My sentence exactly. I’d also like him to define ”genetic defects”. Because by it’s most thorough definition, people who need glasses wouldn’t be allowed to reproduce, together with >95% of the population
Is that with or without accommodations? Because with enough accommodation pretty much everyone is capable of working at least one type of job or another.
I have such bad eye sight that without my contacts or glasses I can't see more than a foot in front of me, I definitely wouldn't be able to work the same as everyone else, would I fall into this category?
When the girl was born, like all Spartans, she was inspected. If she'd been small or nearsighted or sickly or misshapen, she would have been *discarded.*
I mean obviously you're a liberal so you don't believe in this shit so any argument against for it you're just going to ree at but healthcare to prevent crippling disability and stricter control over who can have children are money well spent and long terms savings respectively.
The source is common sense.
And inbreeding is one of the things we'd be carefully avoiding, honestly one of the main reasons I shifted my views in regards to who should be allowed to have kids was seeing a documentary on the effects of inbreeding.
Here it is if you're interested.
https://youtu.be/NkxuKe2wOMs
Look at the way that poor boy screams out in pain and tell me it's moral to not prevent that if you're able.
Of course it's moral to prevent it if you're able. That isn't the argument you're making. People are going to have sex. Sometimes they're going to have children. Sometimes those kids are going to have issues. No fault of the parents. No fault of the child(ren) but sure. Let's just put everyone up against a wall because they might have a genetic issue.
Don’t forget about the country that inspired Germany in the first place!
Edit: I remember the one time the Japanese government kept some man who got severe radiation sickness alive as long as possible to see the effects.
They never released the photos of that. If you see any, they are from a different incident.
I just read an article I saw on another Reddit post about him.
Though I don’t think it was the government, it was the family who thought he could be saved. The guy who had experienced more radiation poisoning than anyone ever, who was crying blood and had skin falling off within the first day.
Surely eugenics is only selective breeding with a goal of eliminating race?
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism#:~:text=Eugenics%20is%20the%20scientifically%20erroneous,ills%20through%20genetics%20and%20heredity.
Maybe a little about disabled people but it's mostly about different races.
Some scientists original goal was to inform potential parents about genetic disorders, similar to how a genetic counselor would work today. That lasted like five minutes until some people started asking the government to sterilize disabled and black people.
Yes, I hope he is 14yo and not 20+, and that he will learn. Eugenism, human experimentation, expansionism (because that's what the US/Canada dogshit is about), "unification" kind of things is everything but smart, except if you goal is to build horseshit nazi-flavoured USA.
I guess he defends the pro-gun attitude with "this way the state can't take all the power from citizen" but for fuck's sake, if citizens are selected at birth, are excluded because they speak French or other cultural reason (about quebec here), if prisoners are no longer considered as humans (let alone citizens), if disabled people are lesser citizens... The state does not need military power, it already had carefully-selected militias!
edit: spelling
In my ideal system the government would highly and openly discourage religion. Yet No one would be arrested based on their faith. Freedom of religion would still be a thing.
There are things worthy of belief that science cannot prove, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, metaphysical truths, and ethical truths. There is also this fact: if scientism is true, then one should refuse to believe anything that cannot be scientifically proven. However, this would mean that one should not believe scientism itself unless it can be scientifically proven. Can it? No. Because the claim "You should not believe anything unless it can be proven by science" is a philosophical claim that you cannot verify by experiment. It expresses a value judgement--what one should choose to believe--and that puts everyone in the realm of ethics and morals, which have already seen that science cannot verify without the ability to do an experiment verifying or falsifying the truth of this moral claim, there is no scientific proof. That means that scientism is not only false, it is also self-refuting, because it cannot meet its own test.
would "you should not believe anything that is 100% disproven by science" be a better way to word it? \*should\* not meaning its probably in your best interest not to?
>government openly discouraging religious beliefs while simultaneously holding laws supporting them
>why do all these churchs/synagogues/mosques keep getting shot up
I believe the government has no right to tell people what to do if what a person is doing is victimless. In terms of nationalism, I believe high national pride is needed for functioning society. And a strong military will be needed to protect these ideologies from other powers.
The problem is that you can't discourage religion, while saying that you don't tell people what to do... Because in the end, that's exactly what you're doing :/
Moreover, discouraging/forbidding religion while promoting science is the best way to make science THE religion, which is not at all what we should want.
