By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What's your political typology? (Quiz)

Stressed Sideliners for me. Some questions are very bad though.



Around the Network
Leadified said:

In many societies alignment with a social conservative ideology tends to be linked to religiosity or to typically patriarchal traditional values. So I am curious to know, but what motivates you to describe yourself as leaning towards social conservative viewpoints? 

That's true in this country as well overall. Generally speaking, you can rate someone as a mono-culturalist to the extent that they're super-religious and multi-culturalist, conversely, relative to how many college degrees they have. The more college degrees, the less religious someone will tend to be and also the more socially liberal. There's a relationship between those two things. There's also a question though of whether and to what extent a society run by the latter group actually understands the needs and interests of other, less privileged people than themselves on the ground.

Well anyway, I'm not religious at all myself. In fact I tend to fear the idea of religion becoming too influential in society for a thousand obvious reasons concerning who I am. I would not exactly benefit from that. And I consider myself a feminist for sure. Like to be clear, I'm pro-choice, I support marriage equality, I'm against the death penalty, I don't believe anyone should be in prison for smoking pot, I'm in favor of doing more to protect the environment, I'm for comprehensive immigration reform, support reasonable gun control policies, and favor of criminal justice reform that includes an end to qualified immunity for cops and for an idea of racial justice that includes reparations payments for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Just to be clear about all that.

The areas where I think of myself as maybe subjectively right-leaning are mainly public security issues. I'm in favor of increasing funding for both the military and police departments, for example, in addition to expanding the social safety net. I'm afraid I'm cynical enough to believe in the peace-through-strength argument, for example. In foreign policy, a strong deterrent works better than the alternatives, I think. I mean I know you hear differently often from ostensibly more pacifistic people in western Europe where they may spend less per capita on their own armed forces and whatnot, but in reality they're just lazily depending on our military to prevent Russia from just invading and overrunning them. Without our armed forces there to keep them democracies, they'd likely be toast. I feel similarly about policing. Like clearly there needs to be more accountability for cops, but at the same time, when I hear about ideas like ending cash-bail and scaling back funding for police departments and stuff like this...you know, I've just gotta point out that exhausted, overworked officers without back-up are probably going to make worse and more rash decisions, NOT better ones, and it's very clear to me moreover that some (often poorer and less white) parts of the country could also use faster response times, not the absence of a department in their area. As to that question of whether our sentencing for crimes is generally too long or too short, my opinion is mixed. I think rapists, for example, should serve longer sentences than they typically do and that, conversely, nobody should be in the prison system just for smoking weed.

Other "conservative" opinions I have are related to concerns for the safety, the mental and physical health and well-being, of girls and women in particular. Like you absolutely cannot call yourself a progressive today unless you support legalizing prostitution and maintaining the relatively unregulated status of online pornography, for example. To object to these things is considered a form of hate (you hate "sex workers") because the progressive left views these things as labor issues rather than as women's issues; issues that affect all women, not just those in the trade. I just completely disagree with that logic, as frankly so do most people in general I think you'll find. I have similar opinions about stuff like commercial surrogacy that liberals and progressives invariably support and demand the legality of today. My negative opinion of transgenderism is guided by similar concerns about the real-world harm to women and girls in particular that can be done if public policy reaches a place of ignoring people's biological sex. (Illustration of what I mean.) Speaking of that, I'm also concerned about the politicization of what speech is permitted and not. (Example.) So I mean a lot of my so-called "right wing" opinions are in fact motivated precisely by an aversion to tolerating male violence and sexual exploitation as a price for some warped idea of social inclusion.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 29 November 2021

Jaicee said:

Like clearly there needs to be more accountability for cops, but at the same time, when I hear about ideas like ending cash-bail and scaling back funding for police departments and stuff like this...you know, I've just gotta point out that exhausted, overworked officers without back-up are probably going to make worse and more rash decisions, NOT better ones, and it's very clear to me moreover that some (often poorer and less white) parts of the country could also use faster response times, not the absence of a department in their area.

I somewhat understand the fear regarding the end to cash bail, but do you at least acknowledge how horrible of a system it is? Like, I feel there is a huge difference between being reluctant to support its end and just straight up being pro-cash bail. 



