Politics

what are others ? centrists are bullshit they always either lean left or right

L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

I like American Republicanism (not to be confused with the Republican Party)

Anarchy?

We need kings and lords, too much power is given to the plebeian hordes, whom have not earnt such privilege.

...

I sort of agree some of the time

> fucking cancerous crackheads
>oppress our freedom
> "muh feels"
seems like you're catching a lot of feels right there sonny

Zionist extremism/Palestinian genocide

I was going to reply, but then I remembered, this is Veeky Forums and most of you are degenerates with retarded political views.

>implying conservatives aren't rash assholes who act on fear and anger.
Everyone acts on emotion, dumbass.

Wonderful, at least with royalty you know they're self-serving; read Machiavelli's "The Prince".

I own a copy

>I was going to reply, but then I remembered, this is Veeky Forums and most of you are degenerates with retarded political views.
>Replies anyway.
Nice moral high-ground, oh wait, you moron.

Good chap.

conservatives are retarded inbred hillbillies who want to oppress science and rational thought because 'muh god' and 'muh niggers r subhuman'

So do modern mainstream liberals?

liberals refuse science because god? weird

Lol expand your perceptions my closed minded friend

Liberals refuse science because "muh tolerance!"

The m in whom only precedes a vowel and only if that vowel is in a certain, irregular syllabic envelope. You fucking plebe.

So, you're a prescriptivst grammarian, I'm a descriptivist. Nice attempt, try harder.

i think conservatives do it to a much higher degree than liberals do
what do liberals refuse? that niggers are subhuman, or wait, that smoking is bad for you? The most that liberals are guilty for is the anti-GMO movement and anti-nuclear. Conservatives are incredibly ignorant and refuse science because 'muh sky jesus!''
i was obviously responding to that guy's baseless strawman about liberals by making a strawman about conservatives. Same message to you, expand your perceptions. not all liberals are 'essjaydoubleyaassss', just like how not all conservatives are inbred hillbilly retards.

That 'neutral gender' can exist, quite literally degrading objectivism for "muh feels". There is no third gender and no, you cannot identify as a toaster-kin.

theocracy

There are plenty of religious liberals, and there are plenty of conservative atheists.

"Muh 'murican definitions."

It British, you shilling Jewster.

>smoking is bad for you?

come on stop with the prejudices against marijuana you prohibitive cunt
it's harmless

yeah but don't force your "feels" on everyone you entitled asshole
I don't even have a religion. Jesus can suck my **** off. And science provides evidence for black as a whole being less intelligent than other major races on average. But I can't state that fact that without being called "racist" by liberals.

Then explain why the rest of your 'comrades' are anti-science hucksters?

>censoring your posts
Dude what the fuck?

He's a liberal, it might offend a 'gendered minority'.

Conservatives are misguided in fearing inevitable change. The "god" argument is a shining example of this.

Liberals embrace change as being inevitable.

thats seriously what this is about? i'm pretty sure thats entirely a social, and not a scientific thing. jesus you're a retard.
you don't see a lot of people voting liberal because of their religion though. there's always outliers, but for the most part religious people vote conservative, and atheists vote liberal
i was being facetious and making fun of the conspiracytard in Veeky Forums that keeps making 'cigarrettes are good for you' threads. i think marijuana is harmless, I just wrote that sentence poorly, sorry.
why does it matter? how would agreement that black people on average are dumber than other races help anything than encourage racism? Not even taking into account that there are an innumerable amount of social variables in the way of conducting a real study of black intelligence, what would you do if on average black people were dumber? That doesn't stop the plenty of inevitable black outliers who are smarter than white people. What studies are there that definitively say black people are dumber? I'm curious
can you read? hes a conservative, you absolute retard

Have I ever said I'm a conservative? I just hate liberals.
> Muh feels
> Muh tolerant
> Muh feminism
> Muh anything I want to believe in
If you disagree with liberals you'll be barraged with ad hominem like "racist", "bigot", "sexist", etc...

I'm not prescriptive. I can judge by your writing that you're American, therefore your accent, which is definitely not Victorian Cockney.

>you don't see a lot of people voting liberal because of their religion though.
No you see them voting based on some other equally retarded justification.

you're using the most extreme and obnoxious example of a liberal and applying it to all of them.
notice how I did the same for conservatives
and then they all got triggered.

they also want to influence and have a part in the change, if for instance income inequality changes for the worse in a modern system they're not accepting of it.

