Fair. It was just weird getting a reply on a 4 month old post on an instance that’s banned me multiple times over

Do tell what profile stalking got you here

Lmao based Afghanistan

Go somewhere else with your incessant spam

Funny, given that the left overwhelmingly wants the government to take more of my money, and take more control over private enterprise.

Was this comment an experiment in optimizing the buzzword to character count ratio?

Considering the left seems to want the government involved in just about fucking everything, yes

Just saying the name of a fallacy doesn’t make your moronic comment any less retarded

Care to shoot me a dm with your address then?

You could freeze the entire universe, measure the state of every last particle, and you still wouldn’t be presented with the answer to a moral question because morality is fundamentally something people made up, but don’t collectively agree on. From a truly objective point of view, there is no actual difference between genocide and ending world hunger except the amount of people.

Walmart isn’t sending men with guns if I don’t shop at their store.

However, the tax increases liberals push for are heavily weighted towards corporations and the super-rich; working and middle class people are largely unaffected by them.

The rich are still people, and I believe they share the same rights as everyone else. They aren’t just some free money glitch to bankroll a bunch of shitty government programs. I don’t care how much you make, you’re equally entitled to that money as everyone else and shouldn’t be punished for success.

The classic divide about government regulations is that liberals want more of them and conservatives want less, but the regulations themselves are almost always very specific, policy-relevant things that aren’t the same as one sector of society forcing their cultural values on another

How so? You can’t just claim that everything you support doing is specific and policy-relevant while everything you don’t isn’t. Why aren’t environmental regulations you forcing your environmentalist values onto others? Why aren’t the massive regulations around employment forcing your values onto others? Because clearly not everyone shares the same values, else there’d be no percieved need for government involvement in the first place.

The tug of war over regulations is about the freedoms of the private sector vs. the interests of the public. We all agree there should be a balance, just like we all agree taxes are necessary; the only debate is about what that balance should be.

Which is, fundamentally, a matter of forcing values onto everyone who has a different stance on this topic.

I’m not sure what your point is here, so maybe I do regard it as a bit pedantic?

My point is that there’s nothing wrong with authoritarianism when it generates the right results, and that I see no reason to prioritize democracy when it repeatedly fails to achieve anything desirable. Why should I place democracy, which is fundamentally a value-neutral system, over actually ever achieving anything?

He is mentally disordered in a very extreme and dangerous way, and it’s frankly irresponsible to put him in power over others

Given 4 years of him as president, surely you can point to examples beyond just “he made policy decisions I don’t like”, no? If you want to argue that something is evil, you’re going to actually have to point out how it is evil, because I don’t accept it as a deontological wrong. I consider politics to be a game of results. I’m perfectly fine with whatever actually ends up generating desirable results, regardless of whether someone is going to cry eViL at the end.

I agree that just shouting generalities back and forth doesn’t accomplish anything, but I find that moving to more specific things doesn’t help in that kind of conversation anyway, just changes the scope. Rather, I find that discussing the values behind the concern and the effects of the generality to be a better use of time since it doesn’t just fall into nitpicking an example. I find that this thread describes it best. Any specific examples often end up being somewhat trivial and arbitrary, when the real concern is with an overall trend

I feel like academia is naturally pretty left-wing, and the military is naturally pretty right-wing, and neither of those is (in my opinion) something anyone has to “fix.”

I agree that the slant doesn’t need to be “fixed” per se. My issue is largely that the slant is often either entirely ignored when it might call an academic work into question, or used as some stupid “hurr durr right wing hates being smart” type talking point.

they just repeat the general viewpoint. I’m asking you specific questions about e.g. who are some academics who exemplify who you’re talking about, so I can get my head around what you’re trying to say as a specific thing that can be tested factually, as opposed to just a generality.

Not the guy you asked, but at least to me, the generality is the issue. It isn’t an issue that liberal academics exist such that any single person is worth a call-out, but rather that the academic system as a whole is significantly slanted.

I went through college recently, and between the two universities I was at, both were overwhelmingly liberal (politically speaking) when it came to university policy, and my teachers overwhelmingly expressed liberal political views, and I general, this is backed up by the data. The specific universities I’ve attended is something I’d rather not divulge here for privacy reasons, but I don’t consider it particularly important to the issue since it extends beyond my own observations.

The problem I have with this is that liberal policies don’t actually enforce their ways of life on conservatives

Gun control, higher taxes, and more regulations are all things I see liberals pretty universally pushing for. Those are all enforced onto people whether they like it or not.

But I would think most people are able to wrap their minds around the idea of civil disagreement and the importance of people being able to debate things and vote on them as a group (democracy)

I’m aware this is going to sound pedantic, but really the last “vore on them as a group” is really the only part of that absolutely required for democracy. The reason I bring it up is because most people, regardless of political views, tend to believe some set of values should be protected beyond democratic reach. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase “democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner”? The idea being that not all results achieved democratically are desirable or acceptable outcomes to all parties involved. For a more real world example (as neither wolves nor lambs participate in a democratic society or hang out together), would you consider a vote that codified race-based slavery to be an acceptable result of democracy?

I bring this up because it’s entirely feasible to have civil discussion and debate over things, even if one or both parties is still going to put their foot down and say they wouldn’t accept a democratic vote to the contrary.

Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear? Clearly, liberals vote for politicians who have flaws and simply parrot their views, but Trump is beyond the pale, is he not?

That’s just politics? I’m not voting based on who I think is the chillest bro I’d love to invite for dinner. The specific person matters very little to me as a whole, given our current political system. Rather, I care what policy they will enact (or block) while in office, how the government is leaning in terms of party makeup, and general election strategy.

I lean more libertarian, though I disagree on some things, but in general my beliefs line up with what people would typically categorize as “conservative” in a modern, American political context.

Is it wrong for me to want to impose my will onto others and make them not rape kids?

OK and?

Not exactly like trump is a great person to trust, but tbf, friends and family can be stupid as hell

It can realistically be anti-any ideological position