This thread is permanently archived
Is the population of Danger/u/ leaning to the left or the right politically?

| Please share your thoughts, and your political orientation! Do you lean left or right g/u/rl?

I consider myself as a centrist, I lean slightly right in economics, although I lean slightly left in the social aspect.

| I see most people here learn towards the left, I guess that because I see
people here using terminology like demisexuality, cisgender...
I'm not really a fan of terms like these, but people can say whatever they want, freedom of speech and all that...

Me personally I lean towards the right. These last couple of years of having to deal with this "progressive" culture around my social circle drives me nuts, that's not to say I align politically with any political parties...

| Only morons simplify political stances on a left-to-right scale. There's a reason why people who use this terminology never evaluate their political views. Spoiler: They don't know shit.

| They lean toward "idgaf."

| im far left

| far left here. libs, conservatives, and far rights can suck a fat one.

| If I have to guess, then it would be more to the left.

Simply because the source material (va11ha11a). Plus, if you are on the far right, you won't get the kick of using anon board in this app; You'll be on 4ch calling each other fag.

The amount of wholesome threads (even in /d/) also indicates that there's not much hostility around. Aka. people are more accepting, therefore more progressive.

| >>814755
>I consider myself as a centrist, I lean slightly right in economics although I lean slightly left in the social aspect
I would call this rightist, since I believe that economy determines "the social aspect". Economical right-leaning views usually mean market-darwinism, which divides people into classes. This will always lead to destruction of left-leaning society ideals globally and on the long term also locally. All of this already happened and currently happens again.

| >>814755
In other words, the longer we have economics based on politically right-leaning dogmas, the more it's problems, flaws and contradictions remained unresolved. This leads to a situation which pushes extremists on the right and the left causing a socialist revolution or fascist regression. Liberal democracies only could exist because their ruling class had to make compromises facing powerful socialist movement AND because they manged to move some issues geographically around.

| centrist, i tend to agree with points on both sides

| Economically nothing because it's a lot more complicated from issue to issue, socially left.

I think the game the board is based on is pretty left leaning in a descriptive sense so i imagine it aligns up with the users.

A surprising amount of trans and femboys. But occasionally you'll get extreme righties that's a bit more typical.

I enjoy the contrast. You can't have comfy without an occasional tirade about eugenics to remind u whas good.

| >>4dbc74 first, let me explain. I know where are you coming from, and although many people that lean right would despise any other system that is not capitalism, I would welcome other options like yours and others.

But, let's be real, capitalism is the system that has worked the most until now, and old wired communism just didn't work and won't work.

| >>4dbc74
However, I must say that if there was something like "neo-communism" applied with accuracy and without corruption, and also it merged with capitalism, I would love it deeply. It woudl be very similar to "social capitalism" and capitalism with welfare state like in nordic countries and germany.

| >>4dbc74 Lastly, I'm "leaning towards the left socially" because I support the lgtbq+ and other minorities. And also I want the basic needs of every person to be covered.

And "I lean to the right economically" because I know that capitalism it's the system that has worked the most so far. Yes, it can be pretty flawed, it's far from perfect, but it's what we have now. I'm thinking in the short-medium term, and you're thinking in the long term.


| What would you call someone outside this scale?
I prefer to look at the views individually and support those that would benefit the most. So I can't call myself neither leftists nor rightist. My only real position is against any far extremist.

| It's all relative.
Under a real socialist system you could be declared as a right-winged counterrevolutionary fascist/creationist for drinking coca cola.
In a capitalist or fascist system you will be branded as evil/chaotic far-left socialist/commie/anarchist for demanding a public healthcare system, supporting gay marriage or just criticizing issues at/with the almighty market(s).

| >>814910
*reactionary not creationist. Shitty capitalists auto correct... :-P

| >>814887
>capitalism is the system that has worked the most until now
And before it was feudalism, which (mostly) vanished... Also capitalism did not always and everywhere work in a useful way for most people. Only there were social(ist) movements challenged it, forcing it to make social reforms - and where capitalists could source out the worst kind of exploitation (ironically also to "communist" dictatorships).

| >>e430ce but those concessions were also made out of the times. Whether fear of the Soviet union or a recent impoverishment of a well off country.

