Whats some of the "opposing political sides" views you hold?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The war on drugs occurred because of increasing crime rates during the 80s and 90s and public anti-crime attitudes. It has nothing to do with rich people buying politicians lol. And I don't think Libertarians are ok with actual criminal behaviour (e.g. "buying politicians").

"Campaign contributions" are perfectly legal, yet they still serve as de facto bribes as they establish a quid pro quo.

The 80s and 90s may have had that excuse, but the 21st century does not. Scandinavia has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you can stop crime by stopping the root causes of crime, without needing prisons or policing anywhere near as heavy-handed as the USA's. (Though frankly, I'm not sure why they believed anything else. Were all those old stories of people turning to theft out of desperation completely unconvincing to people for decades on end?)

There's many variants of conservatism.

If it's supposed to be about tradition, then the only qualifier on the namesake should be whose traditions are being conserved.

And if it isn't, why the word conservatism?

There's many conservatives that oppose these economic pressure on woke companies (just read anyone from The Dispatch).

And yet, they try to reconcile this with the "free market" that paved the way for it.

At the same time, there are cultural conservatives that were never really on board with limited government, and support using government power to disincentivise wokeness. It's not really a single ideology.

And yet, they use the same name. At least one of these two variants is misusing the word. Either way, the other is failing to adequately call them out on it.

I'm confused. I'm not aware this is a position among the American centre-left.

It is the status quo in child support law; a status quo that could not have been maintained without leftist help.

I mean I think you're mixing up ideologies with parties. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are coalitions of many different ideologies, many conflicting, and voters prioritise different policies lead to perhaps odd (at least from an outside perspective) policy combinations. But I don't think that's equivalent to saying "mainstream ideologies" don't make sense.

How else do you propose measuring "mainstream ideologies" than how people vote?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

And the mainstream ideologies aren't?

Libertarianism preaches free markets, yet disavows culpability for letting the rich get rich enough to buy politicians on behalf of non-libertarian policies like the war on drugs?

Conservatism preaches free markets and tries to reconcile that with the free market creating economic pressure on companies to boycott states that capitulate to Trumpian narratives about the 2020 election?

Liberalism preaches using education to help the poor climb the social ladder, yet is okay with making guys whose girlfriends didn't tell them they'd keep the baby if the condom broke have to drop out of school and become "dead-broke dads"?

None of the mainstream ideologies make sense. It takes those of us who are freethinkers first, centre-left second, to see through it.

Because those are policy positions and not ideological positions. Your ideology has more to do with what you believe is true about the world.

Then what, if anything, are the "unifying ideas" of any of the three ideologies I mentioned?

[Lady Victory]

There is no such thing as "Left-wing views" and "Right-wing views" because the "Left" and "Right" are arbitrary designators that really don't apply to anyone who isn't a fanatic extremist. The Left-Center-Right spectrum is virtually useless in gauging political "alignment" and frankly the very concept of a "political alignment" is inanely restrictive and unrealistically purist. Most people simply do not fall into this absurd 'white-grey-black' categorization that the Left-Center-Right spectrum utilizes and the only ones that do neatly fit into these categories are almost always ideologues and radicals of some kind.

My views are my own and are developed from my own, personal beliefs with no regard for ideological 'purity'. I don't place myself anywhere on any spectrum as a result. Ask me what I think on a certain topic and I'll tell you, but don't ask me where I fit on any political spectrum because not only do I not know but I don't bother to care enough to try and figure it out.

It is what it is.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

There is no such thing as "Left-wing views" and "Right-wing views" because the "Left" and "Right" are arbitrary designators that really don't apply to anyone who isn't a fanatic extremist. The Left-Center-Right spectrum is virtually useless in gauging political "alignment" and frankly the very concept of a "political alignment" is inanely restrictive and unrealistically purist. Most people simply do not fall into this absurd 'white-grey-black' categorization that the Left-Center-Right spectrum utilizes and the only ones that do neatly fit into these categories are almost always ideologues and radicals of some kind.

