Let's start one of these threads
> studying computer sience
> I guess im more liberal than co servative, although I'm not one of those libfags that get triggered anything.
Same general area as OP, bit closer to the center of the green square. For the most part my political views follow a basic concept of consent; don't fuck with me unless my actions are directly affecting you. Likewise, I won't fuck you unless your actions are directly affecting me.
It's unfortunate, though; I can't possibly call myself a democrat or liberal despite leaning left on most things. I'm honestly not surprised Trump won, with how the left has collapsed into a quivering pile of pussies and dyed hair. Trump didn't win because of some sleeping giant on the right rising and crushing the opposition. The left shot itself in the leg over and over this election, and STILL hasn't figured out that you can't win a race hobbling forward on one foot.
Why are there so many greenfags in this board?
Because muh free market doesn't hold up. Most purple fags are total Rothbard fags, and never question the viability of markets. Likewise, Atlas Shrugged is some shitty incorrect literature.
>studying history and political science
>white protestant male
Somewhere in the blue. Not religious at all weirdly.
Can someone tell me why the website shows Hitler as a blue square? He was a socialist. Given that the x-axis is for economics, he should be in the red square.
the nazi party was as socialist as the democratic republic of congo is democratic
>doesn't understand what climate change means
>links a retarded article with no scientific evidence
by definition, communism's end game is anarchism
surprised im more conservative, i call myself a democrat. (not a liberal though)
>dude what if ideas don't mean anything
he never talks about that, ever
he talks about removing the jewish elite
clearly you haven't read marx if you don't understand communism and anarchism are synonymous
>dude what if ideas don't mean anything
You're being sarcastic, but you should see how there are people who think Nazism wasn't right-wing authoritarianism, and claim it's liberal. The alt-right actually believes this.
hitler was undoubtedly a socialist and deny that is ridiculous. although the OP who claimed Hitler talked about redistribution of wealth is kind of bullshitting, Hitler certainly held public works and heavy government interference as basic principles in governing. these are simple facts, and i hope you're not denying them too.
yes I'll admit there's a lot of relativism that comes into play, but from a historical non retarded standpoint (exclude all /pol/ users and stormfags) it's very easy to distinguish certain movements and categorise them
he persecuted socialists in his country, banned trade unions and did numerous other things that would outrage any moderate socialist
he enforced state capitalism, which from a modern american standpoint may seem like socialism but it is completely different
>The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them aprogressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; freepublic education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless andclassless society.
from wikipedia page of communist manifesto because it's easier than quoting the real thing
Not sure also didn't post picture for some reason.
but he didn't see that as the typical socialist would, it was more of a revenge against the jewry he blamed for Europe's problems. I don't think he believed that this applied to any other wealthy peoples.
Statelessness can be leftist or rightist though. For example, even fascism can exist in a hypothetical stateless society. There's another spectrum in this, not just the left vs right, but also the authoritarian vs libertarian spectrum.
Marxism isn't the same as anarcho-capitalism (anarchism)
>Marxism: leftist, statist
>Anarcho-capitalism: leftist, libertarian
Anarcho-communism =/= Marxism
They should really change the name and remove "communism" from it, too much baggage because Marxism failed miserably during WW2 Russia and elsewhere. But anarcho-communism hasn't had a real opportunity to prove itself.
My personal political ideologies have no real influence today. For example, I believe in direct democracy, established through electronic direct democracy, with libertarian leanings, leaders should be geniocratic (those with the highest IQs can only be elected), also a class of technocrats, with an central goal of a balance of rapid technological progression and social harmony, based on aggressive centrism- for the legitimate political ideologies of the left and right to compromise for these goals. Humans need to change or everyone will continue to favor centuries old antiquated ideologies even though they have proven to fail
>So don't think I'm defending communism is what I'm saying, whatever that is.
fascist ideology always places the state in the middle of all, and is by definition authoritarian but neither left nor right wing
also i dont want to get involved in needless arguing of what the differences between Marxism and communism are but marx defined his communism as
initially authoritarian then anarchist, which is his end goal
>fascist ideology always places the state in the middle of all, and is by definition authoritarian but neither left nor right wing
But in a true pure direct democracy, the people would have some real power to legislate on EVERY legislation, unlike in a statist representative republic.
Also anarchy =/= anarchism. You misunderstand these concepts so it will be impossible to continue.
>Let's start one of these threads
>> studying computer sience
>> I guess im more liberal than co servative, although I'm not one of those libfags that get triggered anything.
And shills claim the US is a democracy, but it's not. It's a representative republic. Direct democracy is actual democracy. A republic is a fake democracy that shouldn't even be considered as a sub-type.
