Quick I need a word for people who understands or seek to understand

>>728745393
Based on the definition of left or right wing that you have presented in the photo, no there is not. Those definitions were made to be basically dichotomous (which is why I like it). The only middle ground to be had there is holding some left and some right wing views.

Rational

>>728746520
>Rational
Hmm I like that.
Thanks.

>>728745393
Frankly, that's what 'open-minded' means but people bastardize it somewhat.

"Centrist" might be the word you're looking for

File: 1467101245864.jpg (38KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x480px

>>728745393
>left red
>right blue
fucking triggered

>>728746760
I thought about that but would a centrist understand both sides or see where both are coming from?

>>728746669
Why, because the idea of not being a part of either group appeals to your desire to be unique, and the use of the word "rational" in describing yourself helps to further the idea that the position you take is superior?

>>728746790
left-right not repub-demo

>>728746790
That's the colors everywhere but in the US, why do you think communism = red?

File: Never go full retard Trump.webm (282KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 720x720px

>>728746790

>>728746892
I think a good political affiliation for you is "Rabidly insecure"

>>728746892
How the fuck did you interpret that in my OP?
Methinks you are seriously triggered.

>>728746520
>>728746669
>>728746760
The purpose of having terms like liberal or conservative is to be able to quickly and effectively classify political views into categories and to increase efficiency of communication. Therefore, the definitions of these words that we can use, such as the definition presented by OP in his chart, should be as close to dichotomous as possible without any middle ground.

>>728747107
>>728747125
>I don't take the same view as people who I call liberal or conservative, I know I'll call myself "rational"
Talk to me once you've graduated high school, edgelords.

Politics is not a simple right left spectrum. It is much more complex than that. Anybody who can have their entire political view reduced to left or right is too simple minded to be participating in politics.

>>728747370
Look fucking retard what I am asking is the term for people who UNDERSTAND both sides and see where they are coming from.
I am a liberal and I can see and understand the right sometimes. Especially when it comes to Muslims.

>>728747213
Except that's not how words work anymore. People aren't interested in words having conventional meaning. Just look at fucking Merriam-Webster. Descriptivism has completely replaced Prescriptivism, and nobody cares.

>>728747370
Ok, what percentage right are you? I'll accept nothing less than two decimal places.

>>728747416
Anybody can have their entire political view classified as left or right wing. You just go issue by issue, determining if their stance could be considered more liberal or conservative by using a standard definition of those terms. You then take the sum of their answers and determine where they fall on the left-right spectrum. This is useful because it allows us to get a basic understanding of someone's head-space when dealing with political issues, but is obviously not meant to be used as a replacement for case-by-case discussion of a particular issue.

>>728747596
Why do liberals openly hate on christians and insult and blaspheme the bible without batting an eye, but as soon as anybody says anything remotely bad about islam you guys flip the fuck out?

>Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for gays
DESTROY THEIR SMALL COMPANY! THEY WILL NEVER WORK AGAIN!
>Muslims, shoot, behead, and throw gays from rooftops
It's their culture and we have no right to judge, don't be an islamophobe!

File: 12295892862.jpg (30KB, 383x390px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 383x390px

>>728747664
14.88

>>728745393
>left
>doves

Just like Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary?

>>728747770
>Implying liberals don't hate Islam.

>>728747596
That means that you are over-all liberal, with some right wing positions. Duh. The term for people who understand both positions is "educated."
>>728747770
and what the fuck are you on about, dipshit?

File: political compass standard.png (52KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x400px

>>728747841

File: We the people protest splash Fairey.jpg (230KB, 620x827px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 620x827px

>>728747944
Have you been living under a rock?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_JKcAQTEn8

>>728748066
>>728747841
for clarification this chart uses the same defintion as OP's picture and is made by the same group. I posted it to show the definition is consistent.

>>728748015
>and what the fuck are you on about, dipshit?
I'm on about shit like this
>>728748170

>>728745393
"Centrist" is the word for "middle ground"

But if you want to discuss politics intelligently, you should figure out which end of the spectrum you're on as it relates to specific issues.