Stressed Sideliner! good to know, considering people in here see me as far-right 😂



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

Jaicee said:

Other "conservative" opinions I have are related to concerns for the safety, the mental and physical health and well-being, of girls and women in particular. Like you absolutely cannot call yourself a progressive today unless you support legalizing prostitution and maintaining the relatively unregulated status of online pornography, for example. To object to these things is considered a form of hate (you hate "sex workers") because the progressive left views these things as labor issues rather than as women's issues; issues that affect all women, not just those in the trade. I just completely disagree with that logic, as frankly so do most people in general I think you'll find. I have similar opinions about stuff like commercial surrogacy that liberals and progressives invariably support and demand the legality of today. My negative opinion of transgenderism is guided by similar concerns about the real-world harm to women and girls in particular that can be done if public policy reaches a place of ignoring people's biological sex. (Illustration of what I mean.) Speaking of that, I'm also concerned about the politicization of what speech is permitted and not. (Example.) So I mean a lot of my so-called "right wing" opinions are in fact motivated precisely by an aversion to tolerating male violence and sexual exploitation as a price for some warped idea of social inclusion.

I am not quite sure if I understand the connection of the politicization of permitted speech and a Barnes and Nobles book display... Barnes and Nobles is a private corporation and it is in their right to choose want they want to and not want to display. Demanding the opposite would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Besides, they still sell Rowling's books, so I am not sure what the problem is. On the other hand, conservatives have stated their intention to burn library books because it contains speech they do not like. Is that not a more serious and existential issue? There's been numerous cases of butch lesbians being harassed by men and gender critical activists because of the campaign by both to reinforce traditional gender norms which causes real world harm to women everywhere. The reason I point this out is because your arguments about free speech and security, while not invalid by any means, can easily be flipped the other way around to make the same point from the other perspective...



Around the Network

First of all, I second everything that Leadified said. A lot of these aren't conservative opinions, they are just opinions that conservatives like to tell people are their values even when much of the time that simply isn't the case in reality. 

dark_gh0st_b0y said:

Stressed Sideliner! good to know, considering people in here see me as far-right

Just want to say (not specifically in relation to you because I don't know anything about your politics but maybe this accounts for the difference), but one of my issues with quizzes like this is that they do little to highlight how people engage politically. If someone believes in marriage equality and big government but they only really engage politically with their no-exceptions pro-life stances, they are going to be seen as more right wing than a quiz would show, and I think that engagement does a lot more to demonstrate who they are politically than this type of quiz. 



Leadified said:

I am not quite sure if I understand the connection of the politicization of permitted speech and a Barnes and Nobles book display... Barnes and Nobles is a private corporation and it is in their right to choose want they want to and not want to display. Demanding the opposite would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Besides, they still sell Rowling's books, so I am not sure what the problem is. On the other hand, conservatives have stated their intention to burn library books because it contains speech they do not like. Is that not a more serious and existential issue? There's been numerous cases of butch lesbians being harassed by men and gender critical activists because of the campaign by both to reinforce traditional gender norms which causes real world harm to women everywhere. The reason I point this out is because your arguments about free speech and security, while not invalid by any means, can easily be flipped the other way around to make the same point from the other perspective...

I agree, but only to a point. Namely, I don't buy into the corporate personhood argument. For-profit business corporations have no legitimate claim to human status as far as I'm concerned and therefore no valid claim to human rights. Authors on the other hand...

Seriously, you know exactly what I'm getting at. Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. are all private companies, sure, but they collectively form and control today's public square. If this idea is okayed and that one is not by all them in uniform in response to angry mobs demanding as much, that has a similar practical effect to legal censorship. You know this. I know this. Let us not disingenuously pretend it is otherwise. Maybe it's my scary socialist instincts to think of the means of communication as public utilities that should operate in the interests of the public as a whole and as such facilitate the widest possible range of conversation, and not as things that should be owned and run privately and funded by advertising for the purposes of separating the public from their money, but point is.

And look look, I can cite threats by gender identity believers to burn books they don't like as well! Progressives are, in reality, not particularly more mature that way than the people they criticize. The difference is that most of the business community takes up their position on matters like this and we both know it, which is why you're now utilizing the banal corporate personhood argument here that ten years ago leftists were roundly, and rightly in my opinion, condemning. Corporate personhood is the same argument Chick Fil-A used to use to defend their ostensible right not to hire any gay people (as a for-profit business company can have a religion that merits constitutional recognition, you see), the argument that Hobby Lobby has used to deny their female workers access to health care plans covering birth control despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act obliged them to (once again, having a company religion makes them above the law, it turns out), and so on and so on.

