As someone from an authoritarian country, I must say you get used to it. Just think twice before saying anything.
I really wonder how does it feel to not need self-censoring yourself. Otherwise you might end up in prison for "provoking hatred among people" lol
Honestly that sounds horrible. I really enjoy just saying whatever (obviously I do not say everything that words could possibly say). It might upset some people, unfortunately, but I can sleep easy knowing I would not be punished for saying, for example, that I dislike the idea of a royal family in my country
I think both sides have issues. I take mine by topic (immigration, gun control, global warming, taxes, etc) and literally say to myself what do I believe. Sometimes the answer is I don't know, in which case I'll go seek out info or talk with friends who may have a job related to the topic. Then I form my opinion. I'm also nor a straight ticket voter either. I've voted in 7 presidential elections as well as those in the off years and only twice that I can remember did I vote for candidates that all happened to align with one party.
Can I get a brief overview of what a Norwegian conservative is? I am huge fan of Finland’s new leader and I know he is considered conservative for that part of the world. He would be considered extremely liberal in America.
Think like hunter-gatherer tribes - no one is overburdened and no one is in charge bc everyone does exactly what’s needed of their volition. There’s a reason cavemen had enough free time to invent music and do cave paintings and create tools.
this guy gets it. Marxism is the most INTP-like analysis of our current system, based in factual information and systemic processes. No other political position is as intelectually sound. Shame no one reads Marx.
Well you're on the right planet. It doesn't even matter what country. They're all run by people who get their jollies off how much of your daily life they can manipulate.
As anti-federalist, I advocate for concepts such as strong state governments, weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. Is that also of libertarian concern?
I think it depends on where you are from. In America I am probably more anti GOP than pro democrat because the GOP is literally a cult of lovecraftian madness. So I will swallow some of the head scratching, eye rolling, hypocrisy of the democrats just so we as a global community don’t live in a world where we are dominated by the fourth reich with nuclear weapons led by a Jim Jones-esque narcissistic sociopath.
Exactly. The answer I was looking for - agree 12,000%!!!
A decade ago, I never would have believed in the potential for a cult leader to take over this country - Shades of Nazi Germany, Orwell's "1984" and perhaps also, the inspired paranoia of Philip K. Dick.
Meanwhile, the Democrats do not seem to be capable of contending with the extreme levels of underhandedness (among other issues), so basically, it's a wash.
Of course, most Americans do not have a choice either way, as The Swing States decide just about every presidential election. Entire states, and their millions of votes, never matter.
I mean local elections matter. Democrats do put people in the cabinet that are somewhat competent, so I have to give them that. If you look Secretary of treasury, Secretary of energy, Secretary of transportation etc, they all have an understanding of how those systems work and how to build policy and governance. The GOP always picks cronies for cabinet positions whose purpose is to pay back industry that donated to them.
Agreed. I used to assume there was some semblance of competency amongst all politicians, but in the past decade I've observed the exact opposite (especially from a particular party). That includes the purposeful manipulation of the people, often in the name of corporate American profits. And yep, voting (and participating) in local elections more likely makes a difference.
I support facing facts and reality - and solving problems using logical analysis and doing what is proven to work instead of dancing around issues. Facts don’t care about feelings. Solutions should solve the problems they set out to solve.
There is no representation for my political beliefs in my country, but I am least far away (still meaning disagreeing a lot with, do note me not even using "closest to") from pretty right-wing conservatives.
Yes, women should be free to abort their own pregnancies, even as gruesome and sad an event as it is, but so should men (legal abortion). No, your religion is not going to tell me what to do or how to address you, you're not codifying it (any religion, including mine, ESPECIALLY mine). Yes, of bloody course the climate is changing, but what you are trying to do about it dear left, and your reasons for that, is a f\*cking suicide. Democracy is the best system invented so far, but it's a grown-up society toy. For a transition from where (looks around in disdain) we are now into where we should be for democracy to be feasible for us, we either have to tweak democracy hard or get an interim constitutional monarchy...
Aaand more, lots more niche stuff.
Feels kinda weird to have so many... Unique angles on such topics noone else ever even mentions. Like I literally have zero representation in the public discourse. Forces me to perform sanity checks on my own self, seeing my thinking processes leading me time and again into areas with a population of one. God damn, why is my reasoning so different, where am I making all those errors, why can't I see them, does it mean I am crazy, extraordinarily dumb, or just in a bubble I cannot reach or even hear likeminded people from? But then, if there are no errors in my reasoning, why am I the only one standing for X, Y, Z, is it just my hubris talking that I even COULD be the only one being right about all these, this is quite literally impossible... But then again, where are the errors in my reasoning, maybe let me ask that guy, he sounds smart... Aaand he failed to defend his point in any decent way, damnit, why, why? Why couldn't he just prove me wrong? Why was he not the one to finally enlighten me? I did strive to get out of my bubble if one even exists, so why did it not work? Or is it HIM who really IS wrong? But that would mean... It could mean nothing, it's just one sample, it's anecdotal evidence, it's nothing. But how many times did that happen already? What if there is no "right" in these things? What is truth (yeah I am not even kidding you rn)? Surely though, there always is one best course of action? Surely, there are at the very least courses of action that are obviously, severely suboptimal? Why do they keep taking ones then, and why noone is asking my questions out loud? Maybe it's just so obvious I'm delirious it's not even worth a platform?... There, we got back to the beginning.
