I would classify myself as the communist because I am against private property but for the freedom as I see private property rights as one of restriction of freedom.
I'll give details another day but for now, suffice it to say I'm against torture, animal abuse, and corporeal punishment.
Life isn't sacred; Pain is.
First post I reply to as kinda interesting responses above - also leftist but more socialist with controlled free market (so corporations cannot falsely inflate prices or make basic goods scarce but smaller, local businesses are encouraged).
But same as Disgusting Pervert - against any abuse or torture used as a tool of power over someone. Animals definitely count into that as I consider humanity horrid invaders who wrecked Earth.
I do not even approve of current prison systems and would love them to be there to keep society safe while convict reforms; that is with psychological support, education, training, living healthy and having access to basic neccessities.
Otherwise - my basic view is that no one should act in any way that it would harm another person or restrict their freedom. Plus ... all viewpoints from all parties and society should be considered as not one of us knows everything.
I'm an authoritarian scientific technocrat. I don't think democracy produces good outcomes and that most people need to be told what's best for them by someone who knows better. The average person is too easily led about via propaganda. Democracy and capitalism is destroying our planet.
Instead government should be small but decisive, and based around experimentation and the scientific method as a way to determine what produces good outcomes. If people don't like having to make needed sacrifices too bad.
The average person is not qualified to have an opinion on many topics, like climate, religion, etc. Being able to make choices that affect everyone isn't a right, it's a responsibility. The average person has proven time and again they aren't ready for that responsibility so it should be ceded to experts.
It's true that there will always be disagreement about who is an expert, but a constitution of checks and balances could be created to help mitigate that, just as republics use them to mitigate the damage of bad leaders as well. But those checks and balances must be present or you wind up with the Soviet Union: a failed scientific technocracy, failed because corruption and absolute power become more important then truth or merit.
My political position is basically the opposite of >>6181in some respects.
Basically, everyone like that needs to be stopped. I'm in favor of some technocracies and checks and balances, as well as slowing capitalism.
But opposing freedom and forcing on people what you think is best for them is obviously wrong.
Also, I'm in favor ls socialism and capitalism, against general warfare, in favor of reforming systems, especially education, legal, healthcare, political, and others.
The U.S. should apologize for many things. It's still the right country for me, but it's far too right wing and has much growing to do and much to atone for.
I'm against theocrats most of all.
I believe in reparations, but not invariably. I think the times we've paid reparations have been flimsy in contrast to what was done.
Our propaganda machines need to be kept in check. I believe in net neutrality but have no good allies in this. I'm for executing many people who share my stance, but have derived pleasure over instances of mass manipulation that has led to immeasurable suffering and are overtly hypocrites, along with their fanbases.
I believe in scientific pursuits.
In one word you are simply fascist.
However, one problem with this position as well as with position of socialism is that idea of the good outcome depends on the judging criteria as the goal which those technocrats have to pursue.
Science is useless for deciding whast will be your goals it can be only useful when you know that goal.
Finally, how are you going to elect experts? How average person who is ignorant in climate change topic will decide if that expert is really worth listening or this is just some corrupted quack who bought his diploma and all his scientific work is only for getting money?
what will prevent some dowsing experts to form their own club and fool the public into believing that which is real science and it works whose everyone who says the opposite is ignorant fool whose opinion doe snot mater?
the average person may not be qualified to express his opinion on many topics but this is the problems of the education system and state ideology which assumes that you are not supposed to be told all that stuff.
Politically I'm a liberaltarian < Liberal Tax views, everyone should be allowed to do/trade what they want but regulated so they can't profit off bullshit, basic laws like no killing or rape or torture, public service, free food from local government farms] but some of the lighter stuff might change based on circumstance, i.e. taxes should suit the climate. A few oligarchs making so money should pay a fitting portion in taxes, and murder is a no brainer (ha) yet killing in self defense or different economies, would change my stance.
I also think the election is systems and corruption in our intelligence agencies is the most pressing concern. Both are simple matters on the surface.
Elections should be publicly funded, each candidate gets a certain amount of t.v. hours and funds to run their ads, not being able to drown his opponents with sheer volume of propaganda. 3rd parties shouldn't be required to have 16 thousand signatures while the 2 parties only require 2 thousand to run a candidate. It's simply some basic policies. The actual process of change is complicated.
