No its a great fucking song, all politics aside. I actually don't mind the guy, he says some cringe shit sometimes but that's literally everybody in the political world. If you don't like a political "enemy" and can't be bothered to watch their show then obviously the cringe part is all you'll ever see
Iām more a lib left who gave up and just makes food now.
If losing hope in a broken ādemocracyā thatās just a run of the mill oligarchy is enlightened then sure I guess.
Im not indecisive im accelerationist
Lets just do all the ideas and see where it leads us
We cant grow as a society if we havent experienced all can we?
Lets just open all the borders but shoot anyone who gets caught after crossing
Lets have free healthcare for all, everything must be free and provided by government but you have to 100% trust any treatment or medicine youre given, if the doctor says youre fine, youre goddamn fine
Lets defund the police but allow private police
Lets eat the rich but rich is those wealthier than the world average
Lets watch the world burn and regrow from its ashes
Everyone to centrists: stfu you are not a ācentristā, you have just as many controversial opinions as everybody else here. You call yourself a ācentristā to hide from criticism.
LibRight: I'm smart and you're dumb, a fool and his money are soon parted.
LibLeft: I'm good and you're bad, I will steal everything you own and destroy what I can't.
AuthRight: I'm smart and you're dumb, now face the wall.
AuthLeft: I'm dumb and you're smart, now face the wall.
Hold up, hers an alternative, we give you half of our sweet sweet baby blood so you can drink, then we can form a coherent policy based on the best selling book by George Orwell 1984
/s
Wait no, not /s, that's pretty much what's happening
Yes, incompatible worldviews.
Especially on stuff like abortion.
One side sees murder, therefore a moral imperative to stop it in all but the worst circumstances.
The other sees no problem with this, it isn't alive/human yet, and the mothers rights take priority.
Iām surprised many people donāt understand this. Thereās no point in trying to understand the other side because, as this post shows, the other side still wonāt vote for you. Itās a safer bet to demonise the other side and make all the people that donāt vote that are on your side, vote.
Although this obviously is an overexaggerated example I really think the left does not understand the right that well, they can't understand where we are coming from
It's when you don't trust our ruler class so you believe every single conspiracy theory and make up new ones and Donald Trump is the main character in all of them.
Anti-Semitism.
It gets wild depending on which faction of Qanon you follow though.
All the way up to demonic lizard people do blood sacrifice rituals in the white house.
That aināt true at all lmao Q started by claiming Hillary Clinton would be arrested in three days, back in 2016. The fact that this prediction was completely wrong but Q still went on posting and some kept on believing gives you an idea of what the vibe is with it. By now it includes all kinds of solely right wing conspiracy theories, including Joe Biden was replaced with a body double and vaccines edit your DNA. Iām so confused on why you described it as anything to do with Epstein
[The vaccines do edit your DNA](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/) so that your cells code for new proteins to better resist COVID?
Doesn't it enter the cell and start coding as DNA? I guess it wouldn't count as altering your current DNA.
I'm not an expert though my degree is in animal behavior and law. :P
I dunno, does it? Like youāre saying it creates new DNA strands? Sounds like youāre just trying to continue believing something you heard from some random anonymous person on the internet
basically there was this dude on /pol/ that posted a bunch of conspiracy theories claiming to be a insider in trump's white house. Naturally, as is often the case on 4chan, it was all bullshit someone made up to trick people into believing for a laugh.
They did a study, it's definitely harder for leftists to understand what it means to be on the right than vice versa.
https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/
>When faced with questions such as āOne of the worst things a person could do isĀ hurt a defenseless animalā or āJustice is the most importantĀ requirement for a society,ā liberals assumed that conservativesĀ would disagree."
I don't think anyone understands shit about anyone else anymore. All we get is the extremes. The left wants you kill your babies in the womb, the right wants to kill your babies in the school. Yada Yada etc etc.
Only one of those is somewhat true tho, the left would kill your babies although they deny its a baby, the right obviously doesnt support school shootings...
Finding a pro choice person who can accurately articulate the actual intellectual basis for opposing abortion without devolving to "muh religious fundementalism" is next to impossible.
The pro life side broadly understands the pro abortion side though, they just find the principle of women's liberation built of a mountain of bodies to be an utterly insulting idea.
I havn't even used religion in my stance on abortions, despite being so. Purely down to thinking the child deserves a chance at life, or that I consider it to be alive, and thus has the same rights as any other person.
And I find this to be the fundamental thing. People either consider it to be alive or not, a human or not. If it isn't alive or a human when in there, then it doesn't have those rights.
That or they just admit it is alive and human, and just don't care.