With the world as economically tied up as it is and the overton window where it is advocating for extreme anything is difficult.

I would recommend presenting as centre, then when climate change ruins everything you can start the commune/kingdom of mexico. Otherwise it's rather performative.

| >>814931 I agree with you g/u/rl

| Anarchy.

| >>e5e435 I respect your thoughts and opinions g/u/rl, you seem a lot more put together than most people claiming to lean right. Just as a little food for thought, Cuba is doing great as a communist country despite trade embargos. Vietnam is also doing pretty well for itself after falling to communism. And the huge famine that ppl point to as a failing of the USSR was caused by capitalist/fascist farmers salting and burning their fields rather than handing them over to the people.

| I lean left, I'd say. I don't have meaningful solutions to issues in my own country, so I refer to the systems in place in countries that I feel cater to the needs of every class adequately enough to be considered healthy (largely places like Sweden, Germany, and New Zealand). I understand that downsides are always present for some group of people, so minimizing difficulties in work and life is always the end goal.

| >>814755 libertarian, mostly centric, little right

| I am a socialist

| I lean towards Jill's thighs

| >>815475 nice.

| >>815475 nice.

| >>814977 Wtf do you mean Cuba is doing great as a country? People barely have anything to eat or money to buy anything. The government censors everyone. Just take a look at the blackout they produced on purpose recently to supress revolts.

Why do you think cubans move to Miami or Spain? Think for a fucking second and inform yourself.

| >>814977
>And the huge famine that ppl point to as a failing of the USSR was caused by capitalist/fascist farmers salting and burning their fields rather than handing them over to the people.
Nah, famine in the USSR was mostly caused on purpose by the stalinist regime for two reasons:
1. fighting anti-stalinist groups, most prominent trotzkists and anarchists (who were quite popular in the ukraine).
2. forcing instustrialization by selling grain for industrial goods.

| >>814977
An actual example for famine that was really only caused by capitalists/capitalism is the great famine in Ireland.

| >>815766
You see, the problem is that not every country can offshore its issues, like some western industry powers. The sad thing about cuba is, that they managed to get rid of US-american puppet dictator only by becoming a puppet to the USSR which "collapsed" (in fact they were simply destroyed in afghanistan by islamist mercenaries sponsored by the US). Cuba is only a subject of interest because its geographical position could be turned into a threat to US imperialism.

| Anarchist

| To the light future go we should turn on the left and move keeping that direction; necessary understood present social-economic environment over whole the Planet like that comrade Lenin did. And after we needs in comrade Stalin! // like him

| I like controlled capitalism (mostly to stop monopolies or unfair competition) but im also fairly liberal when it comes to social issues tho i would like it if the government didn't intrude too much on private individuals.

Tho for some reason im quite sexually conservative. (Might be cuz im demi-straight and i hate the current hook-up culture)

| I'm an American and I'd describe myself as a constitutionalist.

I do lean left on most issues, but I have a problem with Congress & the executive branch overreaching. Bodily autonomy has never been and should never be subject to a government's authority. Limiting the bill of rights in any way except through another amendment is illegal, regardless of current optics.

| >>815855
If speech is to be curtailed, or weapons are to be limited/banned, let it be done through the framework designed for it that puts it before the public at large, not by a minority of the population that is susceptible to bribery and lobbying.

| I will also say that I think those actively responsible for providing the necessities of life should have a stronger say in the path the country takes than those of us who provide luxuries and entertainment.

I work in a casino. I shouldn't have as much say as the people that grows my food or provide me with clean drinking water. Not that I should have no say, but there should be a way to weigh it based on actual necessity.

| I consider my self a communist so I'm obviously on the left side. Read some books of Karl Marx, Lenin and you should know why the majority of people matters the most. I surely prefer to work for the common interest of humanity instead of working my ass off so that my boss can have more money to polish his luxury sports car.

| Not to say that we don't need capitalism anymore. Just as comrade Lenin said, we'll need capitalism in the early time to gain political freedom from the old age ruler and boost productivity,but eventually when capitalism grows to saturation, there will be a wide gap between the rich and poor, and that is when a revolution is most likely to break out. Like the October Revolution in Russia during WWI.

