I’m hoping this doesn’t start a fight, I’m just curious what the political orientation is of this community. I grew up in a liberal (in the American sense) family, and I identify now as a socialist, though a lot of the liberalism I grew up in has stuck with me, like interest in LGBTQ and women’s rights, environmentalism, etc. Wondering where people here land?
You must log in or register to comment.
Old school left center. We shouldn’t leave anyone behind and help those who can’t help themselves. If they can but they won’t… Well that’s a valid personal choice too but the society shouldn’t shoulder that burden.
Woman’s rights I thought we fixed those but looking at that vid from that Spanish female reporter who got slapped on the ass mid interview I guess there is some work still left to be done there.
Lgbtqi+. If you need that much letters and still can’t come up with a catchy sounding word you’re doing something wrong. But seriously, we’re all equal, be what you are, I’m cool. I do think we’re making this bigger then it really is. We’re overexposing it. Gays have been accepted for a long time in the society. But this focus on all issues be it gender, sexual orientation, transsexualism have resulted in a snap reaction to the other side by a big portion of our societies. I think it’s clear that yes, there’s something there which must be addressed and also yes, the way the “activists” are putting it in the spotlight and are playing the shame game results in an exact opposite reaction. Which results in conflict and bullshit like we’ve seen with ms. Harry Potter. Was it understandable, her pov, knowing what’s she’s been through? Most certainly yes. Is she wrong? Maybe. Possibly. I think so. Was the whole moronic reaction warranted? Most certainly not. Her pov should’ve started a discussion, you know, like grown ups do. What we got instead was a witch hunt, an inquisition. People shouting and a cussing and excluding others.
Wasn’t the whole point of lgtbqi+ inclusion? And how do we accomplish that? By exclusion? That doesn’t seem right. That sounds stupid. That sounds like repeating the same errors.
We live in a global society. We should accept and respect each other. Also the ones we don’t agree with. Sometimes it seems we crave for conflict instead of coexistence. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.
Lastly I firmly believe in decriminalisation of all drugs. Why? We’re fighting a drugs war for as long as I can remember. A part of society craves for this stuff. Be it old school cigarettes, alcohol, narcotics, uppers, downers, etc. I say: let them. Slap a tax on it, regulate it so we’re sure there’s no bullshit in it and let it go.
Bad for health? Looking at our society I see our industry spewing out all kinds of shit, dumping it in the environment. I see insecticides everywhere killing insects and us slowly.
A percentage of society will always be addicted. Legal or illegal. We can’t counter it. But we can counter a lot of the criminal activities surrounding it by legalising it all.
And I would like to add that NO GOVERNMENT EVER has any say about what goes on in one’s body. Abortion is always awful and always leaves a psychological mark. But sometimes it’s necessary.
If you need that much letters and still can’t come up with a catchy sounding word you’re doing something wrong
I’ve always been partial to QUILTBAG lol
I used to think like you, but paradox of tolerance my man. You absolutely cannot accept bigots in your society or they WILL ruin it. Not might. Will.
Also saying the minorities need to pull back on the messaging is victim blaming. They wouldn’t need to do it at all if there wasn’t a force to be fighting against. What would you propose they do instead? Just say “oh you can oppress us for now until you feel ready to accept us.”?
On all other points I agree with you.
And I would like to add that NO GOVERNMENT EVER has any say about what goes on in one’s body.
I don’t agree with this, I mean governments regulate what goes in our bodies all the time. Food safety standards, anti narcotic laws, etc
Rather far left both economically and socially, but I actually understand that progress takes step by step effort and screaming that you want everything done now doesn’t get you anywhere. Also, purity tests of “follow every one of my beliefs or you’re evil” are dumb and unhelpful when you’re discussing where people are on the left.
Oh, and I think tankies are morons.
Tankies are the bane of my existence, so I agree
I am very heavy left leaning. I want adults to be able to marry as many other consenting adults as they want(yes I mean a poly liftstyle). I want trans people to have rights and I want women to have full reproductive rights. I want free Healthcare for all as well as some sort of free food and water if needed and free basic clothing and housing if needed. And honestly I want us to start killing nazis again.
Killing nazis, like the government executing people who identify as neo-nazis?
My liberal friends call me a libertarian, and my conservative friends call me a libtard. So what does that make me? A centrist? I don’t believe fully in any one ideology. There are good things about multiple different belief systems, and bad things about them too. I think we’re doing ourselves a massive disservice by aligning so neatly into tribalistic views of the world.
Agreed with that
I would like to be King.
I vote Green. Howard destroyed the utopia future we all hoped for, but there is still opportunity for Australia to be a society of equals.
The two right wing and far right wing parties of the US still mostly confuse me. Their lack of compulsory voting scares me. I also have been shocked on my visits to the US as to how their country is full of inequalities and people desperately poor. Weird place, glad I don’t live there.
Australia has compulsory voting?
Yeah If you forget to vote in a election you’re fined around $20. So I guess it counts as compulsory voting.
Sounds horrible
Yeah if you don’t participate in our democracy you might not be able to afford half a pack of ciggies
Its not really a democracy if you have to vote
This statement confuses me
Why?
How do you define democracy then
In a representative democracy, what’s the point in making everyone vote in it?
I don’t know about Australia, but in the countries i have heard about with compulsory voting, it’s totally legal to vote blank, i.e. not actually vote for anyone. You just have to go to the polling station and put your blank ballot in the box.
So you’re (if i’m not mistaken) not forced to vote for a party you don’t agree with.
Fair enough but we get to accomplish that here by just staying home.
One of our right-wing parties has figured out that most people are not as right-wing as it is, but it can still win if only the most extreme people vote. So they try to make voting more difficult even. The opposite of compulsory
I call myself a New Deal democrat.
Anarchism. Not the radical burn-the-world-to-ashes kind but rather the kind where power is given to the individuals as a whole and every one of them directly decides how society is shaped. A society with no authority that can turn to tyranny and where everyone’s needs are satisfied and everyone contributes on the field they are best on (to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability).
So a direct democracy?
WIth some differences, but yes.
Just asking for clarification. I’m not for direct democracy because it seems like democracy just for the elite.
According to the school of thought I follow, every individual on a society has a direct say on everything discussed. Rules, or laws, are defined through a consensus between every individual. If a single individual disagrees, provided they present valid arguments, then the rule must be expanded in a way everyone agrees with it.
On this society, everyone’s basic needs are a core right that cannot be taken or restricted in any way, shape or form. That includes, but not restricted to, proper housing, including electricity and Internet, food and water infrastructure, education and healthcare. That explains the “to each according to their needs” part partially.
Having their needs, therefore their survival ensured, individuals can dedicate themselves to the field they prefer, ensuring no-one is stuck on a job they hate, they can at any point change, and society as a whole benefits from this liberty. Of course there are some fields that individuals with some kinds of disabilities physically cannot work on normally, but there can be jobs that are adapted to their condition, if possible. That covers the “from each according to their ability”.Those two statements allow for an economical reform. The basic needs of an individual are fulfilled from the get-go, but if they desire some other commodities, they can work for them. Money, if needed at all, would only be needed for those commodities, while favoring trading between individuals. Again, society as a whole would determine how much a product would be worth comparatively to others, creating something more akin to a measuring scale of worth rather than a currency.
I don’t think you can have a direct say in everything in society, trying to make such a society sounds like a nightmare IMO.
deleted by creator
Where in the EU are you from?
deleted by creator
Oh, cool :)
deleted by creator
California originally, now living in Arizona :)
