Politics & Political Leanings

For your country's politics, how far left or right leaning would you (generally) associate yourself?

  • I do not believe I hold any particular political leaning/undecided.

  • Extreme left.

  • Far left.

  • Moderate left.

  • Center-left.

  • Center.

  • Center-right.

  • Moderate right.

  • Far right.

  • Extreme right.


Results are only viewable after voting.
In light of recent events I'm just going to say I'm proud of Iwaku when I ctrl+f "Innocent until proven guilty." Good job, people. Thank you.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Brovo and Kagayours
Question #1 said:
What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

To a certain degree, it really depends on the church/religion itself.

Question #2 said:
What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

Pro-choice I guess(I absolutely hate that term, but I digress). It's all the choice of the woman and what she wants to do in the long run.

Question #3 said:
What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?


Question #4 said:
Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

I believe that you can say whatever you want so long as it doesn't incite violence.

Question #5 said:
Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

Depends on the situation, and if other methods have been used. It should honestly come to a "Last Resort" option.

Question #6 said:
What is your opinion on the death penalty?

As someone who lives in Britain; It should NOT come back because people think it is a "deterrent" and would stop the more vicious crimes. Other than that I'm very middle road here.

Question #7 said:
Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

Two-Tiered, preferably.

Question #8 said:
Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Jesus christ on a bike whilst whistling through his nailed hole hands, fuck no!

Question #9 said:
In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

Innocent until proven guilty.

Question #10 said:
Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

I honestly don't know myself,haven't really given it any huge thought honestly.

Question #11 said:
Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

I don't think you should ever resort to violence in activism or protests. Like what? you're gonna kill all men because you believe women should be on top? kinda makes you look like a wanker in my opinion.

Question #12 said:
Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

*looks at who's running the UK right now*


No.

Question #13 said:
Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

It's kind of a hard question to ask in a matter of fact-like way, so I'm going to say I don't think so.

Question #14 said:
Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

If I did, I'd be running the country by now :3.

Question #14 said:
Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

No, because the LAW! is the LAW! isn't that right, Judge Dredd?


Question #15 said:
Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

I suppose? I mean, sure, but I don't think they are super important really.

Question #16 said:
Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

Not personally, no.

Question #17 said:
What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

Brah, I live in the UK and I'm Welsh/English:p. I honestly don't want them shot on sight, but I believe Britain needs to really re-think it's laws and policies.

Question #18 said:
Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

Fuck no.

Question #19 said:
Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

No, I don't think they should be forced, it's their business at the end of the day, let them run it how they see fit. With that said, I don't think they should act like assholes about it, on both sides honestly.

Question #20 said:
Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

Selfish Individualist, to be brutally honest. But I occasionally see the bigger picture :p.

Question #21 said:
How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"


Put an answer here!
 
Question #1 said:
What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

Separation of Church and State, I feel, should be absolute. I do not believe that any religion should have any sway within the Government of my country. Should churches be taxed? Yes. If it makes an income, it should be taxed.

Question #2 said:
What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

My position on abortion is simple: Education, then choice.

Question #3 said:
What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

The purpose of a Government is to protects the rights, and freedoms of the people who live within it. Big or small though? I have trouble deciding. On one hand, I believe that the government should be as small as possible, letting a free market work and function as an organic entity that serves the needs of the people. Yet I recognize the problem with such an approach, is that the people must be educated, and must have an active awareness of the world around them. They must question, and seek truth for a free market to function in their favour. If they do not, then the free market will control the people. In this world's current state, the people choose to ignore threats to their rights or freedoms, they choose to be ignorant.

This pushes me to realize the fact that a large government is more desirable, or perhaps necessary, at this point in time.

Question #4 said:
Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

Freedom of speech should never be infringed. I do not care if someone gets "offended", that person has the option to ignore what the other person says. The only limitation, is Libel, Slander, and Defamation

Question #5 said:
Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

If it is requested by Victim Country, or Victim Oppressed People, then yes. However, the people of this country's Government, should have a clear majority agreement to assist, before intervention is initiated. Clear majority being 65% or greater.

Question #6 said:
What is your opinion on the death penalty?

Reserved for repeat, violent offenders. People who have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of rehabilitation, and proven themselves to be a threat to society as a whole. Yes. Exterminate them. Cheaply. The tax payers should not be forced to pay for their existence.

Question #7 said:
Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

Going to say: State. Privatization of health care leads to disgustingly over-inflated costs to those who need treatment. It leads to private insurance corporations which try their best to cover as little as possible, with the money you have paid them to take care of you with. Public Healthcare isn't perfect, but it is a damn sight better than being $100k in debt, or having to fight with an insurance corporation to give you the money you've already paid them, when you need it.

Question #8 said:
Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

Put your answer here!

Question #9 said:
In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

Innocent until proven guilty. Always

Question #10 said:
Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

Libertarianism.

Question #11 said:
Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

Yes. If the State refuses to listen to the People, and acts against the Rights and Freedoms of the People, the People have an obligation of self-preservation to denounce the State, and reform it.

Question #12 said:
Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

Not really. In someways it is a problem, in some ways it is not. No one person's views should make up the state.

Question #13 said:
Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

Better. Freedom of thought is perhaps the most important thing there is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Question #14 said:
Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

My political views are fairly fluid. Facts, and understanding of Humanity keep affecting my position.

Question #14 said:
Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

At a point where I am unsure of how I feel about this, to make an accurate statement of my opinion.

