Your Political Ideology

[Pepperm1nts]

That's a tricky subject. In the US, things like that are allowed. Neo-Nazis can march just about everywhere, for example. All in the name of Freedom of Speech. It sucks, but that's how it is here. Meanwhile, in the UK, you can get in trouble for saying something racist in public (I think). I think that's wrong. I don't know, I just feel there is something wrong with getting people into trouble with the law simply because they said something racist. I don't like racism, but.. I don't know. I just don't feel it's right. And, at the same time, I don't feel it's right to allow hate-groups the freedom to march down our capital or something (for obvious reasons). But then again, shutting people up based on their beliefs is also wrong.

It's really damn tricky.

[Rune_Alchemist]

You know, I don't normally do Off-topic/Spam or other stuff outside of the RP forums, but this one caught my interest. I'm no political or social guru though so please feel free to eat my opinions alive if I say something stupid.

Personally, I don't really have a political ideology, at least I don't think I do. I tend to be able to see both sides of arguments and can see why people think they would work or not work. Generally, I don't really think any form of government or political ideology is inherently bad. People would be the ones who messed up the government. Human nature is usually the factor that messes things up, and that's usually with anything. There's nothing we can really do about that because people, if given power, will always usually be selfish with that power. Its not an absolute rule, but if you want a true test of a mans character, give him power.

That said, I don't really keep up with politics and stuff that much. I honestly couldn't care less because I hate all politicians and our government is getting shittier by the second...

My little political ideology thing from that test, if anyone cares~


And now to the most recent question...

Pepperm1nts said
That's a tricky subject. In the US, things like that are allowed. Neo-Nazis can march just about everywhere, for example. All in the name of Freedom of Speech. It sucks, but that's how it is here. Meanwhile, in the UK, you can get in trouble for saying something racist in public (I think). I think that's wrong. I don't know, I just feel there is something wrong with getting people into trouble with the law simply because they said something racist. I don't like racism, but.. I don't know. I just don't feel it's right. And, at the same time, I don't feel it's right to allow hate-groups the freedom to march down our capital or something (for obvious reasons). But then again, shutting people up based on their beliefs is also wrong.It's really damn tricky.

I agree with some of what you said though, I don't think it is as tricky as you say it is. I think people need to stop being so sensitive when someone with a different belief says something to them. I don't like racism or homophobia myself, but punishing people just because of saying something racist that hurt someones feelings is wrong. At least I don't like it. If Nazi's want to march up and down the street, let them. As long as they don't start shooting people, why should we care? Sure it would offend people, but people are going to be offended no matter what you do. Should the government ban the wearing of a shirt simply because a small group of people find it offensive? People shouldn't be so sensitive, and shouldn't get so offended by people believing in something different from them.

On the other hand, I can see why people would want it to be illegal, or at least watched. Racism and Homophobia can make a lot of people upset or angry, which could lead to some pretty bad things if left unchecked. Hate crimes, to name one. People simply wish to try to make the public space a more, peaceful place without such unpleasantness. Will it stop racism and homophobia and such? No I don't think it would, people who are racist will be racist in private if they can't be in public. Personally, I believe that people who want this, want to sweep all the bad stuff under a rug and forget about it instead of facing it. Which, in my opinion is a bigger crime than allowing it.

[HeySeuss]

Vortex said This is a turn in conversation I know but bear with me. The Australian Government is seeking to allow racism and homophobia "legal" as it "infringes on the liberties of the Australian people". Like all things the current Australian Government says I disagree with, but honestly why should somebody in a minority have to put up with all the crap they receive from the white majority? Thoughts?

Pepperm1nts said
That's a tricky subject. In the US, things like that are allowed. Neo-Nazis can march just about everywhere, for example. All in the name of Freedom of Speech.

Speaking as a Jew, I'm fine with neo-nazis marching in this country. They make asses of themselves every time they do it. So long as law enforcement puts a boot to their necks every time they dare to break a law I do not worry about them.

Which they do, as of right now, in Murika.

I do not fear freedom of speech. I fear the loss of impartiality in its enforcement. That's why I am a huge supporter of the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations. I don't care if some addle-pated meth-addict skinhead hates my fucking existence so long as he has to obey the law and not act on those impulses.

