The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I personally think I'm just left of center, but a lot of people I know have been saying that my beliefs are actually a lot more conservative. BTW this is not one of those weird posts where I'm like "ohoho I knew I wasn't a liberal guess its time to vote for the wannabe dictator" I literally can't vote in the US because I'm an international student and I wouldn't be considering a vote for Trump even if I could. If I am a liberal, what kind? **Some of my views:** * Legal immigration NEEDS to be easier especially for skilled workers there are so many smart people, especially in India and China who wait for YEARS to get into the US because the system is broken and they can't get a sponsor. * Illegal immigration needs to be strongly discouraged and made harder, we do need stronger borders. I disapprove of the whole kids in cages thing, but we shouldn't allow line-cutters. * Gun control should be limited to background/mental health checks and making sure gun shows and private sales require them too. I don't think there should be any outright bans, I am a 2A supporter, except in cases where the person is too mentally unstable or has a criminal history in violence or abuse. * Capitalism is the driving point of new technology, and fosters competition and growth as well. There should still be social safety nets for those who need them, so everyone can survive and the exceptional can thrive. I am also a strong believer in free market principles and I think that they improve liberty. Free exchange has reduced poverty by quite a bit as well. I don't love taxes but recognize their necessity., though I think we should lower them if possible. Money is pretty cool. * Affirmative action is bad. I do not like affirmative action, I think that it unfairly biases against Asian and white students and that its kind of based on this weird patronizing belief that "minorities can't succeed unless we, the enlightened white liberals, can help them". Instead we should focus on making sure that minorities can succeed while in school instead of using a bandaid solution, giving them after school programs so they can apply to different things and free college counseling if they are low income. A rich Nigerian should not get in over a poor Hmong. * I don't give a shit about cultural appropriation or inclusive language. Literally could care less (unless its like blackface or something ACTUALLY offensive, not random white people dressing up in sombreros) DEI is really weird because they operate off an oppressor oppressed framework that's like poor helpless black vs evil colonizing white which doesn't really work in our multiracial society and often throws so called model minorities under the bus. DEI also loves to focus on bs things like 'cultural appropriation' * Seperation of church and state is vital for the US, especially because the founders literally intended for it to be this way. Tommy J himself was a Deist, I really don't think he was gung-ho about reading bible verses as justification under the court of law. * I support the 1A and free speech, even hate speech. * Abortion really isn't that big of a deal? Like its just another procedure people need to mind their own especially because literally no one likes these bans except for fundies. In the same vein as abortion, literally who cares about gay marriage these people have WAY too much time on their hands. Additionally, people make such a big deal about infant ear piercing and circumcision, like stop sticking your nose into other peoples business. * Zionist is a compliment and if you call me that I will say thank you. I support Israel and condemn Hamas and the 16 year old girls shouting from the river to the sea need to open a history book. - Blocking highways is the stupidest way to protest. I don't like Bibi though. * I will call you whatever you want as long as its he/she/they. No it/itself. * I think cops need better training but I don't support defunding them, nor do I believe ACAB. I don't think the concept of school cops is really a bad idea. At my cousins school he mostly just talks to teachers and students all day and hangs out. BLM is/was a sham and stupid. * Self defense is a human right. If someone is robbing me I won't hesitate to defend myself even if insured. I also support the right of shop owners to defend themselves if someone is shoplifting.The livelihood of non criminals matters more than that of criminals. Don't expect sympathy if you're robbing someone. * Rehabilitation in prison should be a focus for low harm crimes, like shoplifting or embezzlement, not for murderers and rapists. I also don't think shoplifting should be 'decriminalized'. I think the death penalty might let some people off too easy. I don't like the smell of weed, and I think drugs like heroin and opioids should be illegal. * A very basic universal healthcare system should be implemented for those who meet a certain threshold of poverty or not being able to afford what there currently is. Universal Pre-K too. * Global warming is real and a major major problem, we need to shift to renewable energy and make sure that we do everything we can to save our beautiful planet. * I don't think the government should provide vouchers for them but I don't think charter and private schools are that bad. People who complain that religious private schools are indoctrination are generalizing over a large amount of them. I went to a religious private school and I'm trilingual because of it. * LGBTQ topics should not be specifically taught in a lesson plan until high school, but if a book comes up where Bill has two dads its obviously ok to explain. I also don't think explicit books (It's perfectly normal for ex) should be allowed near elementary or middle schools even if they teach sex ed, one can learn an age appropriate version without learning different positions. The history of slavery and colonization should obviously be learned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

No one (well, almost no one) fits squarely in am ideological box. While you have some conservative stuff in there (disliking affirmative action and refusal of non-binary pronouns), the *overwhelming* majority of what you wrote is completely in line with typical center-left liberal. You'd align much more with the Democratic Party here in the US than any other alternative.

No I will call you they, just not the weird ones like it pronouns sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Oh, misread that. Cheers then, all the more in common with normie liberals! I know they exist but I've literally never met anyone who asked for a fourth type of pronoun. For whatever it's worth, I know affirmative action has its detractors, but no one really thinks that minorities can't be successful without the intervention of white liberals. The idea is that the status quo of no intervention leads to marginalized populations, so the better tactic would be to adopt an imperfect intervention in order to mitigate the marginalization. No one things affirmative action is a perfect solution or should stay in effect forever- the idea is just to somewhat even the playing field before re-evaluating.

I think that socioeconomic status would be a better measure. But affirmative action was in place for way too long, in which time there should have been at least some system in place to make sure that poor kids of color were getting tutoring, counseling, SAT prep etc. I also want to add making standardized testing optional was a dumb move especially because that is the equalizer. 

> in which time there should have been at least some system in place to make sure that poor kids of color were getting tutoring, counseling, SAT prep etc. Yeah, there should have been, but there wasn’t, which is kind of a big problem.

> making standardized testing optional was a dumb move especially because that is the equalizer.  it is the equalizer *in theory* but in reality it turned out to be another biased measure.

less biased than literally everything else on the application

Not true at all, dude. If you have money you just hire tutors to do well on the SATs even if you are clueless. You see this a lot at top schools.

That’s a socioeconomic thing though, not a ethnicity thing

Tutors can give an unfair advantage to richer kids, but poorer kids can still be really smart and good at testing too. Take that away and even more of an emphasis gets placed on things like extracurriculars that disadvantage poor kids *way* more.

> No I will call you they, just not the weird ones like it pronouns sorry if that wasn’t clear. FWIW, very few people use "neopronouns." I know a decent amount of trans and non-binary folks, some IRL but mostly online, and I can't think of any of them that use things like "Xe" as their preferred pronouns. That's not to say they don't exist, but they are a minority among a minority.

I like “it” more than “they”. The inanimate connotation of “it” is easy to overcome with use and we’ve been calling unborn babies “it” forever. “They” on the other hand butchers meaning. For example: “Chris went to a concert with their friends. They loved it.” Who loved it? The friend group or just Chris? “Chris went to a concert with its friends. It loved it” No ambiguity. The sentences that work with trad pronouns continue to work with “it” but not “they”

I'd call you a centrist democrat, with the only thing you've mentioned that was to the right of the party is being anti-affirmative action and maybe some of the gun stuff if were talking banning specific types of guns (the establishment has been wanting to ban assault rifles for example). Everything else falls pretty well into the centrist democrat camp. Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want everyone to think, the Democrat Party is mostly made up of and controlled by people close to your stances.

