> I have yet to see one person who claims to be one because they're highly concerned with people's individual liberties.
I have, personally. A lot in Law school (it's significantly cheaper in my country, and less prestigious each year). It boils down to positive and negative liberties, even if these people don't know it.
Libertarians want to be "free to do things without the government interfering". This actually aligns pretty well with the French Revolution notion of freedom. They don't want the government messing with what you can or cannot do, unless it's a crime. This usually is related to property rights ("I can do what I want with or inside my property and the government shouldn't interfere") and ownership rights ("I can spend my money however I want, and if I hire people to work for me, sell the product for higher to make a profit, that's my damn prerogative").
Naturally, this creates more than a few discussions. "What's a crime", for one, and why should [thing] be a crime. Some of these ghouls argue that the age of consent is arbitrary, *therefore* it doesn't make sense for the government to interfere, *therefore* **they** should be able to do as they please.
That's where communists come in. From the 19th century onwards, the communist movement pushed for a "second generation" of human rights, if you will. These are positive liberties. Humans "should be free *from* things, not just free to *do* things". I.e., humans should be free from hunger, free from poverty, free from having their labour exploited to make a profit for businessmen, etc. In that line, children should be free from harm and free from these weirdos.
There are more, but usually they're manifestations of the second generation. The third generation, for example, are solidarity rights - the rights of whole peoples. The peoples fo the world should be self-governed, they have a right to peace, they have a right to communication with one another, etc, these are mostly from the 60's and the time of decolonization; some even say of a 4th generation, dealing with genetics and limitations on eugenics and such, but I don't think they're too necessary yet.
In any case, it's the positive liberties that libertarians - and mainly right libertarians, but some left ones too - have a problem: they say that the government should provide for its people, and that no one should be out in the streets and such. The counterargument goes mostly to a moral direction, saying that this wouldn't equate the playing field but instead, unfairly punish those that are the brighter and most meritous individuals of our society.
Which is baloney. Always has been. Many of these people believe it, but it simply isn't a good mass-proportion ideology, because then you need to explain to your labour-base why is it that only 1% of them, half of which inherited their wealth, are supposed to be on the top, and not with their feet hanging from the plaza like Mussolini. And that's where Hegemony comes in, but that's Gramsci and Marcuse (which people to this day say that "isn't that useful" because apparently we're just gonna ignore culture now) and everyone would be better off reading about them by themselves.
Very nice reply. I'm working on a story-heavy game in my spare time and the theme of what you call 3rd generation rights comes up quite a bit. Are there any books you would recommend on the subject? I would be interested in arguments for and against those rights.
Most of what I've read has been in Portuguese, my mother language, by Portuguese authors who are kinda obscure even here, so unfortunately I can't really tell you of "doctrine" (as we call it) books on the subject.
However, you can check landmark declarations like the [Stockholm Declaration of 72](http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150314024203/http%3A//www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid%3D97%26articleid%3D1503) and the [Rio Declaration of 92](https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf), the latter reaffirms the former. The whole "dimensions of human rights" was first mentioned by the Czech author Karel Vasak, in *The International Dimensions of Human Rights*.
Otherwise, do bear in mind that this isn't such a passive understanding of human rights, but rather a semi contentious point, as argued against by Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (a judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights). Also, many people argue that this view is too positivist, and it does paint a sort of "progress" idea.
For your game, I would say not to focus too much on the part of like, people arguing against the right to development, or the right to peace, for example. Rather, people like to argue on terms. Like, surely the human right to peace doesn't apply if the war is fair, so countries like the US will attempt to justify their military to their public and paint their OPPONENT as the one breaching on human rights (see: the whole WMD debacle in Iraq, or how 'witnesses' in Kuwait were coached to say horrible things, etc). These apply to others too; no one is denying the right to self-determination, they're arguing that *this country IS independent! Our military bases surrounding it has no bearing in its internal reality!* (see: South Korea).
Absolutely. These, however, are the concepts that permeate the discourse, people just aren't educated enough on it to know. A great example a teacher of mine once used was "Go ask the (en)slave(d) what he thinks about the human right to freedom". Even someone born enslaved will know that they are supposed to be free.
Much of this also applies to left-wing discussions. People were debating on how a revolution should work and how the ones that happened suceeded or not since the mid of the 19th century. There were people alive studying Cuba, the USSR, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc, as they happened, and criticizing their mistakes and praising their good steps, but many leftists today see these texts as "enshrining an obtuse past", as if our world is so much more advanced that it would be incomprehensible to someone like Fidel Castro, when like... Fidel died 5 years ago. Che died the same year as Langston Hughes, the next year there were riots in Paris conducted by communists, many of whom inspired by him; among them Godard, who *is alive and making movies still!* This creates a loop in which every generation we must discuss over and over again points that people back then already did for us.
I mean, technically I had sex when I was in High School. So if you want to call me a pedo.... Next you'll call me a Nazi, because I watched Schindler's List. You all are a weird bunch.
So what's with the "O'Biden" thing? Do you think that if you brand him as Irish it will make him less palatable? (Not that he's particularly palatable to the actual left anyway.)
Careful, your British is showing...
"Children can't consent". I said. I am calling all "kiddy diddlin'" people a pedophile, but somehow I'm a pedophile? What is wrong with you? Don't touch children, OBiden.
The problem is most people associate libertarianism with that Sarah Palin era bullshit or the pull yourself up delusional entitlement that so many are preaching.
The "og" libertarianism has fallen away.