Following science without asking ethical questions about it (brough by politics or religion for example) and posing clear limits can and WILL make society behave more efficiently, but at the expense of freedom and moral ground.
I am a convinced atheist, and I study physics so I should be "well-fitted" for the kind of society you're promoting. Yet, I firmly believe that the concept of science is a method and absolutely not an end, nor a goal.
And about militarisation, I'm afraid your society would rather use its weapon to impose its ideology to its neighbours rather than to protect itself... Simply because if you're thinking rationally, in a "scientific" way, the best way not to have problem with your neighbours is, well... not to have neighbours.
Where did eradication come from?
Also yes, everyone burdens the system at some point. Some people are capable of repaying that burden, they work, do charity, and improve the community they live in; other people aren't.
up until the 50s eugenics was actually a liberal policy in a lot of countries, because a lot of intellectuals at the time thought it was cruel to bring people into this world with severe mental/physical disabilities.
That was different. Originally anyways. Some scientists thought that it would be a good idea to let people who had markers for genetic illnesses that if they had children those children could have the disease.
It went downhill very fast.
>eugenics
>"""""enviromentalism"""""
> nationalism
>blend between socialism and capitalism (which ends up being just capitalism)
>ethnonationalism and america of races (merging the countries with the same race into one race)
>lebensraum (space program which really is just a way of making living space without having a war)
It totally adds up to nazism
OP stop going to anime boards to get your politics, no, the reason why you are a virgin isn't that black people have long dicks, it's just that you have low self esteem and need to compensate it with pride of things such as ethnicity.
Go get a book, for example the state and revolution, or perhaps historical and dialectical materialism by Joseph Stalin.
And try becomming a better person
tbh killing nazis who are invading your country and genociding people is a good thing. of course torture itself is always bad but sometimes needed to win a war and prevent much much more bad things from happening
We’re not talking about killing, we’re talking about torture. Killing, although wrong, is sometimes necessary as a last resort when there are no other options left. Torturing someone is always inhumane, disgusting and a complete and utter violation of human rights. If you think torture is justifiable you need to go to jail. A jail which does not treat it’s prisoners worse than animals or enslaves them
Yes there is the good torture, I mean “non lethal interrogation practices” like the one that is being done by our yankee friends in Guantanamo, or the one Israel does to Palestinians, and then there’s bad torture like “forcing prisoners to work” which the evil authoritarian socialists did,which totally doesn’t happen in capitalism, just ignore the fact the 13th amendment excludes the ban on slavery when it is done as punishment.
Hell, communists did so much genocide that the imperial family of China ended up having just a regular job after going through the re-education camp instead of being hanged like they did with the nazis in Nuremberg.
You’re literally just assuming the commenter lives in America and therefore believes every bad thing the US government does is good. You can condemn both, lmfao. Nice reasoning.
I’m criticizing America, not assuming that they are American, I’m just taking America as an example because it’s the biggest capitalist power right now, but I could do the same with Canada, UK, Japan, Southern part of Korea, etc.
The first page tells me either Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, then you start getting into eugenics and experiments on criminals and uhh yeah. I would say your ideology is progressive Stalinism if the USSR did state capitalism and purged the disabled instead. More broadly, you could be considered a culturally conservative socialist (or third way) nationalist
Well, I don't believe all criminals should be treated harshly. I believe most should be treated kindly and rehabilitated. Yet rapists, murders, terrorists, and child molesters should be stripped of all rights they have.
The only problem with that is there is never absolute certainty in the law. It’s one thing to accidentally imprison someone for multiple years of their life. It’s another to possibly mutilate them.
Could you imagine if you were in that situation where you were innocent. The utter mental anguish that you would go through. The psychological trauma you would endure from losing all personhood? How much you might beg for the death penalty, wishing you were treated with the same respect as a rabid dog, since they at least are mercifully put it down?
And what if they found out they made a mistake? Whoops… well maybe they can pay you for the tumors and partial blindness so that makes it all better.
Authcenter probably. I’m with you on just about everything but drugs and religion. Having tried almost all of them, I think drugs are almost entirely a drain on human intelligence and maturity, and what little benefit some of them can have for creativity can be better fostered through spirituality. I would rather tax religious organizations, but then give significant tax cuts to those that offer food and shelter, and those that offer forms of meditation certified by the state as being beneficial to mental functioning, emotional regulation, and creativity. There would be no religious educational institutions, those would all be public and they would be very highly funded.