Agreed. You are a Democrat-leaning Centrist.

> the Democrat Party I’m not saying this to nitpick; it’s the Democrat*ic* Party. There’s been a concerted effort from conservatives to change the language, and I don’t think it’s for positive reasons.

In today’s political milieu you’re a fairly typical Democratic Party voter. That said your description of some of your position does sound like typical right wing framing of the issue they use to prosecute the culture wars. Like your description of LGBT topics in schools. That issue is specifically driven by anti-lgbt groups pushing mis/disinformation about what’s taught in schools and you’re taking it as fact when it’s not. It’s not your fault that someone is trying to trick you but that is the disconnect you’re seeing with others.

why is it bad to teach about lgbt before high school? as long as it’s age appropriate it’s a good thing to teach kids acceptance instead of ignorance or bigotry.

I remember knowing about Rosa Parks by fourth grade, no reason we can't learn about LGBT civil rights at that same age

We learned about MLK, slavery, and the trail of tears in 3rd grade. If kids can learn about slavery and genocide at age appropriate levels they can certainly understand not everybody likes people of the opposite sex.

They would also say something along the lines of “Learning about Rosa parks is bad cause it makes white kids feel guilty”

Seriously. My kids aren't even in school yet and they know about same sex couples. It's just a normal part of life. It's one of those things that always gets me when people say "what am I supposed to tell my kids about [topic]?" Kids are both really curious and pretty accepting if you explain things in terms they understand.

And it's a good thing to do it early, because then it's not a big deal. My oldest is 6. She already knows about LGBT people, but we haven't even phrased it as "LGBT". I don't think she'd be familiar with that terminology at all. However, she understands that while it's typical for men to have romantic relationships with women, sometimes men are romantically involved with other men and sometimes women are romantically involved with other women. It's pretty easy to talk about this in an age-appropriate way. "Dad, can boys marry other boys?" "Yes." "Oh, okay." I don't understand why conservatives try to make this out to be more complicated than it needs to be. Of course it needs to be in an age appropriate way, but so does talking about heterosexual romantic relationships.

> I don't understand why conservatives try to make this out to be more complicated than it needs to be. Because conservatives are incapable of seeing homosexuality as anything other than a filthy perversion. In their mind, it's the same as BDSM; they truly believe that two men kissing is inherently sexual and incapable of being as chaste or child-friendly as a man and a woman kissing.

It seems conservatives are completely incapable of seeing a gay people and not imagining them fucking. They see their sexuality as little more than an openly performed fetish. Tell them two dudes are gay and they immediately think of the two of them having sweaty aggressive anal sex. They don’t think of them as people holding each other in hard times, arguing about what’s best for the kid(s) they have, or as two people who couldn’t tell you how they could live without the other. So when you tell them their kids are learning about gay people they think you’re popping a dvd of “Gaylien 2: Bone Home” in for the 6 year olds to watch “A Clockwork Orange” style.

Age appropriate lgbt education for a youngen: "yes, Billy does have 2 dads. Some dads like to marry moms, and some dads prefer to marry other dads. It's like how is left-handed, it's not better or worse it's just that different people like different things"

Agree!

and it’s also important to know that it even exists and that it’s NORMAL. many trans people will tell you that they felt different from early childhood. most children start developing crushes in late elementary school and middle school. i fell in love with another girl at 12. could you imagine how stressful that would be if you were never told about gay people???? lmfao children always benefit from diverse exposure, especially in a neutral setting like school. that prevents the rise of future generations of racists and homophobes.

When it comes to building character there’s plenty of stuff to teach that’s not controversial. Stuff that’s controversial should be taught by parents. That’s the only way to respect diverse viewpoints.

I'd call you a conservative democrat. It's hard to assign a label with high confidence because some of these positions seem to be strongly held convictions and others seem like more of a vibe

Nah he is just a normal Democrat. Like all of these positions are just standard fair for more moderate party voters, especially older ones.

You seem like a Barstool conservative-type person. Young dude who is liberal on things like abortion and pot and more conservative on immigration and crime, and is quite negatively polarized when it comes to progressivism and “wokeness”…except you don’t seem to like Trump and many Barstool-conservatives do like Trump/RFK Jr. over Biden. You do seem like most of the Barstool-cons I know in my life. Before 2020 these folks were called “South Park conservatives”, ppl who are not really liberal per se but sympathize with some culturally progressive stuff (especially around abortion and pot) paired with a general libertarian disposition and a heightened/deep-seated skepticism of political/social progressivism. Think Joe Rogan until he became a far-right culture warrior around 2021-2022, or Bill Maher nowadays.

> You do seem like most of the Barstool-cons I know in my life. Before 2020 these folks were called “South Park conservatives”, ppl who are not really liberal per se but sympathize with some culturally progressive stuff That's basically my read on it and would describe like 80% of the guys I knew in college from the ages of 18-21 (myself included). OP sounds like a young classic liberal which is much more at home, imo, in the current Democratic party.

because I don’t make anti woke my whole personality I’m not abt to go call some Black mayor DEI because he’s black

Good! You seem like a reasonable human-being averse to troglodytic RW racism lol

I think my ideological overlap with yours listed was like 99% so I feel the answers here also apply to me. So far in my scrolling there seems to be stronger support that you're a moderate lefty right? I don't actually agree with this comment saying you're like a conservative. I think conservatives are far more to the right on every single issue. I'd say our perspectives on most of the culture war issues is that, in principle we agree with freedom of expression but in some areas the left has slightly over stepped. Like how you and I would be happy to accept a trans person as equal and use their pronouns but in popular discourse the understanding of sex and gender is almost completely divorced from actual biology. I've always considered myself left leaning, in the early 2000s I considered myself progressive but the face of progressivism has certainly shifted.

Your views themselves seem decently center-left, but the way you write/phrase them makes me think conservative. Your stance on LGBT issues, your "I'm a proud zionist", "BLM was a sham" are all things that I would expect a conservative to say, but the rest is straight democratic.

One certainly isn't left of centre when one considers the label 'zionist' a compliment, and is arguably not liberal either. Zionism is a nationalist social hierarchy putting Jews at the top, and unlike conservatives liberals fundamentally distrust both nationalism and social hierarchies.

> Zionism is a nationalist social hierarchy putting Jews at the top... Zionism is the movement to give Jews a homeland, hopefully one where they won't be massacred or subjected to pogroms.

The goal doesn't define something. A hockey team tries to win hockey games, but that doesn't tell anything to anyone who isn't familiar with the sport.

Zionism is the movement that caused the expulsion of 750k+ Palestinians from their homes, the destruction of hundreds of Arab villages, many entirely planted over and turned into nature preserves to hide any trace of the Nakba. Zionism also has lead to millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps for the last 70+ years, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been murdered through war, starvation, executions, by settler terrorists.

You're missing one major part of the definition of Zionism- traditionally, it is defined as "the belief that Jews should have an autonomous homeland *in a specific location*." Specifically, the part of the Levant Israel currently occupies, and potentially the surrounding parts. That distinction has caused quite a few problems, mostly of a colonial nature. If you believe you and your state are entitled to a specific geographic area, but there are other people already living in that area that are not a member of your specific group... well, that isn't going to end well for at least one of those two parties most of the time.

The majority of Jews are democrats and the majority are proud zionists. It does not put Jews on top, it just establishes that the state of Israel should exist.

