I agree with you about judging someone on their individual qualities when you're talking about them on a individual level but on political views, I disagree because for one thing, it's alot easier and quicker to assess where someone stands by them just stating what groups/ideology they agree with. It's entirely to complex to go over every issue to find out where someone stands on a individual level in a pratical manner that's quick. It's why poeple say they agree with a certain group on most things but disagree with them on this other thing. For example, I'm a right leaning libertarian. It's the closest thing to what I agree with. I support gay marriage, trans rights to a reasonable point, gun rights, prolife, for death penality, religious rights should be protected as they push their beliefs on others through law and I like free markets. 

I'm beginning to wonder if contestgamer even has a coherent ideology, in the past he had mentioned not caring about the lives of Arabs because they're apparently worth less than a white's life.

Wrong, what I said that a non Americans life is worth less compared to an Americans. Unfortunately many in my party want to help refugees and other non Americans when they're not our problem.

That's a fairly arbitrary evaluation, don't you think? When do you think that we've achieved a fair playing field? Context can create inequity without there being any judicial inequality.

By any metric, equality should NEVER be a goal in itself. We must strive for collective improvemnt. It is of course logical to help the least fortunate, seeing as that is where the most progress can be made. However, permitting injustice against individuals for the sole sake of satisfying egalitarian quotias between social groups is purely absurd, and morally corrupt.

Basing justice on the treatment of *groups* of people is ALWAYS a mistake. Every person has the right to be treated as an individual on none other than his own merits. What you are suggesting is creating *further* injustice against individuals to compensate inustice within groups, something that CANNOT be accepted, in any circumsatnce.

It is one thing to do so when describing yourself, another when judging others. As a tool to describe your current positions quickly, sure. But unless specifically stated, judging a person based on the actions of a group, without having confirmed their support of these actions, is one of the larger problems, for me. For example, people used the car incident in Charlottesville to accuse *all* on the right of the political spectrum. And that's something that happens constantly, put forward by all sides, and has become a major factor in american political "debate", been reduced to a shouting match, calling each other terrorist-sympatithizers, nazis, etc...

I feel that it is crucial to a good political discussion that people criticize the postiton currently being discussed, and absolutely nothing else. When you call Contestgamer a SJW/progressive, it definitely feels like you are attempting to accuse him of more than he specifically stated.

On another note, would be curious where you would classify me. I don't believe in any fundemental moral absolutes, including equality or liberty - anything can be morally ok for me in the right context, as long as it clearly improves the lives of people in average, in both short and long term. I'm skeptical on abortion, and would, out of precaution, be against it in practice. I believe that each person has the right *not* to be judged for decisions that only affect himself (homosexuality, transgender), the obligation to accomodate does not exist, however, beyond the usual responsibilities we have to each other. I do believe that we have the right to breach the liberties of others in the context that it improves global life quality, including the person himself (ex: right to stop a suicide, right to stop operations on a person which are not to his benifit.) I'm deeply anti-nationalist, and believe in global cooperation.a I'm against any form of punitive justice. I support the free market in the context of its capabilities to maximize productivity. I support government control in areas where it shows clear benefit to the order of society, including a monopole on violence and (this is a bit of a contreversial one - but my position is quite complex, here, thought about it a lot) censorship.

And when you say your party, who are you referring to exactly?

Democrats

So, another question, do you consider yourself a progressive?