The corruption of people who don't respect our rights is even simpler. War. The reality is similarly even more complex.
I am a fascist in a sense, depending on your definition of fascism which is a pretty vague/disputed in many cases. I think authoritarian is probably more precise. I know it's not a popular point of view and that's ok, I'm not going around forcing anyone to adopt my views. It's just my opinion that democracy is bad at producing good outcomes and that people are bad at selecting their own leaders.
In my ideal world, being able to vote on a topic would not be a right but a responsibility that is earned by demonstrating proficiency in the topic. It's certainly true that systems like this can be prone to corruption, but lets be honest, so is our current system, so are all systems. It's no coincidence that the most successful companies on earth are run like dictatorships, it historically produces better outcomes to have one person leading the vision forward for a project/company/country, someone who really understands the goals and implications and most importantly can make the *hard* choices that a democracy is simply incapable of making.
Some good modern examples of this are Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Bezos, etc. These companies are little dictatorships, and tend to do much better then the companies where boards and shareholders make all the calls. Rule by collaboration tends to lead to shortsightedness, but a single visionary can have a longer view and more ambitious goals.
There is nothing that fundamentally says that a dictator need be evil or that they even need be corrupt. It is true that that sort of power often corrupts (or more likely, attracts the already corrupted) but there are examples in history of this not being the case. The most compelling example my be ancient Rome, where the word dictator originates from. Dictators in Rome were a special appointment during times of extreme crisis (usually war) where a single person was given absolute power during the duration of the crisis because they understand that consensus is a bad way to deal with crises. These dictators were obligated to stand down and hand back ALL of their power as soon as the crisis was over, and they did that time and time again for hundreds of years.
Anyways, I do believe there is plenty of room for consensus decision making much of the time, but our modern societies have an extreme lack of an adult in the room who can make the hard choices and plan for the future. We, as democratic countries and societies, just behave like a bunch of children with no vision or direction, flailing wildly and always choosing what feels good in the short term even if it fucks over other people, makes everyone's lives worse, and ruins the world for our children. Nobody's rights extend so far that they can destroy our world and our future in the name of liberty.
You're actually a textbook definition fascist. In your owb words, you think people should be forced to do what's better for themselves according to others. I'm all for certain regulations and we probavly won't cobvibce each other, but do know that you're fascist and literally your belief is that you should shove your belief down others' throats.
That said, I agree with some of what you say but companies making large profits is irrelevant. Those aren't dictatorships as they have to follow laws and it fucks others over when those people get to decide what the laws are.
I would say I'm a equitarian. I believe that some people overachieve while others underachieve, and the sum total ends up at 100%. I believe the strong should support the weak in order to balance things out. I also believe in less corporate power and strongly in the power of countries and federal governments. I think corporate power is actually very flimsy since they don't control armies. Rather their power comes from currency since countries own resources. And I think currency is no more than a given value to whatever you want to be the "middle man" of your economy. Money is typically worthless. I also believe in spreading out resources. People will always need different things and want different things.
fachism got lots of pointless definitions because it turned into the meaningless curse word, but the best definition is private corporatism, as it is the system where few people give goals for everyone else who have to pursue those goals at any cost and nobody has any right to do anything else
Essentially fascism is same as socialism except that under fascism goals are decided by select elite while under socialism those goals are decided by the whole society in democratic voting. no other differences.
your idea to let few self-proclaimed experts decide fates of everyone else is what indicates fachism.
if you compare it with dictatorship this is diffrent thing because dictator was given some task todo along with the power to execute that task.
Fascism is different because under fascism you are not dictator you are the employer of the dictator or plain God.
It is one thing when you hire some specialists to do a certain task you ask them to do and another thing when you let someone decide whast task you will be doing.
Elon Musk is a pretty good bad example, because he is doing nonsense while fooling people with his enthusiasm and stupidity. and it is not even clear if he is fool himself of he is fooling people.
if you examine his projects they are nothing more than gimmicks and toys for rich people without any real value.
we do not need overpriced electric cars, hyperloop travel, mars reality shows on tv or solar roadways, we need the cure for cancer and other diseases, synthetic food, global climate management system, instead of terraforming Mars we should better terraform our own deserts and reshape our own planet into something more friendly for life.
and lots of other things that would make life better for everyone and not just amuse few rich guys.