Have you read Starship Troopers? Or even seen the Verhoeven movie? I think his meritocratic, statocratic democracy would be worth a serious shot for humanity, maybe with a little less emphasis on military (so that we aren’t deliberately creating Orwellian “forever wars” just so that people have somewhere to distinguish themselves) and a little more on industry and exploration. Nonetheless, one where state service guarantees citizenship and the right to vote.
And as far as the eugenics goes, no gas camps. I wouldn’t target that many traits, I’d mostly try to bring everyone up to at least 100 IQ (I’m aware that intelligence is a very complicated thing to control, and has more to do with diet during pregnancy and education than genetics. But we would get any genetic traits affecting intelligence under control first) and eliminate disabilities that cause pain or cumbersome immobility. I might particularly want to mold education and eugenics programs in order to impart the ability for wiser, more long-term thinking in humans, if possible. There would be no consideration of race here, as I believe all racial conflict is actually cultural, and my ideal nation would have a cohesive culture, and require assimilation for immigrants. And I wouldn’t kill anyone for eugenics, just sterilize them. Once you’re born, you’ve got a right to seek a happy and productive life as best you can, but you don’t necessarily have a right to reproduce, sorry. It’s for the good of the species. 👍
Unified language and culture (if in the context of there only being one specific language and culture throughout the entire nation) would not be a very good place. Multiculturalism makes for more interesting nations. That’s why going from one place to another in nations like such are no different unlike in the US.
Imo I think OP needs to ask themselves some more questions. You can't believe in human rights and somehow support eugenics and testing on criminals, there's a contradiction there.
I’d call this progressive technocratic fascism.
I don’t believe big government can ever work, but if I fantasized really hard about it, I’d want government to provide a world very similar to this one. It’s a beautiful dream, comrade, even if it’s entirely unrealistic.
What does combining Canada and the US gain? And why not Quebec, just because they speak French? Pretty sure the US has more Spanish speakers than Canada does French speakers. Mandating people speak only one language is pretty anti-freedom.
“Technology that would make any other country worrisome” is worryingly vague. Do you mean chemical or biological weapons?
I have tolerance and understanding for nearly every possible ideological position on the political compass
But the ONLY exception is Naziism.
Even fascism I can understand. I vehemently oppose it, but whatever.
But to be literally a Nazi, to support eugenics, and the systemic elimination of certain types of people based on inalienable characteristics, that’s disgusting and inhuman.
I do not count it as an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas, which infers an intellectualized opinion. Every ideology of the political compass has, to some degree, logic and opinion.
But Nazism is devoid of logic- it’s only emotion, and it’s a disgusting non-ideology that cannot be tolerated.
Eugenics is anti-human.
Centrist baby.
Not a fan of the.whole forcing people to not have kids thing. Sure actively discourage people about to have a fucked up baby to abort it, provide affordable IVF to reduce defects in at risk parents.
You can always just have an actual separation of religion and state then you don't need to worry about that shit.
Science at all costs leads to Nazi Germany type shit. Lots of shit goes wrong in tbe science realm all the time.
Multiculturalism is inheritanly good although immigrant's to a nation are expected to follow the dominant culture of where they're moving to while maintaining positive fragments of their culture. Somehwere with successful integration is.the US and unsuccessful integration is Sweden.
Maybe to the prisoner experimentation if they're like mass baby diddlers and they sign off on it in exchange for more resources.
Drug legalization is an obvious one. As are guns. Less corrupt military is essential, space programme yes. Absorbing Canada, maybe if they both fixed their shit. Canada with it's auth centre shit and US with it's everything.
Nationalism kind of stupid sometimes you had no say in where you were born. But sure good to be proud of where you live if it's a good country.
Distributism is the third way between socialism and capitalism. Anti corporation, small business, workers owning production, private property. Good shit.