Aaand round and round it goes.
Eh, you got me blabbing with this one. Looking back at what I wrote I am pretty certain I'm just going to look like a weirdo if I post this. But whatever. I feel like writing that process down finally (thx for the impulse u/op) might get me somewhere I wasn't before. If it does, all the laughter beth a breeze in me sails.
Dude, you're like navigating through a maze of political beliefs all on your own. It's wild how you've got your own unique take on things while everyone else is following the same old script. Props to you for standing your ground, even if it feels like you're in a one-person parade sometimes. And hey, writing it all out? That's therapy right there. Keep doing you, man. The world needs more voices like yours, even if they're a little out there.
>Yes, women should be free to abort their own pregnancies, even as gruesome and sad an event as it is,
It's not. Really it should only be between a woman and her doctor and nobody else gets a say or a judgment.
>Yes, of bloody course the climate is changing, but what you are trying to do about it dear left, and your reasons for that, is a f\*cking suicide.
It's suicide to treat this as anything less than an existential threat that we will see the consequences of in our lifetime. What do you think the left is doing incorrectly, other than not enough?
>
Forces me to perform sanity checks on my own self, seeing my thinking processes leading me time and again into areas with a population of one. God damn, why is my reasoning so different, where am I making all those errors, why can't I see them, does it mean I am crazy, extraordinarily dumb, or just in a bubble I cannot reach or even hear likeminded people from? But then, if there are no errors in my reasoning, why am I the only one standing for X, Y, Z, is it just my hubris talking that I even COULD be the only one being right about all these, this is quite literally impossible... But then again, where are the errors in my reasoning, maybe let me ask that guy, he sounds smart... Aaand he failed to defend his point in any decent way, damnit, why, why? Why couldn't he just prove me wrong? Why was he not the one to finally enlighten me? I did strive to get out of my bubble if one even exists, so why did it not work? Or is it HIM who really IS wrong? But that would mean... It could mean nothing, it's just one sample, it's anecdotal evidence, it's nothing. But how many times did that happen already? What if there is no "right" in these things? What is truth (yeah I am not even kidding you rn)? Surely though, there always is one best course of action? Surely, there are at the very least courses of action that are obviously, severely suboptimal?
This reminds me a lot of myself when I was younger. I ended up going to school to answer these questions. You might find solace in reading political theory. You aren't the first person to have these questions of "how do we run society." There's a long tradition in western philosophy of political theory. Start with Plato. Aristotle. Jump to John Locke and Rousseau. Karl Marx (read Hegel to get the dialectic if you want, might serve you well, but it's obtuse.) Adam Smith. John Stuart Mill. Kropotkin. The Austrian school. Bakunin. Lots of others in modern time. You can go postmodern with the surrealist movement and Andre Breton and guy debord and jean baudrillard
Good luck. There are answers out there but there is no perfect system. For me the question is "how can we have the most equitable system with the most freedoms." Your political beliefs will change throughout your life too. I've gone from being raised a conservative to libertarian to an anarchist to some sort of democratic socialist and it continues to evolve and change.
>
Why do they keep taking ones then, and why noone is asking my questions out loud? Maybe it's just so obvious I'm delirious it's not even worth a platform?...
Some people are. Most aren't. Freud has some good answers on this. It helps to understand that some people don't like to think about these things and they accept them at face value. Often, they are the ones that benefit most from the system. Sometimes, it's too hard to face how powerless most of us are.
As perfect as communism sounds, it cannot actually work, as it is incompatible with human nature. Capitalism is the best economic system so far, as people, companies and organizations competing with each other is mandatory for effective evolution of science, healthcare and technology.
As for the other aspect, some form of hierarchy is also an innate part of human nature, and thus required for society to function properly. Obviously not in the form of a dictatorship, but there has to be a smaller decision-making circle, combined with a counter balance through a well-functioning voting system. So, the better kind of democracy, in short.
People always say it’s incompatible with human nature but I can’t see how a system where you are incentivized to accumulate wealth is any more efficient at allocating resources.
It's not capitalism that incentivizes you to acccumulate wealth, that's the point. It's being human that does this. And with capitalism, there is a regulated way to do it, in accordance with laws and rules.
In a system that doesn't reward invested time and effort, skill and abilities, you can only do it NOT in accordance with laws and rules.
It would take a massive amount of corruption to even come close to the scale of diversion of resources that upper management and investors take.
It’s not like capital really rewards abilities that efficiently either. It rewards previously accumulated wealth at a much higher rate. Just like interest payments from passive investments will exceed what most people ever make from their talents.
Human nature is debatable I guess but personally I don’t think it exists beyond certain instincts. You just need a system that incentivizes supporting it more than stealing from it. Right now I could make more stealing than working, but the risk to reward calculation doesn’t support it
I don’t think being human incentivises us to accumulate wealth. Seeing other people hoarding wealth and thinking we might get left with nothing encourages that behaviour though. Like when there was a rush on toilet paper at the supermarkets lol
I’m all for capitalism as long as it’s well regulated. It should be a constant cat and mouse game. Somebody finds a loophole? Shut it down and adjust. Find another loophole, rinse and repeat. Society only functions when resources and ideas are free flowing and accumulation of wealth and power are more evenly distributed i.e. GINI index.
I spent several years studying ideology before becoming Catholic (many Catholics are modernist or liberal and I am not one of them).
