9 ms·

>I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and ed

by gph 10y ago

>I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and education). Request denied. Join a side and conform any of your conflicting ideals with theirs. Too much effort letting people decide each issue for themselves. Edit: /s [sorry I forgot to put that, I know sarcasm can be confusing on the internet]

lettergram 10y ago
I believe this was in jest lol Im just super liberal. I think you should be able to do what ever you want as long as you don't hurt (or overly annoy) others. The thing is, almost everyone I talk to agrees with me. I don't understand the current political system at all...
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > I don't understand the current political system at all because you're trying to view it through the lens of "rational, beneficial policies that are supported by a democratic majority" whereas our current system is "niche issues of low utility but high tribal divisiveness used to distract the democratic majority while we secretly empower monopolist corporations"
  - InitialLastName 10y ago
    I don't know about you, but I don't see anything "secret" about the current power of monopolist corporations.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      it's not a secret that they're doing it. that much is quite obvious. it's secret not in the sense of "well concealed" but in the sense of "unaccountable".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > almost everyone I talk to agrees with me If everyone you talk to agrees with your particular political ideology which doesn't match well with either of the major parties, then you have an extraordinarily strong and narrow filter bubble, which you'll need to get out of if you want to achieve any of the goals of that ideology.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others". Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
    - kennywinker 10y ago
      > Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
- larrywright 10y ago
  You just described Libertarianism.
  - Helmet 10y ago
    Well, sort of. Libertarianism is often (incorrectly) described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". But libertarianism isn't easily defined on the Left/Right spectrum. Two people can hold completely different views on virtually any issue and both could hypothetically fall under the libertarian umbrella.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      Exactly, libertarians can be either left or right, they're simply anti-authoritarian.
      - Retra 10y ago
        It's obviously not that simple. Laws are authoritarian by design.
    - d6e 10y ago
      Like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Po...

by gph 10y ago

lettergram 10y ago

I believe this was in jest lol Im just super liberal. I think you should be able to do what ever you want as long as you don't hurt (or overly annoy) others. The thing is, almost everyone I talk to agrees with me. I don't understand the current political system at all...

metaphorm 10y ago
> I don't understand the current political system at all because you're trying to view it through the lens of "rational, beneficial policies that are supported by a democratic majority" whereas our current system is "niche issues of low utility but high tribal divisiveness used to distract the democratic majority while we secretly empower monopolist corporations"
- InitialLastName 10y ago
  I don't know about you, but I don't see anything "secret" about the current power of monopolist corporations.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    it's not a secret that they're doing it. that much is quite obvious. it's secret not in the sense of "well concealed" but in the sense of "unaccountable".
dragonwriter 10y ago
> almost everyone I talk to agrees with me If everyone you talk to agrees with your particular political ideology which doesn't match well with either of the major parties, then you have an extraordinarily strong and narrow filter bubble, which you'll need to get out of if you want to achieve any of the goals of that ideology.
kennywinker 10y ago
Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others". Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.
- lettergram 10y ago
  Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
  - kennywinker 10y ago
    > Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
larrywright 10y ago
You just described Libertarianism.
- Helmet 10y ago
  Well, sort of. Libertarianism is often (incorrectly) described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". But libertarianism isn't easily defined on the Left/Right spectrum. Two people can hold completely different views on virtually any issue and both could hypothetically fall under the libertarian umbrella.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Exactly, libertarians can be either left or right, they're simply anti-authoritarian.
    - Retra 10y ago
      It's obviously not that simple. Laws are authoritarian by design.
  - d6e 10y ago
    Like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Po...