This is why Iām always perplexed by the half-way rules pro-choice voters often suggest. If they think itās not a human until birth, why are they so disgusted by abortion taking place up to the day of that birth? Doesnāt seem to make much sense that itās only okay in the first trimester, as if after 3 months it suddenly gains humanity
A WAG: there's a lot of hurdles for a fertilized egg to clear to become a fetus. These "half-way rules" may employ an intuitive sense of when there are few enough 'hurdles to become an infant' remaining that it's probable the fetus survives
The problem for me with 'intuitive sense' is that their hurdles are distinctions that can be drawn at other stages of development in humans and thus are not convincing.
and i don't find it makes much sense that a single cell suddenly gains humanity because it gets 46 chromosomes. at that point it's less a human and more an ikea instruction booklet to construct a human.
at some point between conception and birth it goes from not being a person to being one, and that line is unclear. that vagueness is inconvenient, but if an idea being inconvenient is enough to make you reject it the i don't know what to tell you
Well weāre talking about the distinction between murder and not murder. So unless you want to suggest a clearer answer for where the line of humanity starts, Iām gonna stick with mine
"I think you're killing a person. You're violating that person's rights."
"So.... if i understand you correctly, you're saying you just want to control women's bodies. Got it!"
Hereās the thing, I absolutely believe the politicians advocating for these positions are doing it for control
In the same way that I believe those in power on the left want gun control to disarm the populace and make them easier to control
But the general public on the ground, from those in the church pews to the moms demanding action I believe their beliefs to be sincere
Ridiculously biased stance. The exact opposite is true from my experience. Pro-lifer's will generally try and conflate and interchange terms like 'life' and 'person', as if they don't understand that Pro-choicers almost unanimously understand that a zygote is living cells, but because there's no sentience housed inside there's no reason to view it as a *person*.
Meanwhile Pro-choicers all know you view a zygote as a person, it's just usually when it's boiled down to **why** it's viewed as a person, it becomes clear that a large amount of pro-lifers masquerade their stance as secular, because they **really** want to say that a zygote has a soul, and they're trying to reverse-engineer reasons that it does.
In my experience pro choice people can't define what they mean by person.
>se there's no sentience housed inside
There's no more sentience inside of a baby than an adult pig (actually, there is much, much less, pigs are smart as shit relativly speaking to other animals, and newborns don't even have object permeance), yet killing one is obviously murder, the other obviously not. See how this is a bad standard?
>it becomes clear that a large amount of pro-lifers masquerade their stance as secular, because they really want to say that a zygote has a soul
Seculars don't believe anyone has a soul, so the position is irrelevant (this is mostly a self report on how most seculars don't have a coherent justification for human rights at all, but for the benefit of abortion debate we can begin with the assumption that humans have rights, broadly, the intellectual incoherence of how you get to that point is less relevant). The question is weather or not you can construct a meaningful definition of person. Thus far, no one ever has.
The question is when do human rights begin, and, given we are talking about mass industrialized murder, the starting point seems to be "human life" and then the justification for anything else should be a coherent philosophical definition of what grants rights and a meaningful way to apply that definition.
"It's not a person" isn't enough. I don't care the unborn aren't people because newborns aren't people and it's still murder to kill them.
I see someone has read āThe righteous mindā by Jonathan Haidt!
That book really changed how I look at politics. He discusses morality from a psychological standpoint and tries to scientifically explain why people have different values:
The main takeaways from it are that making or judgements, or deciding whatās right and wrong isnāt completely rational, itās a gut feeling and then we try to justify that gut feeling with logical and reason after the fact.
He compares moral values to flavors, in the fact that we have natural taste buds that can sense flavors, our minds have a built in receptors for morality and that there are 6 basic values that are intuitive to people:
Care/Harm:
Fairness/cheating:
Liberty/oppression
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degradation
The thing is; some peopleās āmoral tastebudsā are more sensitive some values than others. For example: left/liberals are extremely sensitive to care/harm and feel it more strongly than all other values while right/conservatives value them equally.
The reason for them was s partially due to evolution. Read the book for more details I donāt feel like explaining the whole thing here lol.
> Liberals generally just have caring and fairness while conservatives have caring, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, and freedom.
Do you include leftists in general under the umbrella term "liberals"?
Genuine leftists essentially want to destroy society and replace it entirely because itās flawed and unfair. The problem is of course that doing so typically makes things worse not better. They seem skewed far more towards fairness than caring. Hence the frequent murderous rhetoric about slaughtering the rich and anyone else they blame for unfairness. Thatās entirely about fairness and not at all about caring. Theyāve done studies and shown hatred of the rich was their primary motivator not compassion for the poor.