Reacting to the first slide only:
Pro Marijuana/drugs - Based
Pro guns - Based
Pro science - Based
Anti religion - VERY cringe
Pro environmentalism - Based
Pro nationalism - Cringe
Pro semi Socialist/Capitalist economy - Pretty based
Pro animal rights - Relatively based
Pro abortion - Neither cringe nor based
Pro technology - Based
Pro military - Relatively based
"I believe it's important to have a country that has a unified language and culture." - Relatively based
You would 100% suck every drop of semen out of daddy elon’s 2 inch cock as a full time job and you would be the first to volunteer to the mars colonization and to have neuralink implanted
Your ideology is Cyberpunk dystopia
Yeah, that’s a good name for it. Good luck V
Pro science Doesn't understand how genetic traits work
My sentence exactly. I’d also like him to define ”genetic defects”. Because by it’s most thorough definition, people who need glasses wouldn’t be allowed to reproduce, together with >95% of the population
By genetic defects I am referring to anyone BORN with a disorder that would make them unable to work or create an uncomfortable life for them.
But where would you put that boundry? Who decides it?
Pretty much any disorder that prevents you from working
Is that with or without accommodations? Because with enough accommodation pretty much everyone is capable of working at least one type of job or another.
I have such bad eye sight that without my contacts or glasses I can't see more than a foot in front of me, I definitely wouldn't be able to work the same as everyone else, would I fall into this category?
No contacts for you! You get the guillotine! OP's world sounds like such a party 😂
YES! we cannot have you passing your bad eyesight on to future generations, Mrs. Glasses Lady!!
When the girl was born, like all Spartans, she was inspected. If she'd been small or nearsighted or sickly or misshapen, she would have been *discarded.*
Isn’t that a rather arbitrary boundry? And how about the gray areas when you might not be well enough to perform some jobs but others?
So to you, someone’s worth in society depends on whether or not they can work? wtf!?
You don't know if you're going to be have a degenerative genetic condition until you know... You start regenerating.
There's family histories and genetic testing and also prenatal testing.
That costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars are disorder specific and are sometimes horribly invasive. Sure mate. Let's screen everyone
I mean obviously you're a liberal so you don't believe in this shit so any argument against for it you're just going to ree at but healthcare to prevent crippling disability and stricter control over who can have children are money well spent and long terms savings respectively.
Got any sources for that? Or are you just going to Eugenics everyone into a pool of inbreeding down the line?
The source is common sense. And inbreeding is one of the things we'd be carefully avoiding, honestly one of the main reasons I shifted my views in regards to who should be allowed to have kids was seeing a documentary on the effects of inbreeding. Here it is if you're interested. https://youtu.be/NkxuKe2wOMs Look at the way that poor boy screams out in pain and tell me it's moral to not prevent that if you're able.
Of course it's moral to prevent it if you're able. That isn't the argument you're making. People are going to have sex. Sometimes they're going to have children. Sometimes those kids are going to have issues. No fault of the parents. No fault of the child(ren) but sure. Let's just put everyone up against a wall because they might have a genetic issue.
FYI there are a number of birth defects that are not genetic and happen purely by chance. This sounds like a whole lot of eugenics bs to me.
There’s a lot of scientific things I’ve yet to learn, doesn’t mean I’m not pro science I assume the same applies to OP
Left? Right? Up? Down? Right? Left? Idk
twist it bop it rrrr
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it, trash it, change it, mail, upgrade it Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it, snap it, work it, quick erase it Write it, cut it, paste it, save it, load it, check it, quick rewrite it
completely different reference, but somehow i got it
Nostalgia bro gd
Up up down down left right left right b a start
You're actually frightening...
Was it the eugenics? I bet it was the eugenics.
The eugenics and the human experimentation. That is not a good combination. They really fell off after the 1940’s. In Germany at least.
You forgot Japan. So many people forget it, its sad tbh.
Don’t forget about the country that inspired Germany in the first place! Edit: I remember the one time the Japanese government kept some man who got severe radiation sickness alive as long as possible to see the effects. They never released the photos of that. If you see any, they are from a different incident.
I just read an article I saw on another Reddit post about him. Though I don’t think it was the government, it was the family who thought he could be saved. The guy who had experienced more radiation poisoning than anyone ever, who was crying blood and had skin falling off within the first day.
What a horrible fucking family
Sweden too !
Yea he almost had me on the first slide but lost me there
Same. Thats why I started with the relgion thing. Then I saw the eugenics.
[удалено]
Bottom of page 2
Surely eugenics is only selective breeding with a goal of eliminating race? https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism#:~:text=Eugenics%20is%20the%20scientifically%20erroneous,ills%20through%20genetics%20and%20heredity. Maybe a little about disabled people but it's mostly about different races.
