Your Politics
- Thread starter Ensign
- Start date
I guess I'd have to say, center-right.
There are certain areas (such as guns and health care) at which I deviate wildly from normal Republican orthodoxy. And I have absolutely no allegiance whatsoever for Donald Trump or anything he stands for. But for the most part, I'm a centrist Republican.
There are certain areas (such as guns and health care) at which I deviate wildly from normal Republican orthodoxy. And I have absolutely no allegiance whatsoever for Donald Trump or anything he stands for. But for the most part, I'm a centrist Republican.
A
Amaris
Guest
I've moved somewhat further left since 2014, and this is my political compass for 2016:
Left in Europe.
Which would probably mean I'd be far left in the US.
Which would probably mean I'd be far left in the US.
I've moved somewhat further left since 2014, and this is my political compass for 2016:
I just did mine.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44
I'm pretty far left, even for a European.
I took the Political Compass test. I scored "Left Libertarian", between Gandhi and Bernie Sanders on their site.
Economic -6.25; Social -3.95
I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I've found that, especially in the last two years, I've become increasingly annoyed with the "hyper-PC" way that the left is moving. I love reading HuffPost, but some of their editorials are beyond ridiculous -- such as the recent "It's time to retire the slogan 'boys will be boys.'" Right....because an 8 year old kid wears a shirt from Target that says 'Boys will be Boys' automatically means he will grow up to be indoctrinated to disrespect women and grab them by the pussy, 'ala Donald Trump. Stuff like that is tiresome.
And I respect equal rights for LGBTQ people in society, but I'm not going to learn 15 or 20 different gender identities (there seem to be new ones every month) just to avoid offending someone. And what's with "trigger warnings' at the start of articles and news stories? And 'safe spaces' in colleges/universities? When did this become a thing? And I'm disabled with cerebral palsy and ankylosing spondylitis....but apparently saying "disabled" is now "ableist."
Whatever.
Aside from that, I'm firmly left in terms of policy. I'm one of those that thought Obama was going to be a lot more liberal than he turned out to be.
Economic -6.25; Social -3.95
I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I've found that, especially in the last two years, I've become increasingly annoyed with the "hyper-PC" way that the left is moving. I love reading HuffPost, but some of their editorials are beyond ridiculous -- such as the recent "It's time to retire the slogan 'boys will be boys.'" Right....because an 8 year old kid wears a shirt from Target that says 'Boys will be Boys' automatically means he will grow up to be indoctrinated to disrespect women and grab them by the pussy, 'ala Donald Trump. Stuff like that is tiresome.
And I respect equal rights for LGBTQ people in society, but I'm not going to learn 15 or 20 different gender identities (there seem to be new ones every month) just to avoid offending someone. And what's with "trigger warnings' at the start of articles and news stories? And 'safe spaces' in colleges/universities? When did this become a thing? And I'm disabled with cerebral palsy and ankylosing spondylitis....but apparently saying "disabled" is now "ableist."
Whatever.
Aside from that, I'm firmly left in terms of policy. I'm one of those that thought Obama was going to be a lot more liberal than he turned out to be.
Pretty far left in US terms. I gather that would be slightly left in Europe?
^ But if you were left in Europe, how would you get back home? 
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, "boys will be boys" has been the go-to phrase to excuse terrible behaviors from boys and young men. Push a girl on the playground? Boys will be boys. Spray paint swear words on a neighbor's garage door? Boys will be boys. Get a girl drunk and try to sleep with her? Boys will be boys. So the slogan has a connection to bad behaviors that get excused over and over again based on the grounds that boys can't help doing these things. It demeans them, it makes them appear to be non-thinking, base animals who can't control their instincts. That leads to attitudes like Donald Trump, who thinks it's okay to sexually molest women because he's a rich guy. Boys will be boys, amiright?
So it's not some "hyper-PC" thing, it is a genuine and honest effort to reshape the way boys and young men think about who they are, and how they can be better than a slogan like "boys will be boys."
You don't have to. Simply referring to someone how they wish to be referred is enough. If someone looks masculine, but goes by "she", then you refer to her as "she." The same applies in any other given situation. That's not PC, that's just basic respect for other human beings.
Trigger warnings are to let people know in advance that what they're about to read or watch may cause major discomfort. For example, a woman who was recently raped may experience significant stress if she reads a story about a convicted rapist in her community. It's not to stop them from reading, or to assume they're too delicate to handle the story, only that they are advised beforehand that the content of the story may be intense and disturbing. We used to do it whenever the news would prepare to show a bloody wreckage scene, remember? "The broadcast you are about to view contains violence and disturbing images. Viewer discretion is advised." It's essentially the same thing.
Safe spaces are two-fold: The first is supposed to be a place, like on college campuses, where you can go if you fear for your life. As I'm sure you're aware, sexual assaults on college campuses have become a serious crisis, so safe spaces exist for that purpose.