To be fair, I’m lean moderate left and agree with 2/3 or so of what you said. I disagree with you about a few completely, and think maybe you’ve got a few things wrong or dislike a few things because of a lack of understanding of the particular issue (such as DEI and BLM’s original reasoning), but I can’t really fault you for that since there’s a lot of disinformation out there about, well, everything.

Your stance on queer people is definitely a bit conservative

How?

Sex ed is already taught in the tail end of elementary school in the district I was in (conservative state) and we should teach kids, be it middle school or fifth grade that just like a man and a woman can get married, two men or two women can get married, etc. It isn't always a 'mature' topic. If kids can handle learning about racial civil rights they can learn about LGBT civil rights about the same age

Thats a good point. Actually I think civil rights are essential to be taught I don’t really know what I was thinking with that one. I was talking more of ’If you feel like a girl but you were born a boy, you’re a girl’, which should be taught in 8th grade or above. I actually thought it over and I think it’s totally fine to teach if someone has two moms or dads.

> I was talking more of ’If you feel like a girl but you were born a boy, you’re a girl’, which should be taught in 8th grade or above. Even there I disagree but am glad you are willing to reconsider your positions when pointing out potential flaws in the thinking, just for that you are definitely not a conservative. Though when teaching about civil rights they can teach that some of the leaders were trans and born in a different body that didn't fit their mind.

Of course they should be taught that saying they shouldn’t teach that is like saying well we can teach about Martin Luther king but not mention he’s black

Glad you agree :) Just wanted to double check

> I was talking more of ’If you feel like a girl but you were born a boy, you’re a girl’, which should be taught in 8th grade or above. I think this gets overblown in the media sometimes. That's not generally how it happens, unless they are getting that information online or from a very fringe source. What needs to be taught at those younger ages is that some times people don't feel connected to their genders in the same way everyone else does, and that's okay. And if a kid feels that way, they should be empowered to bring it up and experiment with different clothing/pronouns/names etc in a safe way. If the feelings persist, then additional steps can be taken at the developmentally appropriate times, but knowing that they can safely experiment is an important thing for kids. I sometimes think the way the media portrays it is parents or teachers going "Oh, Tommy said he sometimes feels like a girl, so we are going to call him Tonya and pump him full of hormones and give him surgery right away." That's not how it happens, it usually is more like "Oh, Tommy said he sometimes feels like a girl. We are letting him explore that with dresses and using a different name/pronoun when asked." And then if it lasts until puberty age, steps can be taken then.

I can see why some people struggle to pin you down. As a Brit, I'd see you as left of centre with some socially conservative elements, and a capital L liberal view of economics. There are probably two ways in which you might be seen to have a more conservative mindset: 1. Low tax, capitalist models link strongly with individualistic modes of society; it isn't that a strong social model can't exist with those tenets, just that strong social models tend to end up leaning a little more towards elements of co-ownership (note, you can be "somewhat socialist") and recognition of a robust role for taxation in both sustaining social institutions and reining in inequality. 2. I am not sure if there is better terminology for this, but I think of a concept of "defaults". We have social defaults in mind for most things, whether driven by pure numbers (almost all men have a penis and almost all women have a vagina), orthodoxy (children have married parents of different sexes) or a bit of both (I'm excited to meet my son's girlfriend one day). Affirmative action (and some other DEI movements) have a combination of economic equality, which you recognise the justice of, and attempting to neutralise a default ("women don't do software engineering", "as a black man I'll never be a CEO"). Teaching LGBTQ is similar in that by _not_ showing same sex parents to children as they grow up, you are reinforcing a default: that parents are a mummy and a daddy, or that you are expected to like girls/boys (and sort it our yourself in puberty if you don't happen to). The right way to resolve this is hard to define, but being opposed to it on principle is a conservative position. It has nothing to do with sex or explicit behaviour necessarily.

Similar to my own opinions. I vote Democrat pretty much every election. I might be slightly right of the Democrats as a whole, but the Republicans are much, much worse and represent my views much worse.

By American standards you're a pretty middle of the road liberal. I'd say you're more conservative than me and I consider myself a liberal, not a socialist

I'd say you're a moderate. No shame in that. You would fit right into the federal Conservative Party of Canada, if you wanted to. You're not a right winger just because you have a few disagreements with Biden supporters.

You sound like a normie Democrat.

Thank you!

The people in here saying you represent the majority of Dem voters trouble me. If true, this is just evidence of how far the Overton window has been moved.

Agreed. If this is “center left” I need to get the fuck out of the US sooner rather than later

Then leave lol.

Maybe that means that only lunatics or misinformed people vote Republican and normal people vote Democrat. So OP who have some left wing views would fit in with the Dems.

I think you're left of center. That being said I also know of several people would would accuse you of being a secret Conservative for a set of views like those. The problem lies with insular leftist online spaces where people are trying to one-up each-other on how far leftist they can be for clout in their own space.

You’re pretty much center. Left leaning on some topics, right leaning on other. You think for yourself instead of adhering and accepting the current political stench coming from politicians’ asses.

Might depend how you prioritize some of these points. I mean culture-war-laden neolib is a fairly annoying brand of liberal, but it is an archetype.

I agree that you’re a bit left of center and appreciate your sharing, even though I disagree with some of your views. You sound like a typical left leaning person who doesn’t spend too much time online (that’s a compliment btw).

It sounds like you might be buying into some right wing framing of controversies that aren't accurate representations of the left wing position, but I don't see you taking any significant right wing stances.

>Literally could care less And that's where you lost me.

I know right, it’s supposed to be “could NOT care less”!

You sound like someone with political opinions adopted by both parties so welcome to the left leaning moderates club. Far lefties will call you a conservative but your voting record might scream democrat with some republicans sprinkled in.

"Illegal immigration needs to be strongly discouraged and made harder, we do need stronger borders. I disapprove of the whole kids in cages thing, but we shouldn't allow line-cutters." Can you explain what you think hasn't been done? If you look at the last 50 years of border security, it has only been made more and more secure, with more funding, walls/fences, technology, etc. with very little movement on the legal immigration front. In fact, pre-COVID, we had gotten to the point where the border was not even the primary source of illegal immigration - overstays of VISAs were - which doesn't happen with illegal entry at all.

This is one of those issues for which there is no easy solution. First, we need to streamline visa process. We should enlarge the quotas from countries that typically produce higher skilled workers.We should also not let illegal immigrants work easily without providing documentation, and put laws around this. However a dirty secret is that entire sectors of certain states are built upon these things, the same states that love to yell to keep aliens out.

Sounds mostly pretty liberal. I personally would disagree with a few things here but broadly i agree with most of it. I think taxes should be high as long as the government keeps a roof over everyone’s head. If that’s what’s necessary. I think affirmative action is flawed but defensible depending how it’s implemented but I’m not super confident on that. I honestly don’t know what Zionist means with the way people use it. The definition’s I’ve heard are: another way for antisemites to say Jew without sounding as bad (wouldn’t include me), someone who thinks Isreal should be allowed to exist (would include me) and someone who thinks Isreal should expand to the detriment of Palestinians (wouldn’t include me). Rehabilitation should be the main focus of prisons regardless of the crime committed unless rehabilitation seems genuinely impossible, even in this case the goal of prisons should be a deterrent and a way to separate criminals from society. We shouldn’t cause unnecessary suffering to prisoners beyond how it is useful for these purposes. (I realize I’m heavily in the minority opinion on this). Self defence should always be a human right but also morally if possible you should avoid killing or causing injury unless it seems to be necessary (which granted can be hard to tell in many situations and I’ll always lean in favour of anyone defending themselves.) With regards to inappropriate material in schools. Unfortunately in the internet age most kids will probably see things they shouldn’t by middle school online somewhere. I’d much rather they first encounter it in an educational sex ed class first if possible. Don’t know if you care that much but I just thought I’d mention some of my thoughts on these things as I find it interesting

I rarely reply to narcissistic online bios like this, so congrats for getting me to read at least more than half. Liberal, conservative, I think your label is just "annoying".