Anything can be made tradition given enough time and a degenerate enough culture like roman sodomy and pederasty and all forms of paganism. So i'm wary of it in some respects. Good tradition hinges on a good people and a good culture, and man is a despicable creature that you can't put your faith in.
>>fuck capitalism 2bh
have a (you)
hey thanks buddy
i'd personally put myself further up but answering that you support lgbt rights, weed legalization, or anything similar you get pushed towards libertarian. i've heard the creator's biased but i don't really give a shit
>white, semi good looking but kissless virgin
>studying internetworking CS
>looking to start a business in the future
someone said blue=nazi, explain maybe?
>poli sci major, econ minor
>bi, mostly into guys, white af
I've got a Ph.D. in economics from US university (the program was ranked as 20th best at the time) and I am deep in the green zone.
Most of the "muh free market" dudes don't get the fact that a free market is not always a competitive one, and sometimes markets fail especially when property rights are not clearly defined or third parties are effected.
To sum it up, you are a faggot!
>I guess im more liberal than co servative, although I'm not one of those libfags that get triggered anything.
It's a shame that I notice some liberals/leftists whatever you are, are bullied by /pol/ and /b/ into defending your rationality, temperance, and moderation by making virtually self-hating statements like that.
>i like aspects of both...protectionism and regulation. libertarian socially cause i'm not a cunt
do you already have a plan worked out?
where are we heading?
I don't mind anything in new england tbh, i've been to NH once and loved it so much
wanna live in a secluded area of white mountain?
I'll cook for you :p
Do you have nice guns?
I'm not from USA so i don't get guns but if you wanna you can teach me and we can have nice old wooden rifles and stuff like that :p
what guns do you like?
>Any actual realistic assumptions/generalizations?
They're the true cucks who bend over and spread their boipuccies for the leader, their thugs, and the state that they have no influence over. They are masochists, they hate freedom, but they love when people with more power than them fuck them up the ass while singing the national anthem and other songs like this..
>when you can only think in binary terms
>implying that denying climate change implies you don't understand science
>omg the icey cap is mewlting
Libdog ass lickers are the ones who don't understand science - if the fucking ice cap melts on one side then it grows on the other side you fucking incompetent nigger
I have respect for those who are higher in the corporate ladder than me, but I feel that's a good trait to have. Moderate blue. Not sure how this makes me a cuckboi. Explain.
ok so we'll get a Nagant c:
do you like schnitzel? i make great schnitzel and chicken fingers so we need a chicken farm too!
Or we can always try more vegetarian foods if that's what you like .-.
i'll be getting enough meat already ;p
do you also play an instrument?
i can play the guitar but i wanna get a balalaika!
Can anyone else remember the last time they met someone mature and patient enough to agree to disagree when discussing politics? Seems like these days you get written off as an extremist and shouted down as fast as possible.
I blame the education system. Though, I myself will routinely "write people off"; I don't fancy getting into constant arguments with them over the fundamental disagreements we will inevitably have. It is neither relaxing nor productive.
Still, this is done silently and in an unobtrusive manner; they are entitled to their own opinion, I just don't want to fucking hear it.
when we hangin out bois?
what kind of music do you like?
Bit surprised due to my strong conservative views but alright I guess.
moderate liberalism isn't a big deal, as long as you're not on the end of any of these spectrums you could easily be a reasonable logical person....
And I pull 6 figs working as a computer scientist and I'm mild green, so no
I conveniently just made this a few days ago! yourself?
For some reason, i can't post the full version because the file size is too big? i hope this isn't shit quality
"Go ahead and shoot me. You'll only kill a newfag."
k, this seems more right tbh
If you're young and not a richfag/autist/SJW you're most likely in the green.
Which is funny because I'm a monarchist. I guess my ideology has an emphasis on classical liberalism and my politics authoritarian.
i like metal or folk but i'm open to any genre :p
25, information security student & pizza driver, married with a kid on the way, nonreligious.
I just wish social issues weren't so high up on candidates' platform. I'm certainly left-leaning when it comes to women's abortion rights, gay marriage, separation of church and state. However I tend to be in the middle leaning right when it comes to economics.
Also for what its worth, with regard to gay marriage, take the state out of it. If churches want to exclude gays then let them. Give them a nondenominational option that affords them the exact same rights a married couple has. Essentially being married in all but name.
Also I feel that states should have more autonomy over their laws, a national set of laws is still important.
Every country has a leader, whether you call him king, president, etc. Spain still has a monarchy and it isn't fascist level or very authoritarian, for example. Obviously you're not a bootlicking cuck judging by your score. Nothing wrong with having a good king, as long as he doesn't have absolute power and knows the people will kill him if he steps out of line.