He was a maniac, a tyrant and a fascist.

Other than wanting to affect a change that would disrupt the established system, there wasn't anything "liberal" about him in the sense in which it's applied today.

I think people apply the word "liberal" too liberally.

>And science provides evidence for black as a whole being less intelligent than other major races on average
I don't think he's worried about that

have you ever visited reddit? that's your average "liberals"
don't you see just by the fact you are visiting this board you ARE actually the outlier?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarch_(sovereign_individual)

The ANARCH is the positive counterpart of the anarchist.

What exactly do you not like about the liberal agenda? What do you like about being conservative? I'm really interested. A lot of insults get tossed around, but nobody seems able to explain an enlightening view of conservatism to me.

Jesus can clean my ass shit off no censor for ya
also apply to any other fucking religion out there trying to make people believe in their bullshit

Welp, this thread turned to shit fast.

Anyway, in case OP actually wants an answer, Veeky Forums is overwhelmingly left-leaning, not unlike academia iteslf. In other words, most people here score on the blue panel in your pic. You can find proof by going into the archives and searching with the term "politicalcompass" I think that's what the test is called.

I'm not following you. Can you provide an example? Serious question.

i'm an outlier on Veeky Forums sure, but not in the real world. Redditors aren't the 'average liberal' at all. They are exactly what you'd expect from people who post on politically left leaning forums. Just how /pol/ is what you get from right leaning forums; the most extreme examples of either ideology. How many liberals do you think are in america? And then think of how many liberals are on Reddit. By looking at reddit, and more specifically, super-liberal boards like the Sandersforpresident or shit reddit says, you're only making confirmation bias.

liberalism is all about compromise so as to reduce possible conflicts. Instead of freedom of association, you should do your part in accomodating everyone. The liberal agenda also is in favour of wealth redistribution without really considering the stress required to acquire such wealth.

He wasn't saying Hitler was liberal you absolute retard

Amen!

I'm not a conservative.
I'm a centrist actually I support some of conservative ideas as well as liberal policy.
I don't support socialist economy.
I support gay marriage, abortion, cloning human.
I don't fucking think humans are born equal and we should ever try to make them equal, they should have equal rights under the law though.
etc...

I'm libertarian

This has nothing to do with science.

Sage'd and reported.

2/10 Its a pretty stupid questioner.
>questions containing "sometimes" or "usually"
>wtf is "plant genetic resources???"
>using "better" without elaborating on which aspect it is describing
>"it is an -adjective- that -stuff happening-:" is this a question of our agreeance with the adjective or the stuff happening?
>its ether agree or disagree

I'm not sure you have all the information, or you're processing it differently from me.

The opposite of reducing conflict is conflict. When is conflict the best choice, assuming you aren't being forced to defend yourself?

Is it possible that you're missing the point that the wealthy and successful have a moral obligation to their fellow man? There's only so much money one guy can enjoy, after all. Is this meant to weed out the economically weak? Should economic standing be considered to be the deciding factor of a man's value?

One of my main problems with conservatism is that it doesn't challenge existing power structures. The argument is often a question of wealth, and the arguer's desire to keep it, but many conservatives don't have wealth, yet they argue for their right to keep it anyway.

political SCIENCE

All right. I'll play.

What was he saying, then?

political "science"

You're not discussing a specific theory or anything. Just asking what political positions everyone has.

Now if only this were a thread on game theory.

Anarchy!

I don't think liberalism and socialism are synonymous.

What conservative ideals appeal to you?

By not being born equal, do you mean that some are more intelligent than others, and therefore more capable, or are you speaking more generally, as in blacks -vs- whites?

Serious interest. I am not driven to be influenced by traditional values as defined by history or religion. I'm interested in knowing what motivates your political views.

Saying saged and reported is also a bannable offence.

"Replying to a thread stating that you've reported or "saged" it, or another post, is also not allowed."

i guess im closest to ghandi
cool, im a pedophile

>One of my main problems with conservatism is that it doesn't challenge existing power structures.
societies have established structures as a means of better organization. I guess you agree there should be a power structure but criticize the existing criteria to have power.

Changing policy to your current economic situation is selfish and disregards the framework conservatives think is important to have.

>When is conflict the best choice, assuming you aren't being forced to defend yourself?
When you can't reach a common ground, you can accept there will disagreement. This doesn't need there has to be conflict, if there is no necessary competition.

