What do you think my ideology is? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15013024
ISideWith: https://www.isidewith.com/profile/36111 ... esidential

Political Compass: -6.88 on the economic axis -7.59 on the social axis

PolitiScales: http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/resul ... 7&anar=100

Political Sextant: http://www.politicalsextant.com/quiz/?1 ... 38=1&39=-1

I have also compiled a dense collection of political musings here: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s617/sh/ ... 680462dfa1
#15013086
To those of you who genuinely believe that violence against others is justified as a means to further the interests of your own interests or the interests of your group over others, I have news for you. Political violence is never a legitimate act. Even if the consequences of said violent action can eliminate much greater societal evils in the longer term, the cost of a human lives cannot in any sense be equated to a vague projection in the standard of living for all people involved in the long term. The opportunities for democratic reform and direct action are there, but despite this, there are always those who are too blind to see it. Presently speaking, I am aware of the fact that there are people who delude themselves into thinking going out onto the street disguised in all black, harassing police officers, destroying store windows and stealing what you "need" is somehow both acceptable and just behavior. It is both an arrogant and selfish action to adopt a political movement as a self-serving "lifestyle", accruing the benefits of being a part of a resistance that has no clear enemy but the senseless destruction of the very necessities the modern citizen needs to survive. If anything, the present anarchist and antifascist movements have not at all been a benefit of those on the left who genuinely seek social equality and justice for all people, but as a scapegoat for the right to marginalize the real heroes who actively defend and support the working-class in their fight against economic exploitation.


So I think you support the abolition of the Police force and Army? Or vviolence suddenly becomes good if state does it? :eh:
#15013202
To address the first statement, I don’t support the abolition of the police force. I acknowledge that there some people on the police force in various states who abuse their position of power and carry out acts of brutality against commonly convicted minorities as a means to send a message. Under no pretense of the law, no matter how clear and perfect it’s rules are, should be permitted to attack minorities. However, to say this applies to all people in law enforcement is a narrow-minded generalization. They have very difficult jobs that ordinary people couldn’t deal with alone and provide a sense of security to communities that would otherwise have to deal with rampant crime. If anything the police force should exist, though I believe there should be more regulation and tests on the process of becoming a police officer, especially to ensure that the people who are selected to be on the force follow just orders and do not take it upon themselves to independently carry out their own malicious version of justice.

As for the army, well, I think we could do without so much military spending and research that could otherwise be invested into social programs, welfare, government research, etc. I don’t believe in it’s abolition either, but it should be significantly smaller than it is currently.

As for your last suggestion, I have no idea where you got that from. I’ve said this before in one of my other papers, but political violence under any circumstances cannot be justified, especially that from which is initiated by the state. The entire focus of that specific paper was to point out the hypocrisy of anti-fascist and anarchist groups who superficially argue for free-speech, but take it upon themselves to physically harm their opposition. Furthermore, there’s much that has led me to believe that these groups are “all talk and no action”, they pick and choose the beliefs that would be the most beneficial to them without considering how this would impact others, thus anarchism becomes a lifestyle for them rather than a legitimate movement against all forms of unjust authority. I’m not arguing for violence at all.
#15013326
I am not talking about police brutality or racism in the police, even a perfect police force which is completely not racist and follows the law perfectly, it will be using violence in one form or another. So if you are against any kind of violence without exception, it must mean that you are in favor of abolishing all kinds of police force and army..
#15013479
fuser wrote:I am not talking about police brutality or racism in the police, even a perfect police force which is completely not racist and follows the law perfectly, it will be using violence in one form or another. So if you are against any kind of violence without exception, it must mean that you are in favor of abolishing all kinds of police force and army..


I think your definition of what constitutes violence is not fully correct. By that logic, anyone who permits the existence of the police or an army is endorsing violence. I cannot support this under any circumstances as the abolition of service that apprehends criminals to prevent them from harming others will lead to higher crime rates across the board by default. Furthermore, even if people were actually given the choice to abolish these institutions, I guarantee you that it would never be enough votes for a referendum. It may be convenient for you to call anyone who doesn’t support their abolition as endorsing violence, but I would be careful defending this position so stubbornly as the people who do support their abolition are allowing violence acts to take place by not doing anything about it.

By the way, the whole point of this is that wanted to ask people what they thought my ideology was and answer questions if they wanted more information. If you want to have a discussion about what justice is and to what extent the use of force is justified, we could talk about it in another thread. I don’t want to get off topic here.
#15013482
SSDR wrote:You are a liberal anarchist that has Christian leanings.


Fascinating, I had always thought I was some kind of left-wing anarchist. Though out of curiosity, where did you get the impression I have Christian leanings?
#15013484
@Avalonia,

You seem to Emotionally go against violence. Religions in general tend to go against social violence. And violence was needed to rebel against religion, or any form of oppression depending on the situation.

You appear to be Emotionally sympathetic to criminals. Some religions promote social sympathy.

You seem to go against violence and promote sympathy. Do you also believe in pacifism? If so, then you sound very Christian.
#15013491
SSDR wrote:@Avalonia,

You seem to Emotionally go against violence. Religions in general tend to go against social violence. And violence was needed to rebel against religion, or any form of oppression depending on the situation.

