NAP's nemesis. :ttr:
Printable View
NAP's nemesis. :ttr:
Well, in other words, you are a classical liberal.
I am pretty much on the same page, except I pepper it with a dose of realism, especially in terms of cultural and biological differences between various human groups, strictly on the basis of science of course.
It's all common sense stuff, but it has become unacceptable to discuss these issues in the public sphere, just notice the extreme negative reaction against and deplatforming, even censorship of people like Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux. They really don't say anything that should be controversial, but pointing out basic facts about reality is now considered racist, sexist bigotry. This is proof btw that the Left has won the culture wars and nowadays even moderately right-wing views are strictly verboten.
no, that is not the case...those types lie in the face of actual truth to bolster their cause. Their propaganda is littered with it. Blame it on the right-wing's incessant lying and propaganda spreading. I gave up giving them even a passing thought a long time ago. And I came to that condition very honestly. It was at the behest of the False Prophet, a.k.a Rupert Murdoch.
Well, The Political Compass says that I'm Social Libertarian.
https://i.ibb.co/GH5HgsB/chart.png
This is off topic, but since you're a Hungarian I wanted to ask if you'd know if there's any backstory to the lyrics behind this song. I was very touched by it, that's a hauntingly beautiful voice and a beautiful language even though I don't understand a word! I saw the english translation though.Quote:
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it’s fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That’s the one that the mere left-right scale doesn’t adequately address. So we’ve added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( ie an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (ie extreme deregulated economy)
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal “anarchism” championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America’s Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily “right wing”, with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today’s Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the “free market”, in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.
... I guess that small move to the center makes me appreciate political correctness, of course, I call it human decency... :)
Attachment 2462
Well I used to be, and still am in certain areas the test either doesn't go, or is blurry on, like guns and abortion. But according to the way the questions are presented, and options given, that's where I'm at.
I'm curious Wind. When you say "those conservative types", do I note just a bit of disgust in that tone? If I'm off base then my bad, but that is the general consensus of this forum.
No, conservatism isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just wouldn't call myself one. However, I do have contempt for extreme ideologies.
There's always the eternal tug of war between people who want change and those who don't want much change at all. Generally we can agree that life is in constant flux and change is the name of the game, nothing ever stays the same for a long time. Sometimes radical changes are needed in society, but you also don't want to change it too much. A balance has to be maintained. The older people become, usually the more conservative they become because they want things to stay as they "always" were in their youth. Younger people tend to be more liberal and want more change, but also they lack the experience and wisdom to know how much change is actually a good thing in the long run. It's not right to say that either are right or wrong, because the truth is somewhere in the middle. Also I'm generalizing here.
It is good to get rid of sexism, it's good to get rid racism, it's good to get rid of financial inequality. However, if you start to chop off too many central pillars of society then of course you will have chaos and anarchy. Anarchy itself isn't a bad thing either, but there has to be certain amount of structure and order in society. If you have too much structure and order through authority then by definition society becomes authoritarian and fascist. I don't think many people would want that either. I am very wary of any authority figures, because the true definition of freedom means everything to me. I don't want to give my power away to anyone. Yet I have to follow more or less what society tells me to do. Of course I will still do things my way, because I am a sovereign being ultimately, but I don't want to get into trouble with laws either.
Let people do what they want with their bodies and their consciousness, allow everyone to have a fair chance in life and let there be a proper support system which benefits everyone. Take care of the weak and vulnerable. Anti-war stance is the ideal. That's what liberalism means to me. I think that scarcity economy is such a relic of the past which is holding humanity back. It's still there for a reason and that's why we are still unwilling slaves to the system which is not our friend. Many people would say that this is the best we have now, but visionaries would say that we could have something much, much better if it wasn't for greed. Of course this is about more than just politics.
As expected, I'm pretty much a centrist, leaning more towards the Left, than the right:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ana...3.75&soc=-0.77
https://www.politicalcompass.org/cha...3.75&soc=-0.77
Keep in mind though, this is an American survey, in Europe, my views would be considered pretty right-wing.
@Wind
Re: the song, I'm at work now, but I'll check it out in the evening.
Finnish and Hungarian sound phonetically similar (as does Korean, in my view), so you would probably find the language familiar in terms of the way it sounds, but in other ways they are actually not at all that similar to each other. There are only a few hundred root words that are common in both languages.
However, even though I don't speak Finnish, if I see a written text, I can read it with a very accurate pronunciation, to the amazement of all Finns around :)
That is of course due to the phonetic similarities between the two languages.
Whats outside of the square/s ?.
Alien Aianawa ...
Problems with the test:
1. The questions are too generalized
2. In the United States Libertarian is a personal construct where the category is meant as a social construct.
Similar to South American and apparently Hungarian view of leftism as authoritarian where as in the U.S. leftism is viewed as Liberalism
I'd say Wind's results are the closest to accurate and despite your misgivings Chris I would say yours is closer.
When Saddam Hussein's statue came down it made little to no difference. When the Taliban shot up the ancient statues it was, in my opinion, a travesty.
I have never been a fan of destroying history. The major city I live near, Baltimore, has the most historic sites of any major US city because they were not razed and built over. They were preserved and built around.
I don't champion the statues. And I also understand that much of their symbolism, in terms of the South post-Civil War, was about keeping the black folks down.
It was a form of intimidation during Reconstruction. Many statues went up well after the Civil War was over.
My husband agrees with the idea that they should go to a park or museum for the sake of history and remembrance.
Trump is losing his precious swing state voters in droves. Republicans will have to resort to their continued strategy of voter suppression.