Understanding politics requires an understanding of human nature. People don't work without incentive, large organizations/governments always undergo power creep, and when people are comfortable or desperate they give up their rights and responsibilities for faustian promises.
Politics is relatively unimportant to me. If people are good they solve more problems than they create. If people are weak or evil they create more problems than they solve.
You spent several years studying ideology and came to the conclusion to become a Catholic? Like what ideologies did you study? I think I would have kept going until I got a better answer.
Sociocultural improvement driven by autocracy is like saying chop off your leg to lose weight. It’s a very strange solution, and riddled with unintended consequences that will more than likely cause more harm than good.
Politically homeless due to the recent shifting of the Overton Window.
Classical Liberal, maybe slightly left-of-centre/centrist (by UK standards), libertarian in some ways, though I believe we need a social safety net of some kind. I'm English, so we already have free-at-source healthcare - I approve very much in principle, though in reality there can be problems. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. I am not woke at all. I dislike the extremists on both sides. I am generally disillusioned with politics.
Long ago, I used to think I was a libertarian...then realized I had no belief in natural law. Lacking a belief in natural law and being mostly an agnostic, I can't say that I have any political beliefs at all now. I just say the world is what it is. Everyone runs around believing they have the "right way" all figured out, but everyone is as lost as everyone else....it's just that most don't realize they have no clue.
Everyone is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, right and wrong some of the time, etc. Everyone has a point that causes sleepless nights for someone somewhere else.
As for me...I just generally won't wish to intentionally add to the suffering of the world. I'm not always good at that, but it's the best I can do.
I’d say democratic socialist? Or maybe just a social democrat. I oscillate. I think the government is responsible for healthcare and sheltering its citizens. I can never make up my mind how I feel about citizens owning the means of production. In theory, it’s WONDERFUL, but we haven’t seen it put into practice yet and there’s a lot of questions I have involving the practicality of it all. Yet, any country that has tried either turned authoritarian or was sabotaged by the US
I'm a Kemalist first socialist second.
Yes from Turkey.
What is Kemalism?
It is basically a mildly Auth center stand where you advocate a Laic (French secularism), social and just republic system with nationalist characters.
I would probably say I don't believe 100% of what either side believes and that no matter who I vote for it seems the country will still go in the same direction. I also believe that the 2 parties cause a divide between us all and we may be more divided when there is a third major party.
Has anyone mentioned that one of the major weaknesses of democracy is its exploitation of the human psyche to elect extroverts? Even when we now know that introverts make better leaders?
https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-hidden-advantages-of-quiet-bosses
I'm voting reform in the next election. Old school lib. Bisexual, but not part of the lgbt community. I guess people would class me as conservative these days.
no political belief fits all people and groups of people or is 100% flawless and beneficial, thus there's no right answer, thus trying to develop a political belief at all i see it as a waste of time that i could be doing something i enjoy
I am a proponent of social democracy. I don't know what the "right" answer is for governing society, but I believe that this probably would be the least wrong.
Bothered.
Its all a puppet show.
I wish we were more united as communities, and actually cared about each other instead of just virtue signaling online to present an image. I dislike democrats as much as i dislike republicans. Both sides can’t see their own flaws in logic and instead focus on the opposing sides. People are too concerned with limiting each other and putting people into imaginary boxes even though they don’t want to be placed in one themselves. And of course the politicians will milk narratives as long as it works to their advantage, and shift their campaigns when their corporate masters need them to. Im tired bro. Can i just go fishing and forget about this?
Fundamental anarchist. I believe in the virtues of respect, honor, and nobility. My opinion of my local, territorial, and national governments is extremely poor and I feel great shame that the majority of the money I slave away to earn goes to supporting the slime. The world can do better. We need to do better. Anyone who isn't dead is dying and not in the sense that we're all trudging towards our inevitable doom, we're dying because the systems we live within are so twisted and malnourished that our will to live is drained until all that is left is a husk that we superficially inflate out of a sense of obligation to carry on.
I try to not think about it too much, otherwise I get really depressed. 😂
In my country I am rather conservative, and obviously it is not the same type of "conservative" that people imagine if they think of the US. I also have mixed elements of different ideologies, I feel that I do not fit into any of them completely. But taking into account the situation in my country right now.... I am more to the right.
Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone.
Try to make me do something I never had to do before under the threat of violence (that’s governments ultimate authority after all) and you’ll get violence back.
Natural law of rights. Just because people agree on something doesn’t make it right or true ffs.
A progressive that leans into socialism, though with a heavy dollup of pragmatism. Used to be center-center left, started out apolitical. Interacting with the far right and supremacists as a young buck spurred me from the right early on. Covid, MAGA and the desire for ground-up change brought the most recent shift. I like some aspects of libertarianism from a philosophical point of view, but don't see it translating to good policy. Don't like hierarchies, think capitalism will eventually have to be replaced down the line - though we aren't there yet.
Anti-identitarian. I believe we are better off as a society when we frame our role as citizens in terms of *universal* rights (e.g. right to free speech, access to good quality healthcare and education) as well as *universal* responsibilities (e.g. paying taxes, rejecting corruption, leaving things better off for future generations), regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or place of birth.
I'm more for authoritarianism as long as it is born from a good place. Stop people from speeding, tailgating etc., tax the rich, stop private insurance companies from charging obscene prices, control immigration so that the locals have houses and jobs.