If you believe the government should hand out food and money to dindus, you're might be fiscal-democrat.

If you recognize that traps have mental illness, you're probably a social-republican.

>>728748170
Using wacko far-left liberal feminazis as example.
KEK.

"Idiot"

There's no understanding either side. It's politics, ffs. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

OP's pic is the clothing, not the wolf.

>>728748170
>some random morons who fall under the category of liberal support Islam
>that means liberals like Islam
By that logic conservatives love Islam even more, because Muslims are right-wing in their positions.

>>728747664
Im not>>728747783, I don't remember my political compass score exactly,but I'm far-left.

>>728748386
must be why Obama and Hillary both refused to even talk about "radical islamic terrorism" and why they refused to even associate islam with terrorism.

They knew it would lose millions of their braindead SJW voters.

>>728747615
I actually mostly agree with you, but language being fluid doesn't mean that we can't agree upon a set definition for the purposes of a particular kind of discussion.

>>728748782
OK, what does liberal mean in the context of politics? Full essay.

>>728748599
see>>728748066
and actually it's do avoid losing allies in the middle east and avoid alienation of non-radical muslims. And way to dodge every point that was actually made, retard.

I have decided.
It's "enlightened liberal"
Thank you all for the discussions and suggestions.

>>728748880
>someone just pointed out that establishing definitions is useful for conversations after I said something dumb
>Oh shit, what do I do
>I know, I'll ask them to write an essay on /b/ even though OP literally opened the thread with a pretty good definition

>>728746881
I think they'd try to hear both sides out but I doubt anyone is ever truly in the middle. Tho they may not be very far to either side, people usually take a side. Some may flip tho, depending on the argument given.

>>728747049
topkek

>>728748264
I thought that was moderates that take the middle ground.

>>728745393

Please never look at that pic again, you simply cannot lump up every political outlook into "Left" and "Right". People in the USA often tend to do this because they live in a two-party system.

I live in the Netherlands, I am a right-wing liberal, I want low taxes, low government control, open borders, and no wars. According to that pic almost everyone on Earth would be a centrist. It just doesn't make sense.

>>728750584
>>728747757

>>728750584

>open borders

Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with you?

The only thing I can think of is that you haven't experienced it, so you have no idea why open borders are national, cultural, racial, and moral suicide.

It boggles the fucking mind that people actually think open borders is a good idea.

>>728750584
why do you hate geert wilders?

>>728751122
>open borders are national, cultural, racial, and moral suicide
fuck all of those things, stop living in your fucking bubble, snowflake

>>728751122
It's inevitable, it'll happen one day, there's no avoiding that, but forcing it is a very very bad idea.

>>728745393
https://discord.gg/cMD2Vch

>>728751339
tho I agree with racial suicide, what's the problem with nationality, cultural or morality?

A 'liberal' falls into neither side.

>>728751497
>nationality, cultural or morality
who cares about maintaining a specific culture or nationality? And the only kind of region-based morality is the dogmatic, tradition-based kind, and therefore is likely to be deeply flawed. Open communication between two cultures and the idiots might actually learn something.

>>728751339

Suck a dick.

>>728751428

Inevitable only when good men do nothing.

>>728751497

I should have said "ethnicity". Whether you see it or not, the nation/culture/moral part is entirely dependent on the ethnicity. It's why things are the way they are.

Open borders erases the race, which erases everything else.

>>728751122

What are you talking about? Like I said, I live in the Netherlands, which means I live in the Schengen area, open borders benefit everyone, businesses and individuals. Free movement of people and money is what keeps economies going.

If you're talking about people wanting to close borders because muslims, that's just because Western government can't stop carpet bombing their homes and at the same time promise free government handouts in your own nation.