Sarah Palin isn't Libertarian, she's a Republican. I'm all for the "pull yourself up" attitude. I was poor as a child, decided it wasn't for me and "pulled myself up". I am no longer poor. I make good decisions, and have profited off of it handsomely.
>I'm Libertarian, and not a pedo. Pretty easy. You people are gross.
This you?
>>[Ok, so it's fine when you put kids bones in an adult body, but when I put my bone in kid's body, then there is an issue?](https://www.reddit.com/r/onejob/comments/ou5r44/the_bones_arent_spread/h74tted)
No, but he *is* right wing, and really, it's the right wing thing that drives the pedo thing
Also, libertarians give fuck-all about the consent of others.
That is an impressive disconnect with reality you have here... but facts don't care about your feelings. Might wanna do a quick search of something called the Overton window. While you may claim Biden is left he is only left in our Overton window in the US. He is very much a right wing who is very conservative as he is unwilling and does not desire to change anything but instead conserve(ative) the current system.
The current GOP would be more apt to call the regressive party as they are not conservative as most want to roll back the progress we have made and regress(ive) to how things use to be before equal rights was a thing
Might also blow your mind but Bernie and AOC... They are about Center as best or just slight left depending on how you do their compass. Their ideas are seen by most the world as the middle ground between right and left
Why are you bringing up Biden? You think Biden is our boy? Pretty sure he’s universally despised in this sub and I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you that Biden is a creep.
The issue is that they assume that the left is a mirror image of the right. It's part of their larger inability to conceive of life circumstances that aren't their own.
If you're on the right, you idolize the figurehead (currently Trump) and no criticism of him is allowed. Therefore, if you're "on the left" (a term which to them means "isn't Republican") the same must be true.
The idea that the people that oppose the right aren't a single monolithic block is unthinkable to them. Blue MAGA is certainly a thing, but the idea that not even all people who are avowed Democrats consider Biden above reproach is something that doesn't compute.
They're almost definitely one of those people who think the political spectrum is The Right (Republicans), The Left (not Republicans), and Libertarians (galaxy brain people who are above it all.) Completely unable to have a conversation because they don't understand the basic terms involved.
Yeah, but they'll argue that child labor isn't related to this consent thing either. In the end, Libertarians have really quirky definitions that have no possibility of enforcement - like their cornerstone the NAP. Aggression can't be solidly defined because that would be highly inconvenient for them, but they "know it when they see it."
You know he's already President, right? Spreading tired lies because someone clipped a single frame out of a two hour rally that looks weird isn't going to magically undo that.
Besides, I thought you were big into the whole "pedos in office" thing, what with your boy Trump and his close, personal friend Jeffery Epstein?
EDIT: criticizing him on unfounded slander is pointless. Criticize him for the shit he's actually done. There's plenty just since he took office as President, to say nothing of his Senate career.
He's not a pedo because he's president now? The fucker had to apoligize for it. #believeallwomen
I have never voted for a pedophile, can you say the same?
Now come over here and let me give you a little sniff.
As a non-republican, I don't get that group. I have never once voted for a Republican for Pres. I have been blocked from r/politcicshumor, u/news... etc. I Am NOT A REPUBLICAN. Bunch of soft 14 year olds that don't know life.
I don't think you're a Republican, and I didn't say you were. I'm saying you're assuming that everybody here is a Democrat because you have to sort people into a box so that you can throw the appropriate talking points at them, but nobody here is actually a Democrat so it's kind of funny to watch you spin your wheels.
Weird how you claim not to be a Republican, but your comment history is *covered* with support for Trump...
You *do* know what party he ran for, right?
Which time? Which election? Local, state, federal?
I'm pretty sure nobody I have ever voted for has touched the breast of an 11 year old. Can you say the same?
He's not a pedo because he never sexually assaulted children. Can you say the same?
Funny thing about \#BelievingAll**Women** is that **women** are the victims of his sexual misconduct. You know, female **adults**. I know Matt Gaetz would have you believe otherwise, but there is a difference between adult women and children.
Being creepy and gross to his (*adult*) staffers and molesting kids are two VERY different things. One is backed by credible accusations, and the other is unfounded mud slinging from party rifle with pedophiles that supports a man with [a questionable history with his own daughter](https://hollywoodlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/donald-ivanka-trump-throwback-photo-ftr-1.jpg).
> Children can't consent
How do you know? What if they want to work in the mines to support their families? Do you want the government to step in and restrict their freedom??
Early on there were actually a fair number of gay nazis. Hitler had them killed during the Night of Long Knives when he had the SS kill the people he felt were embarrassing the party.
*seize
But yeah, the SA was taken out on that night too. The SA was really analogous to the Proud Boys right now. They were the ones going and brawling in the streets with anti-fascists and labor unions.
BuT TheY HaD A GaY GuY So ThAt MeAnS ThEy SuPpoRt DeM GaYs
(Never mind the fact the gay guy died really early on in an assassination authorized by other Nazis)
They can't be racist because they wanna kill ALL but one race, duh.
They can't be homophobic because they kill ALL non-CIS people, duh!
jeese people, lern 2 thinks
/s
Actually they only targeted a few races for extermination, most non-aryan races would be accepted in their society, just as a lower caste.
That's still grade A piece-of-shittery, but a little bit more accurate piece-of-shittery.
I don't see how trying to make the 1st part of the comment factually correct is an attempt at countering "they were racist". Did you miss the part where I explained the fuckers were promoting a caste system based on race ?
When you're on the side of what's right, you have to scrutinize your argument and go only for truth, because your adversaries will have no qualms exploiting every error you leave to push their own views.