I'm more interested in political systems than political beliefs.. I don't like dogma and a political system that favours dogmatism is not ideal.. I think we need more meritocracy in our political system because having too much power in the hands of elected officials leads to weak leadership as it incentivizes politicians to focus only on short term goals that will get them elected.. I think elected branches of government should be responsible for outlining the goals and direction of the country with the will of the people, we need to agree on what we value and let the experts figure out how we get there.. I think the work that is currently done by legislative branches at a national level should instead be decentralised more.. I think we need much much tighter relations on lobbying and campaigning.. I think we need take a much more scientific approach to policy by outlining the intended outcome, figuring out how to measure them and ensure that when policies are implemented the methods for assessing their efficacy must also be implemented alongside it, then we need to clearly communicate that to the public.. we can't just have every party claiming its own success based on random metrics while ignoring others, we need independent assessment of policy efficacy with respect to the intended goals.. i believe we need more socialist policies but to which degree we need them or which specific policies work and which don't should be assessed based on empirical data.. we need policy makers to clearly outline what constitutes a major failure on a proposed policy that would trigger a roll back.. it's a bad idea to just allow failed policies to bake themselves into our system because people have simply forgotten about them and they're no longer hot topics
Im an atheist moderate republican.
I hate government, I hate the UNITED states (each state should be an individual state; no federal), I am socially a bit liberal and fiscally conservative.
I’m Ron Swanson.
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, intolerant of anti-social behaviour and vehemently opposed to religion of any form in politics. Always seemed a common sense position to me but rarely seems a popular view.
Fiscally conservative probably warrants explanation as the word has been gathering baggage in excess of it it's strict definition. My view is there is plenty of money in most western nations to ensure all people have access to medical care, housing, food, education and other basic needs and these should always be met either by provision or ensuring they are affordable. Beyond that it is by far the most efficient model for the state to manage infrastructure investment, defence, policing, transport and so on, all of which are necessary investments in an advanced society. After that the government should stay out of peoples lives and not waste money that belongs to the tax payer not the politicians. Wasting money should be dealt with far more seriously and be very strictly monitored. Corruption in public office should rank with the most serious of crimes.
I believe in principles of human rights and continuous progress. Both are not always align though and hence balance needs to be maintained, all the time. With regards to which model and approach to adopt, I am more flexible.
Minarchist is probably closest but I'd like to see pretty gruesome punishments for violent criminals. No welfare but I'm not ruling out the possibility of ubi being necessary in the future. Freedom is the single most important thing we have and must be protected at any cost. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time. Those who try to impose their will on others are almost always the enemy.
Annoyed
Same tbh
It's all bullshit.
Trust is inexistant. Hard to beleive the politicals show nowadays
I keep telling my friend IAB2024 and it's kinda become a bit of an inside joke between us. We're in the US so I guess the joke is on us though lol
Don't really care much for it. I don't really like authoritarianism though
As someone from an authoritarian country, I must say you get used to it. Just think twice before saying anything. I really wonder how does it feel to not need self-censoring yourself. Otherwise you might end up in prison for "provoking hatred among people" lol
Honestly that sounds horrible. I really enjoy just saying whatever (obviously I do not say everything that words could possibly say). It might upset some people, unfortunately, but I can sleep easy knowing I would not be punished for saying, for example, that I dislike the idea of a royal family in my country
Pretty much right in the middle.
https://youtube.com/shorts/c0ZZKc5m2lw?si=KTwtLVdH1EmhmRL8
Lol
Like you don't think one side is a bit more fascist maybe?
I think both sides have issues. I take mine by topic (immigration, gun control, global warming, taxes, etc) and literally say to myself what do I believe. Sometimes the answer is I don't know, in which case I'll go seek out info or talk with friends who may have a job related to the topic. Then I form my opinion. I'm also nor a straight ticket voter either. I've voted in 7 presidential elections as well as those in the off years and only twice that I can remember did I vote for candidates that all happened to align with one party.
People need to feel superior to both sides and sound balanced and tempered but if you are balancing two unequal things you are just wrong.
It's not about feeling superior to point out fascist and authoritarian tendencies. Ignoring those is far graver of a sin.
I don't, no. I think believing either side of that coin is different from the other is really foolhardy.
I'm a young progressive. Which means I'm mad at the right and disappointed with the left.
TRUEEEE
Norwegian conservative, not to be confused with american conservative
Can I get a brief overview of what a Norwegian conservative is? I am huge fan of Finland’s new leader and I know he is considered conservative for that part of the world. He would be considered extremely liberal in America.
Same here! Also Norwegian.
I wish I didn’t have to vote for democrats I can tell you that.
Conservative
[удалено]
Anarchist. I want the human race to be free from work and states
Except the whole point if anarchy is that the individual is completely responsible for themselves, which means you have to do the MOST work
It depends. Anarcho-comminism is a thing.
[удалено]
Think like hunter-gatherer tribes - no one is overburdened and no one is in charge bc everyone does exactly what’s needed of their volition. There’s a reason cavemen had enough free time to invent music and do cave paintings and create tools.
Anarcho-socialism then?
Conservative in my birth country. Democrat in the country I immigrated to.
Many such cases.
Progressive. It wasn't that long ago humans were still treating left-handed people as outcasts.
Sadly true.
Marxist
this guy gets it. Marxism is the most INTP-like analysis of our current system, based in factual information and systemic processes. No other political position is as intelectually sound. Shame no one reads Marx.
I believe in oppression and tyranny.