Question #15 said:
Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

Not sure.

Question #16 said:
Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

No.

Question #17 said:
What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

I have no problem with immigration.

Question #18 said:
Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

No. Everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, should be treated as equals, in the eyes and jurisdictions of the Government

Question #19 said:
Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

No. If they chose not to, then they have chosen to deprive themselves of that market. It is their choice. It hurts no one.
The other side of that, is people who hold those views in a government service, are representatives of the government, and thus must be held to the same standard of non-discrimination of the State itself.

Question #20 said:
Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

The many are more important than the one. The is no way to rationalize the restriction of rights of the many, for the actions of the few.

Question #21 said:
How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

Very.
 
Question #1 said:
What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

It could be better. Honestly it shouldn’t have been a problem to allow same-sex marriage and medically necessary abortions. Most arguments were religion based and it caused a lot of unnecessary drama. I’m Catholic, but I know I’m in the minority. In the age of being PC we should just stop playing pretend and cut out what we can when it comes to religion and how the state works.

As for the second question, I believe that they should under certain circumstances. When it is clear that they do charity work for those who attend services and the like, tax-exemption ought to continue. If they are working for a profit, then we have a problem. I’m really not well versed in this, but I’m biased to say that the state should just leave them be. Church and state should leave each other alone.

Question #2 said:
What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

I would never personally get an abortion. I would be very upset if a family member or friend had one. I would want to make sure that they knew all of their options before going through the procedure. However, at its core, it’s a medical procedure. It’s their body. If they are going to be harmed by the child growing within them, they should be able to decide what to do about it without politics or religion getting in the way. It’s already an incredibly difficult decision that doesn’t need to be further complicated. Despite this, I think there should be limitations. I think there should be a time limit on it, so to speak. When? I don’t know. I’m not a doctor. That should be up to them. The idea of a late-pregnancy abortion makes my stomach twist, however. I couldn’t condone that personally, unless in an emergency situation or such.

Question #3 said:
What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

Not all people are born equal in the United States, no matter what people have to say about it. There are still racially segregated neighborhoods across the world. They are at distinct disadvantages when it comes to approaching life. There are people who are born ill or handicapped, and they are also at distinct disadvantages. This can put severe strains on caretakers. The government should serve a purpose that allows the culture of the nation to continue for as many citizens as possible. Leaving veterans to shiver in the streets, keeping children from getting proper education or nutrition, putting parents in a financial position which requires them leaving their children to outside care during the “third trimester,” and on and on should not be allowed in today’s world. It doesn’t have to be that way.

I guess that means I like big government.

Question #4 said:
Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

People are inherently rude and awkward creatures. Talk to a child for a few seconds when you’re having a bad hair day and they will immediately point this out. If a child is raised in a home where hate is normal, they will learn hate speech. They will go on to use these words, whether they know their true meaning or not. This will lead to the replication of what the words mean, even if by some miracle hate is not intended. Hate crimes are also recognized phenomenon. If these crimes could be caught before they were enacted, I’m all for it. I would say it would be acceptable to fine those who are using gross hate speech. People should feel safe in their identities on the streets, at work, and in schools. The fact that discussion for making a law to keep people humane to one another upsets me.

Question #5 said:
Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

If genocide is going on, it should be stopped. If starvation is being used to weaken a nation, it should be stopped. Again, I can keep going. Solving such problems can occasionally be solved with peaceful means, but not always because the world is far from being perfect. I know I will never have the answer to this question, but at the end of the day I want to see the least possible suffering. I don’t want generations or cultures to be lost because someone else arbitrarily decided they were inferior or that their resources were too tempting.

Question #6 said:
What is your opinion on the death penalty?

Don’t do it. Too expensive, not enough of a deterrent. Often barbaric and painful. There are alternatives.

Question #7 said:
Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

I would happily pay more taxes to know that I don’t have to worry about seeking care for my anxiety and autoimmune diseases. I would beg local representatives to not have to worry about incurring debt when I eventually procreate. I would do almost anything to make sure that if someone I loved had to be hospitalized, they wouldn’t be bankrupt after their body came back together. Paying for health should not give people more health problems due to the stress. It’s wrong.

Question #8 said:
Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

I don’t know what you’re asking. I’m guessing you mean someone runs as a stereotype of the identity they possess, such as a woman, or a Catholic, or a member of the LGBTQA+ culture. In that case, let them do what they want. If it’s a true democracy, and their opinions are held by enough people, they’ll be heard and put in more positions to be heard. If they’re completely off the wall, then they’d find attention some other way. It’s a democracy.

Question #9 said:
In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

Innocent until proven guilty is a very difficult mindset to put oneself in, especially if the victim of the supposed crime is close to them, but that by no means suggests that I believe it needs to be done away with. Crimes of this nature are very personal, embarrassing, and damaging to all involved. There is no one right answer. The technology exists and people are too complicated for a black and white rule, but unfortunately it is needed. I don’t know where I stand. I do know, however, that if I was raped or assaulted and managed to collect myself enough to report the crime (which would statistically have been committed by someone I trusted) that not being believed, respected, or shown compassion, it would worsen my mental health to a point I don’t want to ever have to think about. Those crimes are too sensitive to have someone told that they are seeking attention. False reports are not common enough for this; they are simply highly publicized. I think what truly needs to happen with such cases, and all crimes, is that the media needs to stop turning them into spectacles. These should be incredibly private matters unless help from the public is required. Otherwise it incites panic and false perceptions. Yes, keep innocent until proven guilty. No on allowing it to be made a public spectacle. People suck.