My views are my own and are developed from my own, personal beliefs with no regard for ideological 'purity'. I don't place myself anywhere on any spectrum as a result. Ask me what I think on a certain topic and I'll tell you, but don't ask me where I fit on any political spectrum because not only do I not know but I don't bother to care enough to try and figure it out.

It is what it is.

I have a new signature.

[Suriyanakhon]

I'm conservative on doctrinal issues and believe that religious bodies should be able to be exclusionary (provided they don't deny rights to others). I'm also a bit of a fan of historical monarchies even though I think today it's outdated and shouldn't exist.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

emmm.....I'm against religious freedom. I think mankind must ban all religions immediately.True atheists should not compromise with them.

[Wizlandia]

The war on drugs occurred because of increasing crime rates during the 80s and 90s and public anti-crime attitudes. It has nothing to do with rich people buying politicians lol. And I don't think Libertarians are ok with actual criminal behaviour (e.g. "buying politicians").

"Campaign contributions" are perfectly legal, yet they still serve as de facto bribes as they establish a quid pro quo.

Ok? I personally don't think campaign contributions significantly affect how politicians vote. Regardless, I don't see anything inconsistent with the Libertarian ideology here, unless you're arguing that by allowing campaign contributions Libertarians are allowing anti-Libertarian political influence.

The 80s and 90s may have had that excuse, but the 21st century does not.

Sure. And we should address the incarceration problem (and the liberalisation stance is becoming more popular). Again, don't see the relevance of this to "mainstream ideologies don't make sense."

Scandinavia has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you can stop crime by stopping the root causes of crime, without needing prisons or policing anywhere near as heavy-handed as the USA's. (Though frankly, I'm not sure why they believed anything else. Were all those old stories of people turning to theft out of desperation completely unconvincing to people for decades on end?)

Mostly agree about excessive imprisonment, although the last two decades have seen progress (policy-wise) on this front. I don't think "theft out of desperation" is the primary motivation for violent crime (which is where the US is really behind), socialisation is a bigger driver imo.

If it's supposed to be about tradition, then the only qualifier on the namesake should be whose traditions are being conserved.

And if it isn't, why the word conservatism?

Don't get what your point is here? That the name isn't descriptive enough? That multiple ideologies use the same name?

And yet, they try to reconcile this with the "free market" that paved the way for it.

This seems to be a non-sequitur. Who is trying to reconcile the free market with what?

And yet, they use the same name. At least one of these two variants is misusing the word. Either way, the other is failing to adequately call them out on it.

Or... there's different conservative ideologies, held by different people, that are in a coalition under the Republican Party.

It is the status quo in child support law; a status quo that could not have been maintained without leftist help.

I mean a leftist could just as easily argue that without child support, the child's educational prospects would be damaged. Regardless, I don't see a particularly large tension with pro-child support and being pro-eduction.

How else do you propose measuring "mainstream ideologies" than how people vote?

It's harder to do in two-party systems, but looking at the ideologies of influential thinkers and writers (like Buckley, or Kristol, for instance) is one way. Or surveying people on ideological questions and trying to find high-correlations between certain attitudes/policy views, though tbf a lot of people aren't super ideological.

[Wizlandia]

Because those are policy positions and not ideological positions. Your ideology has more to do with what you believe is true about the world.

Then what, if anything, are the "unifying ideas" of any of the three ideologies I mentioned?

American Libertarianism: Smallest government possible to protect people's life, liberty, and property. There are variants, but that is the general principle behind American Libertarianism.

The other two in America aren't really singular ideologies (imo), but just terms to describe the issue stances of the Republican and Democratic Parties, which are big-tent parties with many conflicting ideologies. The ideologies of Yuval Levin, Donald Trump, and Ben Shapiro are all very different, even though all three are Republicans.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Left-winger opposed to the combination of wide-scale immigration and multiculturalist policies that erode social solidarity, the constant focus on promoting controversy on every form of social division/marginalisation, sniffy liberal attitudes towards our own history and culture, the infantilisation of minorities through an obsession with micro-aggressions, and the hectoring mindset of lecturing you about privilege while believing themselves entitled for you to do free advocacy or labour on their behalf. The cosmopolitanising impacts of global capitalism are not the fault of the left, quite the opposite, but it often seems as though left-wingers spend more time in the weeds talking about lifestyle and liberation - often in pursuit of policies that would cause net harm rather than help to society - than they do about capitalism and poverty. Why I still call myself a leftist is because a fundamental change to the global economic order which is causing or worsening many social problems is necessary, and while there are people on the right who will highlight these issues, having "owned the libs" most of the current right will then proceed to propose precisely fuck all to help those people themselves - the talk of solidarity and bonds of nation is discourse rather than action.

