bananafishtoday said:
Therumancer said:
These forums tend to be extremely liberal especially when it comes to social and personal issues, human rights and what they involve, and other assorted topics.
I don't mean this as an attack or anything, but judging from some of your posts in the past, you seem to be much further to the right than most conservatives in the US. I say this because, as someone who's much further to the left than most liberals, I'd actually characterize these forums as somewhat right-wing on some of those issues. A majority of posters in threads about race, women's rights, feminism, and LGBT issues express opinions far more conservative than even mainstream left-of-center folks.
OT: The thing about playing devil's advocate is that people tend to announce it. Eg, "To play devil's advocate..." or "Just for the sake of argument..." Presenting a viewpoint you don't actually hold as one you
do actually hold for the sake of inciting angry rebuttals is the very definition of trolling.
...
The thing is that these forums are so far left that they tend to see a centrist viewpoint as being at least moderatly left wing. A basic "we're so right on this, that even a person in the middle is by definition on our side". A lot of people who who might even think they are right wing, are pretty far to the left on the issues they discuss.
To put things into perspective, on most social issues, the right wing stance is the preservation of a traditional American status quo and lifestyle, and things like "family values" being taken as actual societal rules and a basis for policy. This means what amounts to a complete zero tolerance policy for a lot of the social causes that the left wing embraces. A position where say homosexuality is simply put wrong, and we should stand by laws that were in the books making it illegall and criminally enforced. If your caught being gay, that's a crime, you go to jail, and you might never be allowed back into society. Ditto for keeping gays entirely out of the military, and other things, after all it is being defined as a criminal behavior. Those very laws that a lot of liberals cheer about being officially taken off the books are changed, and pretty much what a purely right wing person supports, after all those laws didn't get there because of a tiny, psychotic, minority of people wanting them no matter what the current perception among the left wing might be.
A centrist position on a subject like this, with the left wing being for total acceptance and changing societal values for "humanitarian reasons", and right wingers being for a total ban for the sake of principles and societal stability, is between those two "purist" stances, that is to say that you won't ban homosexuals, but you will regulate and limit their behavior. To a fully right wing perspective that's the same as saying it's okay to be gay, and your an anathema, to a fully left wing perspective if it's not total freedom and and acceptance without any conditions or limitations your an anathema. Right wingers call you a hippy pinko moral degenerate, left wingers tend to call you a facist nazi who probably also wants to say march Jews off to gas chambers. Most of what I espouse on a subject like this is a center-right where I don't believe in throwing gays in jail or arresting them, but I do believe in erring firmly on the side of control and caution. My general point of view on what I have to say on the subject usually coming down to "If your right, and nobody has anything to worry about, then there should be no objection to these safeguards and policies because they will never come up by definition".
I'm not going to argue the specifics on gay rights here, as it won't be resolved or go anywhere good, I'm just explaining what a centrist position actually is. Right now there is a tendency for both right and left wingers to want to view themselves as sensible, middle of the road people, who don't fall in with any extreme positions, but generally they do, having just convinced themselves otherwise. A mentality that contribues to why the nation is so polarized and a lot of political messes accross the board. Both sides believe they are reasonable and being open minded when really neither side is coming anywhere near the middle.
In general you tend to know you've found a real centrist position when you piss both sides off (like I do on some subjects, you just don't see the response from the actual right wing, because there really isn't much vocal representation for it on some of these subjects), but ultimatly represents something both sides could live with if it was ever pushed... though it would make nobody happy in the end.
Now globally, I tend to go far right, I'm very much for promoting American interests even if it comes at the expense of other countries, or causes hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths. Not callously of course, but I simply get tired of trying to be the "compassionate" super power and do things entirely for the right reasons while our own prosperity and progress. I do not believe in giving nations charity we can't support, no matter how many starving children get flashed on TV (since we have some of them here too). I also firmly believe that if you mess with the US and it's interests, even selfish ones, you should get your head busted, if you actually attack the US you should expect armageddon, instead of this "winning the peace" crap. I care nothing for collateral damage or the lives of foreign civilians in cultures that mess with mine, the US suffers, you get it a million times worse, if the civilians don't want to die, they need to keep their goverments and radicals in line (if you even believe that). Simply put the world sucks, I wish it was otherwise, but in reality the biggest bastard wins. In the final equasion what I propose doesn't make us any better than "the terrorists", just more powerful, but you know that's reality and I'm actually cool with that. You blow up a building and aren't even close to us militarily, we come in and wreck your entire culture and BBQ your children in the streets. That way next time someone else gets the idea that it might be a good idea, someone will point to the last guys that tried it as an object lesson of why it's really a bad idea. The US has #1 on military spending and developing, but we act like a group of wusses, so we get pushed around like a group of wusses, we have our moral
justifications for it, but at the end of the day that doens't matter to anyone but us, and if we fall because of it, the history books the winners write aren't going to think of us highly for that.
That's a far right opinion on some things, as it's very much an "America First" attitude. Compared to the left wing "peace at any price" philsophy, or degrees of centrist "measured response" and "global village" positions. Simply put America First, our genuine allies second, and everyone else can pretty much get bent. This comes out in my position on things like what Isreal is up to, simply put Isreal and ally (whether you think it should be or not) we're arguably the people that created it, whether it's right or wrong, or creating it was a good idea, that's how it is, the right thing to do is back them... period. It can get complicated but I feel the same way about Australia, the UK, Poland, and a few other nations. I'm less sympathetic towards neutrals, fair weather friends, and those with anti-US policies and attitudes.
The thing is though, I admit to being a far right militant when it comes to my global positions, as I understand the relative stances on this and a lot of other subjects better than most people I am talking to. When I say people are left wing or liberal, it's not just be spouting off (no matter how it seems) it's pretty much the truth. Also I use liberal by way of being fairly polite, I do tend to avoid calling people Pinkos and things like that as you might notice, a lot of people don't ever seen to consider that when they think I am trying to use the term "liberal" offensively, when really if I meant it that way, there are plenty of ways I could make that very clear.