Question #10 said:
Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

Socialism. Pay for my healthcare, my childcare, and my education. Give me the tools to be successful and encourage equality. Don’t punish me for falling ill or being born in a poor neighborhood. Don’t punish me because I biologically am responsible for carrying a tiny human for ten months at a go, especially when said tiny human will essentially still be a “fetus” for an additional three months following their birth. Don’t tell me that their genetic disorder will bankrupt me. Don’t tell me that because I live somewhere my profession can help the most people means that they will go to a school of lesser standing than another a few miles away. I am more than happy to do my part and then some.

Question #11 said:
Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

No. Violence is irrational and solves nothing in a lasting manner that won’t later need to be readdressed. While it can be quite efficient in gathering the attention of the masses, it should not be seen as the solution. Why should you impose your suffering upon someone else?

Question #12 said:
Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

No. The United States needs to get on the ball and give paid paternal leave at the federal level. It needs Obamacare to be rewritten so it is actually effective. There are so many issues that sometimes I can’t sleep at night and I actively plan to remove myself from the problem. It makes me sick.

Question #13 said:
Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

More. I am not perfect. I have no doubt that my ideas have fundamental flaws in the eyes of others, as I see them myself. I will never have the answer for everything. Let people debate and compromise so that better solutions can be found. I don’t have to be happy with the outcome if it ends up helping more people than it inconveniences, so long that it’s an inconvenience and not harm. People need to be more tolerant, but they won’t be. They need to also be able to express this lack of tolerance, or else it will simply fester until it isn’t able to be addressed without causing an eruption.

Question #14 said:
Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

My views will change as I age and have more responsibilities and maturity. They are no more superior than anyone else’s opinions so long as they are factually based. I won’t go after you for your beliefs. They’re yours and personal. I will discuss them with you, and if your reasoning is more sound than mine, I will be more than willing to adjust accordingly.

Question #14 said:
Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

Oh this is about drugs and polygamy and such. Is it hurting someone else? Is it impeding progress? Are the participants consenting adults? If the answers are no, no, and yes… Why is it against the law? Get opinions and religion out of law so that those with differing opinions and religions can hold them safely. This is clearly an idealized outlook, but it’s my opinion. So long as no one is being hurt or disadvantaged by these actions, let them be. People are too variable to be controlled under the same norms. The world is too big.

Question #15 said:
Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

Useful, but ought to be optional until someone does something that impedes the efficiency of receiving an education or working. Don’t force a way of thinking on someone else, but also don’t allow their ignorance to harm others. Ignorance shouldn’t be tolerated, but stripping away an individual’s right to make opinions based off of facts should never happen. Again, idealized.

Question #16 said:
Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

If they’re inalienable human rights… limiting or eliminating them is a contradiction. I feel like this question is implying that some people advocate for this. In order to get to sleep tonight I’m going to pretend that this isn’t the case.

Question #17 said:
What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

You can’t exclude the current refugee crisis. The fact that it is a damned crisis means that the current immigration systems have failed and need to be drastically reformed. If I was living on my own resources, I would welcome a refugee or immigrant family into my home. So long as they have the means and desire to remove themselves from a situation that they saw as inferior to what they could otherwise be living in, they should be allowed to. There ought to be steps, but telling someone that they should remain in a place where there is no clean water, are no jobs, no way to better their families… Why? Suffering should not be promoted because it is more comfortable for a minority.

Question #18 said:
Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

NO NO AND A THOUSAND TIMES NO. Have you not seen what this has done to millions of individuals across time? There is inherent inequality in all current systems, but this cannot be taken care of by sweeping it aside under an overarching, antiquated policy. There are too many reforms that need to take place. There is no one right answer. I have no answer.

Question #19 said:
Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

The only way I came up with an answer for this one was by twisting each situation to instead involve another identity. A Kosher bakery should not ban Gentiles from being able to purchase their products. A university should not ban students interested in pursuing the arts from attending their program. However, a Kosher bakery should not be told that they must prepare pork. A university should not be told that they cannot screen students to determine if they would better the campus. Allow people to retain their beliefs, but do not allow them to become obtrusive to others. Live and let live until it causes a problem. Then address it.

Question #20 said:
Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

Ew. Neither. C. None of the above. Life is not that simple. Don’t give me this “derail the train or run over the infant” situation. I should never be put in a position to answer that. I am not prepared to answer that question. Honestly, no one is. If you must force an answer from me, I would suppose that I am a collectivist in the majority. The world is too small to focus on the individual, as odd as that sounds.

Question #21 said:
How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

I mean, I guess they’re okay? They’re cute in pictures, and I wouldn’t say someone can’t have one, but I’ve never been around one. I prefer bigger pets. They’re derpier.

Christ, this was long.
 
Question #1 said:
What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
There is a balance and agreement between the Church and the State in secular countries. The Church cannot impose its will upon the state by pressing for the passing of laws based on religious doctrine. In return the State cannot impose its will upon the Church (and those people who engage in its activities) by taking money on the Church for secular purposes. It's a solid balance and one of the few things that we've gotten right. Anyone who thinks religious organizations should not be tax exempt probably didn't get the memo that you stop taking Nietzsche seriously when you graduate high school.

