Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Right wing 'Women are a mental disorder'

7 (4.8%)

Left wing 'For mother [insert nation]!

69 (47.3%)

Centrist 'Ummm...Arr.....Emmmmm im not sure'

22 (15.1%)

Liberatarian 'Government is darth vader'

21 (14.4%)

Anarchist 'Somalia doesnt look sooo bad to me....'

8 (5.5%)

Don't give a monkeys!

19 (13%)

Total Members Voted: 145

[SalmonGod]

People don't typically fight against a powerful institution, at least not with very much effort, until it is already a life & death situation for them.  They might grumble if they're not happy with their lives, but they won't put aside much dedication or risk until they realize that they have more to lose by not doing so.

For example, look at how protesting has evolved.  Large demonstrations had been stereotyped for the last couple decades as a hobby for middle-class white 15-25 year olds.  It just so happens that those are the people who had the least to lose by their participation, along with enough education to know that things aren't right and perspective balanced enough between the rich and the poor and uncertainty of their own futures to know that they should care.  So we've had this very limited group that's been doing this for a long time, and been the most outspoken against the way the world's going.

Now that the shit has actually started to hit the fan, other groups of people are in a position where they have nothing to lose by participating.  The demographics have exploded.

What I'm saying is, it's not that people will fight because they're not getting what they want, and what they want is short-sighted and thus an obstacle to long-term success.  I'm saying people won't fight until they're not getting what they need, because long-term goals become irrelevant to the individual who will never get to see their realization if they can't supply their immediate needs.

You can make a fine argument that a government can put its people through harsh conditions as part of a long-term plan to bring about much better conditions later, but people are generally not willing to sacrifice themselves in that manner.  You can convince people to do a lot of things for a greater cause, even risk their lives at war... but willingly shipping yourself off to fight and maybe die is a very different position from unwillingly freezing and starving to death in an alley.

[MorleyDev]

Well my talk of 'rebellion' there includes voting a different set of rulers into power. So I'm not saying they'll outright take up arms and go ballistic, they don't need to: Just wait and you can use a voting booth instead to overthrow them.

[SalmonGod]

That falls under my definition of "not with very much effort"

[Hiiri]

Er... I know they're meant as a joke, but what does left-wing have to do with nationalism?

You kidding me right?

No, not really. If you mean the reference to communist Soviet union, yes I get that. But there's still no direct link with nationalism and left-wing, even though communists were both nationalist and left-wing.

I'm social liberal. I think government should provide it's citizens the basic needs (healthcare, food, shelter/shower, education, entertainment/stimulus), so we don't have to worry about our daily survival. That makes me left-wing, but it doesn't mean I'm out there thinking our piece of land and/or race is somehow superior to anybody elses. Or that there's automatically some brotherhood with people who were born under the same flag.

To me, nationalists are simple-minded scumbags, who need some way to boost their ego. And this has nothing to do with being left-wing.

[NinjaBoot]

I'll just jump in and toss in my two cents!

While I would probably be identified with Libertarians due to how closely aligned our views are, I feel that I am a fiscal conservative first and foremost. 

I believe that government should be running a balanced budget at all times, with absolutely zero debt (or very little in hard economic times which require indirect government stimulus). 

As for social issues, I would be centrist in that regard. 

[Orangebottle]

I recently took two surveys for my government class, and they both said I'm left-leaning moderate.

[Grek]

Comedy Option: Monarchist. Forget all this 20th century stuff, we need to go back to the days of Charlemagne!

Actual answer: Leftist. I support science grants, social welfare, free education for all and the nationalization of key industries.

[NinjaBoot]

Comedy Option: Monarchist. Forget all this 20th century stuff, we need to go back to the days of Charlemagne!

Actual answer: Leftist. I support science grants, social welfare, free education for all and the nationalization of key industries.

I suppose you support green energy too!

[RedKing]

No, not really. If you mean the reference to communist Soviet union, yes I get that. But there's still no direct link with nationalism and left-wing, even though communists were both nationalist and left-wing.