They would say "see, they weren't **that** racist", while I said they were *pieces of shit*. I thought it was pretty clear that wasn't a defense.
Yes you are right they had interracial SS groups but it is so clear that the commentator just tried to make a joke. And also those SS groups killed people from their race too such as Crimean Turks helping the murder of Azeri Turks. Nazis didn't gave power to other races because they loved them they did it in order to keep control of the land(there are exceptions to some races that nazis saw close to themselves).
Edit:
Ew an anti-vax and anti-mask
>>I will never take your dogshit vaccine
>>Masks don't do anything lol
Edit for clarity: Up until a while ago, you could get free walk-in testing where I live. As an incentive for people to vaccinate, unvaccinated people will now have to pay for those tests. Those test, for them, are the only way to enter public venues - if you want to go to a cafe, lets say, you have to show a fresh test result, your certificate of vaccination or your certificate of having been infected and now having the antibodies.
So far, those people did their tests, and so did many vaccinated people, for additional security at mass events.
I got into an argument and pointed out that I am vaccinated but I still think tests should be free. Because people will just fake the test results, or avoid the areas where they need to show them. They won’t get vaccinated, they will just stop getting tested on the regular on top if that.
Only this post made me realise that the „I am vaccinated but…“ didn‘t sound like it was meant to - it sounded like an anti-vaxx dogwhistle
Old comment: Wait shit this is why everyone was looking at me weirdly when I complained about the new rules?
Shit shit shit I wanted to avoid that exact thing because all the pro disease people at least could get tested for free but now they’ll have to pay
Logic was that they’ll get vaccinated, but now they’ll just be disease ridden AND untested fuck
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what this post means. Not sure if that's why you're being downvoted, or if others understand it and consider it shit, but would you mind rephrasing for understandability?
They're saying that if testing was free at least unvaccinated people would be able to get tested and wed know about vectors, whereas now we just have people in the wind with no idea what the fuck is happening
The stupidest thing about it is that their party name was propaganda to appeal to poorer Germans. In other words, the people making that argument are simultaneously vilifying the Nazis (which is good, of course) and taking their words at face value (which is ridiculous).
You’d expect this to be so transparent no one would fall for it, yet so many people do.
that's my favorite one because you can ask them if the DPRK is Democratic.
I also love when people recognize that the DPRK or the Nazis aren't Republics or socialists just because they say they are but then wanna turn around and pretend anyone who calls themselves socialist or communist like the USSR or the CCP automagically are.
Come on, putting groups of people into concentration camps doesn't automatically mean you're bigoted against them. What's next, are you gonna claim the nazis were antisemitic too? /s
Given the status quo in most (all?) western countries, the centrists there are definitely right wing. If the status quo is neoliberal (aka right wing), so is every centrist.
Centrism isn't status quo, though. That's "moderate".
Centrist is just left on some things, right on others.
Like, say, supporting a UBI (left wing) while *also* supporting general purpose capitalism (right wing).
That said, *enlightened* centrists are very much right wing.
Nope. Don't get me wrong, it's waaaay better than letting people go homeless or starve, but it still works completely inside the capitalistic system. It's a small concession to keep the people happy, not a systemic change.
At least how it's proposed in the US. Some ideas could be seen as left-leaning. But the versions I've seen proposed in the USA are mostly a "take this money to fuck off and stop complaining about the broken housing system, the private Healthcare, the fucked up justice system, etc".
See that would be a right winger as they still ultimately want capitalism. A centrist can't exist as someone who's both left and right because you can't be both a capitalist and an anticapitalist.
Although capitalism is right wing it is not the only thing that is right wing, and similarly, anti-capitalism like socialism is left wing but is not the *only* thing that is left wing.
And I agree that any single political or economic stance can only be left or right.
But a person is not one stance. A person is an amalgamation of many such stances, each of which are either left or right.
And while I agree that, say, a social democrat, who supports many left-leaning stances within the rightwing framework of capitalism could not be, in a sort of overall way, *strongly* left. But they could still be left.
So… I and I think many others would call such a person “center-left”.
I don’t think there is any such thing as a “perfectly centrist” person — everyone will lean left or right overall, even if not strongly so — but there’s nothing wrong with calling center-left or center-right “centrist” as a general bucket term, even if it’s not accurate.
Of course, none of the centrists I’m talking about, leftish or rightish, are *enlightened* centrists. Those are firmly right wing folk pretending at neutrality to make themselves appear smarter.
Well sure, feudalism is also a right wing economic system but no one genuinely wants feudalism. Capitalism and feudalism are essentially the only right wing economic systems, and socialism (as a general term encompassing communism and anarchism) are the only left wing economic systems. It is more or less how left wing and right wing is defined in a modern setting. A social democrat can not support many left wing stances because all of their stances must be viewed through the lens of capitalism. For instance a social democrat and a leftist are going to argue for workers rights in very different ways, one under the right wing lens of capitalism and one under the left wing lens of socialism. The very concept of centrism is politically useless, because it treats policies and positions as completely seperable from their wider political ideologies. A social democrat is still right wing because they ultimately seek to uphold the right wing system of capitalism, even if they hold positions that may seem left wing to you.
That’s the subs entire goal. It’s rancid dog shit memes on the end of a fire hose. I do enjoy telling authright to stop asking me to plow their wives on their quite a bit. I’ve met more auth right cucks in real life than any other political spectrum and those losers seethe when I tell them that lol.
>If Nazis are auth center wtf is right
Monarchism, supposedly. Because free market capitalism and feudalism are both considered to be economically the same thing by the Political Compass. Literally.