Question #2 said:
What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
In a Democracy the matter should be decided by local and State governments, let the majority vote on it and that way whatever the local majority population wants it can get. Personally I feel that if you are well off financially and have a partner who will take care of the child. You should keep the child. We need more children to not grow up in poor, fucked up households who can actually be a functioning member of society. If you're poor, abort it. There are enough children scarred by the horrors of single mothers and poverty. And this is coming from a man who was raised by a poor single mother.

Question #3 said:
What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
Instead of the question of small and big government. Instead I think the role of the Government should be solely making sure that the social contract between the Government and the people isn't completely fucked. It's in every Government's best interest is to make sure the people are fed, working and somewhat content. Because if the people aren't these three things, the government ends up on a chopping block. Whether you are a big scary Stalinist State, or a laissez faire state that simply doesn't give a fuck. If your citizens are starving, unemployed and unhappy. People are gonna get hung, and it'll most likely be government officials.

Question #4 said:
Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?
Lol. Hate speech laws are made more for silencing unpopular opinions then stopping the local kkk rally of five old dudes. Frankly in a world where misery is abundant on a scale and in a way that any citizen of the 1st world can't possibly comprehend. If you can't handle people saying "offensive" things and want the government to silence them. Than i personally think those people should be silenced for their hypocrisy and blatant power-playing bullshit

Question #5 said:
Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
Lets replace intervention with what it really is. An invasion. Intervention is just a euphemism to keep the poll numbers from dipping back home. And there are only two variables to determine if an invasion is acceptable. Does the government in question want to and will the citizens let them? If the answer to both these questions is yes than there you go. "Acceptable" is attaching morality to war when that is a truly foolish thing to do. The ones who refuse to participate simply because "its wrong" are the ones who will get fucked in the end. Do you think any country found Putin's annexation of Crimea acceptable? Or his continuing military contributions in the Ukraine acceptable? Of course not. They denounce it as illegal or immoral and yet because Putin does not attach morality into war and approaches it with the logic of what is best for him and his nation. He wins while the EU and the US shuffles its feet, unwilling to take the steps necessary to curtail him because they decided to attach morality to war.

Question #6 said:
What is your opinion on the death penalty?
Don't care

Question #7 said:
Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
Do not know enough to answer this question. But speaking as a U.S citizen, either we have universal healthcare or we don't. No half ass compromise. Than again thats pretty much the only thing you get in Democracies.

Question #8 said:
Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
Of course! However else could the party bosses manipulate people into voting them back in? Divide them all up by ethnicity and make them weak, bitter and resentful. Pander to them and reduce them to children. Give them a scary boogy man to blame all their problems on. This is a staple of Democracies since the very beginning, its one of the few ways to control the stupid masses so chaos doesn't spread. It just feels more prominent now because as the ethnic minorities in the U.S gets bigger, ethnic tensions rises which leads to manipulation and people getting taking advantage of. Though keep in mind this isn't a permanent solution. Problem with identity politics is that eventually the people associated with that identity turn on each other. You can already see signs within the LGBT community as gay men are slowly being pushed out due to adapting quicker to society than other members of the LGBT community, making them part of the mainstream and less of the identity group (and therefor slowly ostracized)

Question #9 said:
In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?
As a person whose dearest friend has been a victim of sexual assault. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Its a shitty world and I don't know what to say. Though I will state that women lie about rape and ruin lives. That study that says 1 in 5 women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted/raped is misleading, full of shit and offensive to people who have actually been subjects of sexual trauma as they are now nothing more but a part of a political soundbite that will use and manipulate their pain to garner power and influence. If there is a hell I certainly hope those people rot in it.

Plus--and I know this is anecdotal evidence--But living in NYC and part of the CUNY college system, I've talked to a few lawyers in our school system (mainly john jay and our CUNY school of law) who were involved as interns or junior lawyers just started their careers in sex crime cases like rape on college campuses and they've all told me the same thing. Half of the cases were obvious fabricated bullshit and the other half were shaky at best with a few cases that had solid evidence.

On a personal note those "women" who make such claims make my friend's life harder. Because she has suffered serious trauma, ptsd, you cannot make sudden movements around her. I dated her for some time and I understood that pain. Because of these lies that these disgusting whores create I know for a fact that if something were to happen to her again and she took it to court, chances are all the lawyers involved would just roll their eyes because they think shes full of shit. And the worst part is that I can't even blame them because they're usually right.

Question #10 said:
Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?
I subscribe to a combination of Hobbes, Machiavelli and Socrates. Hobbes because the social contract between the government and the people is the be all, end all. Machiavelli because to run a successful country and protect your citizens and make life prosperous for them, you generally have to be willing to do pretty nasty things, often at the expense of other people. Socrates because I believe he was right about democracies, as in they do not work, especially in a large scale. The masses are simply too stupid to be relied upon to make competent decisions for their country. You can look at the democracies in ancient Greece or how the Roman Republic disintegrated and the answer is that they got too big for a democracy to sustain and fell apart.

Question #11 said:
Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?
People, especially in the modern age, are not violent and would not fight, let alone die for a cause. They'd much rather spend their days watching T.V. playing videogames, shit-posting on roleplaying websites, fapping, drinking or actually getting laid. No one wants to rock the boat because everyone benefits by having things the way they are. If things get to the point where there is "Political Activism" (AKA: Insurrection) than boy that Government must have really fucked up. The real question is that when this happens, and it will happen eventually in the States and a lot quicker in Europe, Will our brave activists triumph and take over the country and realize that all their ideals learned in classrooms means jack shit in the land of politics? Or will they be gunned down in the street? Find out in the next episode of Dragon Ball Z!

