I was just goofing, but do know about the controversy over the remembrance poppies. Maybe it’s just me (and I really hope not) but I’d wear one anyways.
That’s a really bad rendition of a poppy though. Definitely needs more petal and vibrance. I’m sticking with donut for the sake of preserving my view of reality. One little crack and that and boom, gothika.
Oh I figured. No worries there, mate.
fair enough, was just making sure!
Better a red poppy than
Thank you for taking the time out to highlight your political beliefs :). It’s interesting to hear you are independent, I would’ve thought republican given your stance on firearms/police reform. I suppose the political spectrum is a fluid medium, one can simultaneously harbour beliefs from both sides of the spectrum.
@zecarlo, are you democrat, republican or independent?
I won’t join any club that will have me as a member.
I’m a human being and I don’t need politicians to tell me right from wrong when it really means right or wrong for them.
What if I rephrase it to conservative or progressive in terms of vested ideology as opposed to naming political parties/affiliations. What umbrella would you encapsulate yourself under?
Always loved this well used line… Good show.
Those terms are too broad and don’t really mean anything. I look at things like this: do we want the absolute best solution for something or the best solution that passes through the filter of a particular political ideology we believe in? People come up with ideologies and then expect the universe to conform to them.
The terminology may be rather broad as political ideology covers a large spectrum of which is malleable, not rigidly fixed in place.
If your vested ideologies more often than not align with those typically harboured within progressive politics I’d consider you progressive and vice verca. Independent to me equates to being split down the middle and/or straying from beliefs harboured within mainstream politics/political systems.
There are certain branches of worldview that are conventionally assigned to conservative/progressive ideology. When I ask “what do you refer to yourself as”, I’m asking as to whether your views conventionally/stereotypically align with the majority of those harboured within either system or beliefs.
As to the rest, I think both encompass the same result. Someone who harbours say… conservative ideology towards criminal justice/associated reforms may believe enacting certain legislature to keep things the way they are and/or tightening penalties and enacting stricter punishment is the best way to go about preserving a civilised, humane society.
Political ideology passing through a certain filter doesn’t always necessitate ulterior motives to be present. Those who see a certain issue through a progressive lens may think “this is the way to reach an optimal outcome”, same goes for conservatives/independents.
Politicians on the other hand may have ulterior motives/may expect those to conform towards purported ideologies.
I’m fairly/very progressive in terms of my views towards societal/criminal justice reform, though I certainly don’t advocate for disbanding the police (potential defunding is a different story, esp in Aus where they have almost unprecedented power and raise absurd amounts of revenue on a yearly basis). Economically I’m split down the middle. In terms of foreign policy I lean towards the right (aside from my generalised stance on immigration), I’d probably be labelled a “moderate liberal”.
This makes me wanna grab these guys and lock them in a room with just enough ventilation so they don’t die when I toss in a smoke bomb for the lolz.
Have politicians ever catered towards what’s unequivocally best for the people 
The thing is once you announce your status as a conservative or a progressive, people start assuming things and the strawmans start getting built when you’re in a heated debate and winning. I’m always careful to mention that I lean slightly towards the left(sometimes I end up in the middle or slightly to the right if I retake the political compass test and enter the parts like “strongly agree/disagree” differently) end socially and a little more towards libertarian.
I think I’m probably a socially progressive Milton Friedman, if that makes any sense lol.
Well… when people start making uneducated assumptions and/or atttack you over a political label (conservative, liberal etc)… just tune out
What if it’s a mix of everything? For example, you can be pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro-LGBT and support drug legalisation while wanting a small government and separation of church and state. So this would usually class you as a libertarian. But what if you also support the death penalty, tight border control, deporting illegal immigrants and aggressive foreign policy? Progressives hate you because you support gun rights, borders and you want to deport illegals. Conservatives hate you because you’re pro-abortion, LGBT and want religion out of schools. Libertarians hate you because you support closed borders and meddling in international conflicts for the benefit of the country.
It’s not that. They start doing it once you’re already invested in the debate. I’ve seen this happen to you too before. It gets tedious when all the strawmans pop up in the middle of a long debate and I can’t stand intellectual dishonesty so I’m prone to calling them out for this. I can take personal insults and judgements on my character but I simply cannot stand intellectual dishonestly. I come here to discuss shit, not make shit up. I have better things to do than the latter.
I know, perhaps in future debate I shouldn’t make it clear as to whether I associate with progressive or conservative politics?
I find attacks on character far more irritating than a blanket attack towards conveyed political stance. “Fuck you, you’re a liberal”… okay, we’re still talking politics
“Fuck you, three years ago you forgot to buy me pringles at coles”… how is this relevant?
At least an attack on character gives you a chance at rebuttal by going more in-depth at the thought process that made you arrive at your current stance. That’ why I don’t care. If someone is hell bent on being dishonest, you can’t do the same. He’s just doing the equivalent of spreading propaganda.
Copy and paste the following in a google search to see what I’m talking about. It was the pedo thread.
Teenager Assaulted at Gym for “Deadlifting Too Loud” tnation
Notice at the end I kept telling him to quote ANY single phrase where I endorsed paedophiles committing acts of paedophilia and he didn’t while still kept insisting I was endorsing them? That’s where I get sucked in cos it pisses me off.
NOTE: We good on good terms after that. He’s a cool dude. Was probably worked up himself that day.
But don’t get me started on greenboy. That guy was a real fuckhead.
I know who you are talking about. I’ve repeatedly gotten into spats with him (even after this) as he kept outlining strawman rhetoric/putting words in my mouth of which I’d never said
That being said, I don’t think we are on bad terms anymore
I think he just gets too emotional and overlooks stuff certain stuff written. The thread I posted was probably him trying to save face after realizing he went all in on his moral crusade without reading what was actually being discussed in all the previous posts.
I mean, seriously, what kind of lunatic would post endorsements of pedos on a site like t-nation lol? It’s fucking common sense. Surely there are dedicated sites for these degenerate fucks to discuss their shit amongst one another.
Any person thinking rationally wouldn’t have made that assumption.