fuck mexicans

only humans thats it

Yeah, which seems like a improvement

To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, the rights red line for extremism is when it vies for ethnic based policy and standards

Like screw it, everyone is american

everything happening reminds me of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Any Libertarian-leaning folks here?

I guess I count, though I try and avoid those kinds of labels. It would be a measured libertarianism.

Why?

🤗

Wait, do I have your consent to hug? lol

@Nicklii YES! I've been saying this since 2013.

It's even started in the schools too under the guidance of the 'superiors'

Virtually? I guess.

Cool. Thanks!

Can I ask what this is all about?

@i3utm liberalist here

classical?

Well, I think I agree with Locke on most things

I ask for curiosity. Not for debate.

But I think I am also in agreement with universal healthcare

And social security nets

So I guess social Liberal?

But that would mean agreeing with gun control

Thanks, @Deleted User

That's why I said Liberalist

The Sargon faction of liberalism

See, that's how I think it makes sense to do labels. If you're, say 70+% agreement with that one person say that person and any exceptions.

None of this bouncing around trying to nail the perfect split of labels.

Ive been labeled 'left libertarian' before

Im comfortable with that label.

Very few can agree with literally 100 percent of a label

30% can be a lot of things to disagree with though

I pick what describes me the most

I call myself liberalist and not social liberal or classical liberal for that reason

And another problem with labels is that you can find yourself subconsciously thinking what would my label do

ok, 30% whatever precent you find appropriate. You shouldn't ever agree 100% with someone.

But a public figure is always a pretty clear goalpost.

And I think it's implicitly where people put themselves when playing hte label game.

I'd say I agree about 88% on political issues with sargon

Substituting labels with names.

Sargon is quite eloquent

sargon is quite whiny too

The problem for me i guess specifically is that I don't totally line up all that well

I have the same issue.

If I play the "I think like game" the list is probably 15 people long. And it changes which 15 people that is.

If I have to say that I support someone it is better that i mention multiple people to show that I am somewhere in between these people

But would you have a well defined label?

I wouldn't say well defined

I'm guessing that if you don't have a clean couple people you likely don't have a clean label either.

other than centrist maybe

I don't.

or independent

Personally, I can't even claim "centrist" on some things. Not only do I not know where the center is, but I can be very extreme.

Like Free Speech.

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=51.2&d=41.0&g=43.8&s=54.2

free speech isn't a left/right issue

That's pretty close to what I have.

the far left and far right both oppose free speech, so free speech extremism is a pretty centrist position

It's been a long time since i did 8 values

Actually, now I think about it, probably not. I haven't taken 8 values in a while.

i did it like last week

But i think being very staunchly pro-free speech will be something that most of the people here agree on.

My saying is that it's not a line, it's not a plane and it's not a cube.

It's so high-dimensional you're better off not trying to visualize it at all. And distance and space is really weird in such high dimension too.

Yeah, that's probably the key binding value in this community and the couple other communities I think relate.

Well technically I guess the way this might work is that you look at many different values like in 8 values

And the values you feel more strongly for you might not need a label but if you lean that way greatly it surely kind of shows what you hold in high regard

That would make sense.

Indian News is the best news https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1019386461018210304?s=19

I know I should be disturbed, but that bit is rather common in Indian news lol

It's just better to say that you are for certain values and beliefs unless you are close enough to something to be able to distinguish that you are something minus a couple of issues

https://i.imgur.com/tKEzLyd.png

Here is what i got.

Just did it

(8 values)

this test had a lot more axis but felt a lot less accurate than 8v

Yeah, would fit being "left-libertarian"

Yup

socialist <:commie:463087263153258506>

Ya that Indian news bit is super fucked up

Those tests look way different.

I do'nt really trust these tests much. Alot of them always felt a bit like push polls to me.

With 8 values even that feels largely not super accurate because it asks questions where it really depends

I actually just did it.

