What are your political views?

[Zottistan]

Socially, left.
Politically, unsure. Skeptical of democracy. Very much so a statist.
Economically, moderate right.

Also slightly neoconservative.

[Camelza]

I was not referring to the Baath party.

Who? The Phalanges? They wren't Nazis either. Fascists, as inspired by Franco. Who else?

The Phalanges were actually modelled after the Nazi party;
I was the captain of the Lebanese football team and the president of the Lebanese Football federation. We went to the Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin. And I saw then this discipline and order. And I said to myself: "Why can't we do the same thing in Lebanon?" So when we came back to Lebanon, we created this youth movement. When I was in Berlin then, Nazism did not have the reputation which it has now. Nazism? In every system in the world, you can find something good. But Nazism was not Nazism at all. The word came afterwards. In their system, I saw discipline. And we in the Middle East, we need discipline more than anything else.
-Gemayel(not the one you have in mind).
As for the other one? I had the National Social Syrian Party in mind, it was modelled after the NSDAP, but it has adopted baathism over the years.
Also the Nazis were fascists, to consider nazism as something else other than German-styled Fascism belongs to the sphere of semanticology.

[Distruzio]

Ew. We are opposites in every regard

You've never struck me as a racist, Dis.

Oh im not. Im just not anti racism. Im pro racism. Id rather the racists be overt and hateful rather than subversive and sympathizing. Both are condescending but where one sees it as their cause to protect an arbitrary and sociological cobstruct the other sees it as their duty to save the disenfranchised from themselves.

[Ykrovjnge Krjvwic]

See Signature
VVVVVVVVVV

[Skinia]

You've never struck me as a racist, Dis.

Oh im not. Im just not anti racism. Im pro racism. Id rather the racists be overt and hateful rather than subversive and sympathizing. Both are condescending but where one sees it as their cause to protect an arbitrary and sociological cobstruct the other sees it as their duty to save the disenfranchised from themselves.

If you're for racism, you're a racist.

[Fanosolia]

wow this is more balanced than I thought it would be

I consider myself to be of the center-left variety. This is mostly because I see current a market economy being dominate in the world, while realizing that the private sector can't do it all (so mixed economy). I don't oppose private education and health care, but I think we should have equal access to those resources to at least some degree. I am also for various welfare, and social programs.

I also think that the market should have some rules (don't lie to your consumer or be held accountable, and similar laws.) along with worker unions and safety laws. I think there should be a minimum wage, but don't ask me what to set it to because it depends on many factors (like if there's a basic income guarantee, cost of living, ect.) that I don't think I'm qualified to give a straight answer.

I'm also probably a moderate liberal social issues as I believe in LGBT rights, gender equality, free expression (I'll get to that one), and not giving a damn about something minute like race in general. Now thing about freedom of expression is that, yes, you can say/make whatever you want, but think it's not going to be criticized, or brought into question. It is almost self-policing when you think about it. Since it's not a popular opinion, it is why I consider it to be moderate.

[Bakhara]

I am a right winger, but both sides have smart people and stupid people. The same goes with open minded people and closed minded people.

I am a capitalist and I support worker safety regulations and the breaking up of monopolies, but otherwise the private sector should be left unregulated.

[Conscentia]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

A variant of something. I didn't smoke some tree today; I know what I'm saying like how I know the weight of some yay.

A variant is a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.
The socialism of "anarcho-socialism" does not differ in any way from "anarcho-"less socialism. It is therefore not a variant.
"Anarcho-socialism" would be the intersections between two sets - anarchism, and socialism - on a Venn diagram. It is not a variant of socialism. Socialism has no variants. It is nothing less or more than social ownership of the means of production. Socialism a pre-requisite or goal of many larger ideologies, but those ideologies are not variants of socialism. They are distinct ideologies that happen to contain socialism.

[Distruzio]

No he meant he is racist and I am an anti-racist

I think you've got that backwards, friend.

Very backwards. The anti racist is no less a racist than a racist.

[Caribica]

You can be gay if you want, by all means legalize gay marriage, just don't force churches to host them or Christian buisnesses like bakers to cater to them

Pathetic. Businesses are not individuals, they don't have beliefs. Nor do their do their founders' beliefs allow them to refuse service based on race, gender, sexual identity/orientation, social status, socioeconomic class, nationality, origin, or ethnicity.

Except for in some American states. And apparently, maybe soon, Northern Ireland.

So just because I found a buisness now means I have no right to control what goes on in my buisness?
I shouldn't have expected anything semi intelligent from a Frenchman, why did the nazis have to kill off all the good conservatives in your country?

[Olivaero]

Certain variations of academia, philosophy, and law disagree with me.
Social sciences are not hard sciences, and have no "truths". They vary, especially by culture and thinking.

Your society's permission. Simply that.

In America, you have the right, regardless of its positive or negative status, constitutionally to "bear arms".
You do not in France.
What in America is a violation of your 2nd Amendment, is simply the law in France.

As it relates to philosophy, "truths" are anything that are inherent. There is an inherent truth in say, all men have the ability to think.

So you only prove the subjectivity of positive rights and ability for them to be taken away. Yet you have yet to deny me the objectivity of negative rights.

I have a negative right to think whatever thought I want about you, as I have the will to do it, and while a law may influence that it cannot take away it's inherence.

you certainly have the abillity to do things no matter what the law says, if your well muscled and trained in combat you have the ability to beat some one who is neither of those things up just like you have the ability to think whatever you like do you also have the negative right to beat someone up because it's something you can do completely of your own volition?