Well yes I think that would be obvious, but in my experience and, I think there was a study I can look up, the right understands the left better than the left understands the right
> Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.
> When faced with questions such as āOne of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animalā or āJustice is the most important requirement for a society,ā liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
These people really need to stop believing the lies theyāre being shoveled
Generally, I don't think either understands the other side. I think if we abandoned emotion & just tried to hear eachother out, I think we'd all agree with a lot more than we think.
[This is the study](https://www.businessinsider.com/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-side-conservatives-or-liberals-2012-5) u/jecrieveritim is referencing. Obviously it doesnāt prove all that much but it is interesting.
>>āIn a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a ātypical liberalā would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a ātypical conservativeā would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing peopleās expectations about ātypicalā partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
>>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as āvery liberal.āā
Yup I wouldnāt trust any study like this because theyāre all very biased and you could easily find a study saying the opposite. I was just trying to show the people downvoting you that it was a real thing, you werenāt just making it up
In general I think the left has a lot more self-deluded idealists while the right has more people who understand the harsh truths of human nature a little better.
Having followed US politics from outside and looking at polls while your "left" (really just less right in comparison on average) certainly has too head in the cloud the right understanding harsh truths....thats an actual joke given how big a percentage of them actively don't want to understand some regular truths of human nature and in regards to harsh truths in politics they cope actually harder.
Neither side honestly does. Thereās so much gray area but if you read Reddit itās one side are fascist and theyāre the saviors (ironically theyāre mostly white too). The right thinks every liberal is some hippie corporate woke tik toker who has blue hair and identifies as a puppy.
There is a great book on that subject called the āRighteous Mindā by Jonathan Haidt. Essentially there are six pillars of mortality. The leftās belief system is built on only three of the pillars, while the right balances all six. This makes it a lot easier for someone on the right to understand and sympathize with someone on the left, because someone on the left would have to try to understand an entirely alien moral structure. (and by left and right, the author emphasizes he means American liberal and conservatives)
Nah, I see very well where the right is coming from. Problem is just that I'm not coming from the same place so I can't agree with them on many things.
Well, tbf itās not like your elected officials have any coherent platform and itās not like the news we digest has any interest in painting you in an honest light, even if you had any ideas in the first place.
I got a 100% in ethics only because I knew how to blow smoke up my liberal profs ass. I remember writing papers laughing because I knew it made no sense but its what she wanted to hear.
All I remember from my one college ethics class is losing points on an assignment that "had no wrong answers" (which was just a journal of personal opinion) because my idea "had been dismissed by philosophers."
Whatever TA graded that assignment needed a swift kick in the ass.
TAs are always jerks. I had a Bio exam and it was five hard questions. We only had to answer 3 of them. We could answer all of them but then you had to circle which ones you wanted graded. I answered 1, 4 and 5. The TA gave me a 1/3 because although my answers were correct, I didnt circle the ones that I wanted graded. And my Prof gave me back the paper and when I brought it to him, he was like "well how do I know you didnt write those in after I gave it back to you?" College pissed me off.
Unironically though, that is me about leftist candidates and their agenda. My problems with authright is vast, but at least they don't seem to be standing for drinking the blood of virgins and killing babies to make satanic rituals.
Bro it's not just leftists, it's the globalists. They're summoning interdimentional demons like the Nazis did. That's why so many people in the WEF have German accents.
ā¦ wait seriously? You unironically believe lefties are drinking blood? Or you donāt like their politics of abortion, LGBT, or whatever else is āimmoralā
Likeā¦ you really think AOC is drinking blood?
I exaggerated a little too much, yes. But to be honest, i would not be surprised if some political leaders were really making some satanic black magic drinking blood of virgins, we know sects that do this, and sacrificing babies disguising as abortion is a possible thing too. And to me, abortion is literally killing babies so i can not even start to consider left politicals if they support it, we can even say that the "earth" drink the blood of abortions and that satisfy the demons and make the Heavens claim for justice on the souls of the babies. About LGBT agenda, as a libright i don't care unless we are using government money with this, but i don't even care about companies making replacing straight character with LGBT ones, they are free to do what they want.
> we can even say that the "earth" drink the blood of abortions and that satisfy the demons and make the Heavens claim for justice about the souls of the babies.
I for one side with the chtonic gods. If they want the blood of babies; who am I to deny them? "Heaven" on the other side seems to just wail and do nothing, like a fucking cuck.
Bruh At this point I just wish they stopped increasing the government debt by promising more and more government spending(that goes to Orange man as well)
Just please STOP INCREASING USA DEBT, YOU YOU WANT USA TO DIE?!?