The market stuff in particular struck me as really "all one way or the other"

Really, all the stuff struck me as really "all one way or another"

I answered 'neutral' on alot.

ya

Apparently I'm "neo-liberal" which is funny because if you asked for a label I'd never use "neo" or "liberal"

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=28.0&d=39.9&g=50.8&s=42.7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

I tried avoiding answering neutral. I think it tends to do weird things with weightings.

some good company though

I think 'neutral' here just splits it 50/50

Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan

I could go with that.

Hayek and Friedman are on my '15 people' list.

Neo liberal is cancer man

It's basically the free movement of people and jobs

Are you guys taking aboout politiscales?

As far as wikipedia defines it

lol. Using wikipedia for politics. That won't ever go wrong. //s

Lol

With neo liberalism, united fruit company happens

And you do not want united fruit company

English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,

^ This

Wikipedia is amazing

Wait I'll do 8values

Wiki is amazing. For stuff where you can't really go wrong (like chemistry)

I was centrist last time

@pratel Hey I had an idea

Imagine a news site

about two weeks old

Run like wikipedia

But if you are using wiki for stuff that gets people emotionally charged and you can gain from manipulating public opinion...

Where there's headlines and people can add to it with sources

Political issues, particularly current ones, get heavily brigaded.

I think what 8 values is using is what wikipedia would describe as far as neoliberalism

@Deleted User I can sorta see it. Continue?

I haven't seen much evidence of wikipedia being false and misleading to a significant degree

I'm not entirely sure what just adding sources to headlines would necesarily achieve besides being a big collection of links.

Nah, nah

You have to add to the story

And to prove what you are adding you can provide links

@ExceptionalFeather

Look up a current political figure and look for the words used. Look up some other opinions. You'll eventually find something.

Or even stuff that you yourself have found

Like video evidence

The Gamer Gate people here tend to have lots of complaints about Wikipedia. Evidently they got hit hard.

yea

literally anything that's false but can be supported by 'reliable' media will get on wikipedia no problem

@Deleted User

I can sorta see it, but I'm not sure I see how it is that different in principle from wikipedia if it's just general news.

It's also going to get brigaded hard.

If it was limited to something specific like misleading media narratives and had controls or something to keep from bleeding, I could see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

not finding any issues here

Something like that for a fact checking site might work

But not for articles i feel

It's usually subtle. Missing Scandals on some politicians. Who gets linked to whom. Inclusion of speculation without denoting it as speculation.

Then there's sometimes really blatant examples.

Still centrist baybee https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=45.7&d=42.6&g=57.3&s=60.1

https://archive.fo/YzkIS

versus

https://archive.fo/JJBgx

Around 2015 or so when people like Haidt and Peterson started pointing to certain marxist academics as the intellectual source of the recent social justice madness.

ah I see.. Shivangi is for half genocide

Yes

Lol centrist is either you have both left and right wing opinions or you don't know shit about politics

Though I don't like some of the questions

wow..they aren't even subtle about it @pratel

@ExceptionalFeather

See comment 5 above.

To elaborate a bit. The cultural Marxism as an intellectual source derives from some very specific names: Foucalt being a key figure (who is widely cited in the humanities). Separating speech that "liberates" from speech that "oppresses"

Why can't I find the page on wikipedia

Is it removed?

Mostly, it seems they moved it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

The basic structure follows the latter version.

Let me put it this way, how much of wikipedia would you say is reliable?

Most of the STEM stuff is pretty good

Historical events are pretty well documented

The politics section is a mess

The entertainment section is pretty good

Actually make that 85%

@ExceptionalFeather everything that is easily verified. Or where people wouldn't have clear agendas Like most of physics (the controversial stuff is mostly so high-level wikipedia isn't appropriate to start with)

Anything in Math is another good example.

Most of Geography up until you enter stuff like politics.

It's when you move into stuff like politics or some businesses that things get more sketchy.

On politics would an encyclopedia be better?

Yeah tbh

Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer.

Wiki killed most of the good encyclopedias I know of.

Or made them subscription.

Oooh imagine this

An encyclopedia website about political figures and ideologies

There will be a political compass with a movable dot on the homepage

And you can move it to wherever and read about the history of where you lean and stuff

It'll be so cool

I could try making it but I don't know where to get objective info and I'm not very good at writing

So this would be curated and written by a couple writers?

