Ask Your Question today
Hey, I'm a conservative but I love hearing other people's opinions and I wanted to know what you all believe in so yeah. I tryed to include as many as I could think of sorry if I missed you:( Anyways thanks for voting!
| Democratic | 4 | |
| Republican | 3 | |
| Liberal | 5 | |
| Conservative | 6 | |
| Socialist | 1 | |
| Libertarian | 7 | |
| Moderate | 3 | |
| Communist | 1 | |
| Fascist | 3 | |
| Survivalist | 1 | |
| Green Party | 0 | |
| Nationalist | 4 | |
| Anarchist | 7 | |
| Progressive | 0 | |
| Tea Party | 2 | |
| Centrist | 5 | |
| Other (comment it) | 4 | |
| None | 4 |
I believe in being a hunter gatherer, non-violent, and non-coercive. I believe everything else has negligible difference in morality. Although I of course believe in loving yourself and others. And totally get why so many of us continue to not be hunter gatherers myself included.
That's about it really, my parents are dems, I grew up thinking the center left was objectively better than being moderate/anything right of that. But really didn't know anything.
Then became exposed to some more radical left views in highschool, and then spending a year at an extremely liberal liberal arts college. Then a few years ago started watching The Young Turks every day.
I still take from that side the anti-violence aspects, (anti-war etc.). But I am anti-violence across the board.
Obama dropped 3 bombs an hour for all of 2016. And then there were the thousands of drone strikes in northwest pakistan with Clinton in tow. So I preferred that Trump win over Clinton.
I really believe in reacting to perceived hate with love which doesn't seem to be a value of the left. Unless you are looking at small communities like zapatistas, and I'm sure some indigenous communities in the states, but i don't know if that is even considered left.
Then of course I need to have some respect for the hail-marys of libertarianism or transhumanism, but I'm not putting my money on either.
Progressivism lost me with it's arrogance, dogmatism, and I just became so deeply confused. I really see it as more of a social posturing/virtue signaling/form of social currency than a political movement. That being said I am removed from any of the 'real' activism taking place. Which I'm sure case by case, some people are doing important work.
I mean maybe someone can help me out, but rationally I can't get around, the concept of a patriarchy so pervasive as described by progressives that is A. changeable whatsoever or B. changeable by the tactics of the left. (Chastising those in supposed power, blocking, "putting on blast", refusing to educate)
The conversation seems to be on whether or not there is a patriarchy, with progressives arguing that it really is a problem, but if they're correct, that seems to be an argument against how anything can be done. It seems to be a pretty rude slight against all generations of women throughout history who seemed to barely push the needle if at all.
So I guess socially I've fallen into a closer identification with the less radical left, I guess sort of where I started lol. But then more so with anyone to the right, than the left. That being said all my friends are radicalized progressives.
But yeah I guess to sum up, my lack of faith with activism, combined with all of the despicable assholeishness of how progressives treat everybody else has left me pretty disenfranchised with social justice activism.
The violence still upsets me, war, police brutality, murder of marginalized people, but radical love is really the only thing I believe in, besides living off the land entirely if you can do it.
Kind of just watching it burn.
Also have never really gotten going about right wing economic policy or the immigration stuff, social issues, but that's because of my beliefs, not that I hate republicans. Also I hear out the logic in all of these cases, anti-abortion, stricter immigration laws, tax cuts, like there is reason behind all of these even if I come to a different conclusion.
I could do a whole post on words the left has reversed the meaning of but one is bigotry, in which progressives won't even hear out the opinion of the supposed 'bigot' before casting judgement on them. (themselves embodying the definition of bigotry)
But yeah at the end of the day I voted for Jill Stein and would again, maybe even would have for Bernie, but I have so many caveats when it comes to these more fringe white groups of feminism, black lives matter, and progressivism. I don't believe with this ends justifying the means mentality. I don't think it is moral, and I don't think it even works.
And I guess I feel like this "treating people however we like because we are the correct ones" mentality seems to override the actual issues or at least have more of an impact than any work being done.
Also as for the less radical left/right, I'm aware of the money in politics and see the same people determining the agendas of both parties.
I've taken some time to go to the library and educate myself on the atrocities taking place in the world, and how there is so much that is so much more horrendous than what is shown on the news. It is really having more to do with personal feelings than anything objective when it comes to fear or having any type of deal-breaker politically.
Like by any metric, what you oppose will continue to happen somewhere in the world, and on a much worse scale than what we are even talking about.
So yeah, for the list, I'm anti-government, anti-police, anti-agriculture, anti-violence, anti-prisons, anti-law, anti-coercion, pro-people, pro-love, pro-listening, pro-acceptance
And I need to now make it clear that when I'm saying I want inclusion and love of everyone I mean EVERYONE. I don't mean hate people who you think don't love everyone, or hate people who you think have hate. I mean like, I think the people who need love the most are probably the people you'd be first to discount. You know, hurt people hurt people etc.