>>728751787
>nation/culture/moral part is entirely dependent on the ethnicity
>Open borders erases the race, which erases everything else.
citation needed, and I'm still unconvinced that we need those things
>suck a dick
no, you

>>728751274
This one

>>728751274
DrLayman ftw

>>728751772

My view leads to a world rich in diversity, with varying ideals and ethics that shape entire societies, creating "culture". People spend thousands annually to visit various locales, to experience the spices of life.. to do exactly what your moronic ass seems to want.

Your view leads to a world without ethnicity, culture, or any other metric worth noting. It's a bland ball full of Morlockian morons slaving away for their masters.

It's not my fault I can common sense, and you can't anon. That doesn't mean idiots like you should fuck it up for everyone else because your brain can't fathom reality, and the consequences thereof.

Suck a dick.

>>728752102
>citation needed, and I'm still unconvinced that we need those things

>>728751986

Citation = reality.

My "outside" is not in my house.
Your "outside" is the TV.

>>728752234
>My "outside" is not in my house.
>Your "outside" is the TV.
citation needed

>>728751787
>good men
No anon, loving your country is great and all, but doesn't magically make you valuable/good.
Contributing to society, improving your country(which leads to the improvement of all human race) makes you good, and this progress leads to globalism, whether we like it or not.
If you don't like it, i have bad news, you've wasted too much time on /b/ to actually make a difference.

>>728745393
your entire picture is garbage fampai probs off yourself??

>>728745393
Colours are wrong, OP. Republicunts are red, libtards are blue.

>>728752685
thats the american party colors, not the left/right wing colors.

>>728745393
This is absolute bullshit, a black and white type of argument. Where are the many shades of grey. This is what's wrong with the world. People stereotyping a person based off one thing. Grouping things into left and right leaves no room for the middle, and encourages people to choose a side, instead of picking and choosing different individual points they agree and disagree with.

>>728745393
LOL libs 'interfere' with lives, and republicans 'dont interfere'. Bullshit. The right is against gay people getting married, that is interfering in peoples lives.

>>728752531
>fampai
"Attention whore"? I don't think so Tim.

>>728752834
>>728747757

>>728752909
As right as you may be, this for left/right wing ideology, not American political parties

Moderate or centrist. Those are the actual terms.

In other words, a pussy who will not stand for anything for the sole purpose of being thought of as "rational." So, you willingly submit yourself to whatever way of life is imposed upon you and will do nothing as long as your own life is not affected.

>>728751772
Where do you stand on the existence of a government?
What ethics would you wish there be?

Morality can be useful because it stands to cause the individual to hold by a set code regardless of the circumstance. Basically, if someone thinks theft is wrong then because of their morals they wouldn't steal from you. Why assume that all morality is based out of religion? Also, why assume that all things based out of religion are automatically deeply flawed? What's the flaws with Buddhism?

Why are you so quick to dismiss the culture that brought you this nation, all the good and the bad.

nationality doesn't make much sense to me either but I can see the value in a group of individuals working together for a common goal. What's the problem with that? Not everyone will share the same values as you, do you really wish them to be around you? Some people may even value your life as worthless, what do you stand to gain from opening communications with them? Someone that changes their mind about your worth? Only if you're lucky at convincing them.

>>728751787
Humrrr, I'm gonna go with "fucking nazi", kek about it, and say I agree with you. Tho I still think the lines between ethnicity are rather weak and arbitrary. So long as the group of individuals isn't hunting each other, I figure they'll get along.

>>728753353
You seem to forget that I mentioned that I am a liberal.

>>728753353
Moderate, maybe, but I doubt that's true for a centrist. At least not how I see it, then again I'm working off of >>728751274 because there's not many good definitions for it.

>>728753172
Then why does it have a pic of the capitol building up the top?

>>728753479
>Where do you stand on the existence of a government?
it exists
>What ethics would you wish there be?
utilitarianism is my preferred system, but I don't believe in objective morality
>Why are you so quick to dismiss the culture that brought you this nation, all the good and the bad.
Which nation might that be, and because I wanted to trigger the alt-right.
>I can see the value in a group of individuals working together for a common goal
me too, new-friend
>Some people may even value your life as worthless, what do you stand to gain from opening communications with them
might be fun, interesting side-note: I value everything as inherently worthless, including my life

>>728753560
lol. Sorry. I wasn't meaning you specifically, but anyone who is in the middle. Moderate or centrist is what people who are in the middle of the political spectrum are called.