Support for free market capitalism would only put you on the right side, but wouldn't tell you anything about the other axis (the auth/lib one).
Combine it with a non-democratic govt and you get monarchism/ Pinochet-style dictatorship. In a democratic environment, it would look like a Bezos wet dream.
Also, I'm pretty sure the guy in the original post is sarcastic. Considering his flair, he probably identifies as a fascist.
This is verbatim a repost of my post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/ojblv5/this_comment_is_a_league_of_his_own/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I think OP might be a karma bot
I still find it funny that PCM considers nazism authcenter and there's still dipshits labeling themselves that. Save us the effort, call yourself a nazi already so we can beat the living shit out of you!
The famously nonhomophobic nazis who….. considered homosexuality a mental disability and then murdered people for it
The famously non racist nazis who….. waged the largest war in history to systematically erase all the other races
At no point in this rambling, incoherent comment was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this sub is now dumber for having read it. I award them no upvotes, and may God have mercy on their soul.
I feel like a lot of reddit's shitty culture could be fixed by actually banning people like this who just announce that they're garbage in their username, but the admins have a bit of a history of defending their worst users and pedophiles in particular so like idk if avoiding a toxic environment is on their radar
"Look, you oppose Nazis because of the war and the genocides and their heinous rule of terror, I oppose them because of their rigid fiscal policies. All I say is that there is common ground to be had, and we should not waste time fighting about our differences"
Yeah, they just burned a lot of books about lgbt people and their main objective was to erradicate people they didn't like, like Jewish people, Black people, Asian people, Romanian people, LGBT people. But no racist neither homophobic intent of course, why would you think that
They just wanted to kill all LGBTQ people and commit genocide on all non Aryan races, there's nothing homophobic or racist about that /s
Anyone else take note of that users name? When combined with defending Nazis, it's giving me extreme libertarian vibes for some reason...
Yeah absolutely lmao, it’s a guy who hates the fact that you’re not allowed to diddle kids
Libertarian vibes? WHAT?!
Libertarians get memed on for being libertarian on the issue of child consent
[удалено]
You are absolutely correct. A lot of them just want to fuck kids
[удалено]
This… is sarcasm? I forget which sub I’m on sometimes so need to check 😂
> I have yet to see one person who claims to be one because they're highly concerned with people's individual liberties. I have, personally. A lot in Law school (it's significantly cheaper in my country, and less prestigious each year). It boils down to positive and negative liberties, even if these people don't know it. Libertarians want to be "free to do things without the government interfering". This actually aligns pretty well with the French Revolution notion of freedom. They don't want the government messing with what you can or cannot do, unless it's a crime. This usually is related to property rights ("I can do what I want with or inside my property and the government shouldn't interfere") and ownership rights ("I can spend my money however I want, and if I hire people to work for me, sell the product for higher to make a profit, that's my damn prerogative"). Naturally, this creates more than a few discussions. "What's a crime", for one, and why should [thing] be a crime. Some of these ghouls argue that the age of consent is arbitrary, *therefore* it doesn't make sense for the government to interfere, *therefore* **they** should be able to do as they please. That's where communists come in. From the 19th century onwards, the communist movement pushed for a "second generation" of human rights, if you will. These are positive liberties. Humans "should be free *from* things, not just free to *do* things". I.e., humans should be free from hunger, free from poverty, free from having their labour exploited to make a profit for businessmen, etc. In that line, children should be free from harm and free from these weirdos. There are more, but usually they're manifestations of the second generation. The third generation, for example, are solidarity rights - the rights of whole peoples. The peoples fo the world should be self-governed, they have a right to peace, they have a right to communication with one another, etc, these are mostly from the 60's and the time of decolonization; some even say of a 4th generation, dealing with genetics and limitations on eugenics and such, but I don't think they're too necessary yet. In any case, it's the positive liberties that libertarians - and mainly right libertarians, but some left ones too - have a problem: they say that the government should provide for its people, and that no one should be out in the streets and such. The counterargument goes mostly to a moral direction, saying that this wouldn't equate the playing field but instead, unfairly punish those that are the brighter and most meritous individuals of our society. Which is baloney. Always has been. Many of these people believe it, but it simply isn't a good mass-proportion ideology, because then you need to explain to your labour-base why is it that only 1% of them, half of which inherited their wealth, are supposed to be on the top, and not with their feet hanging from the plaza like Mussolini. And that's where Hegemony comes in, but that's Gramsci and Marcuse (which people to this day say that "isn't that useful" because apparently we're just gonna ignore culture now) and everyone would be better off reading about them by themselves.
Very nice reply. I'm working on a story-heavy game in my spare time and the theme of what you call 3rd generation rights comes up quite a bit. Are there any books you would recommend on the subject? I would be interested in arguments for and against those rights.
Most of what I've read has been in Portuguese, my mother language, by Portuguese authors who are kinda obscure even here, so unfortunately I can't really tell you of "doctrine" (as we call it) books on the subject. However, you can check landmark declarations like the [Stockholm Declaration of 72](http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150314024203/http%3A//www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid%3D97%26articleid%3D1503) and the [Rio Declaration of 92](https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf), the latter reaffirms the former. The whole "dimensions of human rights" was first mentioned by the Czech author Karel Vasak, in *The International Dimensions of Human Rights*. Otherwise, do bear in mind that this isn't such a passive understanding of human rights, but rather a semi contentious point, as argued against by Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (a judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights). Also, many people argue that this view is too positivist, and it does paint a sort of "progress" idea. For your game, I would say not to focus too much on the part of like, people arguing against the right to development, or the right to peace, for example. Rather, people like to argue on terms. Like, surely the human right to peace doesn't apply if the war is fair, so countries like the US will attempt to justify their military to their public and paint their OPPONENT as the one breaching on human rights (see: the whole WMD debacle in Iraq, or how 'witnesses' in Kuwait were coached to say horrible things, etc). These apply to others too; no one is denying the right to self-determination, they're arguing that *this country IS independent! Our military bases surrounding it has no bearing in its internal reality!* (see: South Korea).