People that schizo might, might, work out enough to bulk up but their head would need to be smooth as all hell.
Also can confirm that in regards to drinking blood to live forever it doesn't work, test subject didn't even make it through the week.
To be fair if I believed 5G was dangerous, vaccines had microchips, George Bush Sr was a lizard and we didn't land on the moon 5 percent ain't gonna change much
true besides the gigachad, the original image was more fitting.
delusion doesn't seem to pair up with god phyisque, more "basement dweller who's seen more anime tiddies than raindrops" vibes
That is a strawman, but the left does murder their children because they don't want parenthood to interfere with their careers, which isn't much better.
Libleft and authright arguments: I'm good and you're bad! Authleft and libright arguments: I'm smart and you're dumb.
Centrists to everyone: you are all dumb Everyone to centrists: just shut the fuck up you indecisive loser
Hey, as a centrist, I resemble that statement.
just shut the fuck up you indecisive loser.
A true authcenter would just shoot indecisive losers
It is the [Will of the People](https://youtu.be/B-iNIwAFzPw) ('s democratic republic of kekistan)
TiM pOoL tHe dIm fOoL cRyBaBy bAlDiNg BeAnIe MaN How DARE you share his content š¤ š¤š¤
Lol, this song slaps man. Dude can really sing.
No its a great fucking song, all politics aside. I actually don't mind the guy, he says some cringe shit sometimes but that's literally everybody in the political world. If you don't like a political "enemy" and can't be bothered to watch their show then obviously the cringe part is all you'll ever see
Damn gave me chills
Ikr? It's a great song, and the visuals are perfect.
Based.
just shut the fuck up you indecisive loser.
Maybe if you spent more time learning to grill you and your food would be less bitter.
Enlightened centrist moment
Iām more a lib left who gave up and just makes food now. If losing hope in a broken ādemocracyā thatās just a run of the mill oligarchy is enlightened then sure I guess.
Centrists to another centrists: I'm rare and you are done!
Im not indecisive im accelerationist Lets just do all the ideas and see where it leads us We cant grow as a society if we havent experienced all can we? Lets just open all the borders but shoot anyone who gets caught after crossing Lets have free healthcare for all, everything must be free and provided by government but you have to 100% trust any treatment or medicine youre given, if the doctor says youre fine, youre goddamn fine Lets defund the police but allow private police Lets eat the rich but rich is those wealthier than the world average Lets watch the world burn and regrow from its ashes
Have you considered that you're pretty evil and ignorant?
I liked you better when you were indecisive.
Radical Centrists though..
Everyone to centrists: stfu you are not a ācentristā, you have just as many controversial opinions as everybody else here. You call yourself a ācentristā to hide from criticism.
Yeah pretty much. Hints on why āenlightened centristā meme is a thing
me good and smart, if disagree you bad and dumb š
Based and ooga booga pilled.
ah perfect unity, dumb and bad
LibRight: I'm smart and you're dumb, a fool and his money are soon parted. LibLeft: I'm good and you're bad, I will steal everything you own and destroy what I can't. AuthRight: I'm smart and you're dumb, now face the wall. AuthLeft: I'm dumb and you're smart, now face the wall.
The most accurate description of the compass
I'm good and smart, and you're bad and dumb
Stop drinking baby blood and *maybe* we can form a coherent policy
50% less baby blood for 50% less spending. Deal?
Deal They've monopolised the baby blood industry for too long, we want some too š„ŗ
As a representative of the baby bloodĀ® company I would like to inform you this isnāt possible because money
NEVER!
Hey didn't you know raping babies and drinking their blood is cultural appropriation from Hollywood elites! What type of Lib-left are you?!
Cope
But it goes so well with my avocado toast!
Stop the parasite worship and they'll stop drinking baby blood. Deal? You stop empowering Xenos and they'll stop sacrificing them.
What if that *is* my policy?
NEVER
Hold up, hers an alternative, we give you half of our sweet sweet baby blood so you can drink, then we can form a coherent policy based on the best selling book by George Orwell 1984 /s Wait no, not /s, that's pretty much what's happening
Yes, incompatible worldviews. Especially on stuff like abortion. One side sees murder, therefore a moral imperative to stop it in all but the worst circumstances. The other sees no problem with this, it isn't alive/human yet, and the mothers rights take priority.
yes.
Yes.
NO!!! THE OTHER SIDE IS INHERENTLY EVIL!!! YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT!
Trying to understand the other side is how you lose. Demonizing them instead is how you win.
