Last edited by Raver; 07-24-2019 at 01:27 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
A popular notion online is that a right-winger becoming a left-winger is getting deprogrammed, but in actuality it is becoming reprogrammed. The inverse notion can be said of a left-winger becoming a right-winger is becoming red pilled. The true way to becoming deprogrammed is by looking at each issue specifically and figuring out where the left and right are more correct. That is true critical thinking, not just switching your reality tunnel from left wing to right wing or vice versa. This isn't centrism either as you can still be predominately left wing or right wing on specific issues rather than in the middle and end up on the left or the right overall.
I used to listen to right wing YouTube channels ardently because the left wing biased media like CNN and MSNBC, etc... (minus Fox News) turned me off and then I discovered and I started listening to left wing YouTube channels and I added them to my repertoire of what I watched alongside right wing YouTube channels. Becoming deprogrammed is about expanding your beliefs and by adding alternative viewpoints, it is not done by replacing them completely with something else. I suppose this is possibly just me being 4D and expecting others to be the same. However, anyone can adopt this mentality if the desire is there without sacrificing their beliefs.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Nominal "Right/Left" distinctions in the US are mostly disagreements over policy, embedded well within a framework of leftwing ideological assumptions that all relevant political factions agree upon. This has been the case since 1933 or so.
I've moved away from my more hardcore Communist beliefs, but I'm still unambiguously on the left (as in not some bourgeois Liberal).
Originally Posted by Vladimir Lenin
left left right left A B A B B left right right left A B A B start button
First, I'm a Christian. This is my base/foundation.
Second, Im a seeker of Truth. Truth triumphs all. Not feelings. Not emotions. Not what feels good. I will never compromise truth to gain popularity. (Although I recognize theres a time and place to be politically correct/nice)
I don't tie my identity to any party just for the sake of it. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
Im a critical thinker, looking at multiple perspectives and finding the diamond core, timeless principle
And since there are only 2 sides, I choose the best leaders that support Godly values.
If a leader that I don't agree with gets chosen. I don't rebel. I dont bitch and riot. I respect and yield to authority.
Why? Its our duty as citizens
, charts in spoiler. I'm economically left/what-works and socially very liberal.
"Left and Right are just two of the many ways available to a person to be imbecile" ---José Ortega y Gassett
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Lol, I'm a technocratic essentialist scotsman apparently.
lol.png Lol, pragmatic mix of left and right, I also want to regulate corporations so they don't abuse international workforce or drain developing nations from valuable human resources. e_e corporations also polute the environment and I agree with Michael Moore's most recent documentary. Enviromentalist here. GDP cannot grow indefinitely on a finite planet.
Last edited by SGF; 06-07-2020 at 07:38 PM.
I support gay rights, trans rights, protection of the environment, recreational drug use, the separation of church and state, and programs that assist the poor or otherwise underprivileged. In the U.S., which is where I live, all of those are considered leftist values. The one thing I can think of that gives me anything in common with the right is that I oppose abortion.
Type me here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...nnaire-(Nunki)
I like individual freedom, but the Earth has 7 billion people on it, and with so many people, there have to be rules of all kinds to help those people interact without infringing on the basic rights of others. Everyone has a right to be free, and that's the essential problem. How do you put a bunch of free people together and ensure that they can all live and coexist?
Ideally, everyone could just do what they wanted without infringing on other people. But you'd basically have to give each person their own simulation of the universe to let everyone run amok and be free and do what they want.
Getting people to work together is a difficult task. Everyone has wants and needs due to their differing natures, and sometimes they work together, and sometimes they conflict.
Libertarians don't like taxes, but they drive on roads built by taxes every day, use technology every day that had its origins in government and taxpayer-funded research, and so on.
I'm currently a centrist of a certain kind, but not really an American-style centrist. I consider myself a social democrat, because that's closer to the ideal of a working society that includes everyone. I'm not a communist or a capitalist, and I think there are virtues in a centralized command economy and an economy where resources are privately owned. I don't know all the details of how my ideal society would work, but I'm also not a politician either. I just vote.