[Wizlandia]

There's literally satellite images of the camps, drone footage Uighur prisoners with heads shaved, blindfolded and tied up, dozens of witness testimonies, and leaked documents from within the CCP. And that's just the tip of the iceberg evidence-wise.

Regarding witness testimony, I thought we learned from Nayirah.

No-one is saying believe any single witness. But when many people all say the same thing, that is compelling evidence.

I've seen the satellite images, and I've also seen the non-grayscale blurry versions. They're normal buildings- I've seen at least 30 claiming to be the real thing, and I've seen the actual building for all those.

Yes, normal buildings are commonly built with high walls surrounding them. /s

[Punished UMN]

Because those are policy positions and not ideological positions. Your ideology has more to do with what you believe is true about the world.

How would you describe my ideology? Just curious what your thoughts are.

To be completely honest I don't interact with you enough to know. A lot of people on here are what I'd call "ideologically schizophrenic" in that there is no internal logic or coherence to their ideology. I don't know if that describes you though.

[Punished UMN]

Because those are policy positions and not ideological positions. Your ideology has more to do with what you believe is true about the world.

Then what, if anything, are the "unifying ideas" of any of the three ideologies I mentioned?

They're all fundamentally just modernist derivations from Enlightenment-era liberalism applied to industrial and post-industrial society.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Ok? I personally don't think campaign contributions significantly affect how politicians vote.

Listen to TYT from time to time. They often go into who a politician has accepted money from and have correlated this with policy over the years.

Regardless, I don't see anything inconsistent with the Libertarian ideology here, unless you're arguing that by allowing campaign contributions Libertarians are allowing anti-Libertarian political influence.

"Inconsistent" may be a gray area, but "unsustainable" is not. Libertarianism literally destroys itself.

Sure. And we should address the incarceration problem (and the liberalisation stance is becoming more popular). Again, don't see the relevance of this to "mainstream ideologies don't make sense."

The popularity of market worship until so very recently has demonstrated willful ignorance of geographical counterexamples.

Mostly agree about excessive imprisonment, although the last two decades have seen progress (policy-wise) on this front. I don't think "theft out of desperation" is the primary motivation for violent crime (which is where the US is really behind), socialisation is a bigger driver imo.

Nonetheless, it seems to be a lot more rampant in a country with both an abundance of wealthy people with a lot of property to steal and a lot of citizens desperate enough to resort to it.

Don't get what your point is here? That the name isn't descriptive enough? That multiple ideologies use the same name?

If a word were definable, there would be a wide enough consensus about its meaning that it would be easy to identify who is using it wrong.

This seems to be a non-sequitur. Who is trying to reconcile the free market with what?

For starters, the people who stop short of publicly renouncing the free market and all their prior

Or... there's different conservative ideologies, held by different people, that are in a coalition under the Republican Party.

Coalition is one thing. Deceit by omission is another. Trying to pretend both that the word is objectively definable and somehow simultaneously that the other faction isn't using it wrong crosses the line into deceit by omission, at best.

I mean a leftist could just as easily argue that without child support, the child's educational prospects would be damaged.

Then they would support the government paying the cost until the father is back on his feet, rather than dragging him into poverty with her.

I do not claim to know why so many leftists support the latter. On this site in particular, the claim is often that he should "trust her" to tell the truth about what she'd do if pregnant. Well, such trust isn't exactly going to be rewarded.

It's harder to do in two-party systems, but looking at the ideologies of influential thinkers and writers (like Buckley, or Kristol, for instance)

Buckley supported Goldwater, whose libertarianism then paved the way for Trumpism now.

is one way. Or surveying people on ideological questions and trying to find high-correlations between certain attitudes/policy views, though tbf a lot of people aren't super ideological.