I'd align closest with a minarchist or a libertarian anarchist. Government limited to the fewest possible interventions in peoples lives.
I align as a left libertarian in practice, though I would love to see a meritocracy (I am absolutely anti-authoritarian though, because I hate the idea of obeying something because an authority is in charge, rather obeying something because it is proven to be a good idea by experts in the field). For example, I am an information security specialist. I should have more say (in the form of voting representation) as an individual than some idiot who doesn't even know what IoT stands for, much less why it needs to be regulated. Likewise, why should I have the same exact representation as a phytopathologist when it comes to legislation involving agriculture when I can't even name a single species that infects plants?>>6201
It sounds more like you're defining meritocracy than fascism or dictatorship/authoritarian regime. A dictatorship is simply complete control similar to totalitarianism, but not necessarily based on any particular knowledge. You seem to be advocating a system where the people with the most skills in a particular subject are the ones who call the shots, which is fine with me (so long as it is evidence-based and not entirely credential-based). Though I wouldn't call the examples you gave particularly good... Steve Jobs was great at fooling idiots (though some of the original Apple products were good, just not anything when OSX came into being). He's just another Jim Jones, but with a bigger following and a slightly better legal track record. Bezos... well actually I don't know much about him. He's good at making money for himself and for shareholders, but not necessarily a good person. And Elon Musk is 80% insane. His electric cars are great. His decision to not enforce patents is commendable. The hyperloop and Mars bullshit? His conspiratorial believe that we are all living in the matrix (yes, he thinks that)? Not something I would say makes him particularly educated. He's just really, really good at designing high-capacity batteries.>>6202
The "textbook definition of fascism" requires one follow the fascist manifesto, which is nothing at all like what he described. In fact, his views are opposing of true fascism, which is not evidence-based. Forcing someone to follow rules, whether they are good or bad, is not fascism. Fascism requires a strong right-leaning government in charge of economics and with heavy focus on military might, combined with state-run or state-controlled media, and the outlawing of any criticism of the government in charge. Every time someone thinks fascism simply means a powerful or controlling government, Orwell rolls over in his grave.>>6209
Your argument breaks down as soon as you put "self-proclaimed experts" into >>6201's mouth.
Thanks! I actually think you did a better job of describing my thoughts on the subject than I did. And you are right, most of my examples weren't great, I definitely agree the people I pointed out as being decisive leaders are not without flaw. I merely wanted to make the comparison: that even deeply-flawed leaders with a vision and a mandate often outperform committee or consensus based decisions making structures. I certainly don't intend to suggest that any of these people are "good people" from a moral standpoint, though what morality even consists of is of course up for debate.
Like I said before, I don't think of my views of fascist, but words are just words and if someone wants to think of it that way who am I to judge. I just think it's better to be more verbose and descriptive when talking about difficult subjects like this, and to steer clear from terminology which is highly infected with preexisting conceptions which ends up limiting communication rather than being a mechanism for it. Fascism is one of those terms.
Fine I stand corrected, I should've stuck with calling him "evil and tyrannical" or "lawful evil" .
Mind elaborating the specifications on fascism? Becuase it seems the word means a tyannical government mandating how people act.
>>Your argument breaks down as soon as you put "self-proclaimed experts" into >>6201's mouth.
I don't put anything whast was not already there
>>"Being able to make choices that affect everyone isn't a right, it's a responsibility. The average person has proven time and again they aren't ready for that responsibility so it should be ceded to experts.">>6231
>>Mind elaborating the specifications on fascism? Becuase it seems the word means a tyannical government mandating how people act.
It is not the tyrannical government because you can disagree with the tyrant and still be respectable citizen merely if you do not challenge him. You are not required to agree with tyrant you merely have to obey him because he is stronger than you or for other reasons.
Under fascism and socialism that is not enough, you actually have to believe in state ideology and you will be prosecuted not for disobedience but for being different.
here is an example from Slavoi Zizek lecture:
Your father wants you to visit grandmother:
Tomorrow you have to visit your grandmother tomorrow and no excuses. you have to be there at 15:00
Your grandmother loves you so much and she wants to see you tomorrow, please visit her if you really love her.
