06727d

    And here I am compared to the main UK political parties:
    0_1486052216414_upload-147614fa-cf41-4103-af29-28f3401d48bb


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @RaceProUK interesting how we have no right libertarian parties according to that. I get the impression that's where a lot of the louder right leaning voices in the garage would be


  • sockdevs

    @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    Depends where you live.

    04101, USA

    well.... close enough. that's actually where i work.

    @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    What's the vertical axis?

    fuck if i've figured that out. it's something orthogonal to the left/right dichotomy spectrum thingie that's the bottom axis.



  • @Jaloopa I wonder how much of a Europe/US difference there is? I get the very broad feeling that European parties are roughly aligned on Y=X line, whereas US would be slightly (very slightly...) more towards the Y=-X line.



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 has pretty good descriptions of various people (historic and current politicians) on the economic and social axes.

    :hanzo: https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/19136/political-litmus-test



  • @remi said in Explain yourself:

    I wonder how much of a Europe/US difference there is?

    A fair amount, I think. Leftist American politics are often more authoritarian.

    Now, for me personally:

    • On domestic issues I'm very libertarian, including social issues, including a lot of things that I am not in favor of.
    • Internationally I am much more interventionist about my country and much more comfortable with the exercise of (my country's) governmental power.
    • I am strongly in favor of free trade internationally.

  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    including a lot of things that I am not in favor of.

    you mean you are in favour of not legislating against things that you personally think are wrong?



  • @RaceProUK said in Explain yourself:

    I found the picture:

    I'm about 3 steps right and one step up from you.

    I believe more in conservative economics and principles. Opting to improve opportunities as much as possible, as well as the spread of information about them. (For example, I think free college is a bad idea, but only because the jobs don't exist. Free tech/trade school would be a much better investment right now). I feel that the government has purposefully set up a system that keeps people down, and it all needs to be reviewed.

    I feel the free market is an answer to most of the economic problems. However, I also feel that the market is not inherently free. I feel that leaving things up to the government produces a monopoly that has no interest to improve on its own. It will not strive to be more efficient but strive for more funding. IOW, it improves only by acquisition. To me, the government still seeks a profit, but instead of a net profit, seeks to profit through inefficiency.

    However, I believe in personal liberty. I don't care who you marry. I don't care what you do in your house as long as you're not violating your family members rights. I really don't care what you do if it doesn't impact others.

    I look at the parties. I feel Republicans care too much about the means, and not enough about the end. I feel Democrats care too much about the end, and not enough about the means. I feel that most people want to solve the same problems but disagree on the solution.

    I do not care about Trump, however, I feel that how people react to Trump is telling more about what's wrong than Trump himself. I feel that Trump was elected because people haven't been allowed to control the presentation of their own ideas. Call a spade a spade, but if the whole toolshed is spades, then you probably are wearing spade colored glasses, and the problem is you. I feel this is only going to get worse

    I look throughout American history and I see sameness. The issues that make the parties different are magnified, while the issues that make the parties the same are minimalized. This creates an illusion of choice and representation, where there is none. The things that have the biggest impact on the most lives is left untouched by the parties, and stagnates.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @NedFodder said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 has pretty good descriptions of various people (historic and current politicians) on the economic and social axes.

    :hanzo: https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/19136/political-litmus-test

    That produced a lot of pictures but not much discussion about specific things people are/aren't in favour of. Politics is more complicated than a two axis graph



  • @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    you mean you are in favour of not legislating against things that you personally think are wrong?

    Depends on the thing, but yes, there are many such things.



  • @remi said in Explain yourself:

    @Jaloopa I wonder how much of a Europe/US difference there is? I get the very broad feeling that European parties are roughly aligned on Y=X line, whereas US would be slightly (very slightly...) more towards the Y=-X line.

    For the two major parties in the US, they're both in the top-right quadrant, with the Republicans (the so-called "right-wing" party) farther to the right and a little farther up than the Democrats (the so-called "left-wing" party). Centrists have little representation in government (if I had to guess, maybe 1/3 of the Democrats in the legislature), top-left has nobody that I know of, bottom-left has only a few Democrats, like Sanders and Warren (the Green party polls at 2-3%), and bottom-right might have a few Republicans left (the Libertarian party polls at around 5%).