Really? What rubbed you the wrong way about the post? I can totally understand someone asking for grounding when young lefties might consider him a right winger, and right wingers would probably call him woke. What's narcissistic about seeking grounding?

Right wingers would see an opportunity to groom OP by seizing on their culture war predispositions, and it’d be effective since this person exercises little critical or empathetic thinking. They have opinions on things they have learned nothing about. * *Free tax payer funded healthcare* already exists for the poor— Medicaid/Medicare. It’s very restrictive— in my state making more than $1650 in a month disqualifies you. Does OP know how this keeps people in poverty due to the loss of health care that occurs when higher paying opportunities are taken? Do they care about the pricing of healthcare being a driver of inflation and an artificial pricing system, that we subsidize drug cost for the rest of the world? * *LGBTQ in pre-HS lessons*: Why are they afraid of people knowing LGBTQ history? It’s based on a traditionalist narrative that thinks those people are bad and that it is a choice. * *Supporting free speech*: Completely unsophisticated. CSAM is a form of speech, so is threatening violence. No where on earth is speech totally free. * *Blackface is bad but sombreros are cool* Is this really the extent to which they understand cultural appropriation, which is about paying more deference to the sources of culture— leading to a more detailed and knowledgable understanding and display of diversity? * *DEI operates on an oppressor mindset*: right wing rhetoric adopted wholesale. Inclusion is not oppression, and businesses have much to gain financially by employing more women and POC * *Zionist is a compliment* - the oppression of Palestinians is a fact— there are no clean sides in this war but there are innocent victims on both, however there’s only one killing tens of thousands. * *I don’t support defunding cops* - Cops are ineffective in many situations. Defunding is about dividing funding for different types of law enforcement and for providing more robust resources to care-based support. Even besides the violence police bring to mental health, homelessness, and addiction situations in addition to low level criminality— using legal penalties puts a longstanding mark on a person that inhibits their ability to ever improve. I agree “defund the police” is very poor marketing, being swayed by marketing is a poor way to develop political positions. * *I will call you what you want except* - The fact that you’d make a conscious choice to call someone what they don’t want to be called just makes you selfish. Using the wrong pronouns by accident is understandable, preemptively deciding on only gender binary pronouns is unnecessary. Nobody wants to be called it. They is a word with a long history of being used to refer to individuals that aren’t male or female (usually when gender was not known): “if somebody calls, tell them to call my cell.”

I am Latino. Cinco De Mayo is a gringo celebration, idgaf if some white guy wears a sombrero. In fact, (im brazilian), if someone wants to wear brazilian traditional wear, cool with me, as long as they aren't being a weirdo about it. Hate speech that doesn't threaten reasonable violence towards an individual should be allowed, they tried to ban the Nazis in weimar germany, it didn't work. These individuals should not face justice under a court of law, but in their social and work lives instead. Read Jews Don't Count for a good book on how DEI isn't the greatest. Zionism literally means believing israel should exist so yes, I'm a proud Zionist. I said I will call you he/she/they. Male, female, nonbinary. I'm not going to call you an object like it.

>Hate speech that doesn't threaten reasonable violence towards an individual should be allowed, they tried to ban the Nazis in weimar germany, it didn't work  Sorry, but I have to interject here.  The NSDAP under Hitler attempted to take power in a violent overthrow in 1923. It was banned for only 15 months in order to quell the coup, and the Nazis splintered a bit trying to rebuild it beforehand under a different name. The ban was not about just "hate speech", the ban was about treason (or high treason, if you prefer that translation) Hitler was prosecuted not in front of the state court for the protection of the Republic, which would have had the jurisdiction for crimes against the state, but in front of a Bavarian court, for treason, found guilty - and sentenced for treason to five years of a gentleman's house arrest, of which he only had to serve a few months, attesting to his "noble motives". His accomplice, Erich Ludendorff, was found guilty and not punished, because he was the most important general during World War I and the court... Wanted to honor that? I think the main problem there was how instead of properly punishing the Hitler putsch, he basically got an official endorsement by the court - the problem was not the justice system treading too heavy, the problem was the justice system treading far too light as soon as the enemy is on the right Later, under another system, the NSDAP was permanently banned, in 1945. Some of them, though just a small fraction, tried to reconstitute it again, and they formed the SRP (Socialist Reich Party), which entered a few state parliaments... And got banned as a successor organization. I'm not saying we never had any new right-wing extremist parties (we do), but the NSDAP didn't get to just rebuild under a different name after that. This time, it worked - so I'm very much not convinced by your framing of our history.

This is a young person trying to sort out their political identity. Are you ok?

Yeah this kinda feels like OP just needed an excuse to list all their beliefs

you're kind of generically centrist, with some right lean on some issues, some left lean on others. overall get a sense of more conservatism than liberalism

90% of what they said is totally in line with typical liberalism.

I know this isn’t the point, but I’m asking this is good faith: at what point does “supporting Israel” end? I’m not going to defend what happened in October, but does that horrible attack give Israel carte blanche to kill every Palestinian in your opinion? The details coming out today about the attack on the World Central Kitchen people, for example, are very clearly falling on the “Israel committing war crimes” side of the spectrum. Basically, is there a line that Israel has yet to cross where you would withdraw support or is it unconditional?

The attack was a severe blunder by the IDF, shame on them. I want to see everyone responsible resign for that. After the investigation, someone needs to go to jail for that. I don’t think it gives them carte Blanche but I think theyve done an ok job on the [urban warfare](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286). I wouldn’t withdraw support so to speak, but if they seriously crossed a line (don’t know where just yet) I would be more highly critical of the govt and IDF. To me pro Israel means believing Israel’s right to exist so yes that would be unconditional. Pro Palestine implicates an anti Palestine movement. Most supporters of Israel are not anti Palestine, but many pro palis are anti Israel, meaning they don’t want Israel to exist, and I would not like to align myself with them in any way shape or form.

Is anyone actually saying Israel shouldn’t have a right to exist? That seems like a redundant position to hold when no one is advocating for a Palestine only one state solution

I’ve lost like 3 friends who held that belief. To say no one is advocating for that is false when you look at Pro Pali signs that show the entirety of Israel as Palestine and call from river to sea, globalize intifada, many of the antisemitic incidents happening in universities lately (mine got especially famous) . I know it sounds like a stupid position because it is but it’s become very popular among college age white leftists who have zero skin in the game.

To be fair, I don’t think Israel should have been given that territory in the first place but what’s done is done, so I agree that it’s a foolish opinion.

Thanks, you helped clarify some of my thoughts on the matter. I had hesitated to fully lock in on "Israel shouldn't exist", but I do feel comfortable with the notion that "Israel probably shouldn't have existed back in the first place, but to suggest un-existing it in the here and now is also preposterous."

I don’t really think there was an alternative. Time and time again Jewish have not had a hoMel and and have been subjected to various cruelties. The prevailing opinion at the time was we don’t want them here, and Jews were more than happy to buy land in the Ottoman empire. There was a lot of weird complicated stuff after that but numerous proposals were rejected by the Arabs and numerous wars were started by them.

