1. What is your letter? 2. What are your political views? Pick

>>8139915
I forgot ansoc

Кoммyнизм

File: 34551507.jpg (160KB, 500x475px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x475px

>>8139915
>T
>Libertarian if I had to absolutely commit to one.

>>8139915
>g
>libertarian

>>8139915
>b
>libertarian

>>8139915
t
libertarian

>>8139944
that's commie

>>8140187
Commies are authoritarian, ansocs arent

G, commie

>>8140194
L
No party. Im just a humanist in general.

t, republican

T
Libertarian

t, libertarian

consider myself a moderate though.

>>8140233
>authoritarian
>socs arent

File: dixon-ticonderoga-2.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x600px

>>8139915
>g
>none of those are close

As far as "politics" go, I only care about legit education. And by "legit" I mean people are educated by giving them the tools they need to figure shit out themselves in a place where everyone can say pretty much whatever fucking bullshit they want as long as they can back it up with facts/research/etc. And also to be educated to actually listen to what other people are saying and not take everything as a personal attack they have to drown out with autistic screeching and monkey shit throwing.
I want teachers/institutions with agendas, of ANY kind, that try to brainwash ignorant people into following a set path without questioning it, to be treated like the cancerous garbage to a healthy society that they are and to be completely wiped the fuck out. I want them to treat fuckers who try to stifle discourse and promote agendas the same as they treat cheaters and plagiarizers, because those fuckers don't deserve to be in school or allowed to fuck up other people's learning opportunities.

All of the fucks you listed will either want to corrupt it to suit their own agendas, or they won't give a fuck about it and let other people corrupt it.
So my political views are, "Fuck all of those idiots." I don't want to pick the least stupid option.
Every problem on earth that these fucks argue about could be solved if the world was populated by people who weren't fucking retarded.

B
Ancom.

>>8140316
You don't know what Socialism is.
Pro-tip, it isn't government control of the economy.

>>8139915
g

commie (aka ambiguously left)

>>8140425
>All that text for a cop-out.

T
I tend to say libertarian, but it depends on which sphere of politics.

>>8140425
Have i ever told you i love you

>>8140425
fair enough

>>8140466
explain? also, ftm or mtf?

File: no step on snek.png (70KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 320x240px

>>8140492
I believe that the role of the government is to protect its people from threats, both foreign and domestic, and to provide essential things that the free market won't.
So when it comes to individual rights (lgbt/minority rights, drug use, gun rights, etc), I generally support libertarianism/individual freedom. Do whatever you want, so long as you aren't hurting anyone else.
When it comes to foreign policy though, I believe in strong national defense, strict immigration laws, protectionism, and non-intervention. A true libertarian probably wouldn't believe in some of those things, but I believe a government's responsibility is to its own people, not others. Is it a shame what's happening in Syria? Yes. Should the US be involved? Absolutely not. And the government shouldn't let jobs be outsourced to the detriment of its own people either.
And then there are things that the free market won't provide. The government has to provide infrastructure because it's necessary for society as we know it to function. It might be theoretically possible to privatize it, but the system we have is much better and more successful than any private system has been so far. The government has to foster conservation efforts too, because the free market has already shown that it will squeeze dry any natural resource it can get ahold of, and ultimately destroying the planet may be the biggest threat of all.
That's just my view on things. I don't know if it's controversial or not but I don't intend for it to be.

I'm ftm btw.

B
Uhhhhhh...fascist? Democrat? Idk whichever one represents enlightened benevolent monarchy.

t. commie

>>8140592
The only problem i see with a monarchy is that eventually someone is going to inherit the throne that isnt enlightened or benevolent

>>8140581
cool, i agree with that mostly, except syria cus gotta beat russia, and which things won't the markets provide?

>G
>Democrat, but I'm really a classical liberal

>>8140449
You're dumb.