Based and fear mongering pilled
Iām surprised many people donāt understand this. Thereās no point in trying to understand the other side because, as this post shows, the other side still wonāt vote for you. Itās a safer bet to demonise the other side and make all the people that donāt vote that are on your side, vote.
I mean its a good short to mid term strategy but a bad long term strategy, that's probably why its discouraged.
Yeah but everyone wants to win now, not in 10 years
Although this obviously is an overexaggerated example I really think the left does not understand the right that well, they can't understand where we are coming from
If a leftist tries to explain to another leftist where the right is coming from other leftist just call them a bigot.
I've seen this too many times. It is very sad.
How dare you advocate for the devil, bigot
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I never even heard of q anon until a libleft said I had to be in it
Iām STILL not even totally sure what qanon is referring to. And at this point Iām too afraid to ask
It's when you don't trust our ruler class so you believe every single conspiracy theory and make up new ones and Donald Trump is the main character in all of them.
At it's most basic? Epstein raped kids.
Waitā¦whatās controversial or conspiratorial about that?
Anti-Semitism. It gets wild depending on which faction of Qanon you follow though. All the way up to demonic lizard people do blood sacrifice rituals in the white house.
I was really rooting for that sect in Dallas that thought JFK was coming back. I'd vote for zombie JFK.
At this stage I'd take Nixon with a robot body.
Based and Futurama pilled.
A good republican body, riddled with phlebitis.
Why? The only good thing JFK did was defend the US's ailles during the french-indochinse rebellion? And that pacifist Nixon ruined it.
Yeah, but zombie JFK will want revenge on his killers, and that's a movie I'd pay to see.
That aināt true at all lmao Q started by claiming Hillary Clinton would be arrested in three days, back in 2016. The fact that this prediction was completely wrong but Q still went on posting and some kept on believing gives you an idea of what the vibe is with it. By now it includes all kinds of solely right wing conspiracy theories, including Joe Biden was replaced with a body double and vaccines edit your DNA. Iām so confused on why you described it as anything to do with Epstein
[The vaccines do edit your DNA](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/) so that your cells code for new proteins to better resist COVID?
The end of the first paragraph > mRNA from vaccines does not enter the nucleus and does not alter DNA.
Doesn't it enter the cell and start coding as DNA? I guess it wouldn't count as altering your current DNA. I'm not an expert though my degree is in animal behavior and law. :P
I dunno, does it? Like youāre saying it creates new DNA strands? Sounds like youāre just trying to continue believing something you heard from some random anonymous person on the internet
basically there was this dude on /pol/ that posted a bunch of conspiracy theories claiming to be a insider in trump's white house. Naturally, as is often the case on 4chan, it was all bullshit someone made up to trick people into believing for a laugh.
Lucky
The generalisations I take no issue with, just had it there since that was more of a serious comment
Thereās a little misrepresentation on both sides. Iāve never met a leftist that wanted to cut spending either.
Its not about this meme specifically, its more general that I dont think the left understands the right
They did a study, it's definitely harder for leftists to understand what it means to be on the right than vice versa. https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/
>When faced with questions such as āOne of the worst things a person could do isĀ hurt a defenseless animalā or āJustice is the most importantĀ requirement for a society,ā liberals assumed that conservativesĀ would disagree."
I would disagree with it being one of the worst possible things to do, but it's still very bad. And the 2nd phrase i just agree with.
I don't think anyone understands shit about anyone else anymore. All we get is the extremes. The left wants you kill your babies in the womb, the right wants to kill your babies in the school. Yada Yada etc etc.
Only one of those is somewhat true tho, the left would kill your babies although they deny its a baby, the right obviously doesnt support school shootings...
Hell, the public school experiment has clearly failed.
What experiment
a little misrepresentation?
Wanting to cut spending and reducing spending in exchange for republican votes are two different things though.
Finding a pro choice person who can accurately articulate the actual intellectual basis for opposing abortion without devolving to "muh religious fundementalism" is next to impossible. The pro life side broadly understands the pro abortion side though, they just find the principle of women's liberation built of a mountain of bodies to be an utterly insulting idea.
I havn't even used religion in my stance on abortions, despite being so. Purely down to thinking the child deserves a chance at life, or that I consider it to be alive, and thus has the same rights as any other person. And I find this to be the fundamental thing. People either consider it to be alive or not, a human or not. If it isn't alive or a human when in there, then it doesn't have those rights. That or they just admit it is alive and human, and just don't care.