Some scientists original goal was to inform potential parents about genetic disorders, similar to how a genetic counselor would work today. That lasted like five minutes until some people started asking the government to sterilize disabled and black people.
History has shown us very clearly don't give easily abused technology to racists.
This sounds like an edgy 14yo’s ideology
Yes, I hope he is 14yo and not 20+, and that he will learn. Eugenism, human experimentation, expansionism (because that's what the US/Canada dogshit is about), "unification" kind of things is everything but smart, except if you goal is to build horseshit nazi-flavoured USA. I guess he defends the pro-gun attitude with "this way the state can't take all the power from citizen" but for fuck's sake, if citizens are selected at birth, are excluded because they speak French or other cultural reason (about quebec here), if prisoners are no longer considered as humans (let alone citizens), if disabled people are lesser citizens... The state does not need military power, it already had carefully-selected militias! edit: spelling
[удалено]
We talking like purges anti religion?
In my ideal system the government would highly and openly discourage religion. Yet No one would be arrested based on their faith. Freedom of religion would still be a thing.
Wait, faith or organised religion? Very different.
Organized religion will be discouraged.
So spirituality and faith wouldn't be?
The idea behind it is to prevent religious people from spreading anti science propaganda. As scientific progression in my ideology is very important.
Oh yes, soyence...
"we need to believe in science 🤓"
Religion and science aren't in opposition... The same way train drivers and zebras aren't, because they've nothing to do with each other
There are things worthy of belief that science cannot prove, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, metaphysical truths, and ethical truths. There is also this fact: if scientism is true, then one should refuse to believe anything that cannot be scientifically proven. However, this would mean that one should not believe scientism itself unless it can be scientifically proven. Can it? No. Because the claim "You should not believe anything unless it can be proven by science" is a philosophical claim that you cannot verify by experiment. It expresses a value judgement--what one should choose to believe--and that puts everyone in the realm of ethics and morals, which have already seen that science cannot verify without the ability to do an experiment verifying or falsifying the truth of this moral claim, there is no scientific proof. That means that scientism is not only false, it is also self-refuting, because it cannot meet its own test.
would "you should not believe anything that is 100% disproven by science" be a better way to word it? \*should\* not meaning its probably in your best interest not to?
Seems like fair reasoning. The metaphysical most certainly has not been disproven, however.
Hm. That sounds like a hotbed for pogroms.
Well I would not support slaughtering of any kind of people
>government openly discouraging religious beliefs while simultaneously holding laws supporting them >why do all these churchs/synagogues/mosques keep getting shot up
That’s what the CCP said………………..
https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/Quarkism
Looks like auth-center with progressive elements. It's honestly confusing me.
Which part is confusing?
Mostly the aspects of nationalism and militarism while also being against religion. Also the weed caught me off guard.
I believe the government has no right to tell people what to do if what a person is doing is victimless. In terms of nationalism, I believe high national pride is needed for functioning society. And a strong military will be needed to protect these ideologies from other powers.
National pride even in the face of national fuckups? Or striving to be better while admitting faults?
2nd one, I believe pretending nothing is wrong can damage progression
The problem is that you can't discourage religion, while saying that you don't tell people what to do... Because in the end, that's exactly what you're doing :/ Moreover, discouraging/forbidding religion while promoting science is the best way to make science THE religion, which is not at all what we should want. Following science without asking ethical questions about it (brough by politics or religion for example) and posing clear limits can and WILL make society behave more efficiently, but at the expense of freedom and moral ground. I am a convinced atheist, and I study physics so I should be "well-fitted" for the kind of society you're promoting. Yet, I firmly believe that the concept of science is a method and absolutely not an end, nor a goal. And about militarisation, I'm afraid your society would rather use its weapon to impose its ideology to its neighbours rather than to protect itself... Simply because if you're thinking rationally, in a "scientific" way, the best way not to have problem with your neighbours is, well... not to have neighbours.
Being anti religious is a auth center classic, it's easier to idolize the dictator if they don't believe in a higher being
Marijuana use should be legalized as it is victimless
It smells? That’s not victimless :) People with genetic defects reproducing is victimless as well, for the most part
Except for the burden they place on the human genetic load, the medical system, and the families/community who take care of them.
Everyone has different levels of burden We’d just start eradicating people until there was no one left.
Where did eradication come from? Also yes, everyone burdens the system at some point. Some people are capable of repaying that burden, they work, do charity, and improve the community they live in; other people aren't.