I just gave you the real, no bullshit meaning of "moderates/centrists."

>>728753773
My guess is so dumb Americans would know what was being discussed
>but probably because it is a symbol of government, and the chart is discussing government

>>728753953
American Gumment is ONE government, not all government. It's basically saying "murica is more important". Fuck off merifags

>>728753479
Cont
>What's the flaws with Buddhism?
the inaccuracy for a start
>if someone thinks theft is wrong then because of their morals they wouldn't steal from you.
unless they think themselves evil
>Not everyone will share the same values as you, do you really wish them to be around you
yeah so over time the values merge and humanity will leave tribalism in the dustbin of history

>>728745393
https://discord.gg/cMD2Vch

>>728754395
>nice try fbi

>>728753674
They both mean the same thing. I'm going by what's in the Oxford dictionary, not by some youtube political commentator's own interpretation.

>>728745393
Centrist.

I'm progressive when it comes to distribution of wealth (in the sense that I believe in a personal wealth cap either for individuals or corporate liquid assets) and environmental/climate conservation and anti-pollution endeavors.

I'm conservative in social, legal, and economic principles.

File: NICE!.jpg (63KB, 955x960px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 955x960px

>>728747783

>>728751924
It depends on where you are on the world.

If you're in the netherlands, open borders is fine because it means easy access to Germany/Belgium/Wherever.

If you're Germany, it means Austria and Czech have easy access to you. And given that people in Austria and Czech are poor as fuck and generally socially unstable, it's not something you want if you're Germany.

>>728754627
>conservative in economic principles
so you want the climate and rain forests to stay the same?

>>728753830
So then why try to change anything?
It's all worthless, after all.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, I never mentioned objective morality, where did that come from?

I'm assuming that most people talking with me are America. Now, that's kinda funny. You wish to "open communications" with people yet at the same time you wish to trigger an entire group? How is that conducive to open communications?

BTW, nice job picking out the only part that you agree with but I'm talking on a national level, duh.

>>728754204
So it's inaccurate to wish to harm none?
I know that's probably not what you mean but you'll need to specify, you're dismissing something as a whole and not even considering the valuable parts to get from it.

Further, you're assuming that because someone thinks them-self evil that it would suddenly nullify their morality, address the point instead of trying to shift it. Same could be said about ethics.

Again, you think that just because people are around each other they'll set aside their differences and get along given enough time. What if some values are objectively good and others aren't? Would you say that if two groups merged, one who thought rape was okay and the other didn't that rape would suddenly only become not okay? They're merging remember, not everything will work out smoothly and one side a situation will win. It seems rather idealistic, verging on dogmatism.

To clarify, what type of government would you prefer? Smart ass.

>>728755058
Less in the sense that I want giant swathes of forest cut down to make room for industrial expansion, and more that I believe in free market competition with government oversight only in regards to health and safety/monopoly and collusion protection.

Free Market works really well in 95% of economic scenarios. Its when it's practiced with things that people need to LIVE and can't adequately negotiate for or find an alternative buyer simply BECAUSE they're needed, like medicine or food, that free market sucks absolute dick.

>>728755331
I'm more of "An eye for an eye."

I think violence should be punished with violence.

People are flawed and savage creatures, and in moments of weakness or primal nature takes over and we lash out with fists and clubs and teeth, so simply saying "we should never harm each other" ignores the fact that people DO harm each other, and while forgiveness is a laudable trait when someone deserves forgiveness, it invites more violence when someone doesn't.