Well my ideal political scheme would be a secular constitutional empire with an absolute ruler, preferably one who is benevolent towards the nation he/she leads. I am greatly interested with enlightenment era Germany/ Austro-Hungary. I look forward for the restoration of the house of Hohenzollern. Also born and raised in Canada yet my political philosophy greatly differs from the majority of my generation.
So, you, like most people look to the past, but I look to the future.
>My personal political ideologies have no real influence today. For example, I believe in direct democracy, established through electronic direct democracy, with libertarian leanings, leaders should be geniocratic (those with the highest IQs can only be elected), also a class of technocrats, with an central goal of a balance of rapid technological progression and social harmony, based on aggressive centrism- for the legitimate political ideologies of the left and right to compromise for these goals. Humans need to change or everyone will continue to favor centuries old antiquated ideologies even though they have proven to fail
I too feel it is time to revisit the idea of a direct democracy, aided and abetted by the globe-spanning networks we have today.
Most I propose the idea to don't seem very taken with it, if they even understand me at all.
I don't look to the past for solutions or political creed, rather just analysis of human behavior and events.
Love them, I'm making my own meme page for political satire on fb
It will take some right-wing authoritarian tragedy, possibly leftist authoritarian tragedy first to make libertarianism more popular. The people need to know what full blown totalitarianism is like, then they'll become de facto libertarians. This is how direct democracy will be achieved, as the result of the next current wave of totalitarianism that's brewing in the West. Libertarianism won't ever happen by electing politicians to create a direct democracy. Libertarianism will be an electronic revolution against electronically-based totalitarianism, resulting in the establishment of electronic direct democracy. This is the future.
I feel the current incarnation of the internet is already a lost cause. Hopefully the slow fallback to a more decentralized darknet goes well.
That is an idealistic belief justified in assumption rather than reality. Political ideologies don't have influence because the majority of people are not willing to do what needs to be done to instill their ideas. Ideologies aren't currently a force because bureaucratics and democracy has watered down an individuals intrinsic right to liberty and also to utilize that liberty. Just because you can come up with a utopian secular political society and assume in order for it to work, the inherent Human perspective and psyche needs to change is similar to Marxism. This is why I am an imperialist. Political and societal utopian theories distract and degrade reality in the pursuit of idealism and utopia. The phrase "too perfect to be true" comes in handy as a retort to that bollocks. Embrace realpolitik, not idealism.
samefag as >>713571603
What makes you think direct democracy will lead to libertarianism? It could easily lead to tyranny of the majority.
Refer to direct democracies of ancient greece.
The best bet for libertarianism is a benevolent limited constitutional monarchy.
Unfortunately the world is moving toward hard right authoritarian autocracy. I hope it burns.
I agree, and that's also why I mentioned why humans need to change. Information literacy is a must. Most are incapable of finding information, or are easily influenced by propaganda, misinformation, disinformation. But every generation gets more and more information literate, and more and more hackers. Hopefully the trend continues to increase, and not decrease, if not maybe the movie Idiocracy was right.
I whole-heartedly agree with the entirety of your last statement.
All political action starts as idealism. Just look at history, nothing stays the same, although it does later repeat itself.
I'm sure the British and the French king never anticipated all this happening and here we are, enjoying the benefits of the idealism of revolutionaries a few centuries ago.
I don't believe in the "tyranny of the majority". If the majority thinks it right, then it must be so. This is the only logical position a moral relativist like myself could take.
Not him, by the way.
This is a legitimate response if you are purple.
Also MA Econ here.
Not at idealism, it starts at the door of corruption and ineffectiveness. Idealism is the faith that gives hope to the revolutionary but it is not the genesis of it. Both those are not sponsored events of idealism rather effect to corrupt causes that impeded on intrinsic civil rights and liberties. I do not and will not accept idealism as the epitome of what politics should strive for. Nature and reality is too reliant on entropy to consider Human idealism a rational premise.
>Liberty, but every thing is paid for by gov't
Makes no sense. No taxes but others should pay for everything. Green is people who want liberty while others paying for everything instead of paying your self.
Well suck it up buttercup, because the forecast for the next few decades ain't lookin' so hot.
an imperialist with no racial, cultural, ethnic or individual prejudice or sense of superiority. I am simply attracted and interested about the concept of a grandiose and prosperous empire. I do not wish to conquer anything or one of the world rather I want to conquer progress and solidarity of Humanity with an absolute ruler and a constitution to protect the citizen.
Unfortunately, these things take a long time, so there's a good chance you will not witness such a thing in your life time. You WILL get to experience totalitarianism, however. So you get all the suck without any of the pay off.
Do you not understand how the cycle of planetary weather works? We are constantly heading into another ice age, at least that's the current theory. Part of the planetary cycle is the release of harmful gasses into the atmosphere, most of which before humanity came from animals and volcanoes.