Question #12 said:
Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
lol nope. I am a man who believes democracy is a fundamentally broken system when your country is a global super power and that Democracies don't work all that well to begin with. I also believe we are entering an age akin to the beginning of the decay of the Roman Empire. Which really sucks because I would much rather be alive to see the whole thing fall apart than die knowing how fucked my children are going to be.

Question #13 said:
Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
My political views is essentially Political nihilism. Which I fully admit does not contribute to a healthy government in the slightest. But on the other hand its not like those people who subscribe to your traditional left or right leanings make this country better. They make it just shitty enough to make you continuously hopeless, but just entertaining enough so you don't completely opt out. My political views is the effect, the cause is growing up in a fundamentally broken way of government

Question #14 said:
Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?
My views are not superior to anyone else, just more realistic. I'm sure that utopia that some guy's got cooked up sounds fantastic. I just can't be bothered to believe in something that will never happen. And my views are changing all the time, just the core remains the same

Question #14 said:
Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
don't care

Question #15 said:
Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?
Anyone who has taken those types of classes knows they're bullshit. You want true cultural sensitivity? Go and work with people of that culture, say a few fuck ups, piss people off, get embarrassed and there you go. You've learned enough about a culture to not be an idiot. But good lord how embarrassing must it be for the people in these cultures that a bunch of HR people think that your culture is so fragile and sensitive that they have to hire some white woman to lead a class about how to not hurt their feelings. Sounds like the culture in question is a culture of weaklings if you ask me :^)

Question #16 said:
Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
You have no rights. You never did. The only rights any government can give you is the right not to die of starvation and that's only for its own benefit and even then it fucks up.

Question #17 said:
What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
Bring in people with a skill or trade. Nothing more. Here in the United States it made sense before to take in millions upon millions of immigrants to work in factories and tend to farmland donated to us by the Indian Casino Foundation. But now that we have no more Factories and are out of land (Til Donald Trump becomes president and annexes Mexico that is) there is no reason to take in large quantities of unskilled workers. We do not need to put our infrastructure under such strain

Question #18 said:
Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?
Like I said earlier, you have no rights. That being said it would be stupid in this day and age to pass laws discriminating against one particular race. It would cause serious internal unrest and Charles Manson's Helter Skelter would come to fruition. On the other hand, what the majority wants, its going to get. And if the majority wants to throw out muslims or mexicans or whatever. The only way you can stop the majority is with a gun, and chances are they have guns too and there is more of them. Basically you can say laws that discriminate are wrong, but if they are supported by popular opinion you're pretty much fucked.

Question #19 said:
Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?
Nah, this is part of the whole separation of church and state thing. We all agree that the Church has no say in the State's affairs. We can't be hypocrites here and be alright with the State saying what the Church can and can't do. The Gay community can get married, this doesn't mean some dumbing boring wedding where the booze is bad and the bridesmaids ugly as sin (so you drink more booze so you don't feel shame waking up in their bed). This is about tax benefits a gay couple can now receive. Everything else is superfluous bullshit.

Question #20 said:
Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?
I personally am a rugged poet individual that no one understands and I must walk this road alone! However society in general would be better off more collectivist, we get shit done more that way. Basically I want everyone working towards the greater good while I take no part and discover myself. I have the feeling this is pretty much the mindset of everyone these days. WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD!

Question #21 said:
How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"
kawaii
 
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

I fully believe in this statement. Just take a step back and look at how Political Parties are tearing the country apart.

I would like to think that since I have a minor in Biblical Studies I am qualified to speak as a member of the Christian church on the topic of Gay rights.

Churches and businesses can serve whoever they like. However, any discrimination on homosexuals from any religious institution or person is prejudice. Their are a few Grey areas, but it is for the most part, pretty black and white. It not be described as hate, and those committing such prejudices may not see it, but it is using the Religion of Christianity as a Curtain for hate.


I know I skirted the questions, however since I don’t believe in Political parties, most would not be particularly relevant for me to answer.
 
Might as well answer my own questions while I'm asking others to do this. That, and a couple people expressed interest in knowing my answers, for whatever reason. :ferret:

Question #1 said:
What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

Church and state should be separated for the safety of both entities. (Churches not aligned with the state-sponsored religion would undoubtedly suffer and the state's ability to govern rationally would clearly be threatened by directly associating to an organization built upon faith over reason.)

As for tax-exemption? Yes. Ish. Dependent upon whether or not the church was operating as an actual charity organization or not. Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption should not be the model by which we hand out tax exemptions on everything from political donations to ownership over private property. If a church goes political, tax it. If a church enters the business market and starts selling services and products like any private organization would (save for when the proceeds are at least partially donated to charity), tax it. If it's just a little, quiet church on the hill, that takes tithes from its followers to remain operational, leave it be. No need to tax that. :ferret:

Also, as a distinction: By "products and services", I don't mean selling baked goods or religious paraphernalia. Do whatever you want with those things, I'll extend the charity umbrella to include "remaining operational" and "expressions of one's faith." But if you're selling creationist textbooks to try and infiltrate and undermine the secular education system, or magical "this will cure aids" water, you should be at the very least taxed. There's a clear difference between "I'm going to sell a cross" and "I'm going to profit off of the misery, stupidity, and desperation of others."