>>728755331
>So then why try to change anything?
because i want to
>Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
i agree
>Also, I never mentioned objective morality, where did that come from?
seemed relevant/interesting
>So it's inaccurate to wish to harm none?
I don't see how that could be innaccurate, it's your own wishes
>you'll need to specify
don't feel like it
>How is that conducive to open communications?
it's not, but it made me feel better
>what type of government would you prefer
long-term marxism, short-term social democracy. basically
>What if some values are objectively good and others aren't
That'd be neat, but you have to prove it first
>you think that just because people are around each other they'll set aside their differences and get along given enough time
yep
>Would you say that if two groups merged, one who thought rape was okay and the other didn't that rape would suddenly only become not okay?
not suddenly, but eventually, the tribalism and poverty that lead to such thinking would no longer be present, and through education it'd only take, like, a generation
>It seems rather idealistic
nah, just what I view as being likely to happen

>>728755331
>rape would suddenly only become not okay
just read that, no the idea was that it would be illegal still

>>728755775
who da fuck you be and y u pretendin to be me
jk not jk
jk

>>728755909
Please tell me you're a commie.
I really want to talk to one.

If not, then you're not worth the energy spent typing because you don't feel like specifying anything ... well, even if you were a commie you'd just back out if I asked questions that you didn't feel like specifying.

>>728756021
Just because the idea is that it'd still be illegal doesn't mean that you wouldn't be fucked out of a position where you get a say.

>>728755909
>Palestine/Israel
>2000 years and counting

>>728745393
>>liberal
kill yourself faggot

>>728745393
Killing = bad

That's it, go on and form your own opinions.

>>728756567
But what if they're trying to kill you?

Is it still bad to kill them?

>>728756290
>Please tell me you're a commie.
kinda, I think it will become necessary in the future due to automation in the workforce displacing the majority of jobs while granting a surplus of resources
>you don't feel like specifying anything
oh no, i thought out my personal positions and they dont perfectly line up with one specific ideology
>you wouldn't be fucked out of a position where you get a say.
more like fucked in a position where you had no say amirite,
but seriously I'm not sure what you mean

>>728756337
implying that the cultures merged instead of being kept strictly and purposely apart

>>728756567
as a utilitarian I would agree
>>728756640
depends on whose life would contribute the most utility

>>728756717
>Implying a distinct and enforced division was in effect for even 1/10th of the time the two existed perpetually at war with each other
>If you aren't aware, Palestine and Israel weren't divided into separate formal territories until after WWII.

>>728756770
So it's okay to kill homeless people?

>>728756867
everything is a tool to him, so unless they were adding to society, yes

>>728746481
>>728746892
>>728747213
>>728747370
>>728747757
>>728748066
>>728748015
>>728748182
>>728748386
>>728748492
>>728748782
>>728749443
>>728748908
>>728750986
>>728751339
>>728751772
>>728751986
>>728752198
>>728752286
>>728752774
>>728753021
>>728753172
>>728753830
>>728753953
>>728754204
>>728755058
>>728755909
>>728756021
>>728756149
>>728756770
just for fun, these are all me

>>728756965
wrong

>>728756965
But what about the broader social structure that the homeless contribute to, creating charitable organizations and fostering empathy and goodwill among a significant portion of the population?

So while an individual might have a utilitarian justification for killing a homeless person, the utility of killing ALL homeless people is fuzzier. And in that case, you need to either define a limit for how many homeless an individual is permitted to kill in a utilitarian society, or just disallow it outright to prevent "overhunting."

>>728756842
>two existed perpetually at war with each other
you just made my point

>>728756867
no, how would that benefit society, they are a part of society. it would be more useful and contribute more to human flourishing to help them

>>728757106
and i may have missed some

>>728757152
it'd be defined by however many homeless were not being useful, therefore killable

tho I'd rather outlaw killing all together

>>728757257
What about the homeless that are mentally or or physically disabled, and thus unable or unwilling to contribute to society and are, in fact, a drain on society?

Those people reduce the prosperity of other people, and thus aren't beneficial to a utilitarian society.

>>728745393
>The one thing everyone agrees on is God and unmarried sex
Sounds about right.