>the wealthy and successful have a moral obligation to their fellow man?
you're assuming one just becomes wealthy and successful overnight when it is more often than not tied to sacrifice and suffering, day after day. Those who not concern themselves much about wealth and success have an easier life in this regard, but less capital.

Progressive Conservative.
What's that?

>game theory

you can be in favour of individuals advancing and by this being able to pay their own healthcare, or be in favor of socialised healthcare. socialised services in societies are nothing new and have existed throughout history.

The political compass is the worst and most vague political quiz I've ever come across.
They give you questions like "Should abortion be illegal?" and tell you it's full-blown authoritarian to make it illegal and libertarian to make it legal, even though making it illegal doesn't conflict with libertarian values (non-aggression principle).

They also use a lot of guilt by association and Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Just look at their FAQ
>What have attitudes towards things like abstract art and homosexuality to do with politics?
>Homophobia has been highly politicised by leaders like Robert Mugabe and betrays a tendency to condemn and punish those who disregard conventional values. Hitler's pink triangles reflected similar authoritarian hostility.
>Likewise, authoritarian régimes frequently attack highly imaginative and unconventional art, music and literary works as a threat to the rigid cultural conformity they uphold.
They literally compare you to Hitler, if you morally believe in something even without wanting it to be regulated by the state.

Look another /pol/ thread on the science and math board!

Leave you fucking retards.

Actually conflicts is how we grow. A lack of conflict is almost always regression.
You need different interests that competr to get the optimal result.
In companies where workers never really speak up and bring their own ideas, the bosses decisions are usually followed throgh no matter how shitty it is.
A competent manager will know how to make their workers go into a heated conflict to ignite them getting their own ideas in. Of course it needs to be well mannered and controlled and the goal needs to be to resolve conflicts (throwing insults for example doesn't solve conflicts)
The point is that our goal should be to find conflicts and solve them and not prevent them from ever happening. If you shut somebody up before they can even bring in their position and concerns you might miss a very important aspect you've never thought of.

I have to ask - are you wealthy? It's anonymous, so I'll never know if you're lying.

My problem with the existing power structure is that it's based on wealth with only a facade of freedom and equality. Wealth-based power structures encourage the same behavior as monarchies, or inherited divine right, and an individual's actual value to society is not as important as his monetary stature. I never meant that innovative and motivated individuals should be deprived of the rewards of success, only that those who have used their particular set of skills to acquire wealth have a responsibility to in turn support the economy that allowed him to prosper. Wealth hoarding does nothing to drive the economy. It is the pinnacle of selfishness to be raised to grandeur on the backs of a people without repaying your debt. No businessman is good enough to accrue wealth without a source, no matter how hard they work in the process.

You mention changing policy to suit your economic situation, but isn't that exactly what big money has always done? Isn't it always in their favor? Be honest; you're arguing for the wealthy's right to hoard the wealth that you don't have, and will never, ever know.

The wealthy become wealthy through the redistribution of funds. Why are they exempt from it?

I'm trying, honestly. I'm just not grasping your point.

liberals believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?

I was taking conflict as referring to war. Certainly differences in opinion, and challenging traditional values is necessary to grow as a social species.

I certainly never meant to imply that opposing views should be squelched, and I don't think that's what liberalism is about. Exactly the opposite, actually - liberalism encourages dialogue.

If you mean economically, I guess that's a fair assessment.

How does a large poor population help anyone?

Nazis believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
The Illuminati believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
Americans believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
Furries believe they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?
Shrek believes they can guide people into a better way of living, help people to get there. Do you agree?

so my point was that they take an active role in the change, they don't just accept it in whatever form it comes.

National traditionalist.

Throughout history, political power has always been attained by promising people a better life. What's the point?

What would be the benefit of the alternative?

Fuck off, whom is used in the dative case in place of who.
e.g to whom? with whom? Etc.

...or conquering a native population.

less bias

On who's part?
Bias how?
I understand that your opinion is a strong one, but I'm having a hard time nailing down what exactly that opinion is.

what kind of change should there be, how should intermediate steps look like, what kind of compromises have to be made

All of those are things you have to decide when you're a proponent of change, unless you are naturalistic.

Accident. English doesn't have a declension for Dative.

By "naturalistic", do you mean essentially survival of the fittest? I feel like you're dancing around an assertion that you're hesitating to make - maybe because it's appalling.

with naturalistic I mean you accept change without interfering with this change (being flexible and without ideology). Believing change is inevitable is not the same as being convinced that a change for the better should be accomplished.