Well you're on the right planet. It doesn't even matter what country. They're all run by people who get their jollies off how much of your daily life they can manipulate.
anti-federal
[удалено]
As anti-federalist, I advocate for concepts such as strong state governments, weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. Is that also of libertarian concern?
Yes but also liberalism in the classical sense (the second half anyway)
classical liberalism, conservative, center-right
The fact that classical liberalism is seen as a relatively conservative view is wild
Democratic socialist
Non-voting Person of interest
Out of bounds
Nonexistent, Idgaf
Pragmatic centrist lol.
I think it depends on where you are from. In America I am probably more anti GOP than pro democrat because the GOP is literally a cult of lovecraftian madness. So I will swallow some of the head scratching, eye rolling, hypocrisy of the democrats just so we as a global community don’t live in a world where we are dominated by the fourth reich with nuclear weapons led by a Jim Jones-esque narcissistic sociopath.
Exactly. The answer I was looking for - agree 12,000%!!! A decade ago, I never would have believed in the potential for a cult leader to take over this country - Shades of Nazi Germany, Orwell's "1984" and perhaps also, the inspired paranoia of Philip K. Dick. Meanwhile, the Democrats do not seem to be capable of contending with the extreme levels of underhandedness (among other issues), so basically, it's a wash. Of course, most Americans do not have a choice either way, as The Swing States decide just about every presidential election. Entire states, and their millions of votes, never matter.
I mean local elections matter. Democrats do put people in the cabinet that are somewhat competent, so I have to give them that. If you look Secretary of treasury, Secretary of energy, Secretary of transportation etc, they all have an understanding of how those systems work and how to build policy and governance. The GOP always picks cronies for cabinet positions whose purpose is to pay back industry that donated to them.
Agreed. I used to assume there was some semblance of competency amongst all politicians, but in the past decade I've observed the exact opposite (especially from a particular party). That includes the purposeful manipulation of the people, often in the name of corporate American profits. And yep, voting (and participating) in local elections more likely makes a difference.
Dont care about it, its not like I would be able to change something anyway
Logical positivism.
[удалено]
I support facing facts and reality - and solving problems using logical analysis and doing what is proven to work instead of dancing around issues. Facts don’t care about feelings. Solutions should solve the problems they set out to solve.
While I completely agree with facts not caring about feelings, Ben Shapiro has ruined that phrase for me
There is no representation for my political beliefs in my country, but I am least far away (still meaning disagreeing a lot with, do note me not even using "closest to") from pretty right-wing conservatives. Yes, women should be free to abort their own pregnancies, even as gruesome and sad an event as it is, but so should men (legal abortion). No, your religion is not going to tell me what to do or how to address you, you're not codifying it (any religion, including mine, ESPECIALLY mine). Yes, of bloody course the climate is changing, but what you are trying to do about it dear left, and your reasons for that, is a f\*cking suicide. Democracy is the best system invented so far, but it's a grown-up society toy. For a transition from where (looks around in disdain) we are now into where we should be for democracy to be feasible for us, we either have to tweak democracy hard or get an interim constitutional monarchy... Aaand more, lots more niche stuff. Feels kinda weird to have so many... Unique angles on such topics noone else ever even mentions. Like I literally have zero representation in the public discourse. Forces me to perform sanity checks on my own self, seeing my thinking processes leading me time and again into areas with a population of one. God damn, why is my reasoning so different, where am I making all those errors, why can't I see them, does it mean I am crazy, extraordinarily dumb, or just in a bubble I cannot reach or even hear likeminded people from? But then, if there are no errors in my reasoning, why am I the only one standing for X, Y, Z, is it just my hubris talking that I even COULD be the only one being right about all these, this is quite literally impossible... But then again, where are the errors in my reasoning, maybe let me ask that guy, he sounds smart... Aaand he failed to defend his point in any decent way, damnit, why, why? Why couldn't he just prove me wrong? Why was he not the one to finally enlighten me? I did strive to get out of my bubble if one even exists, so why did it not work? Or is it HIM who really IS wrong? But that would mean... It could mean nothing, it's just one sample, it's anecdotal evidence, it's nothing. But how many times did that happen already? What if there is no "right" in these things? What is truth (yeah I am not even kidding you rn)? Surely though, there always is one best course of action? Surely, there are at the very least courses of action that are obviously, severely suboptimal? Why do they keep taking ones then, and why noone is asking my questions out loud? Maybe it's just so obvious I'm delirious it's not even worth a platform?... There, we got back to the beginning. Aaand round and round it goes. Eh, you got me blabbing with this one. Looking back at what I wrote I am pretty certain I'm just going to look like a weirdo if I post this. But whatever. I feel like writing that process down finally (thx for the impulse u/op) might get me somewhere I wasn't before. If it does, all the laughter beth a breeze in me sails.
Dude, you're like navigating through a maze of political beliefs all on your own. It's wild how you've got your own unique take on things while everyone else is following the same old script. Props to you for standing your ground, even if it feels like you're in a one-person parade sometimes. And hey, writing it all out? That's therapy right there. Keep doing you, man. The world needs more voices like yours, even if they're a little out there.
Gods know that DID feel like therapy. Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate them a lot.