Or another example boss and employee
This job has to be done tomorrow. if not you are fired.
Our company reputation is at stake if this is not done tomorrow we may go bankrupt.
I'm a libertarian monarchist, Yes thats a real thing, it means I think people are too stupid to deserve the right to vote their rights away, and that the state should still be constitutionally limited against having overwhelming power over the citizens day to day activities
A constituional monarchy? Better hope the world doesn't have incomprehensile issues evolving out of new technologies and happenstances.
Pretty far right, libertarian. From reading some of the above, I'd say its pretty clear that there isnt much of a correlation between politics and this.
I'm a liberal only so far as it makes sense. I believe in banning or restricting things that are empirically shown to be harmful to society, I believe in staying out of personal lives as much as is practical, and I support prostitution and the legalization of many drugs because it's practical for the free market to have them (taxed). it happens that my 'why? prove it. show me the research' approach comes out being pretty liberal in many cases.
I am not however loyal to any party, and I see no use for them. I would like to abolish all parties, and ban outlets from calling themselves news if they don't meet a suitable standard of accuracy and fairness. I think educational standards should be determined at a national level based solely on facts, and that anyone who cites their faith as a major influence on how they would govern should be ineligible for office.
Basically I want to take emotion and religion out of the law, educate everyone properly, make leaders back their positions at a university level, and see how things shake out from there.
In theory, I am an anarchist.
In reality, I am a libertarian.
I want the Republicans to cut my taxes.
I want the Democrats to spend my taxes on me.
I only believe in monarchy if I get to be King.
I only believe in theocracy if I get to play God.
Politically - the national socialist flavor of fascism sounds pretty good to me. I'd rather live in Hitler's germany than in todays America, where people live their lives full of illusions.
Economically - capitalism is where it's at, which under fascism would be pretty highly regulated, but still better than any alternative imo.
I generally despise people and think they pretty much deserve the shitty world they have created for themselves. So if I had to pick an ism, it would be cynicism.
Very economically liberal, bordering on Communistic, but quite socially conservative - the latter in no small part do to this fetish. I want to see as many people as possible helped as effectively as possible, and I value self-control and personal integration highly.
I'm apathetic about most things that don't affect me personally. So my main concerns are economics(I'm in favor of progressive taxation, more regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, social safety nets in general), freedom of speech(for actual humans, not for corporations), freedom from religious bullshit(i.e. I'm pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQIA rights), assisted suicide(for it). I don't really subscribe to overall political philosophies.
As far as correlation between fetishes and politics goes, I'm in favor of the decriminalization and regulation of prostitution, the decriminalization of any form of porn that doesn't involve real children, and by extension the complete removal of all obscenity laws.
Generally if there's a law that polices sex, I'm almost guaranteed to be against it. On a practical level, I recognize that it may prove infeasible to decriminalize certain sorts of extreme BDSM practices and stuff way out there like consensual cannibalism/snuff/necrophilia, so in those areas my position is that I'm in favor of decriminalizing them if it's feasible to do so while still maintaining sufficient legal framework to protect people against coercion.
I possess whatever political view the person I'm talking to has. Makes shit easier. I'm apathetic and empathetic. I can see all sides of things and I really don't care to pick one on most issues. At the same time, I'm fascinated with the whole spectrum and can get really into some sociopolitical commentary. I'm a fan of Orwell, but then again, dystopias and the fuckery that makes them so are just interesting to me.
Sometimes I'll fight for a cause, but to politicize something in this culture is to polarize it, and people won't ever be able to work through their shit until they stop seeing through red and blue tinted glasses.
I am socialist, I believe in the world where big company should pay lots more taxes than it is now, so government could have more funding for everyone, like the Scandinavian countries, those are my ideal system. But I'm living in a country with military Junta, you can guess where it is. lol I hate them but can't do anything, lots of people are in trouble for saying bad things, even satire commic will get you fined or jailed, this is crazy.
It could be half the world for all I know. Maybe stay stealthy tho
My loyalty is first to my ideals and my family that I choose for myself.
Past that, loyalty is to the highest bidder, and the payments I seek most is peace and justice: burn the faggots who rape, and beauracratic con artists who manipulate, and theocrats who praise religious warmongers that drop bombs, and all of their enablers.