Probably the only universal I can think of is that if power is left unchecked, it typically becomes a problem.
I don't believe in a world of rules based on sheer principle, but I also don't believe in pure expediency either.... Some of this, some of that.
One of the biggest problems, if not the biggest, right now on Earth, is the destruction of the environment. Another problem is that those with economic power are using that power to disenfranchise those who don't have their level of power. So I support basic necessities and utilities for poor people like food, water, shelter, clothing, and a little distraction/luxury. I particularly am in favor of helping people escape abusive situations, because I have been through that stuff myself. Before I forget: healthcare.
I support a living wage so that people don't have to work themselves to death for a basic lifestyle.
I think helping poor people achieve a higher standard of living would paradoxically benefit the environment by reducing the number of offspring in subsequent generations. People with a higher standard of living tend to have fewer children, not more.
I also believe in legalizing drugs and maybe taxing them. Part of what draws people to drugs is the taboo of them and the culture that surrounds them. If it were as simple as walking into a store and picking some up off the shelf, some of the mystique would disappear. There would still be addicts, but there would probably be fewer. The taxes would be used to fund education/rehab programs as well as emergency services for overdoses and such.
I personally don't like guns much, but that's because I've only seen them misused by drunk angry rednecks with personal problems.
Last edited by Aramas; 06-25-2020 at 04:18 AM.
Responding to your post because I'm bored and you're the last person in the thread.
Roads are generally built by private companies now. The "they" you're referring to is private companies fleecing the government; the government doesn't make money (directly) on spending for roads. The government typically decides where roads will be built, of course, because it's the only entity with the power to acquire land for the roads and thus build them in a sane manner. Roads built under the direction of a private company would have to be built on private property already controlled by the company, or else bought (which would be expensive) or the right to build would need to be negotiated with the owner of the land (which would open its way to further complications -- could owners of segments of the road then divert it, or block it?).Roads could be built by private companies, & would probably be built better. I've heard before that they purposefully build roads incorrectly so that they need to be fixed more often, so that the government can make more money off of it.
What, voluntary education too?I'm for voluntary help for people, including the poor. What would help people is better opportunity & drive. I think poor people need to be told more often that they can raise up & make a way better life for themselves. Education is a big factor too.
The problem is that you're trying to change a social or systemic issue via individual action. People aren't islands -- they're conditioned by their surroundings. You believe that poor people are poor because they're lazy; why are they lazy? What makes them lazy? Either there are causes for this laziness, and a more effective strategy would be to tackle these causes, or what you perceive as laziness is the general nature of the human race. In either case, telling people to just be motivated isn't going to work.
Also, is the nature of capitalism really such that everyone can prosper? Its basic structure is exploiting other people's labor. If sufficient numbers of people are so well-off they don't need to sell themselves bit by bit day after day, the entire system of capitalism collapses. *Some* people can get ahead by being smarter and more motivated -- but not everyone can. It's a global game of musical chairs; the fact that there aren't enough chairs for everyone is what makes capitalism capitalism.
Besides, even smart, motivated people often do fail. And even if they didn't, should the majority of people -- who aren't as smart or motivated -- just shut up and accept their conditions? Do we have to win the capitalist game in order to criticize it?
Oh come on now. Think about it! If that's the rule, then the inverse should be true as well: if we work for free, then everything will be available for free. Does that sound remotely right? And besides, if increasing wages only produced inflation in proportion with raised wages, then there'd be no problem with raising them, right?Increasing wages would only cause inflation.
Seriously, do you see anything wrong with slavery? Is there that much of a difference between being made to work for others in order to live without being paid a wage, and being made to work for others in order to live a wage you spend to be able to live? Even if you're personally fine with working 72 hours a week, most people would hate that. I love the flavor and smell of anise; I wouldn't advocate for businesses to flood their buildings with its scent.I don't see a problem with working lots of hours, honestly. I used to work up to 72 hours a week, & was completely fine with it.
If we have more opportunities for jobs that pay better, won't that just cause inflation?Granted, I'm single, have no kids, & live with family so that's a factor. Higher wages isn't the answer imo, opportunities for jobs that pay better is the answer.