>Yes, women should be free to abort their own pregnancies, even as gruesome and sad an event as it is, It's not. Really it should only be between a woman and her doctor and nobody else gets a say or a judgment. >Yes, of bloody course the climate is changing, but what you are trying to do about it dear left, and your reasons for that, is a f\*cking suicide. It's suicide to treat this as anything less than an existential threat that we will see the consequences of in our lifetime. What do you think the left is doing incorrectly, other than not enough? > Forces me to perform sanity checks on my own self, seeing my thinking processes leading me time and again into areas with a population of one. God damn, why is my reasoning so different, where am I making all those errors, why can't I see them, does it mean I am crazy, extraordinarily dumb, or just in a bubble I cannot reach or even hear likeminded people from? But then, if there are no errors in my reasoning, why am I the only one standing for X, Y, Z, is it just my hubris talking that I even COULD be the only one being right about all these, this is quite literally impossible... But then again, where are the errors in my reasoning, maybe let me ask that guy, he sounds smart... Aaand he failed to defend his point in any decent way, damnit, why, why? Why couldn't he just prove me wrong? Why was he not the one to finally enlighten me? I did strive to get out of my bubble if one even exists, so why did it not work? Or is it HIM who really IS wrong? But that would mean... It could mean nothing, it's just one sample, it's anecdotal evidence, it's nothing. But how many times did that happen already? What if there is no "right" in these things? What is truth (yeah I am not even kidding you rn)? Surely though, there always is one best course of action? Surely, there are at the very least courses of action that are obviously, severely suboptimal? This reminds me a lot of myself when I was younger. I ended up going to school to answer these questions. You might find solace in reading political theory. You aren't the first person to have these questions of "how do we run society." There's a long tradition in western philosophy of political theory. Start with Plato. Aristotle. Jump to John Locke and Rousseau. Karl Marx (read Hegel to get the dialectic if you want, might serve you well, but it's obtuse.) Adam Smith. John Stuart Mill. Kropotkin. The Austrian school. Bakunin. Lots of others in modern time. You can go postmodern with the surrealist movement and Andre Breton and guy debord and jean baudrillard Good luck. There are answers out there but there is no perfect system. For me the question is "how can we have the most equitable system with the most freedoms." Your political beliefs will change throughout your life too. I've gone from being raised a conservative to libertarian to an anarchist to some sort of democratic socialist and it continues to evolve and change. > Why do they keep taking ones then, and why noone is asking my questions out loud? Maybe it's just so obvious I'm delirious it's not even worth a platform?... Some people are. Most aren't. Freud has some good answers on this. It helps to understand that some people don't like to think about these things and they accept them at face value. Often, they are the ones that benefit most from the system. Sometimes, it's too hard to face how powerless most of us are.
Theocratic Conservatism
Is this sarcasm? Are there really INTPs, who value logic and reason over everything, that are basically vouching for cult rule?
As perfect as communism sounds, it cannot actually work, as it is incompatible with human nature. Capitalism is the best economic system so far, as people, companies and organizations competing with each other is mandatory for effective evolution of science, healthcare and technology. As for the other aspect, some form of hierarchy is also an innate part of human nature, and thus required for society to function properly. Obviously not in the form of a dictatorship, but there has to be a smaller decision-making circle, combined with a counter balance through a well-functioning voting system. So, the better kind of democracy, in short.
People always say it’s incompatible with human nature but I can’t see how a system where you are incentivized to accumulate wealth is any more efficient at allocating resources.
It's not capitalism that incentivizes you to acccumulate wealth, that's the point. It's being human that does this. And with capitalism, there is a regulated way to do it, in accordance with laws and rules. In a system that doesn't reward invested time and effort, skill and abilities, you can only do it NOT in accordance with laws and rules.
It would take a massive amount of corruption to even come close to the scale of diversion of resources that upper management and investors take. It’s not like capital really rewards abilities that efficiently either. It rewards previously accumulated wealth at a much higher rate. Just like interest payments from passive investments will exceed what most people ever make from their talents. Human nature is debatable I guess but personally I don’t think it exists beyond certain instincts. You just need a system that incentivizes supporting it more than stealing from it. Right now I could make more stealing than working, but the risk to reward calculation doesn’t support it
I don’t think being human incentivises us to accumulate wealth. Seeing other people hoarding wealth and thinking we might get left with nothing encourages that behaviour though. Like when there was a rush on toilet paper at the supermarkets lol
I’m all for capitalism as long as it’s well regulated. It should be a constant cat and mouse game. Somebody finds a loophole? Shut it down and adjust. Find another loophole, rinse and repeat. Society only functions when resources and ideas are free flowing and accumulation of wealth and power are more evenly distributed i.e. GINI index.
I spent several years studying ideology before becoming Catholic (many Catholics are modernist or liberal and I am not one of them). Understanding politics requires an understanding of human nature. People don't work without incentive, large organizations/governments always undergo power creep, and when people are comfortable or desperate they give up their rights and responsibilities for faustian promises. Politics is relatively unimportant to me. If people are good they solve more problems than they create. If people are weak or evil they create more problems than they solve.
You spent several years studying ideology and came to the conclusion to become a Catholic? Like what ideologies did you study? I think I would have kept going until I got a better answer.
So u joined the Catholic Church because you don’t trust large organisations like the Catholic Church?
Anarchist resigned to the fact that sociocultural improvement will only occur under autocracy.
Sociocultural improvement driven by autocracy is like saying chop off your leg to lose weight. It’s a very strange solution, and riddled with unintended consequences that will more than likely cause more harm than good.
I didn't say I was in favor of it.