My political position is that every evil person who hurts others for selfish kicks is to be pursued and ended, regardless of race, religion, and political position.
Then just fucking do it. Everyone hurts others, directly or otherwise, so there's plenty of targets for you to pick from. Talking about it here just makes it more likely you'll get caught if you try.
Hace you ever had an infestation? What does squashing some roaches do?
You're not the only one. I have been moving from the far left (former communist) towards the right. At the moment I'm more center-right, but I grow more conservative as the liberal values I once held grow too far to the extreme that they become toxic / disfunctional. The slippery slope arguments from conservatives and the right that I had once scoffed at as idiotic have come to pass which made me reflect on where we were headed and do much more digging . . .
Still, I'd rather be a teraformer on some barren rock in space with slim to none chances of survival than deal with the over politicalization of everything I enjoy and the polarization of those political camps. Can't even watch a commercial for some shitty beer without people throwing a fit.
Left and right don't matter. Anything that isn't talking about specific issues is a waste of fucking time. All our attempts to categorize complex subjects into easy to digest buzzwords simply muddy the waters of discourse.
I would say I'm somewhat of a moderate. On some issues, I lean to the right-- for others, I lean to the left. Overall, I like preserving personal freedom without eliminating the rule of law. Neither anarchy nor totalitarianism are acceptable to me.
Also I believe that information should not be censored.
National Socialist / Monarchist
Doesn't really look like there is much of a correlation between this and politics. Maybe a slight correlation with radical positions? Well who knows>>6211
Your critic on Elon Musk is interesting. While space travel is expensive, I think it is rightfully a fascination to humanity and should be pursued. Therefore I'm glad a private rich guy invests into it, million times better than some luxurous crap.
I'd bet not even that. I've known people across the political spectrum into this
That's the whole idea, that Elon Musk is not just "investing" his own money.
(you need to make a big stretch on the meaning fo word investment here)
He is fooling other people into giving him money promising them huge profits and also he does various manipulations with his companies to hide losses.
It is all fine and great when someone is doing science or developing technology, but investors must know that they are wasting money not investing it because they will never get paid back.
Also, many of Elon's projects are just plain idiocy and the will never be realized.
National Libertarian. My country should be white, get rid of the djoos too, but treat everyone who belongs here very well.
National Libertarian. My country should be white, get rid of the djoos too, but treat everyone who belongs here very well.
Well to be fair, his projects do have the potential to generate wast winnings, it's just a hard process to get there with an unsure outcome. I think "investment" is the appropriate term tough. It's a high risk high reward investment, as well as an investment in out future. Eventually knowledge gathered from these projects will be helpful to humanity, wether they are successful or not.>>8034
That sounds like a weird patchwork ideology.
libertarianism is for weak government
How would a weak government get rid of subversive elements effectively? I mean isn't whole idea of libertarianism that the government is less involved in domestic affairs?
Even his iconic Tesla car makes no profit and other projects are doing even worse than in terms of income
Projects like Hyperloop, an expedition to Mars, using rockets to transport people between continents, are plain stupidity in terms of business perspective.
other less obviously absurd projects can be attributed to the high-risk area, but Elon does to tell that to his investors, they have no clue that all his work on developing new improved batteries solar cells and other stuff is pretty low success probability.
also even if some of those projects will eventually succeed there will be nowhere near that much profit as expenses.
This is the most retarded thread on Gurochan. Take your political bullshit back to Reddit where it belongs, it's so off topic it makes me want to stab you all in the eyes.
Oh and >>8034
Go kill yourself.
I used to love this edgy neoreactionary crap when I was a teenager but the older I get the more I wish people would just settle down and make compromises with each other. ANUS hasn't updated in years and seriously advocates 95% of people being killed. What's the point of that? It's just retardedly cruel and elitist. I understand wanting to reduce immigration and population growth but when you get to Atomwaffen-Division levels of absurdity you really need to just take your meds and spend some time away from the internet. Brutal authoritarian regimes are not nice places to live in.
When the cops run up on someone shouting, even undercover, you'll have Hell to pay if you attack them in fear for your safety.