Question #2 said:
What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

Legalize it. Completely. For any reason. It is not my place to feign having a superior set of morals by which to judge the decisions of others. However, I would highly recommend that anyone going in for an abortion, should have the entire process and its result--as well as potential alternatives--explained clearly and thoroughly. Ensure that a person is taking the abortion option as a result of well thought out, rational decision making, and not as a result of panic or social pressure. There are few feelings I can imagine worse in the world than aborting a child you later decided you wanted after all, and then dreaming about what they might have been.

On an entirely personal note however, I greatly dislike the idea of using it as a form of birth control. It's one thing if you get accidentally knocked up and both condoms and Plan B fail you. If the statistically extremely unlikely occurrence hits you that you get pregnant in spite of multiple birth control options at work, and you go get an abortion as a result of that, you're exempted. I mean more the people who go bareback and then get surprised that they got pregnant, then waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to abort a potential life because you were too lazy to buy a condom that costs 99 cents. This is doubly worse if you're doing it in a country which funds abortions with public tax dollars: Fuck you, I don't want to fund your comfortable idiocy. Just go buy a condom and spare everyone your extreme selfishness, thanks.

Other than that though? It is preferable to abort a baby than throw it into the already overwhelmed social services system. There are thousands of unloved children, doomed to a life of poverty and minimal education already. We seriously don't need to bring even more children into that.

Question #3 said:
What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

As big as is necessary to run all the services necessary to ensure an equal playing field for the people. I would prefer big government over big corporations in terms of political influence, because I can vote new governments into power: Corporations are 100% dictatorships ruled by the rich oligarchy. I don't want them to ever have more power than the state, and we've sadly allowed some corporations to grow unchecked to such obese states that big governments are basically required to stand toe-to-toe with them now.

Question #4 said:
Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

No. Never. Let the marketplace of free ideas rip apart the ideas of terrible assholes. For every dipshit Westboro Baptist, KKK member, extremist muslim recruiter, man-hating feminist, psychotically delusional MRA, or [insert politic group reader dislikes the most here], you have thousands who are more than willing to speak up against them.

Nothing neuters hate speech harder than the people themselves rising up to point out what's wrong with it. Let the wise and the compassionate, in a free and open arena, utterly defeat fear mongerers. So long as the government is not incited into supporting fear mongering (which is ultimately what hate speech laws do), those who perpetuate hateful views will be powerless to recruit more than a handful of people. And a handful of people in a democracy stand no chance of making a change against the voices of thousands more.

I've rarely seen hate speech laws used against people who actually deserved them. I've usually seen them used to silence comedians and those who question the status quo. Sad, really, but guess what happens when you empower one particular political view's version of morality upon everyone else as a set of laws by which to impede freedom of speech?

Question #5 said:
Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

Only in cases where it is clear that there is a growing threat toward the first world, and the nation in question is making no effort to try and stop it themselves. Basically: If your country aids and abides terrorists who go out of their way to attack and murder innocent people, enslave women, and rape children, we should invade you.

Because, in spite of what people think, you can't rewind the clock and pretend everything is okay. We can't go back to how we fucked up at the end of WW 1, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and how we drew shitty borders for our own political interests. We can't "fix" that now. It's far beyond fixing. And it's not like these hateful, demonstrably awful people will stop even if we agree to all of their demands and leave them alone. They're so far beyond hatred that they will never stop trying to destroy us, no matter what we do to try and initiate peace.

That being said, if a country is attempting to stop terrorists within its own borders, and does not invite international assistance, we should stay out of it. Invasions against a state can only be justified if that state intends us harm or supports those who intend us harm and makes no effort to stop them. By this logic, we should probably have invaded Saudi Arabia a long time ago. But we don't, because oil. :ferret:

Question #6 said:
What is your opinion on the death penalty?

Do it only in cases with a repeat, violent offender who has murdered people, multiple times. If they didn't rehabilitate the first time, they won't rehabilitate the second or third time. This should also apply to rapists and child molesters.

Also, personally, repeat child molesters should be executed by firing squad, and not given the mercy of an anesthetic overdose-related death. Special kind of evil that they are. This might not be a very compassionate response from me, but I hold little compassion for people who, even after being given a second chance for murder or raping a child, decide "hey, fuckit, gonna do it again." They're not worth my tax money to feed and clothe and keep protected from other prisoners at that point.

Question #7 said:
Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

Ideally two-tiered if the private sector can be heavily taxed. That way, if a rich person decides to skip the public queue line to get private help, they'll pay a ton of money in taxation to be redistributed back to the public health care system, thus expanding it and enforcing trickle down theory to work properly. In essence: Rich guy buys a ticket out of the line, and in doing so, that ticket buys five more poor people beds, food, and medicine. Everybody wins.

Failing this, state-owned. You can only create a capitalistic economic policy if two core principles are in place...
  • That someone can choose to walk away from a deal, should they dislike the options provided.
  • That someone has ample competitive choices in the market, thus always giving the consumer the lowest possible price.
Privatized healthcare notoriously provides neither of these things. You can't exactly "walk away" when your leg is broken in three places and you are internally bleeding to death. Then all it takes is "oops you had a preexisting condition nobody knew about" and bam, you have 60,000+ in debt which will fuck you for the rest of your life in the ass without so much as giving a reach-around. Seriously, this shit tanks more Americans than credit cards. That's frightening, given that y'all should have the best medical system in the world, by and far, just by your sheer economic supremacy.

