Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.
We should try harder to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, sometimes taxation is necessary and sometimes it’s beneficial even if we don’t factor in revenue, people will sometimes make decisions that are so bad that we have a moral obligation to intervene in order to protect them from the most disastrous outcomes
I’m centrist so I probably believe in something that offends both sides.
Immigration is universally a roaring net positive in all of history ; economically, socially, everything. It’s more than disinformation when they spew talking points. It’s hate. And most people complicit are just fully ignorant. USA lost their empire due to lack of education. Every other first world nations have their success in lockstep with the level of education they give their kids. A heist of all wealth has been conducted and you are viewing the aftermath. Elon will find your coffers empty. The real treasure, turns out, was the people.
I don’t really know what constitutes a “political creed,” really, so I don’t know how to answer.
I believe in the possibility of bigfoot being real.
Seeing as people have pushed out to every tiny corner of the country if it exists they would’ve found physical remains by now.
People should be free to vote outside the two party system secure in the knowledge that their vote will still be counted if their preference didn’t win.
Videos on Electoral Reform
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
-
Religion can be a force for good. For social cohesion and a feeling of belonging. That it often isn’t speaks more to the samesuch cultural and emotional rot that has affected literally everything than to religion unto itself.
-
It actually makes perfect sense for a country to want to limit or tariff importation of goods. This, if done right, can bring industrialisation into the country. You can’t have a nation that is all middle-managers, despite the First World’s best attempts to become that, it’s just fundamentally unsustainable. And while you can have a nation that just produces/exports raw materials, this is ultimately bad for the people in that nation.
-
That progressive people should prioritize economic equality ahead of social issues.
The left has become so focused on illegal immigrants and identity politics that they have abandoned working class economic issues and rural white voters and it has cost them elections.
They go hand-in-hand, though, and moreover “true economic equality” isn’t possible when humans vary wildly in needs and abilities, hence Marx’s whole attack on the so-called “equalitarians.”
They do not, as evidence by the last two decades of “progressive” politics here in the US.
This country would need another 250 years of progressive policies to undo the social and economic damage it has done through racist policy. 20 years of progressive politics can’t undo 2.5 centuries of racial exploitation and division.
Let’s not forget additionally that the USs elected “progressive” politicians for the last two decades fall right of center by world standards as well. If the US would like to actually make progress (hint: it doesn’t, our geriopatrikyriarchy LOVES genocide and exploitation of smaller nations) they’d have to start by not calling the conservative party the left, and not calling the Nazi party the right.
This nation has its head in the political sand so deep it can’t even see its own nose anymore, it will be well collapsed and already rebuilt before it realizes it’s a different nation run by different people.
The US has not had either, truly.
Can’t care about your neigbors when you still have to worry about your own mouth to feed.
When you look at revolutions the tipping point was always the threat of going hungry and losing your home. That makes everyone desperate.
And you’re not going to miss a days pay to protest or vote when you know neither candidate gives a shit about your health and well-being.
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
Well yah. The alternative is barter and farmers only need so many cell phones and software developers.
Depends on what you consider “money” and what Mode of Production you have.
Anything you exchange as a representation or substitute for something else of value. I think communism would reinvent what I consider money but wouldn’t use it as it’s used under capitalism.
Some Communist theoreticians consider Labor Vouchers to be distinct from money, as they would be destroyed upon first use and serve more as a “credit” for labor, and would eliminate the concept of accumulation of money from labor exploitation and exchange.
I am aware of this. It’s functionally no different than a dollar bill. The fact that I intend to melt down an axe after I use it to chop a tree down doesn’t make it not an axehead. If I used that same axe to hack my neighbor to death, well, that’s a completely different use. In the case of communist ‘money’, I think we would cease using money to kill our neighbor.
I don’t understand how the issues of money persist if you can only earn LVs through labor, and can’t be accumulated through Capital ownership. Why would you kill your neighbor?