Or super honest either, for that matter.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Then what, if anything, are the "unifying ideas" of any of the three ideologies I mentioned?

They're all fundamentally just modernist derivations from Enlightenment-era liberalism applied to industrial and post-industrial society.

That's true. Unless one is a reactionary or a communist, one is usually a form of liberal.

[Kowani]

And the mainstream ideologies aren't?

Libertarianism preaches free markets, yet disavows culpability for letting the rich get rich enough to buy politicians on behalf of non-libertarian policies like the war on drugs?

The war on drugs occurred because of increasing crime rates during the 80s and 90s and public anti-crime attitudes.

waves
nope!
the war on drugs was deliberately and explicitly constructed by the Nixon campaign to break up the black community. It had nothing to do with actual crime rates.

[Wizlandia]

Because those are policy positions and not ideological positions. Your ideology has more to do with what you believe is true about the world.

How would you describe my ideology? Just curious what your thoughts are.

Hard to say, but from the pro/anti maybe a moderate version of National Conservatism?

[Wizlandia]

The war on drugs occurred because of increasing crime rates during the 80s and 90s and public anti-crime attitudes.

waves
nope!
the war on drugs was deliberately and explicitly constructed by the Nixon campaign to break up the black community. It had nothing to do with actual crime rates.

Its sort of both. Nixon’s racism was definitely part of it, but there was numerous bipartisan tough-on-crime and tough-on-drugs legislation post-Nixon as well in response to increasing crime.

[The Commoners Republic of America]

Although I identify as a Conservative, I am teetering on the line that our Federal election system should be standardized and overhauled.

First of all, I would like the US House of Representatives to be changed to Party-list voting, and the party appointment process would be an open-list system. Representatives would be chosen by party constituencies during Party Primaries with the Approval voting Method.

Secondly, each state inside of the US Senate should be granted an extra 2 senators, 4 in total, but mandate that they are elected by Single Transferable Vote. With this method, each state's ideology will be represented proportionally, based on their state constituencies. Also, even if you live in a deep-red/blue state, you would at least be guaranteed one senator if your party makes up at least 25% of the State population.

Lastly, the Electoral College needs to be changed, but not abolished. This would be the hardest to implement, but if accomplished would be a great middle-ground for proportional representation and regional representation. Each State should have its Electoral Votes be proportional to the state-wide vote. If one Candidate gets 40% of the state-wide vote, then they receive 40% of the electoral votes for that State. The Voting Method would be approval voting, so you can vote for any number of candidates. If nobody gets a simple majority in the electoral College nationally, then each State would remove all candidates with no electoral votes, and the one with the least amount. This automated runoff would happen until a simple majority is achieved.

[Quartia and Karafuto]

There's a few things. I'm mostly a leftist, for socialist economy, racial and gender equality, abortion rights, but I support death penalty. I'm also morally against all drug use, including alcohol (apparently this is a traditionally right-wing opinion) though obviously there are better ways to decrease drug use than outright banning it.

[Kowani]

waves
nope!
the war on drugs was deliberately and explicitly constructed by the Nixon campaign to break up the black community. It had nothing to do with actual crime rates.

Its sort of both. Nixon’s racism was definitely part of it, but there was numerous bipartisan tough-on-crime and tough-on-drugs legislation post-Nixon as well in response to increasing crime.

Also no!
The "tough on crime" synthesis arises as a result of issue capture by segregationists as a way to roll back and prevent the Civil Rights' Movement. Much like the war on drugs, the punitive nature of the response cannot be explained by rising crime.

[The Reformed American Republic]

How would you describe my ideology? Just curious what your thoughts are.

Hard to say, but from the pro/anti maybe a moderate version of National Conservatism?

I'm open to National Conservatism, so good guess. I don't identify as "conservative" merely because in the U.S., that's synonymous with worshiping Reagan and Trump. I have no respect for either figure.

[The Commoners Republic of America]

Hard to say, but from the pro/anti maybe a moderate version of National Conservatism?