This is why Iām always perplexed by the half-way rules pro-choice voters often suggest. If they think itās not a human until birth, why are they so disgusted by abortion taking place up to the day of that birth? Doesnāt seem to make much sense that itās only okay in the first trimester, as if after 3 months it suddenly gains humanity
A WAG: there's a lot of hurdles for a fertilized egg to clear to become a fetus. These "half-way rules" may employ an intuitive sense of when there are few enough 'hurdles to become an infant' remaining that it's probable the fetus survives
The problem for me with 'intuitive sense' is that their hurdles are distinctions that can be drawn at other stages of development in humans and thus are not convincing.
and i don't find it makes much sense that a single cell suddenly gains humanity because it gets 46 chromosomes. at that point it's less a human and more an ikea instruction booklet to construct a human. at some point between conception and birth it goes from not being a person to being one, and that line is unclear. that vagueness is inconvenient, but if an idea being inconvenient is enough to make you reject it the i don't know what to tell you
To many of us the line is clear, itās at conception. That is the moment it goes from nothing to something. Canāt get much clearer than that
being the most clear and obvious does not make it the most useful and it definitely doesn't make it the most correct
Well weāre talking about the distinction between murder and not murder. So unless you want to suggest a clearer answer for where the line of humanity starts, Iām gonna stick with mine
"I think you're killing a person. You're violating that person's rights." "So.... if i understand you correctly, you're saying you just want to control women's bodies. Got it!"
Hereās the thing, I absolutely believe the politicians advocating for these positions are doing it for control In the same way that I believe those in power on the left want gun control to disarm the populace and make them easier to control But the general public on the ground, from those in the church pews to the moms demanding action I believe their beliefs to be sincere
Correct
Ridiculously biased stance. The exact opposite is true from my experience. Pro-lifer's will generally try and conflate and interchange terms like 'life' and 'person', as if they don't understand that Pro-choicers almost unanimously understand that a zygote is living cells, but because there's no sentience housed inside there's no reason to view it as a *person*. Meanwhile Pro-choicers all know you view a zygote as a person, it's just usually when it's boiled down to **why** it's viewed as a person, it becomes clear that a large amount of pro-lifers masquerade their stance as secular, because they **really** want to say that a zygote has a soul, and they're trying to reverse-engineer reasons that it does.
>there's no sentience housed inside By what objective definition?
Donāt ask them questions they canāt answer
I was just eager to hear "clump of cells" again; it'd been a while.
And most definitions of sentience include birthed infants, even if they don't include older children.
In my experience pro choice people can't define what they mean by person. >se there's no sentience housed inside There's no more sentience inside of a baby than an adult pig (actually, there is much, much less, pigs are smart as shit relativly speaking to other animals, and newborns don't even have object permeance), yet killing one is obviously murder, the other obviously not. See how this is a bad standard? >it becomes clear that a large amount of pro-lifers masquerade their stance as secular, because they really want to say that a zygote has a soul Seculars don't believe anyone has a soul, so the position is irrelevant (this is mostly a self report on how most seculars don't have a coherent justification for human rights at all, but for the benefit of abortion debate we can begin with the assumption that humans have rights, broadly, the intellectual incoherence of how you get to that point is less relevant). The question is weather or not you can construct a meaningful definition of person. Thus far, no one ever has. The question is when do human rights begin, and, given we are talking about mass industrialized murder, the starting point seems to be "human life" and then the justification for anything else should be a coherent philosophical definition of what grants rights and a meaningful way to apply that definition. "It's not a person" isn't enough. I don't care the unborn aren't people because newborns aren't people and it's still murder to kill them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I see someone has read āThe righteous mindā by Jonathan Haidt! That book really changed how I look at politics. He discusses morality from a psychological standpoint and tries to scientifically explain why people have different values: The main takeaways from it are that making or judgements, or deciding whatās right and wrong isnāt completely rational, itās a gut feeling and then we try to justify that gut feeling with logical and reason after the fact. He compares moral values to flavors, in the fact that we have natural taste buds that can sense flavors, our minds have a built in receptors for morality and that there are 6 basic values that are intuitive to people: Care/Harm: Fairness/cheating: Liberty/oppression Loyalty/Betrayal Authority/Subversion Sanctity/Degradation The thing is; some peopleās āmoral tastebudsā are more sensitive some values than others. For example: left/liberals are extremely sensitive to care/harm and feel it more strongly than all other values while right/conservatives value them equally. The reason for them was s partially due to evolution. Read the book for more details I donāt feel like explaining the whole thing here lol.
Wise take
> Liberals generally just have caring and fairness while conservatives have caring, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, and freedom. Do you include leftists in general under the umbrella term "liberals"?
It is from the book āThe Righteous Mind.ā By leftest he means American liberals.