  • @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    including a lot of things that I am not in favor of.

    you mean you are in favour of not legislating against things that you personally think are wrong?

    Also true for me.

    If I do find something so personally wrong that I would legislate against it, it's usually violating rights by some measure.



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    For the two major parties in the US, they're both in the top-right quadrant, with the Republicans (the so-called "right-wing" party) farther to the right and a little farther up than the Democrats (the so-called "left-wing" party).

    I hear this over and over, but it would help to understand if "left" was defined clearly.



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    For the two major parties in the US, they're both in the top-right quadrant, with the Republicans (the so-called "right-wing" party) farther to the right and a little farther up than the Democrats (the so-called "left-wing" party).

    See, I definitely see them being the opposite on the up / down scale. I guess it depends on how you weight different issues. The right / left thing is generally too relative and fuzzy and location specific to mean much.



  • @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    @NedFodder said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 has pretty good descriptions of various people (historic and current politicians) on the economic and social axes.

    :hanzo: https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/19136/political-litmus-test

    That produced a lot of pictures but not much discussion about specific things people are/aren't in favour of. Politics is more complicated than a two axis graph

    This is true, but two axes is a major improvement over the one axis that US politics is usually reduced to.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @xaade said in Explain yourself:

    it would help to understand if "left" was defined clearly.

    It doesn't help that being socially left isn't necessarily aligned with being economically left



  • @xaade said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    For the two major parties in the US, they're both in the top-right quadrant, with the Republicans (the so-called "right-wing" party) farther to the right and a little farther up than the Democrats (the so-called "left-wing" party).

    I hear this over and over, but it would help to understand if "left" was defined clearly.

    It can't be "defined clearly" because it's a spectrum. There isn't a sharp division at the origin. -1 and +1 are closer together than +5 and +10.

    Generally, left vs. right on economic issues is a combination of how much the government should redistribute wealth (collecting taxes and providing programs to assist the poor) and how much the government should be involved with the economy (in terms of foreign trade, regulations, etc.). It's possible to be in favor of high taxes on the wealthy but opposed to heavy economic regulations, which I would assume would put you somewhere near the middle.


  • sockdevs

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    This is true, but two axes is a major improvement over the one axis that US politics is usually reduced to.

    FTFE

    At least, that's what I find.

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    This is true, but two axes is a major improvement over the one axis that US politics is usually reduced to.

    And that's why that online test I did measures on two axes.



  • @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    For the two major parties in the US, they're both in the top-right quadrant, with the Republicans (the so-called "right-wing" party) farther to the right and a little farther up than the Democrats (the so-called "left-wing" party).

    See, I definitely see them being the opposite on the up / down scale. I guess it depends on how you weight different issues.

    Have you not paid any attention to the Republicans trying to legislate morality for the past several decades? They certainly haven't been opposed to the government spying on everyone, either.



  • @remi said in Explain yourself:

    US would be slightly (very slightly...) more towards the Y=-X line.

    Since the US only has two parties that matter, I'm not sure one can even define such a trend, although to whatever extent it's valid, I agree with you. The Democratic party (liberal) is, I think, more authoritarian — heavily authoritarian toward businesses, and appears rather libertarian toward individuals, but really has an attitude of "You will tolerateapprove ofcelebrate our liberal ideas, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, Thought Crime!" Republicans are more traditional when it comes to acceptable and unacceptable personal behavior, which is seen as authoritarian, but tend to be libertarian toward business regulation.

    As for me, I don't have time to draw pretty pictures right now, but I think I'd be around, maybe (3, -2) on that graph, slightly right, slightly libertarian, but I know at least some other people would put me at (300, +something), extreme right, some degree of authoritarianism. How far to the right I am depends on what you define as the center (which is, from what I understand, rather different in the US vs. Europe), but I'm really not authoritarian. I have very strong opinions on stuff, but I'm not much interested in forcing my opinions on others; just don't force your opinions on me.