I wouldn’t kill my neighbor? Was that too complicated an example? I think that money, like an axe, is a tool that can be used differently in different contexts. ‘Money’ isn’t the issue. How it’s used is the issue, which is why I think we would invent it. You don’t solve the ‘issues’ of an axe. You don’t solve the ‘issues’ of money. Capitalism uses stand-ins for value to harm people, but I am not convinced it’s an inherent trait of value stand-ins. I think LV’s are money, so I think you think that is true also.
I’m asking what’s wrong with money that carries over to LVs. Why is money an issue?
That intellectual property, both copyright or patents, doesn’t serve its theoretical purpose and just acts as a legal shield for the monopolies of big corporations, at least in our capitalistic system, and it limits the spread of information
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music. In practice, all musicians need to be on Spotify through one of the few main publishers to make any decent money, and their music will be used for unintended purposes (intended for their contract at least) like AI training
In theory, patents should allow a small company with an idea to sell its progressive product to many big corporations. In practice, one big corporation will either buy the small company or copy the product and have the money to legally support its case against all evidence, lobbying to change laws too. Not to mention that big corporations are the ones that can do enough research to have relevant patents, it’s much harder for universities and SMEs, not to mention big corporations can lobby to reduce public funding to R&D programs in universities and for SMEs.
And, last but not least important, access to content, think of politically relevant movies or book, depends on your income. If you are from a poorer country, chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music.
You mean like with copyright (IP) laws?
Patents and copyright originated to protect everyone. Charles Dickens complained that his books were rampantly copied. Without them any invention by the little guy would be immediately stolen and ramped up into production at levels the little guy can never match. Why would I work on anything if it can just be stolen with no legal protection? Universities and SMEs constantly issue patents, if they can’t commercialize them themselves they can license them to someone who can.
chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
What? The internet is full of free info.
The real issues are things like:
-
Insanely long copyright periods. Sorry but your grandkids/Disney shouldn’t profit from your work. 70+ years later.
-
Patent camping. Either do something with it or lose it.
-
Patent lawsuit factories. The patent office makes money off of fees and is too quick to hand out patents that are overly broad or trivial. You have business that just hoard patents with no intention to use them except to sue others.
-
I believe it does function in as it does in theory, but the justification to the public is what you list as “in theory.” Regulations like IP laws are only allowed to pass because they support the profits of those who hold the IP.
I would love to see IP law burned to the ground. A more realistic goal in the meanwhile might be to get compulsory licensing in more areas than just radio.
It seems like the atmosphere is changing now but I’ve been saying this for years.
The language of privilege is backwards and counter productive.
Christianity should be criminalized.
Only Christianity, or all Abrahamic religions, or all spirituality?
Can i still like Jesus? Can i still study Christ as a historical figure?
What about ancient religious art? Destroy it?
What’s the punishment if i get caught thinking about The Lord, or God forbid, praying!?
Just for context i am not religious or spiritual, but it seems like a thought crime.
Other Abrahamic religions play around with a lot of the same themes of excusing and encouraging ethnic cleansing and other classic biblical virtues-against-humanity such as massacring all living things in an entire city, but their stake in the present distribution of global power is much smaller, and they consequently represent a smaller threat to human life. I am not opposed to subsequent criminalization of Islam, as it is no better, but in the name of curbing the racist element which is highly likely to result from such policy, and also mindfully of the difficulty of phasing out Islam, I do not believe that it is productive to put it together on the chopping block with Christianity in the world we live in now. Judaism isn’t so much of a problem due to its more widely practiced interpretative principle and due to its weaker practical hierarchy compared to Christianity.
Can i still like Jesus? Can i still study Christ as a historical figure?
I view following biblical orders as the defining characteristic of a Christian person. (This view is generally uncontroversial among Christians, who generally do not take seriously those who claim to be Christian without having faith in the Bible’s inerrancy.)
There is a set of terrorist beliefs prescribed by the Bible that the average person who simply likes Jesus Christ as a literary figure probably doesn’t hold. Those people tend to have different socialization and visible attitudes compared to Christians of the definitively violent variety, and aren’t difficult to tell apart. I certainly do not believe those people should be gone after.