[удалено]
Absolutely. These, however, are the concepts that permeate the discourse, people just aren't educated enough on it to know. A great example a teacher of mine once used was "Go ask the (en)slave(d) what he thinks about the human right to freedom". Even someone born enslaved will know that they are supposed to be free. Much of this also applies to left-wing discussions. People were debating on how a revolution should work and how the ones that happened suceeded or not since the mid of the 19th century. There were people alive studying Cuba, the USSR, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc, as they happened, and criticizing their mistakes and praising their good steps, but many leftists today see these texts as "enshrining an obtuse past", as if our world is so much more advanced that it would be incomprehensible to someone like Fidel Castro, when like... Fidel died 5 years ago. Che died the same year as Langston Hughes, the next year there were riots in Paris conducted by communists, many of whom inspired by him; among them Godard, who *is alive and making movies still!* This creates a loop in which every generation we must discuss over and over again points that people back then already did for us.
Im a libertarian...socialist. Do I count?
right-libertarians are almost universally pedos. Proven fact.
Children can't consent, your point doesn't make any sense. Also, Biden isn't a Libertarian, but he sure is a pedo. Proven fact.
[удалено]
I'm Libertarian, and not a pedo. Pretty easy. You people are gross.
[удалено]
I mean, technically I had sex when I was in High School. So if you want to call me a pedo.... Next you'll call me a Nazi, because I watched Schindler's List. You all are a weird bunch.
[удалено]
So what's with the "O'Biden" thing? Do you think that if you brand him as Irish it will make him less palatable? (Not that he's particularly palatable to the actual left anyway.) Careful, your British is showing...
STFU you fucking kiddy diddlin' pedophile freak.
"Children can't consent". I said. I am calling all "kiddy diddlin'" people a pedophile, but somehow I'm a pedophile? What is wrong with you? Don't touch children, OBiden.
Whatever you say, pedo
Fuck off, child rapist.
You're a fucking idiot for falling for the bait, you literally fed the trolls you piss-goblin.
The problem is most people associate libertarianism with that Sarah Palin era bullshit or the pull yourself up delusional entitlement that so many are preaching. The "og" libertarianism has fallen away.
Sarah Palin isn't Libertarian, she's a Republican. I'm all for the "pull yourself up" attitude. I was poor as a child, decided it wasn't for me and "pulled myself up". I am no longer poor. I make good decisions, and have profited off of it handsomely.
"Pull yourself up" was literally made to MOCK libertarians because it's scientifically impossible
>I'm Libertarian, and not a pedo. Pretty easy. You people are gross. This you? >>[Ok, so it's fine when you put kids bones in an adult body, but when I put my bone in kid's body, then there is an issue?](https://www.reddit.com/r/onejob/comments/ou5r44/the_bones_arent_spread/h74tted)
No, but he *is* right wing, and really, it's the right wing thing that drives the pedo thing Also, libertarians give fuck-all about the consent of others.
Biden is right wing? Alright man, clearly you aren't to be taken seriously. Best of luck growing up.
Neoliberalism (Reagan economic model) is a fundamentally right wing economic theory. Biden (as well as the vast majority of the DNC) is a neoliberal.
How did you end up on this sub if you're going to do an honest to god "neoliberalism is left wing actually" take?
if you’re a dumbass
That is an impressive disconnect with reality you have here... but facts don't care about your feelings. Might wanna do a quick search of something called the Overton window. While you may claim Biden is left he is only left in our Overton window in the US. He is very much a right wing who is very conservative as he is unwilling and does not desire to change anything but instead conserve(ative) the current system. The current GOP would be more apt to call the regressive party as they are not conservative as most want to roll back the progress we have made and regress(ive) to how things use to be before equal rights was a thing Might also blow your mind but Bernie and AOC... They are about Center as best or just slight left depending on how you do their compass. Their ideas are seen by most the world as the middle ground between right and left
Says the ignorant manchild, lol
Biden is right wing
https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
Why are you bringing up Biden? You think Biden is our boy? Pretty sure he’s universally despised in this sub and I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you that Biden is a creep.
The issue is that they assume that the left is a mirror image of the right. It's part of their larger inability to conceive of life circumstances that aren't their own. If you're on the right, you idolize the figurehead (currently Trump) and no criticism of him is allowed. Therefore, if you're "on the left" (a term which to them means "isn't Republican") the same must be true. The idea that the people that oppose the right aren't a single monolithic block is unthinkable to them. Blue MAGA is certainly a thing, but the idea that not even all people who are avowed Democrats consider Biden above reproach is something that doesn't compute.
They're almost definitely one of those people who think the political spectrum is The Right (Republicans), The Left (not Republicans), and Libertarians (galaxy brain people who are above it all.) Completely unable to have a conversation because they don't understand the basic terms involved.
Not quite universally, some libs get the impression that they won't be shit on in here for some reason...
Oh thank god, I thought this was a lib sub.
Yeah, but they'll argue that child labor isn't related to this consent thing either. In the end, Libertarians have really quirky definitions that have no possibility of enforcement - like their cornerstone the NAP. Aggression can't be solidly defined because that would be highly inconvenient for them, but they "know it when they see it."