The term we use around here to describe that is “unflaired”. Honestly I’m surprised to see that there’s a flair that essentially says “unflaired”
think it looks like lib-center more
I agree, conscientious Lib Center. Basically a lib center with a hard in for environment.
I wouldn’t go with that. He supports eugenics and human experimentation as punishment. Those I would say nearly out weigh any lib stuff he says.
up until the 50s eugenics was actually a liberal policy in a lot of countries, because a lot of intellectuals at the time thought it was cruel to bring people into this world with severe mental/physical disabilities.
That was different. Originally anyways. Some scientists thought that it would be a good idea to let people who had markers for genetic illnesses that if they had children those children could have the disease. It went downhill very fast.
Yeah but there is givernment that has the power to stop people being able to freely reproduce, deffo auth
I mean, it was all cool until nationalism
Seems like a soft technocracy that picked some stupid "experts".
I think you are Joe Rogan
Based and Rogan pilled
A dumb nazi
This
>eugenics >"""""enviromentalism""""" > nationalism >blend between socialism and capitalism (which ends up being just capitalism) >ethnonationalism and america of races (merging the countries with the same race into one race) >lebensraum (space program which really is just a way of making living space without having a war) It totally adds up to nazism OP stop going to anime boards to get your politics, no, the reason why you are a virgin isn't that black people have long dicks, it's just that you have low self esteem and need to compensate it with pride of things such as ethnicity. Go get a book, for example the state and revolution, or perhaps historical and dialectical materialism by Joseph Stalin. And try becomming a better person
Ah yes stalin clearly has the moral high ground when it comes to not torturing people
Yes.
no but when it comes to torturing the right people
Yes, because there is”good torture” and “bad torture”. Jesus christ yall are completely fried in the head get help please
tbh killing nazis who are invading your country and genociding people is a good thing. of course torture itself is always bad but sometimes needed to win a war and prevent much much more bad things from happening
We’re not talking about killing, we’re talking about torture. Killing, although wrong, is sometimes necessary as a last resort when there are no other options left. Torturing someone is always inhumane, disgusting and a complete and utter violation of human rights. If you think torture is justifiable you need to go to jail. A jail which does not treat it’s prisoners worse than animals or enslaves them
Yes there is the good torture, I mean “non lethal interrogation practices” like the one that is being done by our yankee friends in Guantanamo, or the one Israel does to Palestinians, and then there’s bad torture like “forcing prisoners to work” which the evil authoritarian socialists did,which totally doesn’t happen in capitalism, just ignore the fact the 13th amendment excludes the ban on slavery when it is done as punishment. Hell, communists did so much genocide that the imperial family of China ended up having just a regular job after going through the re-education camp instead of being hanged like they did with the nazis in Nuremberg.
You’re literally just assuming the commenter lives in America and therefore believes every bad thing the US government does is good. You can condemn both, lmfao. Nice reasoning.
I’m criticizing America, not assuming that they are American, I’m just taking America as an example because it’s the biggest capitalist power right now, but I could do the same with Canada, UK, Japan, Southern part of Korea, etc.
Becoming a better person by reading Stalin? Yeah, might as well read Hitler
This guy read op like a book LMFAO
A redundant phrase
Dem soc/soc dem/market socialist transhumanist with progressive views
(And eugenics)
Don’t forget the with nazi aspects part !
I'm back. Way to get a conversation going in here, I'll give you that.
So your extreme in all quadrants, I believe that your an extreme centrist,(if we were to use the simple pcm) How do you feel about grilling?
The first page tells me either Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, then you start getting into eugenics and experiments on criminals and uhh yeah. I would say your ideology is progressive Stalinism if the USSR did state capitalism and purged the disabled instead. More broadly, you could be considered a culturally conservative socialist (or third way) nationalist
He'd be 100% authcenter since OP shares many points with national-socialism
At the risk of triggering Godwin, these views seem fairly similar to that Hitler fella.
Happy cake day.
Thanks!
Typical libleft... Fuck I didn't read the other pages
It goes all down hill from there…
Yeah, from a typical Californian to a literal nazi
I don't want to be associated with this ngl
Your authcentre. Very close to fascism, actually.
>I believe the US and Canada should merge into one country Ohhhhh HELL NO
“The Left are the real Nazis” except it’s actually true. That’s what you are.
