Dave Rubin is pretty awesome and he recently has come back doing interviews after his 30 day blackout. His interview with James D'Amore shined a good light on how Google has become what you just described in your last sentence.

Can lliberalism, specifically classical liberalism, even be considered leftist? I want to drift away from liberalism, so the left drifting away from that would be a positive in my mind. However, I don't know how many classical liberals would even consider themselves as leftists, as they are anti-socialist.

Frankly, what side of Poe's law* contestgamer falls on—in other words, whether he's trolling or serious—does matter to me in an academic sort of way, but his ideas are almost equally horrible either way. Either his idea is an abomination to the entire concept of equality under the law, or he is despicably poisoning the discussion in an atmosphere that is already more than toxic enough.

* (Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.")

"Communist progressive" I have never once called myself that. I have called myself anarchist, communist, socialist, but never progressive. I usually use the term anarcho-communist, but libertarian socialist is also acceptable.

I've seen that term a bit in relation to foreign politics but not in america. I'll have to look into that.

? You lost me there.

I'm not going to look too much into this, but I assume the people getting mad are butthurt feminazis who live in a fantasy world who all men are guilty-until-proven-innocent rapists. God forbid we have a judicial system that doesn't come to a judgement based off of people's emotion. I mean, people are sooo honest *cough* Salem! *cough cough*, and would never lie to protect themselves/ get over on someone who made them mad. No woman has eeveeer lied about being raped...

Sorry, I know that was a bit unnecessary, but damn. Rape gets thrown around so much these days in false incidences that the word itself has basically zero value.

While I understand the talking point, it is a complete misunderstanding of our legal system. Allow me to elaborate.

Innocent until proven guilty is a guarantee ONLY for criminal defendants under the American legal system. A defendant accused of a crime that faces a criminal punishment and being prosecuted by the state does not have to present a case to defend themselves. The burden of proof is solely placed on that of the state to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Civil proceedings, or disputes such as tort claims and contract disputes do not have a presumption of innocence. While a plaintiff is required to present their case against a defendant, if it is likely they will succeed, a defendant MUST rebut and present their side, or they will lose by default. Standard is much lower as well, as it is only a preponderance of the evidence standard.

There are hosts of other differences between criminal and civil proceedings. For the latter, no right to an attorney, no right to a trial by jury (also not a guarantee in all criminal cases), less rights to exculpatory evidence, no right to remain silent, etc.

Title IX proceedings, are actions brought by a university against a student or faculty member for violation of university rules. The penalty suffered is a civil penalty with the most extreme outcome being expulsion. There is no criminal penalty involved. Title IX proceedings are CIVIL proceedings and thus there is no guarantee of a lot of rights a criminal defendant would have. This does not mean a student that was expelled does not have recourse. They can sue for money damages if their expulsion was done wrongfully or can sue a public institution if the manner in which the proceedings were held violated their constitutional or statutory rights.

To correct the title, roll back of Obama era guidelines by Devos would NOT guarantee innocent until proven guilty, nor would it ever. The fight between Devos and Obama era guidelines is instead about degree: degree of protections for both students involved. Victims rights group say that Obama era guidelines have increased reporting and breaking down the stigma associated with reporting. Critics state that the guidelines went to far and created an increased incentive for universities to just believe the accuser out of fear of being in violation of Title IX. Thus, as stated earlier in this paragraph, the fight is about degree to balance out these points.

OK some of my beliefs:

1. Universal healthcare

2. Universal basic income

3. Legalizing all drugs, including heroin and hard drugs

4. Using prisons for rehab only and not punbtive punishment

5. belief in cultural appropriation and minority rights

6. Feminist

7. Anti religious

8. Basic housing and UBA for all homeless

9. Limiting free speech where it offends minority groups

10. Pro gay rights

11. Progressive tax rate 

12. Ending the wars

13. Economically socialist

...and more, mostly progressive beliefs. I voted for trump to punish all the fake liberal left that didnt vote Bernie.

I liked Dave at first, until I realized that virtually all the guests are libertarians (right wing) and are currated by a libertarian think tank.