>>8139915
T.
Ansoc is closest - am just a vanilla anarchist (meaning anarchosyndicalist

>>8140611
>which things won't the markets provide?
infrastructure, conservation, emergency services (desu it might provide these, but they probably shouldn't be dependent on ability to pay), a justice system, welfare for children. there are probably more, but those are the ones that come to mind.

BT
Ansoc

File: berneating2.png (34KB, 256x204px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 256x204px

g, and libertarian on your scale, but literally every political test ive taken says im centrist

File: 1491291212888.gif (4MB, 650x732px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 650x732px

T
Libertarian

>>8139915
Mhh somewhere between democrat and libertarian.
I guess Democrat?

>>8139915

>libertarian

though, that means right wing now days supposedly

t libertarian

>>8140581
>Is it a shame what's happening in Syria? Yes. Should the US be involved? Absolutely not.
what a bizarre moral system

>And the government shouldn't let jobs be outsourced to the detriment of its own people either.
>implying outsourcing jobs isn't a net boon to the nation
>using government force to artificially prop up globally uncompetitive business practices and force the citizenry to endure higher prices

G
Conservative

File: 39g25j8jf4140j52vx12kc.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>8139944
>G
>Libertarian? Classical liberal is the best way to describe me

>>8139915
1. T
2. feminist

File: alice.jpg (27KB, 323x512px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 323x512px

T
Fascism

>liber(T)arian and communis(T)s get pic related

>>8141067
Artificially deflated prices can be harmful as well. If you know micro/macro economics like you imply, you should know this as well.

>>8141067
>what a bizarre moral system
the government isn't an agent of morality. you can use that line of thought to justify just about anything. like outlawing homosexuality for example.

File: ancapBall.png (200KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 547x402px

>>8141174
you get the crowdfunded assassination

>>8139915
>G
>commie

>>8141333

Ron Paul's Drag Show? Is that you?

>>8141198
well, yes, if the government were *subsidizing* outsourcing, that would count as *artificial* deflation of prices, but I'm not sure how one can call the prices that arise in an unregulated labor market "artificially deflated"

>>8141310
except the government literally IS an agent of morality. why do you think murder is illegal? even if you say "well, just because it's worse for society", that comes with an implicit assumption that preventing things that are bad for society is good. if i were religious and believed that homosexuality was immoral then i would probably want to outlaw it, and that would not be in and of itself self-contradictory.

>>8141466
a main aspect of the government's job is to protect its own people from others. this includes making sure they don't get murdered. it's not that it's good for society, it's about protecting the individual. however the government has no obligation to non-citizens half way around the world. that's for the syrian government to deal with.

>>8141466

>except the government literally IS an agent of morality. why do you think murder is illegal? even if you say "well, just because it's worse for society", that comes with an implicit assumption that preventing things that are bad for society is good.

Gonna butt into this debate

I think you're conflating notions of "good" and notions of "morality"

Outsourcing the factory is good for my company, not a moral decision. Eating salad instead of bleach is good for my body but not a moral decision. Morality is, at best, a vague set of half-formed feelings we inherit from our parents for the sake of social stability, and at worst a set of meaningless platitudes designed to stop most of us from doing things we are too stupid to understand the consequences of.

I believe the government is an agent of order, and order requires all citizens to be at peak economic efficiency (by choice or by force), but that's not based in my notions of morality.

>>8141487
ultimately your argument rests on an arbitrary conception of what the government is and isn't; additionally given that we aren't exactly conscripting people into the military, and maintaining a sort of "pax americana" probably IS good for american citizens insofar as reduction of mortality risk goes, one can make a very plausible argument for syrian intervention being justified even given your view of the government.

additionally, if we accept that the government has a monopoly on force, that meaningful intervention in syria necessarily requires the usage of military force, that there exist plausible moral systems in which individuals have some moral responsibility to act to help syrians if they can, and that the government is composed of people, then it seems plausible to me that there are no issues in principle with the moral imperatives of the people transferring over to the government as a whole.