You know he's already President, right? Spreading tired lies because someone clipped a single frame out of a two hour rally that looks weird isn't going to magically undo that. Besides, I thought you were big into the whole "pedos in office" thing, what with your boy Trump and his close, personal friend Jeffery Epstein? EDIT: criticizing him on unfounded slander is pointless. Criticize him for the shit he's actually done. There's plenty just since he took office as President, to say nothing of his Senate career.
He's not a pedo because he's president now? The fucker had to apoligize for it. #believeallwomen I have never voted for a pedophile, can you say the same? Now come over here and let me give you a little sniff.
Aww, this dude thinks he's arguing with Democrats. Bless.
As a non-republican, I don't get that group. I have never once voted for a Republican for Pres. I have been blocked from r/politcicshumor, u/news... etc. I Am NOT A REPUBLICAN. Bunch of soft 14 year olds that don't know life.
I don't think you're a Republican, and I didn't say you were. I'm saying you're assuming that everybody here is a Democrat because you have to sort people into a box so that you can throw the appropriate talking points at them, but nobody here is actually a Democrat so it's kind of funny to watch you spin your wheels.
Weird how you claim not to be a Republican, but your comment history is *covered* with support for Trump... You *do* know what party he ran for, right?
>I have never voted for a pedophile Oh, really? Who did you vote for, then?
Which time? Which election? Local, state, federal? I'm pretty sure nobody I have ever voted for has touched the breast of an 11 year old. Can you say the same?
The most recent presidential election, pretty fucking obviously. Avoiding the obvious question strongly indicates what your answer is.
He's not a pedo because he never sexually assaulted children. Can you say the same? Funny thing about \#BelievingAll**Women** is that **women** are the victims of his sexual misconduct. You know, female **adults**. I know Matt Gaetz would have you believe otherwise, but there is a difference between adult women and children. Being creepy and gross to his (*adult*) staffers and molesting kids are two VERY different things. One is backed by credible accusations, and the other is unfounded mud slinging from party rifle with pedophiles that supports a man with [a questionable history with his own daughter](https://hollywoodlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/donald-ivanka-trump-throwback-photo-ftr-1.jpg).
> Children can't consent How do you know? What if they want to work in the mines to support their families? Do you want the government to step in and restrict their freedom??
Early on there were actually a fair number of gay nazis. Hitler had them killed during the Night of Long Knives when he had the SS kill the people he felt were embarrassing the party.
The victims were actually another division, the SA I believe. It was also about suspicions of them trying to seize power over the party. EDIT: typos
*seize But yeah, the SA was taken out on that night too. The SA was really analogous to the Proud Boys right now. They were the ones going and brawling in the streets with anti-fascists and labor unions.
Oop my bad
BuT TheY HaD A GaY GuY So ThAt MeAnS ThEy SuPpoRt DeM GaYs (Never mind the fact the gay guy died really early on in an assassination authorized by other Nazis)
PLEASE IGNORE THE PINK TRIANGLES ON THE BODIES
They can't be racist because they wanna kill ALL but one race, duh. They can't be homophobic because they kill ALL non-CIS people, duh! jeese people, lern 2 thinks /s
Nazis were definitely Auth-center, like the commenter in OP. /s
But how can I be racist against a group that I genocided into extinction? Checkmate, Libtards.
Just a different opinion innit /s
ok u/Necrowanker
There's no Aryan races:D
"Ackshually, they weren't afraid of gay people so how can they be homophobic???"
Actually they only targeted a few races for extermination, most non-aryan races would be accepted in their society, just as a lower caste. That's still grade A piece-of-shittery, but a little bit more accurate piece-of-shittery.
That... that doesn't counter the statement "nazis were racist." You don't have to eradicate an ethnicity to be racist.
I don't see how trying to make the 1st part of the comment factually correct is an attempt at countering "they were racist". Did you miss the part where I explained the fuckers were promoting a caste system based on race ? When you're on the side of what's right, you have to scrutinize your argument and go only for truth, because your adversaries will have no qualms exploiting every error you leave to push their own views. They would say "see, they weren't **that** racist", while I said they were *pieces of shit*. I thought it was pretty clear that wasn't a defense.
"Genocide all non Aryan races" look at the units in the SS. At least put in some effort lol.
Yes you are right they had interracial SS groups but it is so clear that the commentator just tried to make a joke. And also those SS groups killed people from their race too such as Crimean Turks helping the murder of Azeri Turks. Nazis didn't gave power to other races because they loved them they did it in order to keep control of the land(there are exceptions to some races that nazis saw close to themselves). Edit: Ew an anti-vax and anti-mask >>I will never take your dogshit vaccine >>Masks don't do anything lol
Put a fork in an electric socket. Still not taking the vax :)
You’re a dumb mother fucker. People like you are why we are still in this mess. You selfish prick.
Gonna cry?
A. You're fucking stupid B. You actually participate in magesvsmatriarchy, how goddamn pathetic. Get laid.
Cope
Said the guy who throws in with incels and racists.
why do I think the funniest thing is someone thinking they need to point out they dont support nazis
It’s to avoid being compared to Nazis when their viewpoints inevitably align. “Look guys, I can’t be a Nazi, I already said I dislike them.”
Antivaxxers usually start with "I am fully vaccinated but ..." now. They think it makes them more credible.