I guess my instinct to view the free speech cause as a "right wing" cause and argument today has to do with the fact that it's simply not one you see progressives attempting to make anymore save for in a defensive context like you are here in this one, whereas conservatives, by contrast, lament "cancel culture" all the time. Does that actually mean that rightists are consistent in their support for the free speech of artists and individuals, including ones they don't agree with? Nope! Not even close. But it does mean that opinions progressives consider right wing are more likely to actually be censored, officially discouraged, etc. today. And we both know that.

Now as to this especially ridiculous insinuation that maybe I hate lesbians and want the butch ones harassed out of the women's room...*sighs* come on now. I am a lesbian and by now everyone here knows that, as are many gender critical women. Indeed I'd go as far as to say that lesbians are disproportionately represented as a share of the gender critical community, including our fair share of the butch ones. Please don't insult my intelligence that way. I know butch women are often harassed out of the women's room and that's wrong. It's been that way my whole life. I've seen it. It's wrong. But it's not the issue here. My objection is to men declaring all public spaces theirs, affording girls and women no place of privacy or refuge. Concerning unisex facilities, the facts remain that, as discussed at great length in the article I cited earlier, "90% of cases of sexual assaults, voyeurism, and harassment take place in unisex facilities". Therefore, I contend that rendering all facilities unisex is objectively harmful to girls and women, as in more harmful than the alternative.

I'll also add in response to your claim that gender critical feminism is about "reinforc[ing] traditional gender norms" that you clearly don't understand what the movement is about very well. The prevailing view among gender critical feminists is that gender (unlike biological sex) is fiction; that it is a fundamentally conservative concept that exists to reinforce patriarchal sex roles and which, as such, can have no positive appropriation by the left. If the goal of masculinism is to compel everyone to behave according to crude stereotypes about their sex so that men command and women obey, transgenderism has as its goal that instead gender-nonconforming people should change their public identity to match the sex they supposedly behave like. GC feminists view those as two sides of the same coin, not as some kind of rupture with patriarchal norms. In reality, the gender-nonconforming woman should be accepted as such. She should not feel social pressure to change her legal identity because she isn't a stereotype or absurdly told she is not a lesbian because she isn't interested in penile penetration.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 02 December 2021

TheTitaniumNub said:

Stressed Sideliner. Seems about right

EnricoPallazzo said:

Stressed Sideliners for me. Some questions are very bad though.

dark_gh0st_b0y said:

Stressed Sideliner! good to know, considering people in here see me as far-right 😂

It feels like I've started something here!



sundin13 said:

I somewhat understand the fear regarding the end to cash bail, but do you at least acknowledge how horrible of a system it is? Like, I feel there is a huge difference between being reluctant to support its end and just straight up being pro-cash bail. 

I can certainly see how it's an unfair system in that it makes it much harder for poorer people than it is for wealthier individuals to get out of jail when they should probably be there (and no doubt there's a racially disparate proxy effect to that, moreover), but I also don't see how poorer communities benefit from having more criminals free to commit more crimes.



Jaicee said:
sundin13 said:

I somewhat understand the fear regarding the end to cash bail, but do you at least acknowledge how horrible of a system it is? Like, I feel there is a huge difference between being reluctant to support its end and just straight up being pro-cash bail. 

I can certainly see how it's an unfair system in that it makes it much harder for poorer people than it is for wealthier individuals to get out of jail when they should probably be there (and no doubt there's a racially disparate proxy effect to that, moreover), but I also don't see how poorer communities benefit from having more criminals free to commit more crimes.

First of all, these are not necessarily "criminals" we are talking about. These people have not been convicted, they have been accused. It is somewhat alarming how easily people are willing to call these people criminals and say we need to lock them up for months or years without a trial.

But also, if you believe this, should we not have a system designed around harm prevention and not around money? If we truly believe that an individual is dangerous, why would we say "Okay, if you can pay us we'll let you out"? That seems nonsensical. Not only does it mean that rich dangerous people can just walk free, like you mentioned, but it also means that poor dangerous people can walk free if they make an agreement with a bail bondsman (which is an exploitative private system leeching off of the injustices of cash bail). Eliminating cash bail may also result in some individuals who may have previously been released after paying a high bail, instead being held in jail if we are making decisions based on harm reduction, further increasing public safety. 

(This also ignores all of the downstream harms of cash bail)

The US doesn't need cash bail. It needs to stop using our criminal justice system to enrich private enterprises and start using it to prevent harm. I understand the fear of eliminating cash bail, and I'm sure you will hear the media make a lot of noise about what individuals who commit crimes waiting for trials, but I personally can't stomach these injustices and the damage that this system does on the basis of an unproven fear.

Last edited by sundin13 - on 02 December 2021