And if I have to make compromises I'll choose the path of as little blood as possible, but that really sucks I don't wanna make choices like that. It's usually really bloody either way. I feel like spending money whatsoever that money is gonna go somewhere you don't want it to eventually.
idk if I answered your question
Sounds like anarcho-primitivism. By the way, Marx referred to the hunter-gatherer period as "primitive communism" because society was classless. So in a sense, he expected the final stage of society, in some aspects, to be a return to what it began from.
Interesting, I'll have to look that up. Also fun fact, there are the same number of hunter-gatherers today as there were before right before agriculture (at that point the global population)
Yeah, that's interesting. Incidentally, individual hunter-gatherer populations are stable because their population sizes obey Malthusian principles, which have a regulating effect on them.
From archaeological evidence, it's become a general consensus that the rise of civilization introduced the rise of class society, the state, the patriarchy, war, and slavery. Slaves, after all, are yet another social class, often of foreign descent, and mass slavery is unsustainable without economic surpluses and a high population density.
Dude thank you! Anarcho-primitivism is it. Also looking up 'Malthusian' led me to this magazine article from the 80s called like 'the single biggest mistake in human history' about agriculture. I've had these ideas kicking around in my head for like over a year, and now I can read others' thoughts and critiques!
Also yess I think just the existence of surplus has a lot to do with that. As well as agriculture both destroying land as well as people not being raised with the knowledge of how to forage, and needing to interface with many people to survive instead of directly with the land(animals) and maybe some family.
One question I come back to is why a hunter gatherer would choose to begin farming. It's perpetuation seems obvious but for the initial shift everything seems odd. I've heard it was a survival thing like they would need to plant seeds, but I don't see how it would spread.
From what I've read foraging is actually so much easier and more reliable than farming. I imagine the first farmers were probably slaves.
You're welcome. :)
The reason why agriculture stuck is because it provided food security, let people survive famines, enjoy greater prosperity, etc. It allowed sedentism, specialization and non-portable technology, and provided protection from dangerous animals, poisonous food, and other humans.
Personally, I don't believe we need to destroy civilization to destroy class society. I believe we can have both prosperity AND equality, with justice and cooperation.
I don't want to hijack this whole post by responding to everything you wrote(especially the part about being pro-love and then saying you preferred a Trump win over Clinton...), but this whole "liberals embody bigotry" thing...I see this argument from conservatives all the time, and I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind it.
Look at it this way. By your own standard, you yourself just embodied the definition of bigotry. You did exactly what you accuse liberals of doing by casting judgment on them without hearing their opinions. Am I now embodying the definition of bigotry by pointing out that you're embodying the definition of bigotry? By your standard, I probably am. But if anybody else points out that I'm doing it, then they're doing it too. It's an endless cycle where everybody ends up being a bigot and the word has no meaning.
Personally, I don't think you're embodying bigotry, and I don't think liberals do either. But, to be logically consistent, it has to be both or neither.
Also please hijack if you wish. I would love to talk about how 'hate' is another word that's been reversed lol
That was a poor place for me to make an error. What I meant was the progressives (that judge before listening to the person) are practicing bigotry. This is also the case when conservatives do this. I don't even think per se that progressives do this more often than right wingers. I do find it particularly ironic though how I have witnessed progressives intentionally avoid listening to perceived conservatives and their own bigotry kept them from learning that the person they claimed to be a bigot was not one.
This is what I was meaning to comment on, this was the worst place to be lazy and sound like I was generalizing lol. But yeah I would say that the left on average is guiltier of the intentional dismissal/avoidance of others' opinions as well as chastising others for perceived bigotry, often in the same breath.
nationalist, and somewhere half way between conservative and libertarian.
The path for myself and many has been Neocon -> Libertarian -> Nationalist. Once you read up on the Deep State and projects like Operation Northwoods, it's hard to be anything else.
Over time, Deep State has varying degrees of success calling the shots on foreign policy. Do you think the move to throw Michael Flynn under the bus was a deliberate attempt by Trump to gain authority over the independent mindset and passive resistance that Deep State agencies use to manage world affairs?
I'm mostly just curious. I'd rather not work for those starchy bastards anyway. Besides, Silicon Valley powers the global economic machine. Why settle for anything less productive?
Trump has never fired anyone without a clear, simple explanation. He couldn't give one with Flynn, which leads me to believe there's more to it.
I think Flynn was handled as a means to root out the leaker and her/his system for leaking, which may involve Reince Priebus. I good reminder that establishment Republicans are Deep Staters as well.
Silicon Valley is powerful, but when it comes to economic breakthroughs I wouldn't overstate it. They make releases on what the military has developed decades ago. We're talking tech on the gas-replacement level, which has ramifications they're not willing to risk yet.
I am no where on the spectrum. I like to be able to make my own choices on issues rather than a party...
Whoo hoo look at all those Anarchists, just when I thought I might be the only one on here
Somewhat economically socialist, somewhat libertarian. The market needs regulation in order to be truly competitive. I believe that some form of compulsive redistribution of wealth is beneficial as the wealthy have bent the rules for their own good for too long now. I also think universal healthcare is a good goal to strive for. For most social policies I believe people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people.
Idk where I fall on this spectrum because terms between countries differ.
Does "slightly right wing" fall under any of those titles? xD