Question #8 said:
Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

Sometimes appropriate given certain political climates.

angry-mob.jpeg


WAIT, WAIT, NO, NOT THIS KIND!

Think more like the LGBT community. That is a form of identity politics. It's built specifically on people identifying with their sexual identity in a political way. I've nothing against the LGBT community, though, unlike certain other groups in the first world* (modern intersectional feminism, white power, et cetera). Why? Because the LGBT community has been (and often still is) facing legalized discrimination in the workplace and in life. Think like US States who, up until recently, banned gay marriage: A form of legal discrimination, based solely on one's sexuality.

When the state discriminates against you in some physical way (ethnicity, gender, sexuality, et cetera), by all means, instigate a group based on your physical identity and form a counter-political force. You're directly under attack: Fight back.

I am, however, against identity politics in cases where it cannot be proven that the state is, in any way, shape, or form, oppressing you. All that does is create divisive power political plays, inspire fear mongering and paranoia, and so on. Use identity politics only when the state is actively targeting your identity, otherwise, leave it at the door. Kind of like how you don't always have to respond to someone saying mean things about you by throwing them in jail: Make your political response appropriate given the context of what is being asked of you or enforced upon you. If the state is enforcing laws on you based on your identity, fight back to represent and protect your identity. If the state is not, then bringing it up is usually just a smokescreen to hide shittier sides of your political view, and you're only injuring society's views of who you are. Because when you aren't being oppressed, and you cry out that you are being oppressed and demand society change to conform to your views, well... We have a story for this.

*In the first world. If you want to talk, say, feminists in the third world, people like Malala Yousafzai are incredible human beings and I respect them far more than I would most human beings on any given day. They do live under blatantly patriarchal power structures that get them maimed and killed every day: That's insane. That needs to be combated, at every step, in every way. Yet another reason why we should fight ISIL and groups like them: They murder and rape innocent people every damn day for no more reason than a political agenda.

Question #9 said:
In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

No. Always presume an individual's innocence. I thought we learned enough from shit like this and this that presuming guilt before innocence never works. Instead, focus on developing the technology and infrastructure necessary to better prosecute these crimes. (Ex: Enhancing rape kits, and actually testing them because jfc we have hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits and THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!)

Basically, remember how hard it was to prove murder before DNA testing and what not? Like, murder in the 1900's? Then, we developed technology to help discover who the culprits are in crimes of murder? Do the same for rape.

Question #10 said:
Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

Economically I tend to be socialist. Where it concerns civil rights, I tend to be libertarian. Sometimes, these views clash, and I'm forced to make hard choices on what to believe.

Question #11 said:
Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

Only if the state is actively attempting to oppress and deny political power to your group. In a democracy for instance, stripping the right to vote way from a group of people. Otherwise, no. Violence is the tool of last resort, and when used, it cannot be used in half-measures if you want success and progress. So be damn well sure that you have no other choice before pursuing it.

Question #12 said:
Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

Not really, but that's okay. A lot of my political views haven't really been proven and demanding that the rest of the country conform to be my testing ground is absurd and dangerous.

Question #13 said:
Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

More. Specifically by stripping away FPTP and replacing it with STV, so we can have more political views than, say, three at a time. Update the democratic system to properly represent the times it is in, because I shouldn't feel like I'm living in the 1800's every time I go to vote, for fucks sake.

Question #14 said:
Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

No. They're subject to change with the political climate. That's the only rational decision in my mind, probably derived from the fact that I'm a skeptic. Every good skeptic questions themselves first.

Question #15 said:
Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

I'm probably going to surprise a bunch of people here and say "yes actually, sometimes." When it causes no harm to anyone and doesn't give special privileges to getting jobs, I don't care. So for example, a Muslim wants to wear their Turban (or Hijab) as an expression of their faith. So long as it doesn't interfere with their job (ex: wearing safety equipment at a workplace), who cares? Like, really, who gives a shit? Let them wear expressions of their faith. It harms nobody.

However, in such cases as these, I think it would usually be better to just reform the laws to include exceptions of this nature. "Expression of one's religion" should be a more popular phrase, really. It would avoid a lot of black and white nonsensical "allow it all" or "burn it to the ground" derpbates on faux news, or crap news network.

Question #16 said:
Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

Usually pointless, should be optional even if they aren't. If people genuinely loathe another race or gender, telling them that's wrong is usually a fruitless endeavour. Trying to reeducate them to whatever brand of PC culture you subscribe to is usually also draconian as well as useless. Because...
  • A. They're hard set in their beliefs and will never change.
  • B. They were simply ignorant and a simple "please don't say/do that to X person, as it hurts their feelings" will resolve it in a far more cost-effective manner than classes ever could.
  • C. These classes can be easily abused to attempt to brow-beat others into whatever sort of moral superiority complex is being enforced at the time.
So, let's see. Against the people who need it most, they're useless, because they can't force them to change, and this typically only verifies whatever paranoid conspiracy they have about said group they're offending. Against those willing to listen, they're massive overkill, that can simply be better tackled with an informational campaign (for the public scale) or a simple "talk to them for five minutes in private" type deal (for the individual scale), or something similar in either instance. And, as an added, juicy bonus, these classes are easily corrupted into more hair brained schemes to convert people into the PC world view against their will, often with educational or career consequences for failing to do so.