But a woman stomps up to one and says "how ya doing?" in a tone he doesn't like? Oh then "of course" it's not police brutality. Oh, and just lie, saying she "charged" at him. Fucking hypocrites bullshit like that then call anyone denying a crime a "dindu."
Or a dude can't be subdued by tasers and batons, people just spam that they should just shoot him. like forget that they may've been the aggressors starting shit, what kind of civil order allows cops to kill any unarmed man for not willfully going to jail?
Just taking the cops word and presuming guilt of any they encounter. Lie and call your victims liars. POS nationalists.
This is almost exactly where I'm at. Liberal because that seems to be the label that my country has put on the values of, "Not putting up with bullshit for no reason; for the love of god can we do some shit that makes some sense."
Every single thing a politician ever says should be followed by the phrase, "Citation, please." To the point that you no longer have to ask. We need to base our decisions on reality. Democracy doesn't work because people are just allowed to lie like a bathroom rug.
Also, if you're an objectively shitty person, I think it should work the same way "basing your entire platform on unverifiable bullshit" is handled. Are you a crackhead? Get into a treatment plan and prove you've got your shit together so you're not selling national secrets for $10 and shit. Are you a blackout drunk? Prove that you've got your shit together or you don't get to run. Fuck up while in office? Get fired, because this is already supposed to be a thing; we already have a perfectly serviceable back-up plan for these situations, we just don't act on it.
Likewise, no one gets to be appointed. That concept should be abolished. The electoral college, where people don't have to listen to their constituents and can just do whatever they want? Also abolished. The idea that your vote counts for more based on your geographical location like it does in the house? Abolished. One-citizen, one-vote.
Big separation of state and whatever nonsense makes you believe nonsensical bullshit- be that religion or just dumbassery that makes you think certain crystals cure cancer. Laws should be based on facts, and ever-changing as our understanding evolves. We should have a better processes in place to prevent stagnation- not the current situation based on historical precedence rather than current understanding. I would say that terms should have limits- it's ridiculous that senators can be senators for decades and that the only thing that can remove an appointed judge from office is the icy grip of death.
We should completely redo the tax code- I have a LOT to say on that, but the current one is a clusterfuck- and provide consistency from the top-down with WAY more federal oversight than we currently have. It's not fair that cities have infrastructure while rural areas are falling apart so bad half the roads are named after the devil. If we wanted to be separate countries that would be ok, but we're not, so we have to support each other. A silicon valley CEO has to pay for infrastructure in the Bible Belt or Cali can try and succeed from the union. And we have to do something about tiered taxing brackets, the current one just doesn't make sense- why the hell am I subsidizing huge corporations so Disney can buy fursuits? McDonalds, if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you can't afford to be in business- it's not my job to put food on their tables- it's yours. They sold their time to you, not to me, so you pay them enough that they don't need foodstamps instead of expecting me to foot the bill. And don't charge me a penny more than inflation for fries, yhall don't need another yhat. I spent $50,000 on my education and yhall inherited a bunch of company shares. You're not special because your mom let a rich guy cum inside her. Get over yourself. I could accomplish something like that too, if I had a uterus.
I have so much to say about the tax code... I'm a nerd. I know I'm the only person in the world who reads state budgetary reports for fun, but fuck's sake, you want to get pissed off...
I have a lot more to say, but I guess this is already pretty long.
I got a few questions about this.
1: Where you from?
2: What do you define as "white"? Sometimes I gotta break out the bleach and contacts with you people and sometimes I don't. We talking "one drop law" or we talking "he looks white enough and has a redneck accent, he's a good ol' boy".
3: What's a djoo?
4: Can I still get dick in the new world order?
I cede the rest of my time to the female prosecutor.
Yeah, I think parties should be abolished. With this bichromatic rainbow I can't go to the shooting range with my husband. Because I can either have my guns or get married. I can't do both.
I would say an authoritarian. A tyrant maybe. I don't really know. I simply think if i was a tyrant, i have the virtues (some of them anyway) that are necessary to lead a nation into a better future. But at the end of the day, leaders always change, and regardless of whether you have a tyranny, dictatorship, democracy or anarchy, things will eventually fall apart because of the nature of people. I think my liking of authoritarian systems is because when i place myself in that position, i would meet the least amount of resistance. Not that i wouldn't like the cunning and manipulation skills that are necessary for a democracy thought.