| >>815876
>we'll need capitalism in the early time to gain political freedom from the old age ruler
Marxists/Leninists underestimated dramatically the ability of some old age rulers to save their asses (and ideologies) into the new capitalist order. Mostly them, but also alot new capitalists, haven't realized what's going on. They still believe/propagate that they are somehow chosen to rule by supernatural/irrational/esoterical powers that only exist in peoples imagination.

| >>815876
Another thing marxists/leninists didn't see coming: The success of identity offers that literally destroyed class consciousness. For example german workers and capitalists suddenly became best friends in a made up conflict which was about (quite offensively) defending "their" nation/race/culture against the other "subhumans". Even the capitalists lacking class consciousness is much stronger than the proletariats.
+ lots of current "leftist" identity politics is a pitfall.

| >>815887
He wasn't talking about identity-politics though. What are you even on about?

| Honestly, this is the first board I can lurk without ruining my eyes with "hurr durr leftist" everywhere. My eyes feel relieved.

| >>815891 mogjt be because no is shaming anyone for any choices and just giving their opinions, as it should always be, of course, but its still impressive that it is happening so perfectly.(death flag was raised here)

| Unorthodox right-wing. Conservatives, libertarians, leftists are fucking retarded.

| And as the death flag is raised the opposite happens, classic.

| >>815912 I am not shaming anyone more than>>dab089 though.

Also, I don't really want to push my agenda here.

| But I do want to say that centrists are the worst. You are not being "wise" you are scared of having an opinion.

| >>7acdff centrists are a misconception, the majority are single issue politically. Supports the unions + dislikes the gays = centre.

| >>815891
This was the norm everywhere until just a few years ago. Nowadays people are so polarized and ignorant about actual politics that they hate everyone who doesn't agree with them. It's ridicilous.

| >>815937
That is simply not true. People always were like this.

| >>815927 Uh.. I consider myself a centrist, and I like unions and the "gays" (all the lgtb+), I also like good capitalism. So I'm a good centrist.

| >>115674 that's not eet, you would be a democratic socialist by most standards. The way the centre is measured is usually by single issue voters for example that go against the grain.

| >>815914 not really, at least>>dab089 is not trying to make his opinion seems better, you generalized a bunch of groups and when called out you went full on "no no it was not intentional, look, this dude did worse, and Im not pushing any agenda or shaming anyone, Im just saying centrists are the worse"

And then we have >>815987 who contradictis what you and>>815927, preach on and on about.

| Whats funny is how you 2 wanna look better than >>dab089 but still generalize and shame a large portion of people, zero self awareness.

| >>815989 I'm sorry but being a centrist is not about "going against the masses/the flow/the popular". Also, please don't generalize an entire group that has diverse opinion amongst its members.
But yeah, being democratic social / social democrat would be in the centrist spectrum.

| >>815991 I pointed out that the "death flag" was raised before me by>>dab089 and nobody paid any attention. Leftists and double standards always come together as they say.

The part about centrists exists because I forgot to mention it in my first message.

Also, I am not trying to look better than >>dab089 . I don't know where you even got that. I genuinely hate all of the ideologies except mine.

| > still generalize and shame a large portion of people, zero self awareness.

Learn to read. I said that I shame people no more that that dab gurl. That doesn't mean I don't shame people at all.

| Meaning, I shame people for their opinion if I think it is retarded. I expect others to do the same for me.

| >>815998 who told told you Im a leftists?>>dab089 at least goes full shitpost, you say a crap take like that and still thinks you should bother justify it as if you have any semblance of reason to be that ignorant, you are trying to seem better.

| Fucking hell. Look at my first message. Tell me how
"far left here. libs, conservatives, and far rights can suck a fat one."

is more of a shitpost than

"Conservatives, libertarians, leftists are fucking retarded."?

| Anyway, it is not really important. I don't want to take more space in this thread for no reason. Cheers.

| >>816002 dude the fact that you felt need to justify it with a "look at this other dude he also did it, Im not pushing any agenda" at>>815914 despite me just saying "and the oposite happened" shows how you got defensive over the supposed shitpost.

And ok >>816003 best thing you have said here, I 100% respect you backing out and being clear about it, wont reply to you anymore after this.

| >>816003 >>816004

I guess this is sorta off topic, but can someone explain this to me? Why do people try to get the last word in like this? You don't know each other, and are well past the point of trying to change each other's minds.