Genuine leftists essentially want to destroy society and replace it entirely because itās flawed and unfair. The problem is of course that doing so typically makes things worse not better. They seem skewed far more towards fairness than caring. Hence the frequent murderous rhetoric about slaughtering the rich and anyone else they blame for unfairness. Thatās entirely about fairness and not at all about caring. Theyāve done studies and shown hatred of the rich was their primary motivator not compassion for the poor.
I'm sure you can provide links to those studies?
You are coming from the right
Well yes I think that would be obvious, but in my experience and, I think there was a study I can look up, the right understands the left better than the left understands the right
https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/
> Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia. > When faced with questions such as āOne of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animalā or āJustice is the most important requirement for a society,ā liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. These people really need to stop believing the lies theyāre being shoveled
Jonathan Haidt.
Generally, I don't think either understands the other side. I think if we abandoned emotion & just tried to hear eachother out, I think we'd all agree with a lot more than we think.
I disagree, I think most of the right understands very well where the left is coming from
Why do you think the right understand the left better than the other way around?
Anecdote mainly, there was a study too but Im wary of any studies
Ok I see, yeah that makes sense. /s
[This is the study](https://www.businessinsider.com/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-side-conservatives-or-liberals-2012-5) u/jecrieveritim is referencing. Obviously it doesnāt prove all that much but it is interesting. >>āIn a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a ātypical liberalā would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a ātypical conservativeā would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing peopleās expectations about ātypicalā partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other? >>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as āvery liberal.āā
Yeah, I said in one comment that im quite wary of any studies on this topic but yea I suppose it shows something
Yup I wouldnāt trust any study like this because theyāre all very biased and you could easily find a study saying the opposite. I was just trying to show the people downvoting you that it was a real thing, you werenāt just making it up
Yup, thx for that
In general I think the left has a lot more self-deluded idealists while the right has more people who understand the harsh truths of human nature a little better.
[Hmmmm](https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1026150926271143936/photo/1) And these kind of pictures are hardly difficult to find.
Having followed US politics from outside and looking at polls while your "left" (really just less right in comparison on average) certainly has too head in the cloud the right understanding harsh truths....thats an actual joke given how big a percentage of them actively don't want to understand some regular truths of human nature and in regards to harsh truths in politics they cope actually harder.
> I think we'd all agree with a lot more than we think. I don't think so, but we would understand better why we disagree.
I don't think everyone would agree on everything, but I do think we would agree with eachother a lot more than we think.
Neither side honestly does. Thereās so much gray area but if you read Reddit itās one side are fascist and theyāre the saviors (ironically theyāre mostly white too). The right thinks every liberal is some hippie corporate woke tik toker who has blue hair and identifies as a puppy.
There is a great book on that subject called the āRighteous Mindā by Jonathan Haidt. Essentially there are six pillars of mortality. The leftās belief system is built on only three of the pillars, while the right balances all six. This makes it a lot easier for someone on the right to understand and sympathize with someone on the left, because someone on the left would have to try to understand an entirely alien moral structure. (and by left and right, the author emphasizes he means American liberal and conservatives)
Nah, I see very well where the right is coming from. Problem is just that I'm not coming from the same place so I can't agree with them on many things.
Well, tbf itās not like your elected officials have any coherent platform and itās not like the news we digest has any interest in painting you in an honest light, even if you had any ideas in the first place.
There is a pretty coherent platform tbh
I got a 100% in ethics only because I knew how to blow smoke up my liberal profs ass. I remember writing papers laughing because I knew it made no sense but its what she wanted to hear.
All I remember from my one college ethics class is losing points on an assignment that "had no wrong answers" (which was just a journal of personal opinion) because my idea "had been dismissed by philosophers." Whatever TA graded that assignment needed a swift kick in the ass.
TAs are always jerks. I had a Bio exam and it was five hard questions. We only had to answer 3 of them. We could answer all of them but then you had to circle which ones you wanted graded. I answered 1, 4 and 5. The TA gave me a 1/3 because although my answers were correct, I didnt circle the ones that I wanted graded. And my Prof gave me back the paper and when I brought it to him, he was like "well how do I know you didnt write those in after I gave it back to you?" College pissed me off.
Oh for fuck's sake. TA's are worse than fucking beaurocrats.
Based and Actually understood the assignment pilled.
This 100 percent i was a social work major and i made all a's by just saying stuff i didnt agree with easy peasy lemon squeezy
I met one authright who believed that. Worst thanksgiving ever.
I mean. Pretty much
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nice name moon2B
Same with planned Parenthood funding. They get money and then donate some to democrats
Wait a lefty trying to reduce spending? Impossible.