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    how much the government should redistribute wealth

    I'm split.

    Mostly because:

    1. It is really hard to determine how much poverty is the result of circumstance vs. choice. And even when it's circumstance, how much will remain a problem due to choice.
    2. The rich-poor gap is primarily due to over-reliance on employment. Wealth comes from risk. You can minimize risk by having more wealth. That's the true meaning of wealth attracts wealth. So why hasn't the government helped poverty by minimalizing risk for the poor. Obviously cash or even goods in lieu of cash does not solve the problem.

  • sockdevs

    I'm looking at the reading lists on the Political Compass website, and I found this:
    0_1486054365043_upload-6a1538a7-43b9-4e2e-b4ff-6aa17ee8075e


  • sockdevs

    There's also suggested choons:
    0_1486054522833_upload-11cd3035-512c-4e10-9973-eff2d2d9c394



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    Have you not paid any attention to the Republicans trying to legislate morality for the past several decades?

    I'm really trying to avoid :trolleybus: here, but I think you're either ignoring my comment about how you weight things or you've not paid any attention to the Democrats trying to legislate economics or speech for the past several decades.

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    They certainly haven't been opposed to the government spying on everyone, either.

    Among elected officials, pretty much no one has a good record on that.



  • @xaade said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    how much the government should redistribute wealth

    I'm split.

    Mostly because:

    1. It is really hard to determine how much poverty is the result of circumstance vs. choice. And even when it's circumstance, how much will remain a problem due to choice.
    2. The rich-poor gap is primarily due to over-reliance on employment. Wealth comes from risk. You can minimize risk by having more wealth. That's the true meaning of wealth attracts wealth. So why hasn't the government helped poverty by minimalizing risk for the poor. Obviously cash or even goods in lieu of cash does not solve the problem.

    Yup, it's definitely a difficult problem to solve. Economics is a complex system, and mostly unscientific, so it's hard to even know what the medium- and long-term outcome of different actions and policies would be, let alone decide which medium- and long-term outcomes are optimal.

    What upsets me the most are people who dismiss poverty as something that poor people deserve, often calling it "God's will". I appreciate the fact that you see it as a problem, even if we disagree on what should be done to fix it. The first (and most important) step is to recognize that it is a problem, because then people with differing views can come together and discuss possible solutions knowing that all sides want to fix the problem.



  • @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    you mean you are in favour of not legislating against things that you personally think are wrong?

    Generally I would tend to agree with this. There are some things, like drug use, that create obvious harm to the individual, people around the individual, and society at large, that I think justify legislating against.

    However, OTOH, I do not agree with legislating in favor of things that have been traditionally considered wrong. What you do is your business, but don't make society say you're a beautiful, special :snowflake: because you do something that used to be illegal.



  • @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    Have you not paid any attention to the Republicans trying to legislate morality for the past several decades?

    I'm really trying to avoid :trolleybus: here, but I think you're either ignoring my comment about how you weight things or you've not paid any attention to the Democrats trying to legislate economics or speech for the past several decades.

    Nope, which is why I agree that the Democratic Party (or at least the current legislators) is only slightly less authoritarian than the Republican Party (again, speaking about the current legislators). There are a few identity issues that the Democrats are better about in terms of civil liberties, but in terms of overall government power, they're pretty much the same.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @HardwareGeek said in Explain yourself:

    There are some things, like drug use, that create obvious harm to the individual, people around the individual, and society at large, that I think justify legislating against.

    Drug use is one thing I would argue causes more societal harm due to being illegal than intrinsically. If drugs were legal and regulated, you wouldn't have half the problems caused by the fact that to get them you have to a) deal with criminals and b) fund criminals.



  • @HardwareGeek said in Explain yourself:

    @remi said in Explain yourself:

    US would be slightly (very slightly...) more towards the Y=-X line.