>>8141512
>Morality is, at best, a vague set of half-formed feelings we inherit from our parents for the sake of social stability, and at worst a set of meaningless platitudes designed to stop most of us from doing things we are too stupid to understand the consequences of.
"at best" it seems to me as though morality is a philosophically principled and self-consistent set of beliefs

>I believe the government is an agent of order, and order requires all citizens to be at peak economic efficiency (by choice or by force), but that's not based in my notions of morality.
this is somewhat different from your first two examples (outsourcing & bleach), which are at least simplistically just about self-interest; since the government has coercive power over others, you *do* need to base government on some moral principle

>>8141512
more precisely, since the government is composed purely of individual people, government coercion necessarily is composed of individuals using coercive force against other individuals, and unless you believe that individuals have some a priori right not necessarily grounded in morality, to use coercive force against others, possibly for self-benefit, then it seems to me like government actions *need* to be justified by some sort of moral principle

>>8141551

>"at best" it seems to me as though morality is a philosophically principled and self-consistent set of beliefs

Neo-classical Micro-economics meets that criteria, but I'd hardly call it a moral system.

>this is somewhat different from your first two examples (outsourcing & bleach), which are at least simplistically just about self-interest; since the government has coercive power over others, you *do* need to base government on some moral principle

But what is morality? How is it different from a cost-benefit schema? Where do we draw the distinction between enlightened self interest and altruism? Does that mean anything? Why is one set of moral principles better than another? If you can prove one is better quantitatively, then how is your 'moral' system not just a social application of economics or science? If it's qualitatively better, how do you prove qualitative superiority?

You can't prove something without numbers, but numbers don't operate according to ethical norms.

>>8141589

If I disagree that coercion needs to be morally justified, then I avoid your problem entirely. If I adopt an exclusively ends-based moral system that rejects the need for rationalizations so long as the results are quantitatively superior, then I don't need to morally justify anything.

Then the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that your qualitative assessment of the morality of force is correct, and back and forth and back and forth until we've retraced the entire history of philosophy and come away with nothing to show for it but an expanded vocabulary.

I don't think morality is utterly useless, just useless beyond an individual's inner peace.

>>8141636
>Neo-classical Micro-economics meets that criteria, but I'd hardly call it a moral system.
well, i mean those conditions to be necessary, not sufficient

>But what is morality? How is it different from a cost-benefit schema? Where do we draw the distinction between enlightened self interest and altruism? Does that mean anything? Why is one set of moral principles better than another? If you can prove one is better quantitatively, then how is your 'moral' system not just a social application of economics or science? If it's qualitatively better, how do you prove qualitative superiority?
these questions are the reason why moral philosophy exist, and why it's important to make sure what frameworks we're implicitly operating under (consequentialist, utilitarian, deontological, etc.)

>You can't prove something without numbers, but numbers don't operate according to ethical norms.
i mean, in general not all proofs involve numbers (even in mathematics), so...

>If I disagree that coercion needs to be morally justified, then I avoid your problem entirely.
sure, you can disagree; is that consistent with the rest of your moral beliefs? axiomatic disagremeents are always possible

>If I adopt an exclusively ends-based moral system that rejects the need for rationalizations so long as the results are quantitatively superior, then I don't need to morally justify anything.
"ends-based" doesn't mean that the results always justify themselves, you're still under a moral obligation to consider the best possible act from a quantitative consequentialist standpoint

>Then the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that your qualitative assessment of the morality of force is correct, and back and forth and back and forth
better than ignoring it

>I don't think morality is utterly useless, just useless beyond an individual's inner peace.
i think it's better to be aware of implied or tacitly assumed moral systems than to ignore moral calculations entirely

>>8139915
>b
>republican

>>8141687

>you're still under a moral obligation to consider the best possible act from a quantitative consequentialist standpoint

This caught my eye..

My understanding is that morality is distinct from science/economics by being qualitative; that quantitative considerations were definitionally excluded from moral calculus.