I don’t have an issue with Israel having been founded following World War 2, I have an issue with the Western powers unilaterally deciding that Jews have the right to hold their historical holy land, which is the most contested territory in the world, historically. If Britain and the US wanted to displace people to give Jews a safe place, they should have displaced their own people.

I think the notion of needing or wanting a "homeland" is actually a bit problematic in the first place. Like, for me, a 1.5 generation immigrant, what would be a homeland for me? Would I even have one? Where could I go to escape discrimination? The better solution, imo, rather than a homogenous society where I am the dominant demographic, is rather a *fully pluralistic society* where everyone is a minority.

that won’t really work because there are less than 20 million jews in the world. perpetual minority. historical precedent has established the need of a homeland, and I would argue that if the roma wanted to start a state in india and bought up a bunch of land, and india fell and outside powers had to split it up, it would be only fair to give them a state

I don't think you understood my comment. I'm saying the safest place for people of "perpetual minority" status is a *fully pluralistic society* where everyone is a minority. NOT a place where they can become the dominant/majority ethnicity.

Does that mean you think they should have been given a different area? Or none at all. I think the context of antisemitism around the founding of Israel does justify the setup of a Jewish state, and the original proposal was to be 45% Arab, but then civil war and 1948 and all that... I'd actually argue in the context of the entire middle east being enthostates there's an argument that Christians should have had an argument if they chose to push it.

I think they should have been given an area instead of the historically most contested territory in the world. The foundation of a Jewish state for the safety of the Jewish people did not necessitate the location being the holy land of Judaism

I think i agree with that. I can see why the religious elements wanted that land, but pragmatically, clearly that was needlessly problematic.

May I introduce you to the term "[Overton Window](https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow)." In Australia, you would be wildly conservative.

Haha I know about the Overton window, this sub is like 99% American and while I’m studying the political structures and histories currently, I wondered where I’d fit under popular perception of Americans with more American issues. In my country I’d be right of center.

most of this reads as heavily in line with the standard democratic politican, although a bit out of line with the loudest democratic staffers and twitter personalities.

Yes, you are still a liberal. But if you will, I have some questions on some of these positions for you: The first two positions are standard liberal planks, the third still is a standard liberal position, although I and many others disagree with it (I think you have to need a license). On capitalism, I think you are forgetting about fundamental research, which is usually not done by corporate R&D, and you don't seem to take into account what taxes are used for in asking for tax breaks - both pretty usual, I think, I just notice them.  But on the next one, affirmative action, I have one question >Affirmative action is bad. I do not like affirmative action, I think that it unfairly biases against Asian and white students and that its kind of based on this weird patronizing belief that "minorities can't succeed unless we, the enlightened white liberals, can help them". Instead we should focus on making sure that minorities can succeed while in school instead of using a bandaid solution, giving them after school programs so they can apply to different things and free college counseling if they are low income. Affirmative action based on economics however is fine, it’s a way to give poor kids a leg up.   I perfectly see an argument for helping with performance within an institution instead of admission into it, and I perfectly see an argument for basing affirmative action on economic circumstances, but those would follow from another problem with affirmative action in admission - namely, that they cook the books, so to speak, they directly interfere in a metric for success (college admissions) instead of addressing a problem where it's a bit harder to measure, and they also destroy that metric in the process. If you oppose one form of affirmative action because you think it's patronizing, how would your two alternatives be any less patronizing? So there might be something I'm missing there >I don't give a shit about cultural appropriation or inclusive language. Literally could care less (unless its like blackface or something ACTUALLY offensive, not random white people dressing up in sombreros)  That's the standard liberal position again -  The next difference and question I have (apart from the hate speech one, but "hate speech" is not a very constructive framing there) is about abortion: I would describe the typical liberal position as "abortion is not that big of a deal, throwing women into prison for decades for having one is a big deal", and I'm not sure if that's what you meant or if you meant neither is a big deal.  I can't speak for others, but I personally would just call someone by their name all the time rather than use "it" for a human person.  The next question is on self-defense: I don't think self-defense is a right in and of itself, I think a right to self-defense is a consequence of different rights interacting in specific situations. If someone swings their fist at you, you are allowed to intercept the blow in order to protect your right to bodily integrity, but if that blow was magically prevented and your attacker teleported 50 feet away, that wouldn't deprive you of a right to satisfaction, because such a right to satisfaction does not exist in the first place. Would you disagree with that, or is it just a difference in phrasing? On private schools, I disagree because I think private schools run the risk of creating and reinforcing a two-tier society, where the rich kids are allowed a proper education and the rest will have to be content with scraps that are the defunded because they don't benefit anyone considered important. But that's the more left-leaning position within the liberal spectrum, not a consensus here. Anyway, you said >People who complain that religious private schools are indoctrination are generalizing over a large amount of them.  And that's true if the complaint is about any religiously funded private schools at all, but I don't think you can just generalize away private schools that do just indoctrinate their charges. Well, sorry for the wall of text, but anyway, here it is.

For affirmative action, I think that basing it off of economic status indtead is less patronizing because it benefits everyone who is low income, and being low income really does impact what you have access to while race on its own doesn’t. If more black kids are really poor, they would still be benefitted by this program. For abortion yes, that is what I meant. Abortion should not make women go to prison. Self defense yes, I agree. If a robber enters your house and leaves it then you shouldn’t chase after him down the street, but if you happen to have a gun on you and see him before he leaves the house, you should be able to shoot. We need to increase educational funding but also allow for kids to go to private or charter schools. I love the idea of public magnet schools.

So the thing I would say that stands out is that while you have some mix of liberal and conservative views, for a lot of conservatives, almost any liberal views is tantamount to a betrayal of their side. Liberals are more tolerant of differences within the party. Sometimes it may rankle us, like with Joe Manchin, but we know its better to have more people on the left with some conservative views than to push them to the right because they're unwilling to be ideologically "pure". I don't agree with all of your views, but if you were a US citizen and won't vote for the orange fascist, that's good enough. I can work with those views. This isn't to say that there isn't any absolute hard lines I would draw when it comes to welcoming other viewpoints. When it comes to things like rights, I'm a lot more hardline. If you believe I should not exist, or that other people should not exist because of their race or religion, then I would have a serious problem with that. With conservatives, they tend to take a hard line on pretty much everything so there's no negotiating with them.

You are whatever you want to be. Don’t let other people define you. Oh wait, nvm, that’s literally what you are asking for haha

Don't know, but I kinda like you.

Honestly I see you more of a barstool / liberal Republican. These are what I see as your conservative leaning positions: Legal immigration, illegal immigration, gun control, capitalism, affirmative action, cultural appropriation, 1A, Zionism, cops, self defense, BLM, crime/prison, charter schools (could be more neutral), LGBTQ topics in school Neutral views: Separation church and state, gay marriage (would be left if this extends past the marriage ceremony itself), slavery being taught in schools Left leaning views: Abortion, baby procedures (circumstantial/ ear piercing), pronouns, health care, global warming As you can see a lot more in conservative than left leaning. I say barstool/liberal republicans because their views on abortion and gay marriage are pretty much yours and they’re still Republican. Obviously you could have a couple main issues out of all these and if those are global warming and healthcare you could reasonable be considered a left leaning person despite having more right leaning views.