    Since the US only has two parties that matter, I'm not sure one can even define such a trend, although to whatever extent it's valid, I agree with you. The Democratic party (liberal) is, I think, more authoritarian — heavily authoritarian toward businesses, and appears rather libertarian toward individuals, but really has an attitude of "You will tolerateapprove ofcelebrate our liberal ideas, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, Thought Crime!" Republicans are more traditional when it comes to acceptable and unacceptable personal behavior, which is seen as authoritarian, but tend to be libertarian toward business regulation.

    Which is more or less what I was trying to say, in not-so-many words, thanks for doing it for me :-)



  • @Dragnslcr
    Speaking as one of those hated right wing types (though I would classify myself as much more libertarian than either party in American politics)...

    • The most visible "regulating morality" item, abortion, is something that I would frame as "protecting civil rights" -- I'm in favor of protecting the right of the child to live, over the choice to kill the consequences of a woman's poor decision1
    • The other recent flavor of government intervention in morality, who has to provide services for "non-traditional weddings" - my view point would be that the balance between a service provider and a potential customer should be in favor of "the service provider has the right to refuse service to anyone." To me, it's the same philosophy as the fact that a privately owned clothing store could refuse to sell to anyone who came in wearing a fur coat, because the owners believed in PETA.

    So, if that means I'm pro-legislating-morality, then sign me up under that banner. To me, I view my position on abortion as the one most consistent with "protecting the civil rights of the less privileged / able", and my position on private businesses being able to exclude potential customers as the less authoritarian option.

    1Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape:

    In the United States, 1 percent of 1,900 women questioned in 1987 listed rape or incest as the reason for having an abortion; of these, 95 percent named other reasons as well.[67] A 1996 study of thousands of US women showed that, of pregnancies resulting from rape, 50% were aborted, 12% resulted in miscarriage, and 38% were brought to term and either given up for adoption or raised.[12]



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    Have you not paid any attention to the Republicans trying to legislate morality for the past several decades?

    I'm really trying to avoid :trolleybus: here, but I think you're either ignoring my comment about how you weight things or you've not paid any attention to the Democrats trying to legislate economics or speech for the past several decades.

    Nope, which is why I agree that the Democratic Party (or at least the current legislators) is only slightly less authoritarian than the Republican Party (again, speaking about the current legislators). There are a few identity issues that the Democrats are better about in terms of civil liberties, but in terms of overall government power, they're pretty much the same.

    We are just going to have to be happy with disagreeing with each other on the balance of this.



  • I am just redpilling myself these days.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Jaloopa said in Explain yourself:

    @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    including a lot of things that I am not in favor of.

    you mean you are in favour of not legislating against things that you personally think are wrong?

    That depends. @boomzilla is strongly in favor of legislation that keeps kids off his lawn.



  • @Polygeekery No, that's better handled at the personal level. Otherwise I might get cops or something on my lawn. Hands up, don't mow!



  • @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    @boomzilla said in Explain yourself:

    @Dragnslcr said in Explain yourself:

    Have you not paid any attention to the Republicans trying to legislate morality for the past several decades?

    I'm really trying to avoid :trolleybus: here, but I think you're either ignoring my comment about how you weight things or you've not paid any attention to the Democrats trying to legislate economics or speech for the past several decades.

    Nope, which is why I agree that the Democratic Party (or at least the current legislators) is only slightly less authoritarian than the Republican Party (again, speaking about the current legislators). There are a few identity issues that the Democrats are better about in terms of civil liberties, but in terms of overall government power, they're pretty much the same.

    This is why "less" and "more" are silly in this case.

    It's clear to me that they are authoritarian on different issues. Which makes it subjective, based on what you value, on which is more authoritarian.


  • :belt_onion:

    I'm a libertarian, because I want everyone to be able to do their thing.
    I'm an authoritarian, because I don't want to let anyone fuck other people's shit up.
    I'm a progressive, because I want to fix shit that's broken.
    I'm a conservative, because I don't want to fix shit that ain't broken.
    I'm an anarchist because I don't want some self-important prick ordering us around.
    I'm a statist because I know this bunch of apes won't accomplish anything without someone giving them direction.
    I'm a socialist because I want everyone to have their basic needs provided for them.
    I'm a capitalist because I want people to be able to be rewarded for their hard work.