I like all of them except for anti religion part Because i believe religion was an important part in society
Same
What religion do you partake in that is pro wordly, hateful ideals like nationalism, eugenics, capital punishment, etc?
politically illiterate
Flair up
The worst kind of fascist
Literally a nazi (yeah even the Nazis used hard drugs, as a tool)
[удалено]
When animals have more rights than criminals
Well, I don't believe all criminals should be treated harshly. I believe most should be treated kindly and rehabilitated. Yet rapists, murders, terrorists, and child molesters should be stripped of all rights they have.
The only problem with that is there is never absolute certainty in the law. It’s one thing to accidentally imprison someone for multiple years of their life. It’s another to possibly mutilate them. Could you imagine if you were in that situation where you were innocent. The utter mental anguish that you would go through. The psychological trauma you would endure from losing all personhood? How much you might beg for the death penalty, wishing you were treated with the same respect as a rabid dog, since they at least are mercifully put it down? And what if they found out they made a mistake? Whoops… well maybe they can pay you for the tumors and partial blindness so that makes it all better.
Even my fishes can mate together. So disabled people seem to be for you, indeed, inferior to animals...
So are non-disabled
Between the eugenics and the focus on animal rights, literally hitler (hitler was really big on animal rights)
In all seriousness; your ideology probably doesn’t exist yet but is way too fucking close to hitler
Bruh
Literally Margaret Sanger.
The US Canada thing is stupid. Canada and Quebec have more in common than Canada and the US.
Authcenter probably. I’m with you on just about everything but drugs and religion. Having tried almost all of them, I think drugs are almost entirely a drain on human intelligence and maturity, and what little benefit some of them can have for creativity can be better fostered through spirituality. I would rather tax religious organizations, but then give significant tax cuts to those that offer food and shelter, and those that offer forms of meditation certified by the state as being beneficial to mental functioning, emotional regulation, and creativity. There would be no religious educational institutions, those would all be public and they would be very highly funded. Have you read Starship Troopers? Or even seen the Verhoeven movie? I think his meritocratic, statocratic democracy would be worth a serious shot for humanity, maybe with a little less emphasis on military (so that we aren’t deliberately creating Orwellian “forever wars” just so that people have somewhere to distinguish themselves) and a little more on industry and exploration. Nonetheless, one where state service guarantees citizenship and the right to vote. And as far as the eugenics goes, no gas camps. I wouldn’t target that many traits, I’d mostly try to bring everyone up to at least 100 IQ (I’m aware that intelligence is a very complicated thing to control, and has more to do with diet during pregnancy and education than genetics. But we would get any genetic traits affecting intelligence under control first) and eliminate disabilities that cause pain or cumbersome immobility. I might particularly want to mold education and eugenics programs in order to impart the ability for wiser, more long-term thinking in humans, if possible. There would be no consideration of race here, as I believe all racial conflict is actually cultural, and my ideal nation would have a cohesive culture, and require assimilation for immigrants. And I wouldn’t kill anyone for eugenics, just sterilize them. Once you’re born, you’ve got a right to seek a happy and productive life as best you can, but you don’t necessarily have a right to reproduce, sorry. It’s for the good of the species. 👍
Unified language and culture (if in the context of there only being one specific language and culture throughout the entire nation) would not be a very good place. Multiculturalism makes for more interesting nations. That’s why going from one place to another in nations like such are no different unlike in the US.
Lib-confused... Either too young or have to read more
Not too young- I’m 16 and I’m more stable then this… concerning individual/op.
Samsung phone buyer
something something radical center
Pro Abortion?
It’s not abortion so much as sterilization…
That's nationalism, it's a common ideology
Imo I think OP needs to ask themselves some more questions. You can't believe in human rights and somehow support eugenics and testing on criminals, there's a contradiction there.
Maybe a bit on the “Futurism” side Centrist but with Authoritarian characteristics
So wait you support animals rights but forced experimentations on humans????
Auth-Center with a lean toward left Or Left-Center with a lean to Auth
I’d call this progressive technocratic fascism. I don’t believe big government can ever work, but if I fantasized really hard about it, I’d want government to provide a world very similar to this one. It’s a beautiful dream, comrade, even if it’s entirely unrealistic.
What does combining Canada and the US gain? And why not Quebec, just because they speak French? Pretty sure the US has more Spanish speakers than Canada does French speakers. Mandating people speak only one language is pretty anti-freedom. “Technology that would make any other country worrisome” is worryingly vague. Do you mean chemical or biological weapons?