File: 1dxet4.jpg (51KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 670x377px

>>728757139
FTFY

File: wrong.jpg (5KB, 290x173px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 290x173px

>>728757390
remember that the goal is not a prosperous society, but one which maximizes human happiness (at least in my form of utilitarianism), so it comes down to "would massacring the homeless grant greater human happiness than not massacring them" and I kinda doubt it.>>728757419
wrong

File: 1bcey5.jpg (79KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x500px

>>728757560
BEST DEBATE EVAH!!!!!!!

>>728757560
But if you significantly increase the prosperity of the remaining population, you would increase happiness, no?

Unless you're assuming that the burden of having executed the homeless would leave scars of guilt.

But then you just wait a generation and the new gen doesn't feel guilt about what their forebears did. And they wouldn't have to deal with smelly schizophrenics badgering them for money and tainting their utopian society with their filth and crazy.

File: images.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>728757661
WRONG
>>728757720
>you would increase happiness, no?
possibly but i doubt it, more research is needed

File: Screenshot from 2017-04-11 03-13-11.png (568KB, 1018x478px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1018x478px

>>728757794
I cant be wrong
You must be wrong

>>728757720
Depends on how you weight death against happiness. Is the amount of terror, fear, panic, etc that would be caused before death worth the value of the happiness?

Furthermore, by that logic, should we not just kill everyone who isn't productive AND happy?

>>728756290
what'd you fall asleep or some shit, fuck

>>728757152
>social structure that the homeless contribute to, creating charitable organizations and fostering empathy and goodwill among a significant portion of the population?
eeeeeehhhhhh, all those charitable orgs would find something else to do if they didn't have to feed the homeless.

They're kinda leeches yo.

>>728757897
Are we assuming that happiness is an immediate value that must be measured at any given moment, and significant fear/trauma causes it to dip to unacceptable levels, or are we assuming happiness is a broader social feeling that can be measured in things like average wealth and crime levels?

File: 1cpwfa.jpg (89KB, 888x500px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 888x500px

>>728757933

>>728758054>>728757897
I personally define it molecularly

File: images (1).jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>728758092

>>728758187
INJECT DANGEROUS LEVELS OF DOPAMINE AND OXYTOCIN INTO ALL HUMANS IMMEDIATELY

File: 635880570514466178424210334_Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 2.19.44 PM.png (148KB, 1040x770px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1040x770px

>>728758221

File: download.jpg (12KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x168px

>>728758229
well not dangerous levels, cause they might die and decrease net happiness, but yeah basically>>728758260

File: Screenshot from 2017-04-11 03-18-46.png (429KB, 882x559px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 882x559px

>>728758303
I am getting tired tho

>>728745393
They are usually referred to as the moderate stance in English

File: received_908375489210897.jpg (21KB, 531x512px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 531x512px

Left is often misinterpreted as liberal, left and right are economic structures that are entirely different topics than social issues. Leftists believe in large government, meaning high taxes in exchange for many social programs, while Right oriented believe in individual meritocracy and governance. Liberal and Authoritarian are what people generally mistake for left or right, liberals believe in gay rights, recreational drug usage, and other social justice issues. Authoritarians usually have traditional conservative views on those topics. The reason this is important is because I hate being grouped up with a bunch of self righteous pricks just because a few of them like the idea of leftist social programs. Also my pol compass for relation.

>>728748599
They just didn't label it as "radical Islam". The right made such a big deal out of it, and now that they are saying it it has accomplished literally nothing. It's not like those on the left don't understand that these "radical Islamic" aren't crazy, it has more to do with the same reasons why we don't go around calling blacks niggers in public. It unnecessarily pisses people off.

>>728758606
You're a LINO.

>>728745393
It's called being a moderate dipshit

>>728759565
I think being a moderate you still fall either within Democrat or Republican lines.

You're just not a "far-left" democrat or a "far-right" republican. You're a moderate. Which basically just means you don't push your position as hard or as radically.