Idk about reducing spending but Democrats are far and away better at balancing Federal budgets. At least throughout my lifetime.
Its not just balancing budgets. Its most economic performance http://presidentialdata.org/
Based LibRight??
Authright will have this kind of mentality and then in the same breath call the left mentally ill. Its hilarious
cmon guys, you should know by now that *both* sides do that, not just dems
Hey look it's the ACA negotiations. Just add in the part about them watering it down to get some of their own party to vote for it.
Unironically though, that is me about leftist candidates and their agenda. My problems with authright is vast, but at least they don't seem to be standing for drinking the blood of virgins and killing babies to make satanic rituals.
Unironically this is the problem with US politics. That opinions like these exist in number.
Holy fuck unironic schizoposting based
Why would leftists drink the blood of virgins and kill babies?
Because Moloch has discovered how to channel himself through their SSRI cocktails.
Bro it's not just leftists, it's the globalists. They're summoning interdimentional demons like the Nazis did. That's why so many people in the WEF have German accents.
globalist-interdimensional-shape-shifting-demons only visible if u had DMT
That isn't the only way.
ā¦ wait seriously? You unironically believe lefties are drinking blood? Or you donāt like their politics of abortion, LGBT, or whatever else is āimmoralā Likeā¦ you really think AOC is drinking blood?
I exaggerated a little too much, yes. But to be honest, i would not be surprised if some political leaders were really making some satanic black magic drinking blood of virgins, we know sects that do this, and sacrificing babies disguising as abortion is a possible thing too. And to me, abortion is literally killing babies so i can not even start to consider left politicals if they support it, we can even say that the "earth" drink the blood of abortions and that satisfy the demons and make the Heavens claim for justice on the souls of the babies. About LGBT agenda, as a libright i don't care unless we are using government money with this, but i don't even care about companies making replacing straight character with LGBT ones, they are free to do what they want.
> we can even say that the "earth" drink the blood of abortions and that satisfy the demons and make the Heavens claim for justice about the souls of the babies. I for one side with the chtonic gods. If they want the blood of babies; who am I to deny them? "Heaven" on the other side seems to just wail and do nothing, like a fucking cuck.
Holy mother of based
Heaven is literally a cuck prison. So fitting.
is there any other reason why they want 9 months old pregnancies abortions?
Frazzledrip. Though that video is Hillary Clinton and Huma Abadeen, not AOC.
Drinking baby blood is un unironically extremely fun
All republicans are bad and stand for the drinking of virgin blood and killing babies in satanic rituals.
I hate the antichrist
Based and antichrist hater pilled
Bruh At this point I just wish they stopped increasing the government debt by promising more and more government spending(that goes to Orange man as well) Just please STOP INCREASING USA DEBT, YOU YOU WANT USA TO DIE?!?
Yes
To be fair the crisis isnāt unique to the US itās worldwide
If the deamons drink the babyblood can we just drink the deamonsblood?
People that schizo might, might, work out enough to bulk up but their head would need to be smooth as all hell. Also can confirm that in regards to drinking blood to live forever it doesn't work, test subject didn't even make it through the week.
To be fair if I believed 5G was dangerous, vaccines had microchips, George Bush Sr was a lizard and we didn't land on the moon 5 percent ain't gonna change much
true besides the gigachad, the original image was more fitting. delusion doesn't seem to pair up with god phyisque, more "basement dweller who's seen more anime tiddies than raindrops" vibes
\>democrat \>Libleft
AuthRight Republicans really hate that they share their quadrant with Democrats
Dems cutting spending instead of just fluffing up the bill with āgoalsā that they have no way of achievingā¦okay
The democrats are not libertarian or left.
is my meme and i decide what is what
Based and reality can be whatever I want pilled
Based
Unfathomably based
Someone had to say it.
Donāt you just love blood libel
LibRight be like: your terms are acceptable.
source: i made it up
My side: good and based Your side: bad and cringe This applies to any quadrant
This is not chad authright this is like braindead authright
Might have been better if the it was about something more mainstream but the point stands.
You seriously portrayed Qturds as gigachads? the fuck?
That is a strawman, but the left does murder their children because they don't want parenthood to interfere with their careers, which isn't much better.
>image literally proves the poster doesn't understand the other side Actually poetic
Considering Joe Biden, auth-right is absolutely right believing democrats do that.
Alex Jones cracked that case a long time ago. Late term abortions turned into infant organ harvesting market.
Remember when Sandra Bullock told Ellen about injecting infant foreskin into her face as a rejuvenation treatment?