Will it hurt you to not say something? At some point you have to realize it's just not worth the effort to argue.

| >>816013 personally, I just hate when other people don't understand me. It is frustrating.

| >>816013 I just made a comment on how my I predicted that the next comment would be the opposite of the previous ones and got frustrated at how unware the reply to it was.

| >>815986
Bullshit "argument".

Yes, attitudes like these existed before but it wasn't the norm. You could talk with randos about politics without it getting personal or juvenile.

Peoples political opinions *are* more polarized today, you can't deny that. And people are empirically less emphatic than a decade ago.

Chances are you're too young to have experienced it. TL;DR I'm fucking old.

| They replaced class war with identity war because they got a big spook around a decade ago. Everyone gobbled it up and now they're making up new first world problems to tell at each other about instead of solving real ones. We are being divided and conquered by the elite. Left or right, it is all a joke at this point.

| >>816057

And sadly, young people today seem to have a fixation with appearing as urbane as possible, especially among their peers. This doesn't mean that they are more knowledgeable or experienced. More times than not it just means that they're faking it.

And if you've ever backed a phony into a corner, inadvertently or not, then you know how aggressive they can get.

| I love sex.

| >>815987
Most "western democracies" were ruled by "centrists" parties most of the time. And they failed massive to regulate the markets, resulting in
- monopolism
- rise of oligarchs and plutocrats
- regress or even decrease of social and environmental standards
- acceleration of arms race
- a massive division of people into a rich and a poor class/erosion of middle class
- reducing the political discource to identity issues
- polarization between political left/right

| Successes by far left and right movements are both the logical result of the failure by "centre" politics.

Important key differences in their concepts:

Left: offer a potentially better future characterized by solidarity, inclusivity, diversity and unity.
It's impossible to say how to achieve it.

Right: offer a back to an idealized past, characterized by social-darwinism, exlusivity, conformism and separation. It'll be a big shitshow for sure. You have my guarantee.

| >>816124 I can say for sure that they were corrupt/they weren't true centrists, because the market can be slightly regulated, it's not necessary to make weapons, and social coherency can maintained.
Just look at the nordic countries, and germany, and japan for example they are quite the pacific country!
I consider those countries as centrist countries. (Except japan that leans more to the right)

| >>816124 to be fair, the existence of a middle class at all is a relatively recent thing,

And *every* time a government gets large enough that the rulers don't have a personal relationship with every individual they rule over, oligarchies develop. It's not a "western democracy" thing, it's an effect of human nature/the type of personality that seeks out political power. You see the same thing in communism, democracy, and feudalism. The dressings and labels are different, is all.

| I support most ideas the left has but nothing will convince me trannies aren't mentally ill, so I guess I'm the right wing boogeyman

| >but nothing will convince me trannies aren't mentally ill

Not even facts that proves you wrong? Sounds like a retarded hill to die on, desu.

| >>816325
Based, troons are some of the lowest subhumans.

| >>816133
>Just look at the nordic countries, and germany, and japan for example they are quite the pacific country!
You seem not to be up-to date. It's not 1990 anymore.
The welfare estates in the nordic countries were slowly dismantled and far-right has become influential. The same in ger. It didn't take long after the dissolution of the USSR when german soldiers marched into other countries.
And japan never was a welfare state and is just about giving up pacifism.

| >>816320
There is no such a thing as "human nature". What makes us humans different from other primates or animals in general is our ability to explore, analyse and reflect ourselves as our environment and store and pass knowledge across space and time (even if here only in one direction). This is quite unique. The ideology of a "Human nature" is an easy excuse/cheap justification for not improving and/or being egoistic and careless about others.

| >>816390 I think "human nature" isnt something that say people when they believe it is an undeniable truth that humans will do something and its more of a way to say, "there is pretty fuckung big historical pattern here".

| >>816320
>it's an effect of human nature/the type of personality that seeks out political power
The way how we organize/distribute political power (which basically is economical power) matters and it is not god given. Transparency and property are key elements here.

I agree to you to a certain degree, that different society models (or approaches) suffered from similar core issues. But now there is almost only one left, which isn't really questioned enough.

| >>816391
It's not really hard to find patterns in a huge bunch of information. But it's very hard to classify them correctly. And it's highly questionable to make predictions about the future.

| >>816393 you're being pedantic.