I'm open to National Conservatism, so good guess. I don't identify as "conservative" merely because in the U.S., that's synonymous with worshiping Reagan and Trump. I have no respect for either figure.

So I take it you are more in line with the Conservative Parties in Canada or the UK?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm open to National Conservatism, so good guess. I don't identify as "conservative" merely because in the U.S., that's synonymous with worshiping Reagan and Trump. I have no respect for either figure.

So I take it you are more in line with the Conservative Parties in Canada or the UK?

No, I'm just more economically interventionist. I oppose the "free market" as well as business mongols who are conmen. I believe in a nation with strong traditions, but at the same time, a regulated wallstreet.

[Kilobugya]

Not really left-wing vs right-wing, but I'm a strong supporter of civilian nuclear power, which is an uncommon position among those who identify as "environmentalists". But I believe many oppose nuclear power mostly out of ignorance and fear.

I'm also strongly pro-automation, even if it destroys jobs (but of course I advocate re-training and giving other jobs to those affected, and a global lowering of working hours), which is sometimes thrown upon in some left-wing circles.

[Wizlandia]

Ok? I personally don't think campaign contributions significantly affect how politicians vote.

Listen to TYT from time to time. They often go into who a politician has accepted money from and have correlated this with policy over the years.

Yeah I don't usually listen to TYT (probably not a surprise considering my viewpoints). But correlation =/= causation, its just as possible (and imo is the case) that campaign contributors donate to politicians that share their views, as opposed to politicians adopting the views of their donors. If you have causal evidence I'm open to seeing it and changing my mind.

Regardless, I don't see anything inconsistent with the Libertarian ideology here, unless you're arguing that by allowing campaign contributions Libertarians are allowing anti-Libertarian political influence.

"Inconsistent" may be a gray area, but "unsustainable" is not. Libertarianism literally destroys itself.

Does this not mean that any democratic ideology is "unsustainable", since democracy allows people you disagree with to influence policy.

The popularity of market worship until so very recently has demonstrated willful ignorance of geographical counterexamples.

I'd argue that the "market worshipers" and the "punish the woke company" people tend to be different factions of the Republican Party. Although maybe I'm wrong here, idk. As an aside you should probably consider why "market worshipers" worship the market, its possible that their ideological underpinnings behind being pro-market are not inconsistent with punishing companies for taking social stances.

Nonetheless, it seems to be a lot more rampant in a country with both an abundance of wealthy people with a lot of property to steal and a lot of citizens desperate enough to resort to it.

Most crime happens in places where there aren't many rich people (primarily because rich people can afford property in safe neighbourhoods). I don't think your statement tracks, and I think its a case of too readily drawing connections.

If a word were definable, there would be a wide enough consensus about its meaning that it would be easy to identify who is using it wrong.

So is your argument that ideologies aren't definable? I'm still confused what the point here is, I don't see how any of this means "mainstream ideologies" don't make sense. And there's always variants of ideologies too.

For starters, the people who stop short of publicly renouncing the free market and all their prior

Are you saying the "free market worshippers" and the "punish woke companies" are the same people? I may be wrong but from what I've seen the prominent "punish work companies" people were typically critics of Republican "free-market fundamentalism", even though both tend to align with the Republican Party.

Coalition is one thing. Deceit by omission is another. Trying to pretend both that the word is objectively definable and somehow simultaneously that the other faction isn't using it wrong crosses the line into deceit by omission, at best.

Its more of a case that "conservative" has been synonymous with "Republican" in America for a long time, so any ideological faction in the Republican Party gets labelled under "conservatism." You have libertarian conservatism, paleoconservatism, social conservatism, Trump conservatism, etc. I don't think there's any active deception going on.

Then they would support the government paying the cost until the father is back on his feet, rather than dragging him into poverty with her.

Sure. And at least to me it appears most Democrats support child tax credits and other programs helping those with children.

Buckley supported Goldwater, whose libertarianism then paved the way for Trumpism now.

Buckley supported Goldwater, but there are still ideological differences between Buckley, Goldwater, and most American Libertarians. And I don't see how Goldwater paved the way for Trumpism, seems to me like you draw connections too readily.