The second type of safe space is supposed to be a place where you can go without being confronted, or ostracized. It gets a lot of play in conservative media as a place where people go in order to get away from differing opinions, but while there are people who think it should be that way, for most it's simply a place where they can get away from harassment of others.
Saying "disabled" is not ableist. Being ableist means you discount someone's worth and contributions to society because they are disabled. For example, if you don't hire someone to work in your computer lab because they're wheelchair bound, you're ableist.
If you published a newspaper article and it was criticized because it was assumed that because you have cerebral palsy there's no way you could have written such an article, that would be seen as ableist.
Obama could only be as liberal as a conservative Congress would let him. Obama tried to push through some strong, staunchly liberal policies, and they were shot down. Hell, when he went to the center, his policies were still shot down. This congress made certain to cause as much trouble, to do as much harm while accomplishing as little as possible, as they could. The onus for wanting Obama to be more liberal is on them, because he did try, and they rejected everything he offered.
I hope I helped clear some of that up for you! Don't always be ready to agree that people are too sensitive, too "PC", or act like special snowflakes. While there is a segment of the population who does like to behave in such a way, it is often those making the generalities in the first place.
I can understand "safe spaces" in the literal context, i.e. being safe from crime. I do get that. That makes perfect sense. There's no problem with that part of it. (And being safe from harassment? That qualifies, since harassment IS a crime.)
But why are people entitled to be "safe" from opinions? College life should be exactly the opposite - to be exposed to opinions which differ from yours. How can students learn if they are always "safe" from views that aren't theirs?
But why are people entitled to be "safe" from opinions? College life should be exactly the opposite - to be exposed to opinions which differ from yours. How can students learn if they are always "safe" from views that aren't theirs?
A
Amaris
Guest
College students are often young adults learning how to interact with the world-at-large, and all the ideas contained therein. Sometimes, a handful of them may think they shouldn't have to learn other opinions, and push back against having to do so. That's going to happen when you mix that many young adults with that many ideas in a given location. Safe spaces aren't for them in that regard, even though some will push to make it that way. That can't be helped, but it's not the mentality of the average college student.
When someone says "kids today," what they most likely mean is "I don't like this, it's different."
Yes, this is what I meant. I don't get this aspect. Safe from a crime....obvious. Safe from a dissenting opinion? Oh, come on. You're in college. Either deal with it or don't take classes where intellectual confrontation occurs, such as political science, women's studies, some of the sociology classes, etc.
A
Amaris
Guest
See, though, this is where "kids today" comes into it. The average college student does their work, works hard to pay their tuition, and tries to find a career in a field they care about, or that makes a lot of money (or both!). This demand to be unopposed isn't something all college students get involved in, it's just one more example of a stereotype being put into play in order to hide the fact that things are changing, and it scares some people.
This is kinda idiotic. There are folks who would shove their opinions in others who are trying to respect others. It can be brutal. Also "deal with it" is kinda victim-blaming, and not taking classes... isn't doing them any favor. It's like saying avoid a class because bullies are there...
Sometimes, but not always.
And even so...for every "kids today" there's a "grownups today". Either it's those damn kids running wild, or those stuffy old grups who hate all change. Talk about a rock and a hard place.
Last edited:
Victim blaming? I'm not talking about bullying...I'm talking about in-class discourse, which (one would hope, anyway) the professor would have a handle on. If people take a class, they are given a syllabus on the first day. Presumably, they read the syllabus. If something jumps out and they don't like certain subjects, they can drop the class in the first week (usually).
Avoidance of the issue not doing them any favors is exactly what I'm talking about. They're in college. It's about mixing and learning different things. But you're given a lot of choice, as well. You can easily avoid classes that you don't think you'd be comfortable with, and take a different path. It would be like a very conservative person taking "The History of Sex" or a Fundamentalist Christian taking a class on Hinduism. They don't have to. But if they do, they should be prepared to deal with material they aren't comfortable with. Don't ask to be excused because you don't like what's being discussed. Just don't take the class. If I was a professor, that would annoy me.
Now I'm sure it's different in poly-sci classes. I didn't take any of those when I was in school, but I'm sure that's where arguments happen. I did take a few sociology classes, though, and discussions/disagreements happened there...but nothing bad. Nothing that would be a scarring experience for a 20 year old.
I'm just basing this on the open letter that the dean of UVA (at least I think it was UVA....or was it Chicago?) wrote prior to this school year. It made the news because it said the school would not allow safe spaces to shield students from things that challenged their views. This was the first I'd heard of it. I had no idea it was even a thing.
I also don't mean to derail this thread. Sorry to the OP.
I feel like a lot of these things are where folk are trying to be respectful and sensitive to others which everyone agrees with in theory but once the actions of being respectful and sensitive have a name people freak out since they didn't have that name ten years ago. You can explain the concept of trigger warnings and people will nod along and agree this is sensible, like a movie telling you there's going to be horror or sexual violence.. but as soon as you use a name for it "trigger warning" people think it's gone too far.
Centre right British, so centre left American.
Somewhere between Left and Far Left.
Similar threads
