^

I'm starting to entertain the notion that maybe true neutral isn't really something someone *needs* to strive for and it's more of an emphasis on actually being able to listen and understand other people's opinions. ..I say this as someone that's usually center/center on most days.

Drifts based on mood, you know how it is.

Though having solid facts would help a ton.

For example, I still have a problem differentiating socialism and communism because there doesn't seem to be a solid definition anymore.

Soviet russia was communist. Venuzuela is socialist. I'm not seeing much of a difference in how they're functioning or acting right now.

Makes it really hard to accept 'socialist' ideas.

Which, in all honesty, pushes me even further away from the idea of socialism.

`pls no`

Hear hear.

From what I've heard, the only time "true communism" works is when it's a very small, tight knit community wherein everyone *trusts* one another.

Moment the trust is gone and there's uncertainty things go out the window. This is ignoring human nature as well but, yeah.

Honestly? No. I've yet to see a community where it really goes that deep and nobody has to worry about trust issues. At least, if we're talking more than a handful of people at best.

@wacka I've also been considering that the old standards of "left vs right" really are just that. Old and antiquated.

Might need a new system to properly define things.

I haven't heard too many people talking about it. Just using the terms "the left" and "the right" to explain the systems we have in place.

For me it's been "libertarian/authoritarian" "globalist/..nationalist"?

Forgot which word I've been using as the opposite of globalist, it's been a while.

I've been on both sides of the whole welfare thing. And lemme tell you. It's not pretty.

Technically I'm still on one side of it but yeah.

@>Cytos, de lieve goede synth How do you define that by the way? Is it how they define themselves or how they act?

Nonsense, just give everyone $0.50 in bread. It'll be fine, right?

Yeah that's kind of the issue I guess.

Part of the reason I was pushed to care too damn much about politics and this entire debate is because of what I've lived with for the past few years.

They're self-proclaimed "moderate, progressive liberals."

`In actuality they're some of the most disgustingly racist people I've ever come in contact with.`

But they don't exist either, because everywhere you go everyone blames the modern "shitlib" mentality on middle-class white people and this is a severely low/fixed income black household. :v

God I wish I could make them do that.

https://a.uguu.se/4maVn1sDKWhF_chrome_2018-05-03_14-05-01.png

Referring to this?

https://a.uguu.se/bZ8ZxjADWaFO_firefox_2018-05-03_14-11-47.png

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/02/macron-calls-australian-leaders-wife-delicious-and-demonstrates-the-perils-of-diplomacy-in-a-foreign-language/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2c2247a6a6c7

So basically, a huge non-issue.

I mean we could test that, but considering you're Australian there's a high chance getting anywhere near you would result in us dying.

`Just order pork at an aussie restaurant. Same effect, far more convenient.`

https://a.uguu.se/VaCYbVmXGcJ2_firefox_2018-05-03_14-15-20.png

Maybe it'd help if everyone stopped assuming whenever someone says something that isn't perfectly calculated and triple checked with the backing of a huge panel that it wasn't automatically meant to be offensive?

~~cunt~~

Quick search is showing the court case hasn't happened yet.

But based on being forced to listen to the MSM, he's not really in the news right now.

Just a bunch of moral grandstanding.

..Wasn't that someone else?

Some comedian.

Except he was rejected after asking.

Right, him.

I don't think he actually did anything wrong in that case.

I mean, he *did* ask.

@wacka I grew up in a part of the country where it was totally normalised to think of "the right" as a thing that doesn't exist except in backwards, incredibly low intelligence places where everyone has a thick accent.

Nobody was contrarian to this in the classroom and nobody really brought it up as a concept.

If that's all you're exposed to and there's no contrarian opinion or really anything, it's totally normal to think that if you've never been exposed to it.

I'm close enough to chicago where I'm impacted by all of their bullshit laws, if that tells you anything.

Yeah, from what I recall of my education, there wasn't any deep philosophical discussions or attempts at explaining anything relating to political parties or anything.

"This is the system. This is how the system works. Here's a very condensed, ultra-simplified version of American history."

So from what I remember it was less "the left cares about society and the right cares about the economy" and more "the left cares about society, the left also cares about the economy, and we're not going to say it outright but we can imply that because we, the left, are the good guys, then.. *they're* the bad guys."

It wasn't until I was in high school with a very unorthodox teacher (at times) that I was even introduced to the concept that it's not automatically a good thing that a) everyone thinks the same way or b) that everyone is on the left.

Also, coincidentally, my first experience with one of those political spectrum tests.

Of which, I, and pretty much everyone in the class ended up left/lib, roughly 2/3rds closer to the middle than the outer edge.

There's a reason why this conditioning is so damn difficult to break I imagine.

It's the same shit that happens to kids born into ultra religious families.

Hah.

It's honestly all a blur. The most I remember is that because of the string of constant moves I basically ended up relearning the exact same stuff over and over again in slightly greater detail each time.

I remember that they taught us that the cause of the civil war was primarily because of slavery and that abraham lincoln was the president ultimately involved in freeing them.

Though I don't recall them mentioning his political affiliation or anything.

Well, he was a republican.

Well that's just identity politics in a nutshell, right?

Alt right kinda started up *because* of identity politics of the left.

So if you define everything by identity, they were right. Whether or not that truly matters in the grand scheme of things is another thing entirely.

>conveniently forgetting it was a slave **trade**

`blyat`

`Just another non-issue.`

Don't give them ideas.

Don't people already do that?

Also the term itself is kind of.. hilarious.

Consider, I dunno. Jamaicans or something.

But then again.

"African american" is still considered politically correct so people'll continue to use it.

It's either that or "pee oh see" these days.

It really is.

Segregation is racist, unless we do it.

But it's to hold non-white people to a higher regard. So it's not racist. Clearly.

Racism is racism.

In either direction.

I haven't watched it but I watched an analysis of it breaking down how drunk the story is.

I can ignore bad effects. Story with plot holes the size of the moon, ehhhhh.

White people are more likely to develop osteoporosis, etc etc.

Though I've been listening to a lot of voices on the whole "racism" debate.

Including a black dude who says racism is "okay" as long as you aren't being a piece of shit with it.

To a degree.

In terms of.

Basically, at the end of the day. Everyone is at least a little bit racist. And that's honestly okay.

That's the message I got from the black guy I watched talking about this stuff.

Without it, you'd end up just being blind / stupid.

It's the same argument you can apply to everything.

I see.

I dunno. Crowder's a good guy / is entertaining. The quality of his reporting is.. mixed.

I still remember that one debate he had with the pro-socialist college kid a while back. That went so well I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest of the video.

He's biased but it's okay. He's *trying* to be honest at the very least.

Everyone's biased, Tim's less so than crowder.

By a fair margin.

Really though.