How about we stop trying to reeducate people who don't conform with creepy as fuck collectivist classes? :ferret:

Question #17 said:
Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

If my political views ever change to such a state as to require the limitation or elimination of inalienable human rights, than I should note that my political views are blatantly and patently inferior to whatever I held before that point.

Question #18 said:
What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

A great way to grow an economy and a generally moral thing to do, to bring in the sick, weak, and needy, and give them and their descendants a chance at a better life. That being said, pace it. While immigrants grow economies by taking the jobs nobody wants and thus filling the economy's needs, ensure you do things in this order.
  • See if these jobs can be taken by locals first. (No sense importing an immigrant with all the costs that involves to resolve their poverty just to leave someone already living there... In poverty. :ferret:)
  • Encourage immigration to areas of the country with a high number of job offerings and low number of potential employees.
  • Pace it properly so as not to drown the economy with too many new mouths to feed. (Dumping 10 million immigrants into a country with only 40 million people in a couple years is a sure-fire way to completely fuck that economy with a giant rainbow coloured dildo called "inflation.")
  • Do basic background checks and ensure that those immigrating to the country can speak the language of the majority. If they can't, educate them, or require them to take educational courses, and reimburse them for the cost. No sense importing someone if they can't speak the language, and it's cruel to import someone and then force fees on them they can't afford. The expenses knife should cut both ways where it's appropriate.
Beyond that? I have no problem with immigrants. I work with immigrants on a regular basis, they're some of the hardest working, kindest people I know. I suppose I could add "make sure they don't create identity politic block communities that breed extremists", but that's another topic, for another time.

Question #19 said:
Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

No. I already asked this in #17, but just reworded it here to see if I could catch anyone of basic hypocrisy. :ferret:

Question #20 said:
Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

No, and no. Because freedom.

usa-american-flag-gif-11.gif


Also because refusing to serve entire segments of the population based on their sexuality is a significant economic disadvantage you're putting on yourself for no reason, and I sincerely doubt any gay person would want to support you with their money if you're secretly a hate-filled fucktard anyway. It's ultimately better for everyone if hate mongering douchebags willfully paint targets on their head that read "don't buy anything I ever try to sell, because I am an asshole who deserves none of your money." :ferret:

Question #21 said:
Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

Individualist leaning, generally. Even in my socialist economic ideals, I tend to emphasize the power of the individual worker, over the faceless corporation--which is most individualist in nature, in spite of it being a collectivist ideological position.

Question #22 said:
How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

Absolutely, me. Why, I'm not insane, I'm only talking to myself. We all do it, right?

:ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret: :ferret:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
A friend sent me some stupid quiz and I got this.

Centrist Anti-Government Total-Isolationist Ultranationalist Liberal
 
A friend sent me some stupid quiz and I got this.

Centrist Anti-Government Total-Isolationist Ultranationalist Liberal
Which quiz was this?
 
5 Dimensional Policial Compass

Coulda sworn that's what this thread was about. I'm buzzing pretty well so do forgive me.

For something. Fuck if I know what.

Edit: holy shit auto link titles is the tits
You are a: Socialist Pro-Government World-Federalist Bleeding-Heart Libertine

Collectivism score: 50%
Authoritarianism score: 17%
Internationalism score: 83%
Tribalism score: -83%
Liberalism score: 83%

Note I simply put down "Maybe" for any question I felt was too complicated to simply flat out say yes or no too.
The way the questions were worded plus the "Bleeding Heart" bit has me question the quizzes legitimacy though.

Eh, it only took about 2 minutes.
 
Last edited:
  • Nice Execution!
Reactions: Windsong
That quiz feels weirdly slanted toward positions that are conservative in US politics, like lumping abortion in with suicide and euthanasia for one question to basically equate them. Odd. I got this though:
You are a: Socialist Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Cosmopolitan Liberal
 
You are a: Left-Leaning Libertarian Isolationist Humanist Progressive

Collectivism score: 17%
Authoritarianism score: -67%
Internationalism score: -50%
Tribalism score: -50%
Liberalism score: 50%



Surprise level?

-1
 
Centrist Anti-Government Total-Isolationist Ultranationalist Liberal
Unsurprisingly, we have little in common.

Communist Non-Interventionist Humanist Libertine

Collectivism score: 83%
Authoritarianism score: 0%
Internationalism score: -33%
Tribalism score: -67%
Liberalism score: 100%


Komrades!
 
  • Nice Execution!
Reactions: Windsong
You are a: Socialist Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Nationalist Traditionalist

Collectivism score: 67%
Authoritarianism score: -33%
Internationalism score: -33%
Tribalism score: 17%
Liberalism score: -33%

lulz, "Socialist Anti-Government"

Translation: Get your Government hands off my medicare
 
You are a: Left-Leaning Libertarian Interventionist Humanist Libertine

Collectivism score: 33%
Authoritarianism score: -50%
Internationalism score: 17%
Tribalism score: -67%
Liberalism score: 83%


Alright, then.
 
You are a: Centrist Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Humanist Progressive
Collectivism score: 0%
Authoritarianism score: -17%
Internationalism score: -17%
Tribalism score: -67%
Liberalism score: 67%


Ooooook then
 
5 Dimensional Policial Compass

You are a: Communist Anti-Government Bleeding-Heart Progressive

Collectivism score: 100%
Authoritarianism score: -17%
Internationalism score: 0%
Tribalism score: -83%
Liberalism score: 67%

The rofl levels are reaching critical levels. Holy shit was that the most Right wing slanted quiz I've taken xD