So I do not see the problem with letting extremists rant. I have a problem with giving them slack under the law that is not afforded to anyone else. That happened in 1920's Italy, Weimar Germany and, currently, in Russia with certain paramilitary organizations (Blackshirts, brownshirts, orthodox groups) being given a form of sanction by the government that chooses not to go after these groups when they rough up certain groups and have defacto immunity in the process, despite the laws on the book.

This is where I start to worry about things going sideways -- when the government sponsors these things. Incidentally, that was what a lot of people found repugnant about the American South prior to the CRA -- the Klan operated as an unofficial branch of the local governments in a lot of cases, with people in elected political power also holding membership in the Klan and giving them cover from the consequences of their actions. Nowadays, the Klan has the same problems everyone else does -- if they attack someone, they get hauled in for it. That's good enough for me. I don't need them to go away, I just need them to be subject to the same laws that I have to obey.

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said
This is a turn in conversation I know but bear with me. The Australian Government is seeking to allow racism and homophobia "legal" as it "infringes on the liberties of the Australian people". Like all things the current Australian Government says I disagree with, but honestly why should somebody in a minority have to put up with all the crap they receive from the white majority? Thoughts?

I'm going to summarize my opinion on this by saying that my stance on this topic is the exact opposite of yours.

[Chapatrap]

Pepperm1nts said
Meanwhile, in the UK, you can get in trouble for saying something racist in public (I think).

Only if it incites violence. There are organisations like the British Nationalist Party that are racist and wish to put in anti-immigration and deportation but they're not technically inciting violence because they wish to rule Britain democratically and use government powers, not street fighters.

[genghismike]

Hm.

[genghismike]

Chapatrap said
If I had to quickly sum up all my beliefs: Racial equality, pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay marriage, pro-hunting, pro-religious freedom, pro-freedom of speech, a bit Euroskeptic, anti-political correctness, anti-privatisation, anti-handgun/automatic weaponry, anti-foreign intervention, anti-religious extremism, anti-corporation, anti-censorship/government surveillance, secular, atheist, undecided on immigration and pro-transgender.Basically, I think the government should be here to look after the people and nothing else.

So basically, freedom of everything except the ability to own weapons.

I'd have to say the same to all of this except the anti gun thing.

-edit-

Wait, and the welfare thing. To those who need it, not those who are just trying to live the easy life even though they can work.

[Vortex]

@The Nexerus Eh, considering your test results I'm not surprised.

Now I don't live in America so forgive me if I'm wrong but I think I have enough evidence to support my belief that America is still a very racist country and thanks to the dammed conservatives in power in Australia they constantly want to "reform" Australia into a Capo-facist American clone. I also come to realise that African Americans are the largest growing group in the us and with the addition of Obama one would think racism would be fading. Like I said before I find that to be wrong. My point being is if we allow racism to be legal then how long will it be before we are supporting (not the same as allowing as that will take longer) something like apartheid "as it makes everyone's life better" or something equally bad? 50,100 200 years? Yes I realise we will be all dead by then but I still think we should be deeply concerned about the future.

[genghismike]

Vortex said
Eh, considering your test results I'm not surprised.Now I don't live in America so forgive me if I'm wrong but I think I have enough evidence to support my belief that America is still a very racist country and thanks to the dammed conservatives in power in Australia they constantly want to "reform" Australia into a Capo-facist American clone. I also come to realise that African Americans are the largest growing group in the us and with the addition of Obama one would think racism would be fading. Like I said before I find that to be wrong. My point being is if we allow racism to be legal then how long will it be before we are supporting (not the same as allowing as that will take longer) something like apartheid "as it makes everyone's life better" or something equally bad? 50,100 200 years? Yes I realise we will be all dead by then but I still think we should be deeply concerned about the future.

Everyone has their own views. It's human nature. One cannot easily sway the minds of others, and it's kinda messed up to say someone can't be racist.

Being racist is fine. Verbally or physically assaulting another person over race is not. Should always be that line. Just cause a person doesn't like a particular race doesn't mean they have to go around dropping racial slurs towards other people. A little mutual respect goes a long way. A person doesn't have to like another to have that mutual respect.