This is just idiotic.True. It always baffles me on why it seems like the people that can least afford children always seem to have them & have more of them. I've heard a theory before that it's because humans have a desire to create, & they see it as one of the only things they'll end up contributing to society. idk why they don't try to work on life goals that could better help them financially instead though? Having kids only makes it harder to save money & takes up more time that could be spent working their way up a company, taking classes, learning trades, etc. It's honestly just a cycle they keep themselves in.
The human condition is to make bad decisions. The CEO of Rio Tinto recently made a decision to blow up an archaeologically significant cave system inhabited by humans 46,000 years ago because it would speed up his company's mining operations. That was a bad decision. Yet I doubt this bad decision will make him any poorer -- in fact, quite the opposite. Why do you think that is? Why are only a certain class of people punished for their bad decisions?For this reason, I don't always feel bad for poor people. I think a lot of them exhibit bad decision making.
φιλοκαλοῦμέν τε γὰρ μετ᾽ εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνευ μαλακίας.
economically left to far left, socially centre-right, anti-identity politics, anti-pc, anti-intervention, pro-family and pro-solidarity (within reason)
I lean towards the left but wouldn’t describe myself as a leftist or a radical progressive.
I'm an I-don't-give-a-fuck-anymore-ist
Generally speaking, Republicans/conservatives prefer smaller government and more individual freedom, while Democrats/liberals/progressives prefer more governmental oversight of society and the economy. Conservatives argue for capitalism, that is free, for the most part, from governmental control, while liberals/progressives have more socialistic tendencies in regards to the government’s role. The Bible does not explicitly endorse either capitalism or socialism. God has given governments the freedom to have as much authority as is needed to fulfill their God-given roles of enforcing justice and building order in society (Romans 13:1-7). So, in regards to the size and scope of government, Christians can be libertarian, conservative, liberal, or progressive. None of those persuasions are inherently evil or ungodly. The argument should be over which system best enables the government to fulfill its God-given role.
Politically conservative Christians will argue that as governments get bigger and more powerful, personal freedom decreases, and if left unchecked, government will bloat itself into a controlling, authoritarian, and oppressive dictatorship. Historically speaking, there is much evidence to support this argument. Liberals/progressives will argue that the government should be greatly involved in providing social services, caring for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, unemployed, etc., pointing to Scriptures such as James 1:27. If these social services result in more governmental control, liberals/progressives are willing to make that sacrifice. Conservatives argue that the more freedom a society/economy has, the more prosperous it becomes. Liberals/progressives argue that some prosperity should be sacrificed for the “greater good.” So, while one economic/societal/political system may be “better,” neither is inherently evil/immoral/sinful. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses, and, historically speaking, both systems have proven themselves capable of fulfilling the basic biblical responsibility of government.
While issues such as the size/scope of government and economic systems are not explicitly addressed in Scripture, there definitely are some political issues the Bible does address, such as abortion (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5) and gay marriage (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). For the Bible-believing Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image. Endorsing gay marriage is giving approval to a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Therefore, Bible-believing Christians should support issues/candidates that are pro-life and should support issues/candidates that oppose gay marriage and uphold the biblical/traditional understanding of marriage. Whether these two issues should trump all other issues is a matter of personal conviction.
The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). This should apply to political leaders as well. If politicians are going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, they must have a basic morality and worldview on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, as Christians, we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.
No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not, the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them, but we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party—monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).
In the end, we need to honor those at leadership positions regardless of party.
My only political point of interest these days is banning TikTok and Reddit
Left wing. I like change. I like new ideas and new events. Just inherently I think the world works that way... constant change, new experiences. And in terms of myself, I strive to be similar too, as in adapting to and integrating new things. As for economics and stuff I think leftist ideas are best if mixed with a bit of capitalism, although by no means am I an expert obviously.
All things transitory
But as Symbols are sent.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
I'm a social-democrat with center to center-right sensibilities when it comes to some social issues.
Last edited by Averroes; 06-24-2021 at 04:52 AM.