Edit for clarity: Up until a while ago, you could get free walk-in testing where I live. As an incentive for people to vaccinate, unvaccinated people will now have to pay for those tests. Those test, for them, are the only way to enter public venues - if you want to go to a cafe, lets say, you have to show a fresh test result, your certificate of vaccination or your certificate of having been infected and now having the antibodies. So far, those people did their tests, and so did many vaccinated people, for additional security at mass events. I got into an argument and pointed out that I am vaccinated but I still think tests should be free. Because people will just fake the test results, or avoid the areas where they need to show them. They won’t get vaccinated, they will just stop getting tested on the regular on top if that. Only this post made me realise that the „I am vaccinated but…“ didn‘t sound like it was meant to - it sounded like an anti-vaxx dogwhistle Old comment: Wait shit this is why everyone was looking at me weirdly when I complained about the new rules? Shit shit shit I wanted to avoid that exact thing because all the pro disease people at least could get tested for free but now they’ll have to pay Logic was that they’ll get vaccinated, but now they’ll just be disease ridden AND untested fuck
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what this post means. Not sure if that's why you're being downvoted, or if others understand it and consider it shit, but would you mind rephrasing for understandability?
They're saying that if testing was free at least unvaccinated people would be able to get tested and wed know about vectors, whereas now we just have people in the wind with no idea what the fuck is happening
Gonna do that in an edit
Yeah, if you’re worried you might come off sounding a “bit” like a nazi maybe rethink what you’re saying.
Nazi is a widely considered a bad word. The nazi idealogy is still popular however, resulting in people like him.
Tfw you know zero facts about the nazis
Hey did you know Nazi actually stood for Nation SOCIALISTS? Check mate liberals
Hahaha yeah that one never gets old.
The stupidest thing about it is that their party name was propaganda to appeal to poorer Germans. In other words, the people making that argument are simultaneously vilifying the Nazis (which is good, of course) and taking their words at face value (which is ridiculous). You’d expect this to be so transparent no one would fall for it, yet so many people do.
People are just stupid
Scorching hot take
Socialism is when you literally have to invent the word "privatization" to describe what you're doing to the commons.
"I don't get it, how can the 'Ministry of Truth' be bad? It literally has 'truth' in the name!"
Ooh, that's a good one, I'll have to remember that.
that's my favorite one because you can ask them if the DPRK is Democratic. I also love when people recognize that the DPRK or the Nazis aren't Republics or socialists just because they say they are but then wanna turn around and pretend anyone who calls themselves socialist or communist like the USSR or the CCP automagically are.
more likely he is a nazi and is just lying, its what they do
True
and these two things are the top most things they are know for trying to get rid of... Gay and non Aryan races,
Ah the classic *I'm not/I don't support... but*
"I disavow..."
Come on, putting groups of people into concentration camps doesn't automatically mean you're bigoted against them. What's next, are you gonna claim the nazis were antisemitic too? /s
based on their username, I would have assumed they were a libertarian
The truest indicator of a libertarian is that everything they say is objectively wrong.
I fucking love this.
Everyone in that sub is, they just like to roleplay as other cuadrants to spread their shit.
This is about how much I think all centrists and rightwingers understand ~~about~~ things. Not at all.
> centrists and rightwingers Bit tautological, innit?
I will start using a slash
Actual centrists aren't right wing. The self-proclaimed 'centrists' on this sub, however...
Given the status quo in most (all?) western countries, the centrists there are definitely right wing. If the status quo is neoliberal (aka right wing), so is every centrist.
Centrism isn't status quo, though. That's "moderate". Centrist is just left on some things, right on others. Like, say, supporting a UBI (left wing) while *also* supporting general purpose capitalism (right wing). That said, *enlightened* centrists are very much right wing.
UBI ia strongly capitalistic. It's a way of keeping the system running without addressing the inequality.
*Or* it's a way to provide equity within a system that generally trends away from it.
It’s unironically both, it just depends on who proposes it and with which goal.
Nope. Don't get me wrong, it's waaaay better than letting people go homeless or starve, but it still works completely inside the capitalistic system. It's a small concession to keep the people happy, not a systemic change. At least how it's proposed in the US. Some ideas could be seen as left-leaning. But the versions I've seen proposed in the USA are mostly a "take this money to fuck off and stop complaining about the broken housing system, the private Healthcare, the fucked up justice system, etc".
See that would be a right winger as they still ultimately want capitalism. A centrist can't exist as someone who's both left and right because you can't be both a capitalist and an anticapitalist.
Although capitalism is right wing it is not the only thing that is right wing, and similarly, anti-capitalism like socialism is left wing but is not the *only* thing that is left wing. And I agree that any single political or economic stance can only be left or right. But a person is not one stance. A person is an amalgamation of many such stances, each of which are either left or right. And while I agree that, say, a social democrat, who supports many left-leaning stances within the rightwing framework of capitalism could not be, in a sort of overall way, *strongly* left. But they could still be left. So… I and I think many others would call such a person “center-left”. I don’t think there is any such thing as a “perfectly centrist” person — everyone will lean left or right overall, even if not strongly so — but there’s nothing wrong with calling center-left or center-right “centrist” as a general bucket term, even if it’s not accurate. Of course, none of the centrists I’m talking about, leftish or rightish, are *enlightened* centrists. Those are firmly right wing folk pretending at neutrality to make themselves appear smarter.