[Wreck]

well this is interesting.



i thought i was more left-leaning.

[Vortex]

Whoa the first purple!

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said
Whoa the first purple!

I was expecting to be purple before I took I test. I suppose that I was blue as a consequence of my declining trust in the capability of the people to make the decisions that are best for them.

What I think about the 'legalization of racism' in Australia:

It's ludicrous that it was ever illegal in the first place. Before you told me that it's just now being made legal I was sceptical of whether it was ever illegal, and to be honest I still am now. The idea that a thought, especially one completely unexpressed, should be illegal (or even subject to law at all) is absurd. People are free to believe whatever they like, far and beyond racism. To press, I think that the expression of racism should also be legal. To answer Vortex's question on the last page, "Why should somebody in a minority have to put up with all the crap they receive from the white majority?", my answer would be because the majority is the majority, and Australia is a democratic country.

What I think about immigration, which is the real issue in Australia that racism stems from:

Immigration is a necessary process. However, it's a massively disadvantageous necessity in regards not only to the economic damage it does to the countries affected by widespread emigration (e.g., brain drain), but also for its erosion of the fundamental character of the country affected by widespread immigration. Immigration shouldn't be an overwhelming, demographic-altering affair. It's needed for short-term growth, but can be catastrophic in the long-term if it's not regulated correctly. Immigrants should only be admitted to the extent that they can be advantageously absorbed.

[Meth Quokka]

I guess I rank as the resident moderate?

[The Nexerus]

You're the most moderate person that's posted so far, according to that test.

[Vortex]

Indeed

And sorry I should have made this clearer it's only illegal if itns in public. If you do it I private than that's your business and I'm not sure what the rules are over the internet.

[Jannah]

Since it came up the problem with racists, Neo-Nazis, etc. is that often they'll resort to physical assault. Shit like that can't be legal.

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said
IndeedAnd sorry I should have made this clearer it's only illegal if itns in public. If you do it I private than that's your business and I'm not sure what the rules are over the internet.

I'm against criminalizing (or, in Canada, in favour of decriminalizing) 'hate speech', which is probably what "no racism in public" means. If you're not disrupting the peace or being loud enough to register a noise compliant, you should be able to say what you like. If racism is indeed reviled in Australia, supporters of large-scale immigration should logically be supportive of such an action, since it would only make racists more prominent and thus make the stances they stand for unpopular.

[mdk]

Jannah said
Since it came up the problem with racists, Neo-Nazis, etc. is that often they'll resort to physical assault. Shit like that can't be legal.

So do video games, depending on who you ask. Why can't we just have physical assault be illegal?

If your answer was, 'well that doesn't completely prevent the problem' -- you're on the right track, good job. Now if a law against violence doesn't prevent violence, what's the purpose of a law against racism? If anything, it seems like that would further isolate and radicalize your local racists.

Kangaroo said
I guess I rank as the resident moderate?

You are the first person I've ever seen with a more moderate score than mine. Tip of the hat, sir, tip of the hat. I should probably take it again and see if I moved.

EDIT:

whoa moved a lot

This test used to think I was a single point above and right of center. I blame the NSA, for the libertarian slant anyway. For right/left I think it came down to economics. I'm a free market person, and there were a lot of questions about hating corporations.

[Jannah]

mdk said
So do video games, depending on who you ask. Why can't we just have physical assault be illegal?If your answer was, 'well that doesn't completely prevent the problem' -- you're on the right track, good job. Now if a law against violence doesn't prevent violence, what's the purpose of a law against racism? If anything, it seems like that would further isolate and radicalize your local racists.

Video games are a poor example since they're exactly that, games. Real life is a lot different since real people are actually being harmed instead of virtual people.

[Meth Quokka]

mdk said
So do video games, depending on who you ask. Why can't we just have physical assault be illegal?If your answer was, 'well that doesn't completely prevent the problem' -- you're on the right track, good job. Now if a law against violence doesn't prevent violence, what's the purpose of a law against racism? If anything, it seems like that would further isolate and radicalize your local racists.You are the first person I've ever seen with a more moderate score than mine. Tip of the hat, sir, tip of the hat. I should probably take it again and see if I moved.EDIT:

I was expecting to be a moderate but that close to the centre.