What about ancient religious art? Destroy it?
We must preserve the historical account of Christianity being the leading force of anti-intellectualism and collective narcissism of Christian nations, in addition to being an indispensable tool of fascism around the world and a significant contributor to solidification of Nazi rule in its time. Destroying the artistic record of history would not accomplish anything useful, much like how removing swastikas from museums of World War 2 wouldn’t help with doing away with neo-Nazism.
What’s the punishment if i get caught thinking about The Lord, or God forbid, praying!?
Refer to the legislation prohibiting display of Nazi symbols as implemented by many European countries. Countries like Germany have had a rough history with the way they implemented such legislation, with false-positive rulings and enforcement that were at odds with preservation of history and antifascist self-expression, but modern legislation against rehabilitation of Nazism is much better than that, and offers some valuable experience on how to tackle this inherently difficult problem.
Sometimes people are that rabid they need to be removed from existence
One person is confirmed to have survived rabies apparently.
Rabies victims and rabid as in dangerous are different things mein freund
I took it as a metaphor for the amazing ability humans have to change
eh, the question was “What do you believe that most people of your political creed don’t?” rather than “change my mind”
Could probably start a flame war on where I draw the line. Josef Fritzl or Albert Fish deserve/d to be put the fuck down. But then I’d consider Dahmer the other side of the line, he committed horrific crimes but he was clearly deeply mentally ill and the result of severe societal failures.
Defs not tryna flame, I agree with you, some mfers needa be put down. (The rich for example)
someone hoards huge amounts of items they can’t possibly ever use we rightly consider them to be mentally ill. someone hoards more money than they could ever possibly spend in several lifetimes and we think they’re a goddamn virtuoso fuuuuuck that shit.
As someone who was in a supportive relationship with a transgender person for 3 years and who personally struggles associating with my own gender (masculinity was never my thing lol), I never really got into the stating my gender pronouns.
I get why it’s done for the times it matters and can do so in a sensitive space, but I get the sense it’s usually done as public compliance (like a cis neolib as an email sig), which can lead to shallow support or worse, resentment. What we ultimately need is more genuine contact with people different from ourselves because that helps reduce “othering” a group.
Oh, but I do tend to default to “they” out of old internet habits. Always disliked the assumption all gamers are men.
I don’t do it either, but i’m an older queer so i see it as painting a target on my back.
That, too. Things have regressed, it is definitely a target now.
Ima be honest. I just don’t fuck with pronouns. I’ll typically use they even if I know what their preferred ones are. That or whatever feels better for what I’m talking about.
You are describing intentional misgendering. That’s against our instance rules, so make sure you use preferred pronouns for folks who display them.
I would argue calling all they/them is the opposite of misgendering. “They” has no gender. It is neuter.
“Intentional non-gendering” seems sensible and inoffensive. No chance of misgendering anyone.
I’m a gender abolitionist philosophically, so I get what you are saying and I would also prefer for everyone to agree to adopt using gender neutral language and be done with it. But we should still respect the preferred pronouns of others, because it isn’t up to you or me to force that choice on everyone else. It’s not much different from a Republican (for example) refusing to use she/her towards a trans woman. For some folks their pronouns are super important to them, so imo it’s just disrespectful not to use them when they are stated.
Can using neutral pronouns be misgendering? I was always under the impression that they’re universally applicable regardless of the other person’s gender
Consider the scenario where you meet a man. You know his name is Bradley (either through mutual friends or whatever), but he introduces himself as Alex. You can call him Bradley, and it would be technically correct, but it would be slightly rude when he has explicitly given his preferred name as Alex.
Yes, if you are aware of someone’s preferred pronouns and choose to ignore them.
Humans aren’t going to evolve towards intelligence. We’re a pretty short-sighted stupid species. We’re going to continue to devolve and kill ourselves off, one way or another.