[Fortschritte]

See Signature
VVVVVVVVVV

Jesus, all the colors are nearly blinding.

[Skinia]

I think you've got that backwards, friend.

Very backwards. The anti racist is no less a racist than a racist.

How can someone who is against racism be a racist?

[Camelza]

You've never struck me as a racist, Dis.

Oh im not. Im just not anti racism. Im pro racism. Id rather the racists be overt and hateful rather than subversive and sympathizing. Both are condescending but where one sees it as their cause to protect an arbitrary and sociological cobstruct the other sees it as their duty to save the disenfranchised from themselves.

Claiming that you're pro-racism doesn't actually help your case of not being a racist. Just saying.

[Distruzio]

Oh im not. Im just not anti racism. Im pro racism. Id rather the racists be overt and hateful rather than subversive and sympathizing. Both are condescending but where one sees it as their cause to protect an arbitrary and sociological cobstruct the other sees it as their duty to save the disenfranchised from themselves.

If you're for racism, you're a racist.

Oh i am a bigot. It just isnt race that i target.

[The Liberated Territories]

As it relates to philosophy, "truths" are anything that are inherent. There is an inherent truth in say, all men have the ability to think.

So you only prove the subjectivity of positive rights and ability for them to be taken away. Yet you have yet to deny me the objectivity of negative rights.

I have a negative right to think whatever thought I want about you, as I have the will to do it, and while a law may influence that it cannot take away it's inherence.

There's nothing objective about politics, ethics and aesthetics. All of them are placed of personal preference. Why should I derive my values from philosophical truths?

I don't know, you tell me. As for me, I believe it creates goals or freedoms that are good for myself.

[Distruzio]

Very backwards. The anti racist is no less a racist than a racist.

How can someone who is against racism be a racist?

They want to save the minorities from themselves or problems endemic to minority populations instead of allowing said populations the opportunity to raise themselves.

[Skinia]

If you're for racism, you're a racist.

Oh i am a bigot. It just isnt race that i target.

Then you're not 'pro racist'. You're 'pro some other discrimination'.

[Camelza]

Very backwards. The anti racist is no less a racist than a racist.

How can someone who is against racism be a racist?

Pssst, haven't you heard that "Anti-racist is code for anti-white"?

[Dumb Ideologies]

If you're for racism, you're a racist.

Oh i am a bigot. It just isnt race that i target.

It sounds a lot like you're not really anything other than a contrarian.

[Distruzio]

Oh im not. Im just not anti racism. Im pro racism. Id rather the racists be overt and hateful rather than subversive and sympathizing. Both are condescending but where one sees it as their cause to protect an arbitrary and sociological cobstruct the other sees it as their duty to save the disenfranchised from themselves.

Claiming that you're pro-racism doesn't actually help your case of not being a racist. Just saying.

Oh?

[Olerand]

Who? The Phalanges? They wren't Nazis either. Fascists, as inspired by Franco. Who else?

The Phalanges were actually modelled after the Nazi party;
I was the captain of the Lebanese football team and the president of the Lebanese Football federation. We went to the Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin. And I saw then this discipline and order. And I said to myself: "Why can't we do the same thing in Lebanon?" So when we came back to Lebanon, we created this youth movement. When I was in Berlin then, Nazism did not have the reputation which it has now. Nazism? In every system in the world, you can find something good. But Nazism was not Nazism at all. The word came afterwards. In their system, I saw discipline. And we in the Middle East, we need discipline more than anything else.
-Gemayel(not the one you have in mind).
As for the other one? I had the National Social Syrian Party in mind, it was modelled after the NSDAP, but it has adopted baathism over the years.
Also the Nazis were fascists, to consider nazism as something else other than German-styled Fascism belongs to the sphere of semanticology.

Their ideology is fascism, however, not Nazism. They adopted Nazi movements and such, like the Hitler salute or whatever, but as far as my understanding of the locals' descriptions goes, they did it for show. Their ideology, again as far as the descriptions I have received, is fascism, however.

Nazism is fascism, but fascism is not necessarily Nazism. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party was indeed influenced by Nazism, that is true, I missed them. As you have stated however, they have moved to Baathism.

[Distruzio]

Oh i am a bigot. It just isnt race that i target.

Then you're not 'pro racist'. You're 'pro some other discrimination'.

Pro discrimination would be more accurate, i concede.

[Conscentia]

I don't know, you tell me. As for me, I believe it creates goals or freedoms that are good for myself.

Ew. Narcissism.

[The Liberated Territories]

As it relates to philosophy, "truths" are anything that are inherent. There is an inherent truth in say, all men have the ability to think.

So you only prove the subjectivity of positive rights and ability for them to be taken away. Yet you have yet to deny me the objectivity of negative rights.

I have a negative right to think whatever thought I want about you, as I have the will to do it, and while a law may influence that it cannot take away it's inherence.

you certainly have the abillity to do things no matter what the law says, if your well muscled and trained in combat you have the ability to beat some one who is neither of those things up just like you have the ability to think whatever you like do you also have the negative right to beat someone up because it's something you can do completely of your own volition?

Of course you do. Just like that person has the ability to fight back, or even better, hire a bunch of bodyguards, and a million other ways to protect themselves using their rights.