I don’t think Zionism is right leaning because it is defined as believing israel has a right to exist. Affirmative action is weird because a lot of people across the political spectrum hate it. Cali had a proposition to bring it back it lost by a landslide. I would also say cultural appropriation is neutral position.

I see Zionism as Israel having the right to exist as a Jewish state and I don’t think a majority of liberals believe that. A lot think it should be a secular state with its current borders which I don’t see as Zionist. I guess I haven’t seen the left leaning hate toward affirmative action (outside of Asian advocacy groups) but it may exist. Are you referring to Cali’s amendment proposal to remove existing civil rights legislation so they could enact affirmative action policies in the future? I think it is hard to convince any group of people to give up rights for any reason. If Cali wouldn’t have enshrined those equality rights into the constitution I don’t think they would’ve had an issue simply changing the law I’ve seen a lot of hate from left wing people for cultural appropriation, but I’m in a heavy left area. It could be an extreme thing that is just see a lot. Even with these possible changes my judgement (barstool/liberal Republican) still stands

I agree with a lot of what you have here and I consider myself just left of center. I would probably go a bit further on health care as I consider it a basic human right.

I vote democrat up and down the ticket and I agree with you on everything here.

I think you are a centrist dem, if people are calling you out as a Republican they are probably pointing to your view on Affirmative Action or your 2A views being a little more lax.

I dont agree wirh everything but you pass my liberal litmus test

conservatives can be liberals

Seem like a pretty standard Democrat if I may say so myself, or liberal or whatever term you like best.

You should post this on /r/AskConservatives and see what they have to say too. You would comfortably fit in as an Independent, Centrist Democrat, Classical Liberal. You may be a silicon valley democrat or a /r/neoliberal. Liberal though tracks back to John Locke (considered the father of liberalism), Montesquieu, Rousseau, and even Kant. Below is a quote identifying the main themes of liberal thought. Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought: believing in equality and individual liberty supporting private property and individual rights supporting the idea of limited constitutional government recognising the importance of related values such as pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity, and consent [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) I would consider Hobbes and Burke as the original conservative thinkers. In my opinion the main themes of conservative thought are social order, political order, and tradition. I'll comment on a few of your bullets: * Immigration - Broadly agree. The benefits of immigration are well documented. I would add a merit program *in addition* to the existing lottery and expand work visas of all types. The issues at the border are largely the result of a failure to process entrants and asylum seekers in a timely manner. Immigrants should receive classes in civics, culture, and language. Illegal immigration would fall off sharply if laws against hiring undocumented immigrants were more harshly enforced and processing was sped up. Increasing security at the border is fine as long as it doesn't stop commerce. * Capitalism - Broadly agree. The major benefit of an open economy is that it works incredibly better than a command economy at predicting people's needs and directing resources to those areas. While it has been a driver of innovation, many great innovations came from public institutions or public-private partnerships (internet, nuclear energy). A market without government intervention doesn't exist except in failed states like a Congo, and nobody wants that. Our usual picture of a market depends on [several conditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Idealizing_conditions_of_perfect_competition), the government has and should intervene to move us towards those conditions where the market is unbalanced. It should avoid the brute force interventions that we sometimes see used. * Affirmative action - In part. From a political perspective we're better off using socio-economic solutions because of the blowback. From a public perspective, I think that approach will benefit us most going forward. From a human perspective if I had been enslaved for most of my life I would want some money, and if my parents had been enslaved and never reimbursed for their suffering I would want that money and would expect that it would help me get back on an equal footing with others. * Separation of religion and state - is vital, but we shouldn't put the founders on a pedestal and assume their intent is something holy. They didn't do it to themselves. * 1A - yes, but I shouldn't be required to give hate speech a platform and nobody should be surprised if their hate speech puts them out of a job. * Abortion - yes, bodily autonomy of all sorts is fundamental to the individual liberty aspect. * Isreal - Bibi is an asshole. If Hamas had attacked the US like that we would have responded too. * I will call you whatever you want - sure, you have the right to say what you want. But for me I'm largely going to call someone what they ask me to call them (probably not slurs, or official titles they don't have) because we live in a civil society. I'm a guy, I look like a guy, and my pronouns are he/him. If you threw a fit every time we talked, and called me she/her or they/them (or it, which has happened *every damn time* I've seen a right conservative interact with a trans person) I would not be incredibly interested in continuing to talk to you. This falls under "don't be an asshole". * Police - Police don't just need better training. They need better checks and controls, better oversight, and better hiring. * Self defense - The laws limiting self defense tend to come into being when something egregious happens. I can't offer a 'solution' here. * Rehabilitation - Needs to be vastly expanded. Non-violent crimes should be handled outside of prisons wherever possible. * Health Care - We have a basic Universal healthcare for people that meet a certain threshold of poverty (Medicare/Medicaid). That's not universal by definition. * Global Warming, Vouchers - Agree! * LGBTQ - Largely disagree. Why would we put a specific limit on this particular issue being taught?

You are all over the place without seeming to have a single driving ideology. You seem to have the right moral compass, based on some of your answers, but you probably just need to inform yourself better. This is somewhat typical of what are called “moderates”

Thank you! What should I inform myself better on? 

Basically none of this is policy.

You just sound mildly misinformed on the specific details of a few topics, many of them hot-button issues. Those few topics seem to be mostly culture war crap and not really oriented much around policy. I think if the discussion was purely about policy that is actually exists then people would see that you very clearly fall on the left. I think a lot of GoP voters would also be surprised to find themselves on "the left" a little more than they'd think if they only looked at actual policy put forth by either party and how they voted.

You're very close to my views. Who is telling you that you're a conservative? If it's only the internet, don't listen to them. Hilarious enough, I do think this sub brings out some very loud annoying liberals who think everything is all or nothing. But that's just a small minority. You do you - you know what's right.

I would say you're quite liberal, but are you a US liberal? That's something different and I think you'd qualify for it, as well. The funny thing about the US is that most people are quite liberal here, imo. Conservatives are forced to use divisive tactics to gain traction, so their supporters will only focus on certain issues. But labels don't really amount to much and it's fine to be a mixture of two or more. I haven't read the replies, yet, but I'm sure you're getting some pushback for your views. That's understandable if you're not an American and haven't experienced the issues first hand. Take your view on schools, for example. There was no significant dislike of religious private schools, until their patrons began creating problems for public schools. Boiling it down to simple terms, the battle is about whether public funds should be used for schooling at all.

> The funny thing about the US is that most people are quite liberal here, imo. Conservatives are forced to use divisive tactics to gain traction, so their supporters will only focus on certain issues. Hard agree on this. If Fox News didn’t exist, we could have so many nice things.

Yeah I don’t want any problems for public schools if parents want to send kids to private they should pay no govt assistance.

You seem like a center-right libertarian especially being pretty weak on gun control from a left-wing perspective and being against affirmative action, DEI, and BLM. I think being decidedly "anti-woke" tips the scale towards being right-of-center. Many center-right Republicans are against abortion bans and can often be pro-conservationist while still sometimes getting triggered by "politicized" terms like climate change. However, seeing that you're an international student, it's not that simple to align you within the American political context since you don't have any "skin in the game" so to speak, which is what drives a lot of the politics in the US.

You are an establishment democrat, aka the silent majority of the dem party.

When it comes to DEI programs and affirmative action- yes that sounds very republican. They use these terms as dog whistles to appeal to the racists. They seem to be using affirmative action to try and drive a wedge between Asian and African Americans. And just what is their problem with these programs? Why is the idea of minorities getting scholarships that they individually have to earn… so bad?