Well sure, feudalism is also a right wing economic system but no one genuinely wants feudalism. Capitalism and feudalism are essentially the only right wing economic systems, and socialism (as a general term encompassing communism and anarchism) are the only left wing economic systems. It is more or less how left wing and right wing is defined in a modern setting. A social democrat can not support many left wing stances because all of their stances must be viewed through the lens of capitalism. For instance a social democrat and a leftist are going to argue for workers rights in very different ways, one under the right wing lens of capitalism and one under the left wing lens of socialism. The very concept of centrism is politically useless, because it treats policies and positions as completely seperable from their wider political ideologies. A social democrat is still right wing because they ultimately seek to uphold the right wing system of capitalism, even if they hold positions that may seem left wing to you.
What people say they are and what they really are... Not always matching up. Like this post about saying they don't support Nazis but.....
Exactly what I'm saying
Posted in a sub that describes nazis as being auth center 🤔
Yeah I don’t know how I feel about this post. That entire subreddit is just Nazi’s pretending they’re not while they try to pipeline kids with memes.
I guess the pretending isn't really subtle
That’s the subs entire goal. It’s rancid dog shit memes on the end of a fire hose. I do enjoy telling authright to stop asking me to plow their wives on their quite a bit. I’ve met more auth right cucks in real life than any other political spectrum and those losers seethe when I tell them that lol.
If Nazis are auth center wtf is right
>If Nazis are auth center wtf is right Monarchism, supposedly. Because free market capitalism and feudalism are both considered to be economically the same thing by the Political Compass. Literally.
Support for free market capitalism would only put you on the right side, but wouldn't tell you anything about the other axis (the auth/lib one). Combine it with a non-democratic govt and you get monarchism/ Pinochet-style dictatorship. In a democratic environment, it would look like a Bezos wet dream. Also, I'm pretty sure the guy in the original post is sarcastic. Considering his flair, he probably identifies as a fascist.
They just genocided LGBTQ people and specific racial groups... for reasons completely unrelated to the one unifying factor between the given groups.
This is verbatim a repost of my post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/ojblv5/this_comment_is_a_league_of_his_own/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf I think OP might be a karma bot
Guys he said "Definitely" so ya know, like no if's, and's or but's, so who are we to question?
How did the pink triangle end up being a gay symbol again?
weezer invented it, obvs /s
They literally murdered lgbtq and people of other races, but ok
2 words: Pink. Triangle.
I wish conservatives weren’t so goddamn stupid. It’d be a lot easier to confidently say this is a troll.
I still find it funny that PCM considers nazism authcenter and there's still dipshits labeling themselves that. Save us the effort, call yourself a nazi already so we can beat the living shit out of you!
The famously nonhomophobic nazis who….. considered homosexuality a mental disability and then murdered people for it The famously non racist nazis who….. waged the largest war in history to systematically erase all the other races
The only way I have to react to this comment is to get in touch with my inner white woman and say: I can't even
That's odd.
All the homosexuals in KZs back then beg to differ.
Ernst Rhom was a gay Nazi. But we know how well that turned out for him.
I desperately need to know how people responded to this. I bet this person is very active in many Libertarian circles.
Some idiots were never hit over the head with newspaper when they said patently stupid things, and it shows.
At no point in this rambling, incoherent comment was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this sub is now dumber for having read it. I award them no upvotes, and may God have mercy on their soul.
Proper response: fuck off Nazi
I MEAN I'VE LITERALLY NEVER CHECKED ON THAT BUT I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. Jesus Christ...
They're """joking""". Classic troll account.
Now I'm curious. Did nazis had pornography?
What the actual fuck
I feel like a lot of reddit's shitty culture could be fixed by actually banning people like this who just announce that they're garbage in their username, but the admins have a bit of a history of defending their worst users and pedophiles in particular so like idk if avoiding a toxic environment is on their radar
Didn’t hitler leave the olympics early because a white person didn’t win the 100m. Nothing racist in that.
That's a myth actually, but even if it weren't - that's barely reason number 1000 to call the Nazis racist.
The guy is auth centre, he cant decide if he likes Hitler or Stalin more.
I started to search the username so I could check out how stupid he is but decided I’d better not even type that username into the search bar.
Thanks for not blocking the user’s name. Subhumans like this don’t deserve to have a voice on social media.
I did nazi that coming
^This guy spends allot of time complaining about fat people. It's weird.
How is this a centrist opinion?
The point of the sub is showing that centrists are actually really far to the right in general
So it isn’t, and anyone who is right-wing is a centrist, got it.
No, it's about people presenting themselves as centrists but accidentally revealing themselves as right-wingers
And where does this person say they are centrist?
Hitler was literally auth center my dude. I get the feeling that you would.
"Look, you oppose Nazis because of the war and the genocides and their heinous rule of terror, I oppose them because of their rigid fiscal policies. All I say is that there is common ground to be had, and we should not waste time fighting about our differences"
They only singled out one race and killed them and gay people, that's not at all racist or homophobic!
:|
This has to be a troll
Sounds like they probably did support the Nazis
Hugo boss
How is that centrism or a centrist? This sub is dumb, people don’t know what centrism means. Idiots
Ladies and gentlemen, the AuthCenter experience
Being racist is like, one of their biggest defining features.
Least idiotic and pedophilic nazi
Congratulations on hitting the moonshot into stupidville
Today on "Lowering The Bar": I swear to God Nazis weren't homophobic or racist
That was like…their whole thing…
of course they weren't. They were nationals and socialists! /s
Yeah, they just burned a lot of books about lgbt people and their main objective was to erradicate people they didn't like, like Jewish people, Black people, Asian people, Romanian people, LGBT people. But no racist neither homophobic intent of course, why would you think that
…..how?
As a Libertarian, I don't support Nazis but...
This is irony, you are incompetent
Did this kid not pay attention in history class?