Some of us are simply europeans.

Lefty Lemmy righty reddit

I believe all life have value, no matter what.

I believe in justice and equality.

I believe in the rule if law.

I believe in democracy.

I believe in the freedom of speech.

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe no one should go hungry.

I believe no one should freeze.

I believe no one should die from preventable diseases.

I believe everyone has a right to education.

I believe everyone has a right to healthcare.

I believe everyone has a right to participate in society and the internet.

I believe everyone should contribute if they can, because that is fair.

I believe people should be able to retire.

I believe most people are good, and want to do good.

I believe in cooperation, and working towards a common goal.

I believe that all people should have a minimum set of rights, that are non-negotiable.

I trust my neighbours, my family and strangers.

Based on these values I could be placed anywhere from center-right to far-left in Europe.

In the US I am a filthy commie

Most people are progressives.

The only disconnect is messaging and image.

Yes, this site is very left-leaning. I have seem plenty of moderate opinions downvoted because they are centrist or centre-right, and the anti-Trump, anti-Elon and anti-USA sentiment is deservedly heavy right now.

Keep that in mind when reading comments, this place is a bit of an echo chamber at the moment.

I’m Independent, but cannot support Republicans anymore … so I guess I’m a Democrat that hates gun control.

For sure, left wing are most of what I see here, except for trolls and bots

If I needed a label, probably Progressive. I liked Biden’s platform and agreed we needed to try a centrist like him to see if it was possible to start working together again. I also believed he did at least as well as anyone could, and if his legacy hadn’t been torn to bits by turnip would have positioned the US well for decades to come. He could have shifted that Overton window, sowed the seeds that a more Progressive candidate could reap.

But if I try to articulate a common theme for my current beliefs, it is to invest in the future. I’m a strong believer in a good education for all as the foundation of our future. I’m inspired by the possibilities of science and technology. We need people to have the opportunity to strive, improve, and to dare, knowing we will catch them if they fall

Earlier in life I thought I was much more Conservative but the twisted thing is I now say the same things from a very different perspective.

• I’m a strong believer in family values: every family member deserves equal respect and human rights, every new parent deserves quality time with a new child without regard for work, every child deserves the best healthcare without regard for their parents income, every child deserves a top notch education and the resources to succeed at it, every elderly or disabled person deserves to have their needs met and continue a decent life.
• I believe in innovation and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. A solid education for all allows each person the opportunity to achieve their potential. A comprehensive safety net lets each person reach for the stars without fear, lets them dare to fail without perishing, allows them to learn from a failure and try again.
• I believe in self-sufficiency and independence. Every person deserves a basic income to survive without burdening anyone else. Every person needs healthcare sufficient to recover without losing their independence, their savings, or their loved ones. People who choose city life should be able to walk out their door with only what they carry, and get anywhere. Comprehensive well maintained infrastructure is the ultimate independence
• I believe in fiscal responsibility. Every investment to look toward the future, build a better society, a better environment, a better humanity
• I believe in capitalism. Competition is enabled by a legal framework facilitating fairness, equal opportunity, transparency. Capitalism maximizes potential in a free market regulated by politics for the long term benefit of the voter/consumer

When asked, I usually tell people that I vote Dem because it’s as close to my anarchist ideals as I can get. I would consider myself a social-anarchist, in that I feel laws shouldn’t be written around societal structures and ideals. Society and culture changes, and I shouldn’t be punished because some dude generations ago decided that something was inappropriate back then. It isn’t now, and shouldn’t be codified that way,

Progressive who’s been here for a bit. The fediverse has definitely swung more left-wing recently - when I first started up two years ago there was a fair amount of conservative bs, libertarian tech-bros and russian bots - it was about a 50/50 split depending on what instance you were on.

The bot problem seems to have been largely dealt with now, and conservative voices have been more or less drowned out by the new influx of users fleeing twitter and Reddit crackdowns. Many are agreeing that the current administration is bad for everyone. There are a number of hard auth-left moral purity testers that kind of a pain in the ass that pop up from time to time.

My priorities in politics is:

1. Don’t wreck the economy.
2. Uphold the rule of law.

In my country that makes me right leaning. In the US with the current president that apparently makes me a leftist.

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

• Frank Wilhoit

Yes. Signing up is not easy. Most people here can understand written instructions and have some basic technical knowledge. People who are not stupid tend to lean left.

By LEFT do you infer compassion, empathy, and class solidarity? In contrast, by RIGHT do you infer me-first, only my rights matter and only those in my clan deserve to be cared about?

Then, yes.

Most people everywhere are slightly left of centre*. Most leaders everywhere are slightly right of centre*.

*Not in the American sense. Y’all crazy.

It does seem that way from what I’ve seen. What am I? I’m the guy whose got it figured out. Always vote for the worst candidate. Its reverse psychology and works like a charm