    I'm a hypocrite who's about to tell you he hates labels after he just put a bunch of them on himself.
    I'm an asshole, just as all of you are. And I love you all regardless.

    Fuck off, and goodbye.



  • @Onyx said in Explain yourself:

    I'm a socialist because I want everyone to have their basic needs provided for them.

    This is where the movement of politics makes it harder to discuss issues.

    Socialism isn't about providing basic needs, but about providing free access to the means to provide for basic needs.

    I've read up on socialism, and I hardly ever find contemporary welfare in the ideology.

    I make a distinction between welfare and socialism.

    Classical socialism still had the "don't work don't eat mentality." Just that "I theorize that we really don't need to work so hard" was a thing that's been misinterpreted as "not everyone has to work".


  • mod

    I'm a liberal, and a feminist. I believe the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens. I believe the free market is a great ideal but in practice, never happens without regulation. I worry about power concentrating in the hands of a few individuals allowing them to effectively blockade everyone else from pursuing the same opportunities they had. I believe in gay rights, trans rights, racial justice, and fat acceptance. I also have like 0 interest in debating with any of ya'll, which is why I muted the garage. Even the people who agree with me in there end up twisted caricatures of strawmen.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    I would say that I am mostly libertarian. I do not think that you can or should legislate morality. I do not care what others do until it harms myself or others. Whenever I hear the phrase, "There ought to be a law" my screaming reply is "No, there fucking shouldn't be". To this end I do not think that drugs should be inherently illegal. At the very least, the more benign of them should be completely legal.

    I believe that government should get out of the way of people as much as they reasonably can. I believe that the USA would be a better place if more people understood that our government gets its power from the consent of the people to be governed. This is something that is tragically lacking in my opinion. Far too many people, of all generations, think that government is the source of all solutions and that government is all powerful. This is a failing of Civics education. I would also be in favor of adding "The consent of the people to be governed" somewhere in the Pledge of Allegiance if we could.

    Other issues:

    Pro-choice
    Pro-2A
    Anti-death penalty
    Fairly non-interventionist
    I believe that government should be as small as possible.
    Pro-gay marriage (those fuckers should be just as miserable as straight folks), but I am against the Supreme Court ruling that made it legal. It should have been handled better so that it would not be so easily overturned.

    Hmmmm, what else? Those are the biggies in current politics. Anyone is welcome to ask my stance on anything I may have missed.

    Oh, and as I have stated so many times on the forums, I would be OK with SJWs dying in a fire.



  • 0_1486057958781_upload-d2fa1f0f-2410-4e8b-9800-ca13b5185aad

    I am surprised that I am that close to the center.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Polygeekery said in Explain yourself:

    Pro-2A

    What's that?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I would consider myself a Christian libertarian.

    • I believe that taking life is only justified to save another's life or as retribution for taking life.
      • I believe in the death penalty for murder.
      • I believe that the unborn have the same rights as any other human, but that a life-threatening pregnancy can be considered an assault on the mother if she did not have strong reason to expect complications.
    • I believe that government must prevent oppression, especially its own.
      • Air and water are largely shared resources that should be protected within reason; no corporation is big enough to excuse dumping chemicals into waterways, but current US regulations on air pollutants are getting out of control.
      • Global intervention should occur only against direct threats and be as surgical as possible. (The US having standing armies in Germany and Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and our current wars are pointless and costly)
      • Drug prohibitions are counter-productive, but the influence of a drug is no excuse for illegal behavior.
      • I believe that refusal of service is an extension of basic rights and that abuse of that right should be judged socially rather than legally (I.e., feel free to stop hiring my plumbing service if you don't like that I won't service your strip bar, but don't sue me.)
    • I believe that government intervention is not a substitute for healthy families.
      • I believe that other than encouraging healthy families, the government should abdicate to private familial contracts.
      • The government may subsidize education but should neither be a provider of it nor place strong restrictions on its terms.

    In other words, do what you want, but don't expect me to support you, and don't mess with anyone else.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.