Although even the Soviets weren't exactly nationalists. Certainly Lenin wasn't, and thought that the Glorious Revolution of the Workers would transcend national identities. Stalin was the one laying the "For the Motherland" schtick on pretty heavy, in part because there was a war on and people will fight more tenaciously for their homeland than they will for a somewhat vague political ideology. Postwar, they really tried to downplay nationalism in the other SSRs, at least up until about the 1980s when they began making concessions towards greater local ethnic identity (which backfired in a big way in places like Chechnya).


Insofar as this poll is made of fail, I put myself down as a centrist. I'm generally left-of-center and tend to align with Democrats in a lot of areas, but at the end of the day, I'm a pragmatist. Screw the ideology, give me somebody or some policy that works. That was America's hallmark for a couple hundred years, and one of the things that guys like de Tocqueville were so enamored of--that when the chips were down we didn't care who came up with an idea, we didn't care if it wasn't perfect, as long as it worked. Somewhere along the line, we've lost that and we're paying the price.

[Montague]

Radical Centrist Libertarian.

Really, I think almost all modern, current ideologies are crap, they are political (government) extensions of philosophical ideals, or emotional or cultural values. The government should only enforce policies of a pragmatic, universal nature. Whatever works best or at least works satisfactorily.

I think the government is generally inefficient and inept at solving problems and it should only be responsible for things that cannot be accomplished satisfactorily by anybody else. I also think if the government is to base it's decisions on a philosophical concept, it should be Pragmatism. Not any sort of extremist ideal.

To this end, I think politics, governance should be a science, not an art or a tool to philosophy. Experimentation, experience and challenging assumptions might be necessary to find the best policy for the government to implement.

[jester]

Im a gun toting leftist with anarchist leanings.

  Though I freely admit that I suffer from the curse of most anarchists which is:  IF ALL YOU DAMN FOOLS JUST DID EXACTLY WHAT I WANT, WHEN I WANT, THINGS WOULD BE PERFECT.

  Im a firm supporter of capital punishment (though some sort of 'subhuman, may be shot on site by the general public' status would be better) for the leaders of corporations that are knowingly responsible for the deaths of many people and political corruption, gay rights, public whippings for false advertising, environmental rights, unions and limited police powers.

  Strangely, I couldnt find the right button to push in your survey, soz

[Gantolandon]

Insofar as this poll is made of fail, I put myself down as a centrist. I'm generally left-of-center and tend to align with Democrats in a lot of areas, but at the end of the day, I'm a pragmatist. Screw the ideology, give me somebody or some policy that works. That was America's hallmark for a couple hundred years, and one of the things that guys like de Tocqueville were so enamored of--that when the chips were down we didn't care who came up with an idea, we didn't care if it wasn't perfect, as long as it worked. Somewhere along the line, we've lost that and we're paying the price.

Yeah, most of the people feel the same. That's why almost every politician in the world tries to convince people that no sir, he doesn't have any ideology at all. It's his opponents who don't have any facts to support their stance, so they are either blind fanatics or dangerous populists who just tell you what you want to hear (and already plan to screw you over once they win your support). On the other hand, he makes his decisions using cold, hard logic and actual science. All the best economists and sociologists support him (and those who don't are, obviously, quacks).

Seriously, the main prerequisite to sell any ideology is to convince enough people that it simply works. Your answer doesn't really tell anything. It's like someone asked you about your favorite juice and you answered "the tastiest one".

Sorry if that sounds aggressive, but you've just written something that's riling me up since a long time ago.

As for my ideology: well, I used to be a democratic socialist, but in the last few years I pretty much moved into red and black area.

[klingon13524]

This is unfair. I voted, you added much more relevant options, and now I'm stuck with my previous generalization in the poll.

[jester]

This is unfair. I voted, you added much more relevant options, and now I'm stuck with my previous generalization in the poll.

Break away and start your own poll, you will never be properly represented here

[Nadaka]

I am a liberal-tarian.

Hardcore for personal liberty, human rights and a secular state.

Economically I lean towards capitalism well regulated with socialism.

I am also pro self defense and pro nuclear.

So I don't really have an option in your poll.