Yeah

And people can suggest edits which the writers can review

Traditionally, encyclopedias were made by looking for underpaid university faculty and paying them to write the article.

But those guys won't be objective

Like, they'll describe communism "A movement for the liberation of workers"

The editors are (in theory) supposed to look for people who would be objective or well positioned to talk about things from a sufficiently sophisticated viewpoint.

You know what I would love

I would love to get a bunch of quora writers

Matthew Bates, John Cate

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/#dbe43527d4ab

Habib Fanny, Jon Davis

They tend to be very objective

And represent both sides as honestly as possible

I'd say Ernest Adams but he's a cuck

The number of revisions required to start showing this effect, however, is quite large—at least 2,000 edits—and the articles most read by users aren't necessarily those most revised by editors. "To some extent, we are not seeing the scenario where too many cooks spoil the broth, we are mostly seeing an insufficient number of cooks," says Zhu.

If Wikipedia would like to improve its objectivity, Zhu recommends that it encourage editors to revise the most-read stories first, as well as encouraging people with different political leanings to edit the same article.

If you want, find anything that asks questions about trump

You will find people who will try to be objective

Maybe I should try it, huh

It'll look good on a resume!

And maybe ask for donations hehehe

Eh they will just someone who will do it for free

The benefit of Quora is that if theres a good answer, it will stay there.

What no

I mean donations from readers

Like wikipedia

Problem is, the people who are on those sites are people with nothing better do to

Make any change to any political article, and it will be reverted no matter how many sources you put on

Its most obvious on the MeToo and Gamergate wiki articles.

But this won't have metoo or stuff like thag

Itll be pure politics

Thats why I said Quora has that benefit

Certainly sounds interesting

Maybe even revolutions

You cant edit answers

You can

Other peoples answers

That's what I said man

@ExceptionalFeather Interesting. I've heard rumors though that Wikipedia created an editor hierarchy to control quality on the site (so we don't get long screeds on "arm cannons in Metroid")

I've then been told that the editors have been playing purge games with each other and then using their moderation powers to be picky and choosey with edits.

The readers can suggest edits

And if an admin wants, he can allow it

It'll be so cool

An admin can make edits to the answer of another person?

Considering what I've seen on Reddit and some documents I've read of influence campaigns, I'd believe the rumors.

More like block it as I understand.

@GingaBomber I was talking about my website

I was talking about quora sorry

The big issue with anything at politics is that there's a natural desire to corrupt it.

You can suggest edits

Or for it to become an echo chamber.

And the writer of the answer can approve it

If you can solve those problems, you could probably solve much bigger problems than a website TBH.

I say I regularly recycle the writers

Give them limited control

And screen them

@Deleted User That actually sounds interesting. The writers act as editors.

Maybe yearly, maybe monthly

The only concern I have then would be maintaining quality (you'd almost certainly have to pay quite a bit in practice. Maybe make a part-time staff)

Yea....

I could start working on it

I can't get money cos India

It'll take years probably

@pratel I am not saying that Wikipedia is perfect or doesn't have controversy, there might be truth to those things but I can't take I've been told at face value if I am honest though, but I will consider those things. I just mostly go based off of what I can get out of wikipedia, and I feel that I come out of wikipedia better informed, and provided with links to similar topics that I had not considered.

But I'll work on it

You're basically trying to solve the issue of corruption

That isnt a easy problem to solve

It's easy if it's a dictatorship

And very few people have control

Only if the dictator has pure motivations and has the patience to keep a eye on things constantly.

This is... rare.

Would be good to find an artist interested in making a concept mock up to see if an end product would be something worth pursuing

Hey....The dictator is me!

I'm nice

One possible first step is to stick to abstracts.

I think

Being nice isnt the problem :p

philosophies and stuff. It tends to attract slightly less passion than current events.

Ye

or also doing things barebones having just the main goals ready to see if it practically is as good produced as concepted

I mean, you can only trust yourself to do what you consider right

I'll think about it

It's a good idea. But nothing is perfect

Indeed.