Would you mind unpacking that? (I'm a social liberal who has recently read both volumes of An Anarchist FAQ.)
Far-right, but I understand that the government hates us all and voting basically doesn’t matter
Socialist
Politically homeless due to the recent shifting of the Overton Window. Classical Liberal, maybe slightly left-of-centre/centrist (by UK standards), libertarian in some ways, though I believe we need a social safety net of some kind. I'm English, so we already have free-at-source healthcare - I approve very much in principle, though in reality there can be problems. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. I am not woke at all. I dislike the extremists on both sides. I am generally disillusioned with politics.
empathetic & open-minded so definitely more left and progressive
Classical Liberalism.
Egalitarian ecosocialist solarpunk lol
Centrist— can either vote left or right, just depends on the candidate and the platforms of both parties
Socially and fiscally progressive
Ancom here too
Humans will always fail and corrupt any political system, so just go with the flow till the system dies.
Rooting for the Globally efficient technocratic philanthropcracy.
You had me at technocratic but lost me at philanthropy.
misanthropcracy? Oh wait…
Long ago, I used to think I was a libertarian...then realized I had no belief in natural law. Lacking a belief in natural law and being mostly an agnostic, I can't say that I have any political beliefs at all now. I just say the world is what it is. Everyone runs around believing they have the "right way" all figured out, but everyone is as lost as everyone else....it's just that most don't realize they have no clue. Everyone is right some of the time, wrong some of the time, right and wrong some of the time, etc. Everyone has a point that causes sleepless nights for someone somewhere else. As for me...I just generally won't wish to intentionally add to the suffering of the world. I'm not always good at that, but it's the best I can do.
Libleft, socialist I guess
Centre-left, social democrat-libsoc
no matter whom I vote ... no one good so idc really everybody's corrupted
Politics is just useless arguing that leads nowhere. I just believe in whatever I think is the right thing.
🟨⬛️
the political system is a joke. All old white men traditionalist trash
From a US perspective, democratic socialist.
SocDem I believe.
Cynical.
I’d say democratic socialist? Or maybe just a social democrat. I oscillate. I think the government is responsible for healthcare and sheltering its citizens. I can never make up my mind how I feel about citizens owning the means of production. In theory, it’s WONDERFUL, but we haven’t seen it put into practice yet and there’s a lot of questions I have involving the practicality of it all. Yet, any country that has tried either turned authoritarian or was sabotaged by the US
Social democracy
Democratic socialist
I'm a Kemalist first socialist second. Yes from Turkey. What is Kemalism? It is basically a mildly Auth center stand where you advocate a Laic (French secularism), social and just republic system with nationalist characters.
Far left (socialist), borderline anarchist (the U.S. sucks and I’m moments away from going full civil-disobedience on this shit)
Sounds like me right before I went full civil disobedience
Realistic Libertarian who thinks that Machiavelli is never wrong.
Come on, everybody is wrong sometimes.
That is not logical. It's hard to start a commune with a bunch of anarchists. It's like how I am a moderate accelerationist, makes no sense.
Marxist Leninist
I would probably say I don't believe 100% of what either side believes and that no matter who I vote for it seems the country will still go in the same direction. I also believe that the 2 parties cause a divide between us all and we may be more divided when there is a third major party.
Has anyone mentioned that one of the major weaknesses of democracy is its exploitation of the human psyche to elect extroverts? Even when we now know that introverts make better leaders? https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-hidden-advantages-of-quiet-bosses
Conservative.
delusion. i don’t really care abt it at all
I'm voting reform in the next election. Old school lib. Bisexual, but not part of the lgbt community. I guess people would class me as conservative these days.
I don’t care each belief has a point
Halfway between Social Democrat and Libertarian. Some say that just makes me a vanilla Liberal.
[удалено]
Solid U.S. Democrat
Ill defined but generally centre-left.
An earthling standing on a space rock. Either way, we aren’t getting out alive. I’ll take Georgism
no political belief fits all people and groups of people or is 100% flawless and beneficial, thus there's no right answer, thus trying to develop a political belief at all i see it as a waste of time that i could be doing something i enjoy
Social democrat (not socialist) with some right leaning cultural/social values
I am a proponent of social democracy. I don't know what the "right" answer is for governing society, but I believe that this probably would be the least wrong.
Radical centrist
Kinda socialist.
Left-leaning Libertarian
Right. Very right.
I'm fairly same. Socialist, anti-capitalist, want the best portrayals of a Trek-like future.
Jaded. Nobody over retirement age should be working in a political office, but in the end they're all in someone's pocket.
Misanthropic
Bothered. Its all a puppet show. I wish we were more united as communities, and actually cared about each other instead of just virtue signaling online to present an image. I dislike democrats as much as i dislike republicans. Both sides can’t see their own flaws in logic and instead focus on the opposing sides. People are too concerned with limiting each other and putting people into imaginary boxes even though they don’t want to be placed in one themselves. And of course the politicians will milk narratives as long as it works to their advantage, and shift their campaigns when their corporate masters need them to. Im tired bro. Can i just go fishing and forget about this?
classical liberal//libertairian i think. i havr political beliefs, but i dont intentionally try to follow any ideologies.
[удалено]
I'm Anti-Cult
Very much smack dab in the middle
Situational Anarchist. The entire system is rigged and there's no getting out of the controlled chaos until cosmic justice is dispensed.
I’ll vote the least annoying candidate.