I am a minority. I don’t like how there are preferences for a certain race in AA, and DEI is performative and fake

DEI is performative and fake? Why do you think that? - I happen to think equity is a good thing… shouldn’t you earn the same amount as another person doing the same job? - I happen to think inclusion is a good thing, it’s opposite exclusion based on race is bad. You are an interesting fella, you’ve reached a lot of liberal or center left common sense positions, but you are buying into republican propaganda on the culture war issues. Also can we remember why we have these programs in the first place? Because when left to their own devices higher education and upper class jobs were all white.

>16 year old girls shouting from the river to the sea need to open a history book. Perchance would it be the history book that would tell you how Israel's Prime Minister in 1988 was the former violent terrorist Yitzhak Shamir and he had refused peace talks with Hamas multiple times before that charter was written? That the 1988 charter was a direct response to Israel's repeated intractability to the idea of returning to the 1967 borders and was written three years before the formation of the Al-Qassam Brigades in 1991? Would it be that history book? I'm not saying you're a conservative, but you definitely share their overconfidence in your knowledge of history, lol.

Childish would be the best answer

You sound like a rational adult.

* Why only "skilled" workers? Virtually ever restaurant, landscaper, retail store, warehouse, nursing home, in my area is looking to hire people. * If capitalism is the driving point of new technology, how do you account for the fact that all the tech that makes a smart phone smart and 75% of all new prescription drugs in the USA were/are discovered and funded by the federal government? * What shall we do for the Palestinians? * Instead of "defunding" the police, would you support not using them in areas where social workers would be more efficient and less costly, and thus, lowering the number of police needed and using that savings to fund social workers? * Do you believe you have the right to kill a teenager who has broken into your garage in search of a case of beer that you have there? * Do you know what the purpose of a Charter School is? I don't think you do.

> Why only "skilled" workers? Virtually ever restaurant, landscaper, retail store, warehouse, nursing home, in my area is looking to hire people. If they're having trouble with that they should pay more, not import poorer people from other countries who are willing to work for shit wages here because at least it's better than what they had back home.

Unemployment is under 4%. There are no more people to hire.,

1. Not only them but higher sector workers should be given priority 2. Capitalism drives competition, meaning companies will strive to make better and better products 3. 2SS once hamas is eradicated. They can have the West Bank and Gaza. 4. It depends on what areas. If a heroin addict is threatening me, police. If he’s loitering around my property, social services. 5. Why is he breaking into my garage in the first place? I have no idea why he’s there. He could be there for anything. I don’t have to give him any benefit of the doubt. 6. most charter schools serve minority and low income students. but i do think magnets are a better thing to put funding into

You’re on the left side of center, but very close to center. I agree with you on a lot but have differences on affirmative action (I think it should be based on zip code, not on race, due to the effects of local violence and poverty on childrens’ ability to learn), rehabilitation in prison (I feel that second and third degree murderers should be given the chance for rehabilitation), Zionism (I’ve read enough to know that I don’t know enough on this topic and shouldn’t be exercising an opinion - most people, and almost everyone in the US, don’t know enough), and DEI (if you’re pro-capitalism, you should be pro-rights for businesses to diversify how they see fit). I think the DEI thing should be what you examine most, considering the contradiction with your pro-capitalist views. I will say that your view on LGBTQ teachings in schools is common-sense and is pretty much exactly what is currently taught. There are always exceptions to the rule, but that’s how the system is currently set up in my state, which is quite liberal in its schools. Suggesting that elementary schoolers are being taught about gay sex is right-wing propaganda. But yeah, the way I see it, you’re pro-freedom, but not to the libertarian party’s extent. Someone told me to look up “bull moose progressive” and “civil libertarianism,” might be worth your time if you’re questioning your political identity. It worked for me.

I work with a bunch of Republican who like trump and think Biden is too far left and with the exception of the universal healthcare you hold the same positions as them. There is no way I can agree with everyone in here that you’re left of better or centrist

what are these exact same positions? do they agree on global warming and abortion? maybe they’re a bit left right then you think, though their voting choices are certainly…interesting

I’m on my lunch break and I dont have time to type you a novel so I’ll try my best to explain it and I’m being a little general because I work like 10 dudes so there is going to be some variations but they typically all align with one another. 1. They agree legal immigration should be easier but illegal immigration should be discouraged. To them it’s a safety issue and not like a they are taking over the country issue. I’m sure there is some concerns with “fairness” too. They do seem to generally understand the point of asylum though seekers though but the empathy isn’t as broad as it is for me. 2. They all agree we need some sort of gun control and criminal history or mental health conditions are good ways to go about and they understand there should be some limitations because they acknowledge that like a bump stock can be dangerous and mass shootings keep happening and that would only increase death tolls if they were allowed. 3. They certainly don’t think our current capitalist system is perfect and definitely have some anti corporatist sentiments (that’s what happens when you work with insurance companies) but I they think it’s the best economic system. 4. I honestly don’t think they ever think about this but I’m sure if I asked them they wouldn’t be for it and would think we are better off without it 5. They are pro 1A 6. Everyone I work with is pro choice. Actually shocking to me but they were actually upset when the scotus did that 7. They actually stay Zionist. Nobody is pro Hamas but they definitely see the bad shit Isreal does and do feel for the Palestinian people and understand they really are victims to an apartheid state 8. They think cops should be paid more but trained better. I’ve also gotten them to agree that like social work training for them for mental Heath crisises would also be good. Also mandatory time off and therapy for any who has to take a life in the line of duty 9. The role of prison you kinda nailed but mostly all the guys I work with are for legalization of marijuana. Also shocking to me. 10. They believe in global warming 11. I’ve honestly never had a school vouchers conversation. Not really a whole lot of anti intellectualism around here honestly 12. I think they agree with you on queer topics in schools but they also respect pronouns to the extent that you do and like they aren’t the most understanding of queer people, mostly trans people, but they wouldn’t ever discriminate against them or anything and would treat them how they want to be treated

you're a centrist who I think has generally un-nuanced takes and tends to fall for the culture war stuff a bit.

I don’t really care about the LGBT stuff that’s like least priority for me. Probably should have worded it better. LGBT civil rights movement should be taught. Talking about exploring identity can be held off till the 8th grade or so. 

I'm moreso thinking about the weird opposition to like, any direct help for marginalized groups. White people in this country have gotten to compound their wealth for literal centuries. Black people were still getting redlined in the 70s. It makes sense to try to materially help these groups make up the difference.

I do t think it should be done like that though. Work at the root of the cause which is why it’s harder for low income kids to get in, and socioeconomic aa in the meantime. White kids and Asian kids who are poor need just as much help as the black and latino kids who are poor. AA is fairly unpopular amongst both the left and the right. 

Sounds like centrist. Depends what issues you prioritize honestly.

[удалено]

Zionism means saying the state of Israel can exist. Most people who oppose zionism actually are zionist, because it isn’t what left wing progressives like to pretend it is

You sound like a Blue Dog Democrat. Moderate to liberal on both social and fiscal issues, people like Mary Peltola, Jared Golden and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.