You appear to be Emotionally sympathetic to criminals. Some religions promote social sympathy.

You seem to go against violence and promote sympathy. Do you also believe in pacifism? If so, then you sound very Christian.


There’s a lot to unpack here, but I think I get what you mean? I should clarify that not a Christian, not anymore at least. I was raised in a Methodist environment, but I eventually became attached to Presbyterianism. But, after a while, I struggled to grasp with the arguments offered by that religion in regard to predestination, the existence of free will and if God was truly just if he damns people who don’t believe in him to hell. Even after reading what Hegel has to say about God, I at least embraced his ideas, but I couldn’t see myself as Christian anymore. Another reason why I left Christianity was the narrow-minded view of Heaven and Hell, and especially how this was used as a tool to punish people who do immoral things, not knowing that they are unwittingly contributing to the cycle of vengeance.

I don’t doubt that my Christian upbringing has had some effect on my attitude towards violence, but I formed my own opinions on the matter before I even read the Bible. What I especially dislike about some organized religions is that they assert that morality must emerge from their doctrine. This is an incredibly selfish idea that ignores the most basic suppositions provided by moral arguments in philosophy. As of today, I’m a Buddhist, but I don’t doubt that I still retain some Christian leanings like the conception of an Absolute or a God.

Edit: Yes, I am a pacifist.
#15013495
@Avalonia,

You were conditioned in a religious environment in your youth because you had to. You had no choice.

Someone who has Christian values because of their upbringings who now chooses to become a Buddhist still sounds very spiritual.

And Christianity is a very pacifist religion.
#15016047
SSDR wrote:You appear to be Emotionally sympathetic to criminals. Some religions promote social sympathy.

In a country like the US many (or perhaps most) "criminals" got this label due to stupid and excessive legislation, not because they did something fundamentally wrong. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "criminals" in general, as it will include large numbers of victims abused by an unfair system.

Avalonia wrote:I think your definition of what constitutes violence is not fully correct. By that logic, anyone who permits the existence of the police or an army is endorsing violence.

Why do you think that? Are you sure that it's not your definition that is wrong?

Let me help you a little bit:

Oxford:
Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Longman:
behaviour that is intended to hurt other people physically

As you can see, violence involves physical force against someone, which force is intended and likely to cause physical harm. Any other definition that refers to "violence" as committed by people is most likely propaganda territory(as in "verbal violence", or some other crazier constructs like "emotional violence", "economic violence" and so on - expressions fabricated by various fringe groups like feminists & co. which have the sole purpose of manipulating others emotionally)

So, yes, cops sometimes have to use violence in order to apprehend criminals/suspects/fugitives. It's true that in some countries like the US, unwarranted violence coming from law enforcement is almost "the norm" and serious reforms are needed.

edit: as for initial question, your ideology is communism or perhaps anarcho-communism (communism also involves - at lest theoretically - the dissolution of the state)
#15016099
@ccdan,

In a country like the US many (or perhaps most) "criminals" got this label due to stupid and excessive legislation, not because they did something fundamentally wrong. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "criminals" in general, as it will include large numbers of victims abused by an unfair system.


The ideologies that would accept this statement are anarchism, radical liberalism, libertarianism, and neo Marxism. But based on your posts, you have a radical liberal approach to criminals.

How do you feel about down ridden communities? Where excessive drug usage, social corruption, social chaos, and personal property vandalism are all common place? (Flatten tires, burned homes, apartment break ins, ghetto, etc.)

How do you feel of gang violence? How about hoods? Or potheads who like to joke around in a frustrating way?
#15016901
@ccdan,
ccdan wrote:In a country like the US many (or perhaps most) "criminals" got this label due to stupid and excessive legislation, not because they did something fundamentally wrong. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "criminals" in general, as it will include large numbers of victims abused by an unfair system.


Why do you think that? Are you sure that it's not your definition that is wrong?

Let me help you a little bit:

Oxford:
Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Longman:
behaviour that is intended to hurt other people physically

As you can see, violence involves physical force against someone, which force is intended and likely to cause physical harm. Any other definition that refers to "violence" as committed by people is most likely propaganda territory(as in "verbal violence", or some other crazier constructs like "emotional violence", "economic violence" and so on - expressions fabricated by various fringe groups like feminists & co. which have the sole purpose of manipulating others emotionally)

So, yes, cops sometimes have to use violence in order to apprehend criminals/suspects/fugitives. It's true that in some countries like the US, unwarranted violence coming from law enforcement is almost "the norm" and serious reforms are needed.

edit: as for initial question, your ideology is communism or perhaps anarcho-communism (communism also involves - at lest theoretically - the dissolution of the state)


You misunderstood the context in which I said that, I was pointing out a flaw in SSDR's definition of violence by applying that definition to a extensional scenario where it would not make sense. Definitions are supposed to be universally consistent and applicable, otherwise they are falsifiable.
#15017081
SSDR wrote:The ideologies that would accept this statement are anarchism, radical liberalism, libertarianism, and neo Marxism.