My point is: the type of person who seeks out power over others on the scale of a nation state has, *without exception* been the type to engage in cronyism and perpetuate oligarchy. Part of that is just the nature of governance, but part of it is and effect of the personality type.

| Now, oligarchy also isn't necessarily a bad thing in certain situations.

The concentration of power is a necessity for accomplishing extended, arduous, or far-reaching tasks.

Any major hydroelectric dam is a good example. Without a united driving force steering the necessary social & economic power, none of those would be completed.

| My opinion is good your opinion is bad

| im pretty left id say. still trying to learn more about socialism and communism. definitely socially left and definitely not for capitalism.


| Holy shit this is a lot of bait

| >>816443
In my opinion being pedantic isn't a bad thing.
However, I'm always wondering why there is so much focus on bad, power hungry government leaders, while the critical reception about economical leaders (entrepreneurs and investors) is so low. Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos are politically much more powerful individuals then most government leaders (no matter if democratically elected or not) in direct comparison.

| >>816445
According to Aristotle Oligarchy is per definition a bad thing. It's the decadent form of elite reign. The decent form would be the "aristocracy".
They're basically 3 basic forms characterized by the amount of rulers (one, many, all) which all have a decent (modest) and a decadent (egoist) form.
Monarchy (one, decent) → Tyranny (one, decadent) → Aristocracy (many, decent) → Oligarchy (many, decadent) → Democracy (all, decent) → Ochlocracy (all, decadent) → Monarchy

| Ochlocracy is a new word for me.

| >>a4f6b1 i think Nietzsche master and slave morality would like to have a word

| >>816618
That's nice.

The modern definition of oligarchy, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary (commonly considered the authority on proven modern usage), is

>a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.

| Aristotle, while certainly a basis for building an argument off of, is also too far removed from modern society to use as the entire basis of an argument.

The Greek city-states lacked the scale necessary to address modern governance. At its height, classical Athens had a total population of 300,000, with only 150,000 of those being citizens.

The requirements of ruling a city of that size are quite different from what it takes to rule a population of hundreds of millions.

| >>816630 I see the problem. Break up big countries into several smaller countries!

| Right wing here, hey.

| Okay, someone made a good point about political spectrum simplification being retarded.
Culturally I'm on the right because I am simply fucking allergic to lefty 'culture' rhetoric and plain arrogance... I'm not a fan of anything and hate politics, but I like right-wing socialism, a.k.a. the kind which does not turn people into useless minions of the nanny state and instead invests into the person following natural rules of meritocracy. It has another name too, this stance...


| >>816642 smaller countries are more vulnerable to conquest and exploitation by violence.

| Left - Right is bull.

| >>816825 Try being ungovernable in the middle of nowhere without help, smartass.

| i think i consider myself as moderate left, not a socialist in any means, but far from being liberal or even close to right wing ideologies

| >>816861 t. governed g/u/rl

| look i just want to destroy Israel

| >>816904 why? The jews that meddle with everything never moved there. Israel was, and still is, too much of a conflict zone for those snobs. The jews to hate mainly live in London, NYC, and Hollywood.

| left wing, right wing, it's all the same bird

| >>817019 No. Mankind came up with two ways:capitalism and communism (socialism). And here the first one leads us to fashism.

| >>814872
Not true

You can support social security through an economical perspective but still be socially conservative i.e against free mixing of genders

| I don't put myself in a box like that

| >>815784
> USSR which "collapsed" (in fact they were simply destroyed in afghanistan by islamist mercenaries sponsored by the US
Lol, sorry, dude, but if you think so you don't know aint shit about all this stuff. If it was so, USA should collapse right now because of "Saigon#2" (or should I say "Soy gone"?).

| >>817286
Boggling how retarded this take is

| I like neither side nor am I a fence-sitter(so-called centrists). Its always one that takes control of things and the other that won't shut the fuck up then roles switch. Just purge this shitty world.

| >>817993 Don't worry my child. You do not have to think too much about politics. The centrist will rule the world soon and we'll take care of you kid.

| >>818003 okay... thats actually fair and very ignorant of me to say.

Total number of posts: 115, last modified on: Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 1640667076

This thread is permanently archived