If that's not the case and a concept like "quantitative consequentialism" makes sense as a moral principle, then is accounting a department of morals? Is measuring your coffee grounds in the morning an moral act?

My point is that if morality is not exclusively qualitative than it includes anything and everything, and if it is exclusively qualitative than it can prove nothing and cannot help us make objective decisions.

>>8141737
i do actually think that everything has moral ramifications

that doesn't mean that i have to engage in 10 pages of detailed calculations before i make a cup of tea, because human fallibility exists, and if i held myself to that standard my ability to act would decline overall and i would be less able to do good things, so maximizing the goodness of my actions means holding myself to reasonable and non-extreme standards

G

Centrist Democrat. I like guns and defense spending way too much to be super far left.

>>8139915
G

I'd say moderate Republican which is weird considering how both of my parents are mostly Liberal

B

Anarco-Syndicalism

>>8139915
>t
>libertarian

>>8139915
G
Feminist

>>8140316
Jeez, to bad you where's there for the CNT-FAI conflict with the Stalinists, you'd have sorted that out right away by just pointing out how these mortal enemies with opposing views on basically everything are actually the same becase the vague label 'socialist' technically applies to both. Kind of like apples and oranges are the same because both are 'fruit', right?

Read a book, fag.

>>8139915
g
Libertarian

>g
moderat democrat. I support the second amendment and bakeries should not be forced to make gay wedding cakes. for doctors, officers and bosses on the other hand it should be none of theyre problem if im gay, straight or trans

>>8142489
cuck

>>8139915
B
Libertarian

>>8139915
s (straight), c (cis)
also
q (questioning possibility of t (trans))

commie or feminist
But I don't identify as a feminist, I'm more of an anti-feminist. But I'm strongly in favour of gender equality, I take that very seriously.
Not really a commie either, but I'm a far left socialist, dislike the bourgeoisie, am opposed to current views of property, think people have right to food, against capitalism etc.
Also some elemets of alt-right.

So you could say I'm progressive far-left alt-right

>>8144587
>I'm more of an anti-feminist. But I'm strongly in favour of gender equality
What

>progressive far-left alt-right
the fuck

>>8144599
I don't believe in patriarchy, think most feminists are dishonest and stupid, am opposed to sexism against men.
I strongly support gender equality, but not in the framework of feminism, but rather by treating people equally, like individuals, but also being aware of social barriers and different ways the genders auffer, including in values in gendered traits, and I understand the idea of discriminating for equality. I understand that social pressures exist, and also possibly different valuation of feminine and masculine ideas. I'm not one of those who think "equality by law=equality". I want to get rid of gender roles, and end value men and women and their natural tendencies equally.

I'm not really alt-right, but could be considered as such in some ways, because I think sexism against men is bad, and am opposed to immigration. It's a bit of an annoyed response to the left.

Far left economically. Support equality for all gender and sex related oppressions. Hold my own wellbeing higher than the lives of refugees.

>>8144535
>serving the patriarchy
cuck

>>8144667
>yet another protectionist cuck who thinks that immigration will affect him in any way aside from lowering prices and increasing his purchasing power

>>8144667
Why are you opposed to immigration?

>>8139915
B
commie [spoiler]i'm serious[/spoiler]

>>8144680
How will it lower prices and increase purchasing power? It will increase the risk of starvation, harder to get enough food for everyone. More people won't increase the resources. It makes no sense that more immigrants would improve my life. In a capitalist world, it lowers the wages and makes me unemployed and reduces my welfare, and in a less capitalist world it's still more people to share limited resources. Not to mention their toxic culture and annoying language skills.

>>8144727
has a country in history ever starved because of immigrants? lol

>>8139915
>T (MtF)
>basically libertarian

>>8144742
People starve if there are more people than the land can support. My country's population is already way too high, and immigration keeps it from going down to a sustainable level. If we lost the ability to import food, we'd be starving and a lot of us would die.