It's not the end of civilization, it's another portion of it throughout history cultures have grown to be strong from democratic and republican backgrounds, and when they start to fall they turn authoritative, and then they get the real fall. It happened to the Greeks, it happened to the Romans, it happened to the Brits (though in a bit of an odd way) and it will happen to America as well. The circle of Authoritarianism and true freedom is constant, you just have to try to make it last for as long as possible during the free eras and not give in to the power that totalitarianism and imperialism promises on a national level.
You are pretty stupid huh? Are you even past high school? It's common knowledge that the ice age we know during the era of dinosaurs was caused by just this. The release of gasses into the atmosphere caused extremely warm temperaturtes that eventually gave way to the ice age, which then gave way to us. It's the cycle of the planet to deal with the gasses we, cattle, our cars, and our factories give out. What we've done is speed up the process, but the world will continue to exist regardless of what we do and so too will life. We may not survive if we don't adequately prepare hot houses or shelter, but life certainly will in some form and that's all I really care about.
The issue is the romans, greeks, brits (at the time) did not have nuclear capabilities or really, any of the abilities granted to us by modern science and technology.
An authoritarian and totalitarian wave hitting the world, like it is now, could easily lead to nuclear war that wipes out civilization. Especially since authoritarians are almost always very combative
I'm not sure what you mean could you elaborate on that term?
The USSR was totalitarianism and we survived that, and we have anti-nuclear weaponry now that we didn't back then. The only thing we have to fear is a Brave New World era were no one cares because their empathy is drowned in pleasure. Regardless freedom and individuality will always emerge from such things.
As it's said, If there is hope it's in the proles, and the proles are fickle as fuck.
fucking racist bigot
by not formulating opinions you're wasting your ability to do so which some minorities lack, and therefore you're being a terrible person and deserve bad things
We only survived because there were foils to the USSR. There won't be any, this time. No one to challenge the US when it goes full crazy. The only one that can, is just as crazy.
You are running counter to all scientific knowledge though dummy
It has happened before, it it will happen again. We are speeding it up to extreme degrees, but things will work out. That's not to say cut back when we can, only that this is a natural process.
Not really. Even now the common idea is no one wants to die. Nuclear war wont happen, the closes thing we will get is cyber warfare and trade wars. Thats the era we are in. Im sure we will eventually enter an era in which actual war is brought back, but we are not in it.
>Model simulations of peak carbon addition to the ocean–atmosphere system during the PETM give a probable range of 0.3–1.7 Pg C/yr, which is much slower than the currently observed rate of carbon emissions.
What a surprise, you cannot fucking read either.
Did you not read my post? You are literally retarded. We are speeding up the process, but it is not unnatural. Jesus Christ, it's like trying to teach quantum physics to a 5 year old or someone who thought the EM drive was impossible.
>The associated period of massive carbon injection into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted no longer than 20,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming. A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free
>Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming
HURR DURR YOU CANT READ HURR
24, electrical engineer on 100k salary, /fit/ and long term gf
Nothing else huh? Fuck yourself retard.
>A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free...
You're cherry-picking, as usual for climate denialists.
I consider myself a fascist so this is pretty dead on the money.
I'd be higher on the authoritarian scale but there are things I'd rather the current government not do, but I'd be totally cool with in whitetopia.
Presence of ice will completely change the the way the planet reacts "this time". It will not warm evenly, and that's not even addressing the serious knock-on effects that _any_ variation in initial conditions produces in an inherently chaotic system like weather and climate patterns. You cannot make these almost childishly naive linear predictions you seem so hell-bent on when even starting with the same dataset will sometimes produce crazy different results.
- There is much more initial ice this time around. That fucking matters.
- We are accelerating carbon buildup. That fucking matters.
Yet I am very right winged on economical ordeals.
Some guy on /v/ got triggered into writing three or four posts of spergtext about why global warmingfags are retarded cunts who have literally no idea what they're talking about, and climate scientists who push the meme are dishonest cunts who deliberately distort the graphs of temperature, ice, carbon etc. over time.
The gist of it was that your timescales are all fucked up. The Earth is warming because of a regular, extreme long term, fluctuation in climate, and the polar ice caps will melt even if we all go back to living in huts. The fact that humans have not had to contend with living on a greenhouse Earth doesn't mean that it's our fault that we're entering a greenhouse period.
>We are accelerating carbon buildup.
This is true in the same way that it's true that immigrants strengthen the economy of their host nation. The overall GDP increases because Pablo works for minimum wage, but very little would change were he to be sent back.
The water was already there, only melted before and I already said the second fact stupid. my only point is that it's a cycle that will eventually happen regardless of human interaction. My point is that we were speeding it up. So stop shifting the goal posts and use your head.
>studying industrial sociology
>I consider myself as a National Left Libertarian