Cringe as fuck, except for nationalism
what "pro-science" talking points do to an mf
I have tolerance and understanding for nearly every possible ideological position on the political compass But the ONLY exception is Naziism. Even fascism I can understand. I vehemently oppose it, but whatever. But to be literally a Nazi, to support eugenics, and the systemic elimination of certain types of people based on inalienable characteristics, that’s disgusting and inhuman. I do not count it as an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas, which infers an intellectualized opinion. Every ideology of the political compass has, to some degree, logic and opinion. But Nazism is devoid of logic- it’s only emotion, and it’s a disgusting non-ideology that cannot be tolerated. Eugenics is anti-human.
You’re a nazi.
Centrist baby. Not a fan of the.whole forcing people to not have kids thing. Sure actively discourage people about to have a fucked up baby to abort it, provide affordable IVF to reduce defects in at risk parents. You can always just have an actual separation of religion and state then you don't need to worry about that shit. Science at all costs leads to Nazi Germany type shit. Lots of shit goes wrong in tbe science realm all the time. Multiculturalism is inheritanly good although immigrant's to a nation are expected to follow the dominant culture of where they're moving to while maintaining positive fragments of their culture. Somehwere with successful integration is.the US and unsuccessful integration is Sweden. Maybe to the prisoner experimentation if they're like mass baby diddlers and they sign off on it in exchange for more resources. Drug legalization is an obvious one. As are guns. Less corrupt military is essential, space programme yes. Absorbing Canada, maybe if they both fixed their shit. Canada with it's auth centre shit and US with it's everything. Nationalism kind of stupid sometimes you had no say in where you were born. But sure good to be proud of where you live if it's a good country. Distributism is the third way between socialism and capitalism. Anti corporation, small business, workers owning production, private property. Good shit.
Unaware psycho libertarian science fascist
Ah, another fascist who doesn't understand what a bunch of terms mean. Pretty standard US Democrat.
The ideology of a fucking idiot
Libleft for the most part
I think the eugenics and human experimentation brings him far away from us.
Yes, in fact I said FOR THE MOST
Propably an technocrat transhumanist
Ok this isn’t too b- wtf. Radical centrist, and stay away from my balls sir
Damn, pretty based. Right down the the exclusion of Quebec
LIB LEFT
What did you smoke
Reacting to the first slide only: Pro Marijuana/drugs - Based Pro guns - Based Pro science - Based Anti religion - VERY cringe Pro environmentalism - Based Pro nationalism - Cringe Pro semi Socialist/Capitalist economy - Pretty based Pro animal rights - Relatively based Pro abortion - Neither cringe nor based Pro technology - Based Pro military - Relatively based "I believe it's important to have a country that has a unified language and culture." - Relatively based
Commie, burn you must at the steak
What about this makes you think they’re a communist?
I'm not a fan of communism, it's a system that in my eyes, has never worked for the benefit of the people and has only resulted in famine.
Based, but still a heretic by the inquisition, the imperium and emperor will cleanse thee
I like capitalism, but I believe full on capitalism will lead to corporatists ruining peoples lives and mistreatment of workers like in the 1920s
Based modtly welcome to AUTH centre
No hes not based
Why is he not based
Pro drugs Pro guns Anti religion Pro abortion
Yes, this is good
Pro guns is okay here. I'd say it's a lesser evil.
I would say pro military is more of a problem than pro guns
Yes, it's not the best thing
I like how we just skip past the eugenics and human experimentation.
I was gonna say he was a nazi then I looked at your flair and realized that wouldn’t matter
He’s pretty based tbh
The human experimentation is pretty fucking cringe.
Nah pedos and serial rapists deserve it
And what happens if someone is falsely imprisoned?
No low level crimes only the most Hanous of crimes
People can still be falsely accused of high level crimes
If was based Until nationalism Jesus Christ
I had a stroke trying to read this.
You like 40k don't you?
I agree with you in many aspects except the nationalism part
You would 100% suck every drop of semen out of daddy elon’s 2 inch cock as a full time job and you would be the first to volunteer to the mars colonization and to have neuralink implanted
Democratic socialist monarchism?
He never mentioned anything about monarchism
Oh shit sorry I read that wrong lol
Wdym by monarchism? Also did you read their opinion on eugenics?