Fundamental anarchist. I believe in the virtues of respect, honor, and nobility. My opinion of my local, territorial, and national governments is extremely poor and I feel great shame that the majority of the money I slave away to earn goes to supporting the slime. The world can do better. We need to do better. Anyone who isn't dead is dying and not in the sense that we're all trudging towards our inevitable doom, we're dying because the systems we live within are so twisted and malnourished that our will to live is drained until all that is left is a husk that we superficially inflate out of a sense of obligation to carry on. I try to not think about it too much, otherwise I get really depressed. 😂
In my country I am rather conservative, and obviously it is not the same type of "conservative" that people imagine if they think of the US. I also have mixed elements of different ideologies, I feel that I do not fit into any of them completely. But taking into account the situation in my country right now.... I am more to the right.
Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. Try to make me do something I never had to do before under the threat of violence (that’s governments ultimate authority after all) and you’ll get violence back. Natural law of rights. Just because people agree on something doesn’t make it right or true ffs.
A progressive that leans into socialism, though with a heavy dollup of pragmatism. Used to be center-center left, started out apolitical. Interacting with the far right and supremacists as a young buck spurred me from the right early on. Covid, MAGA and the desire for ground-up change brought the most recent shift. I like some aspects of libertarianism from a philosophical point of view, but don't see it translating to good policy. Don't like hierarchies, think capitalism will eventually have to be replaced down the line - though we aren't there yet.
Anti-identitarian. I believe we are better off as a society when we frame our role as citizens in terms of *universal* rights (e.g. right to free speech, access to good quality healthcare and education) as well as *universal* responsibilities (e.g. paying taxes, rejecting corruption, leaving things better off for future generations), regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or place of birth.
NeoLiberal Democrat, also like the progressives also I'm an ENTP
Whatever is best for me
I'm more for authoritarianism as long as it is born from a good place. Stop people from speeding, tailgating etc., tax the rich, stop private insurance companies from charging obscene prices, control immigration so that the locals have houses and jobs.
I'm more interested in political systems than political beliefs.. I don't like dogma and a political system that favours dogmatism is not ideal.. I think we need more meritocracy in our political system because having too much power in the hands of elected officials leads to weak leadership as it incentivizes politicians to focus only on short term goals that will get them elected.. I think elected branches of government should be responsible for outlining the goals and direction of the country with the will of the people, we need to agree on what we value and let the experts figure out how we get there.. I think the work that is currently done by legislative branches at a national level should instead be decentralised more.. I think we need much much tighter relations on lobbying and campaigning.. I think we need take a much more scientific approach to policy by outlining the intended outcome, figuring out how to measure them and ensure that when policies are implemented the methods for assessing their efficacy must also be implemented alongside it, then we need to clearly communicate that to the public.. we can't just have every party claiming its own success based on random metrics while ignoring others, we need independent assessment of policy efficacy with respect to the intended goals.. i believe we need more socialist policies but to which degree we need them or which specific policies work and which don't should be assessed based on empirical data.. we need policy makers to clearly outline what constitutes a major failure on a proposed policy that would trigger a roll back.. it's a bad idea to just allow failed policies to bake themselves into our system because people have simply forgotten about them and they're no longer hot topics
Progressive. Setting an upper limit on privately held wealth and power would “fix” democracy overnight.
Somewhere in the middle. If I could change the political system I would prefer a geniocracy.
Nonexistent, otherwise great
Im an atheist moderate republican. I hate government, I hate the UNITED states (each state should be an individual state; no federal), I am socially a bit liberal and fiscally conservative. I’m Ron Swanson.
I trust none of it.
Easily Radicalised Contrarian.
Mostly apolitical with a libertarian leaning
don have don care
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, intolerant of anti-social behaviour and vehemently opposed to religion of any form in politics. Always seemed a common sense position to me but rarely seems a popular view. Fiscally conservative probably warrants explanation as the word has been gathering baggage in excess of it it's strict definition. My view is there is plenty of money in most western nations to ensure all people have access to medical care, housing, food, education and other basic needs and these should always be met either by provision or ensuring they are affordable. Beyond that it is by far the most efficient model for the state to manage infrastructure investment, defence, policing, transport and so on, all of which are necessary investments in an advanced society. After that the government should stay out of peoples lives and not waste money that belongs to the tax payer not the politicians. Wasting money should be dealt with far more seriously and be very strictly monitored. Corruption in public office should rank with the most serious of crimes.
I believe in principles of human rights and continuous progress. Both are not always align though and hence balance needs to be maintained, all the time. With regards to which model and approach to adopt, I am more flexible.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Libertarian capitalist.
I disagree with both sides depending on the topic.
We are currently going through “industrial revolution and its future”
I got chatGPT to ask me a series of questions until it could assign me a label and it ended up with: classical liberal
Unironically liberal
I have opinions, but most of the time people don't agree with them. So I just don't describe them.
I am a plebeian who can't be bothered. I focus on trying to be in a good mood for my family, so I don't care.
[удалено]
hi, enfp an-com so the same as you except diff type
Minarchist is probably closest but I'd like to see pretty gruesome punishments for violent criminals. No welfare but I'm not ruling out the possibility of ubi being necessary in the future. Freedom is the single most important thing we have and must be protected at any cost. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time. Those who try to impose their will on others are almost always the enemy.
I hate both sides. When they are constantly fucking the entire country, I couldn't care less if they're wearing a red or blue tie