I'm pretty sure that ANY rational individual who is well informed, would accept my "statement"

SSDR wrote:How do you feel about down ridden communities? Where excessive drug usage, social corruption, social chaos, and personal property vandalism are all common place? (Flatten tires, burned homes, apartment break ins, ghetto, etc.)

How do you feel of gang violence? How about hoods? Or potheads who like to joke around in a frustrating way?

I don't know if you have an agenda, or you have been simply "misguided" by the evil guys...

What you're "exhibiting" here is a technique of propaganda: mixing up harmless deeds or minor annoyances("excessive drug usage". potheads who like to joke around) with actual crime, sometime very serious crime (gang violences, burned homes, apartment break ins) - the intentions here is to suggest that all are as serious as the most serious one. Similar to what feminists do mixing up groping and cat calling with rape, all under umbrella terms like "sexual assault", "sexual abuse" with the intention of suggesting that all is rape or all is as serious as rape.

You also threw in some "undefined" things from an objective perspective, which probably have a certain audience that will "recognize" those terms("social corruption", "social chaos") .

As for your actual questions, it's rather irrelevant "how I feel about..." simply because "the system" is not concerned mainly with your "complaints" (but if you really want to know, I have no reason to believe that drug consumption leads to "run down" neighbourhoods, it's a bit the other way around)

SSDR wrote:based on your posts, you have a radical liberal approach to criminals.

I already told you something about "criminals":
It doesn't make much sense to talk about "criminals" in general, as it will include large numbers of victims abused by an unfair system.

But you don't seem to understand what I said.

Here's some very interesting data:

Persons arrested 2017:

Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 10,554,985 arrests in 2017.
Of these arrests,
518,617 were for violent crimes (beatings, rape, robberies, shooting, murder, etc.)
1,249,757 were for property crimes (theft, burglary, vandalism, arson, etc.) + 188,350 vandalism
1,632,921 drug abuse violations
990,678 driving under the influence (I disagree that most of these should be arrested, but whatever)

So... you have violent people + thieves & vandalisers + druggies + drunk drivers .. and guess what??
They DON'T ADD UP TO EVEN HALF OF ALL THOSE ARRESTED!

Guess what? We have a problem here! A very, very BIG problem! What are the other arrests for?
Well there are somewhere between 20.000 and 300.000 criminal laws or civil laws that can be prosecuted criminally(no one knows their number, not even within a large margin of error - but they "must be obeyed")

What is that if not totalitarianism?
#15017170
@ccdan,

I'm pretty sure that ANY rational individual who is well informed, would accept my "statement"

This is not a political statement. This is an emotional opinion. I can reply the same thing against you. It is like saying "you are wrong," - "NO, you are wrong." What one views as "well informed" exposes their politics. You are only exposing your politics, you are not making a political argument.
I don't know if you have an agenda, or you have been simply "misguided" by the evil guys...

I can reply the EXACT same thing to you. You are not making a political stance, you are going on an emotional rant that is only exposing some of your politics. I can state that one can be misguided by anarchists. I can state that anarchists are "evil." What one feels as evil exposes some of their politics.
What you're "exhibiting" here is a technique of propaganda: mixing up harmless deeds or minor annoyances("excessive drug usage". potheads who like to joke around) with actual crime, sometime very serious crime (gang violences, burned homes, apartment break ins)

You are exhibiting a "technique of propaganda" by making drugged up criminals "not look like criminals." And people who like to joke around a lot is usually what leads to gang violence, people burning each other's homes, and apartment break ins for social revenge. People doing drugs is what makes them start dangerous drama.

Now you are entering a political debate.
You also threw in some "undefined" things from an objective perspective, which probably have a certain audience that will "recognize" those terms("social corruption", "social chaos") .

That is because I am not here for a political debate. I am here to help answer your question "What does one think of what YOUR political ideology IS."
As for your actual questions, it's rather irrelevant "how I feel about..." simply because "the system" is not concerned mainly with your "complaints" (but if you really want to know, I have no reason to believe that drug consumption leads to "run down" neighbourhoods, it's a bit the other way around)

The "system" does not need to be "concerned with my complaints" because the systems that the both of us live under do not have my politics. Thus, their "concerns" are just emotional opinionated rants.
I already told you something about "criminals":

Your viewpoint on criminals exposes your ideology. I am stating what ideology you appear to have based on how you feel about criminals because I am ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION on "What ideology does one think that YOU HAVE."

Those statistics that you provided state two things: One, you are demanding a political debate, rather than finding out what political ideology you categorize with. Two, the other arrests could deal with under the table crimes such as corruption, scammers, or human trafficking related issues.
What is that if not totalitarianism?

I feel oppressed if I had to live around people WHO COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO ME.
I feel that dealing with rapists, people beating up random people, people burning random homes, and people with some social power who could do WHATEVER THEY WANT (get their friends, gangs, followers, etc.) TO ME, like KILL ME for NO REASON (because they can) IS OPPRESSION.
Election 2020

I'll say it again. I predict that Marianne Willia[…]

Perhaps we are a little bit racist ... And a littl[…]

So far we have had several pages of people explai[…]

https://youtu.be/RtfZeC8ltfs Cunts. CCP stooges.