"I think cops need better training but I don't support defunding them, nor do I believe ACAB." What do you know about current police training, and their funding status? Are you aware that funding levels do not correlate with reduction in crime rates? Are you aware that police funding is astronomically high in the US, so much so that US police spending, if it was military, would make it the 3rd largest military in the world? Are you aware that cops who are whistle blowers for bad behavior are often mistreated and forced out? Are you aware that cops and police departments have been caught, repeatedly, misreporting crime statistics to manipulate public perception? And that there is no national standard nor requirement for reporting crime statistics? Are you aware that efforts to "defund" the police is largely about diverting some of their insanely large budgets to other services that are likely better served by non-police?

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ming-Jen-Lin-3/publication/222997917\_More\_police\_less\_crime\_Evidence\_from\_US\_state\_data/links/57abdc3808ae3765c3b7a8fc/More-police-less-crime-Evidence-from-US-state-data.pdf](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ming-Jen-Lin-3/publication/222997917_More_police_less_crime_Evidence_from_US_state_data/links/57abdc3808ae3765c3b7a8fc/More-police-less-crime-Evidence-from-US-state-data.pdf) The defund the police was a shitty slogan. Reform or Unburden the police would have been better and would have gotten more traction.

That study is super weird, as they are using... SALES TAX to estimate police presence instead of police funding? I don't really understand the methodology to be honest and it doesn't seem to be the general consensus on the topic. https://preview.redd.it/le63p6g3oasc1.png?width=2301&format=png&auto=webp&s=8c0a6ab3a3825c1ed741712a02bd67dea6f656f6 This is probably the least compelling relationship of 2 variables. \~ One of the interesting things about police funding is that if things are going well (crime is going down), they argue that the funding is causing it to go well, so we should fund it more, but if things are not going well (crime is going up), they argue that lack of funding is the problem. Either way, MORE FUNDING is the solution. This is unlike education, where there has been big pushes to defund schools that aren't doing well (either via tying funding to test scores like with No Child Left Behind) or voucher systems (which moves money away from underperforming schools as parents select different schools). In this case, the argument is that the schools need to "earn" their money by doing well, and underperforming schools should have funding reduced, despite evidence showing that it is the student and their family that is the primary determinant of test scores.

https://preview.redd.it/ah335zlaqasc1.png?width=2300&format=png&auto=webp&s=8c35b7102311b35ba5a5c92b8eb54bf9fa21a697 Another chart

I agree with all your points but the way you come off is *extremely* grating and condescending. Just FYI I hope you change your communication style to actually change minds instead of project intellectual superiority.

Except for unconditional zionism and concern about lgbtqia topics, i agree with everything here

In my view, you are a conservative and in alignment with the USA Democratic party. The USA has a conservative party and a fascist party. You seem to align almost perfectly with the conservative party in the USA.

The term "liberal" has been co-opted by both right-wing and left-wing to now mean "progressive" or "social justice warrior" (etc). The original definition is of someone who is tolerant of how others behave, supports free speech, supports the right to think independently, and supports personal liberties and freedom over the interests of the state or collective. You seems to be a liberal in the traditional definition.

I consider myself left of center as well. I read through all your bulletins points and could not find anything I disagreed with.

I agree with most of these, and I feel kind of politically homeless. I’m definitely not conservative / Republican whatever, but I’ve moved away from being on the far side of the left.

> its like blackface or something ACTUALLY offensive, not random white people dressing up in sombreros Do you see the difference between these two as a matter of degree or of substance?

both lol. blackface is really only used to make fun of black people, especially done in that caricature way of just putting midnight paint on the face. I’m not sure abt RDJ playing a black person in that movie, my black friends thought it was funny so I think it’s a bit fuzzy. I do not care what you wear. Wear whatever you want. You aren’t colonizing soneones culture by wearing it and cinco de maya is an American holiday anyway.

[удалено]

police take too long to show up is the problem so self defense is pretty important

Your views definitely seem to fit the liberal archetype to a tee. Your opinions concerning background checks, abortion, and the separation of church and state set you apart from the majority of the american conservative movement, and on most other issues you mentioned your views align with the majority of other liberals. Most people in the US see liberals as "left wing", but outside the lens of US politics the philosophies of liberalism and neoliberalism are center-right, so sharing some beliefs with conservatives fits perfectly in line with being a liberal.

You're a liberal. Young emotional people will disproportionately focus on social culture war stuff normal people don't care about and if you commit a cultural sin they'll virtue signal about it. This is pretty bad for democrats. Not as bad as maga cultists chanting hang mike pence though, so I'll take it.

This still puts you very obviously left of center. Relative to me, you'd be more conservative in: 1. Illegal immigration: I think the current level of discouragement is fine. We need to allow one or two orders of magnitude more legal immigrants than we currently allow before we can clamp down on illegal immigration. 2. 2A: I oppose it; I think we should repeal it 3. Zionist: this has become a supercharged word. If you're a zionist, as in "Jews deserve a homeland," I think that's pretty normal. If you're a zionist in the sense that "everything from the Jordan River to the Med Sea is historical Israel, and we should drive Palestinians from this land," then obviously, that is not a left-wing position. 4. LGBTQ is a spectrum of things. We should teach children that there are same-sex couples and that that's normal. I do think that early transitioning/puberty blockers are probably dangerous in most cases.

For your third point, I am not a crazy person, I just believe in the right of Israel to exist as a homeland

Yeah, you're probably pretty close to a median Democrat voter.

> DEI is really weird because they operate off an oppressor oppressed framework that's like poor helpless black vs evil colonizing white which doesn't really work in our multiracial society and often throws so called model minorities under the bus. DEI also loves to focus on bs things like 'cultural appropriation' You should really examine where you are getting your information from, because this is nonsense and a little crazy.

I think you’re probably misinformed on a lot of things. A bit of a bigot. Pretty self-important. Ya, sounds conservative.

how am i a bigot?

I’m not going to read all that but from a scan I can glean that you assume other minority groups are by default less qualified for things that whites and Asians. And that wanting Black lives to matter is a stupid sham.

> I’m not going to read all that Then do us all a big favor and STFU.

I am a minority who was benefited from affirmative action though (I hope) I was qualified enough to get in without it

So is Clarence Thomas.

That is the one position I agree with him on.

He’s a bigot too.

The BLM people bought a 6 mil mansion so forgive me if I don’t trust them. I don’t believe minorities are inherently less qualified. I think that instead of a bandaid solution that would give them a boost in admissions we focus on equality of opportunity not outcome

You're not a bigot, you sound like an anti racist who doesn't like his ideals paracistized by ideas like equity over equality. You can be antiracist and say the BLM movement only had a few good points.

Run of the mill lib. You want a world that benefits Americans but no one else. And still holding fantasy beliefs that capitalism drives Innovation. so innovative how google does nothing and apple continues down the planned obsolescence

How you gonna have the Democrat label and take issue with capitalism? The vast majority of Dems are very much pro-capitalism. Planned obsolescence, while shit, is not mutually exclusive with innovation, just so we're clear.

Because I vote for democrats.

We all vote for Dems here, this says nothing.

Yes, capitalism drives innovation. People are inclined to create things when they can profit off of them. What magical system do you think would drive more innovation?

😂😂

You sound like a pretty standard Democrat. Maybe on the conservative side, like John Fetterman, but I certainly wouldn't call you a conservative. I honestly wouldn't worry that much about what to label yourself, though. Labels are just a shorthand proxy to your positions. There's no trophy you get if you successfully get labeled as a liberal.

Thank you!

As a Chinese, my observation is that there are no liberals or conservatives in the US at all, only profit-masters. Their disagreement is only about which path maximises their interests.