Huh. I seem to be a bit extreme. Maybe I should reconsider my opinions and temper them accordingly.
Huh. I seem to be a bit extreme. Maybe I should reconsider my opinions and temper them accordingly.
Being extreme isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Huh. I seem to be a bit extreme. Maybe I should reconsider my opinions and temper them accordingly.
Being extreme isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Of course it is. You never hear about the people who are moderates causing terrible things to happen, only those who take ideologies too far or are too extreme about things. Everything should be done in moderation, and wanting more than that will invariably end in disaster.
Huh. I seem to be a bit extreme. Maybe I should reconsider my opinions and temper them accordingly.
Being extreme isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Of course it is. You never hear about the people who are moderates causing terrible things to happen, only those who take ideologies too far or are too extreme about things. Everything should be done in moderation, and wanting more than that will invariably end in disaster.
Done in moderation. That doesn't mean your true views have to be moderate.
Abolition.
Done in moderation. That doesn't mean your true views have to be moderate.
Abolition.
Fair enough. Thanks.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Yeah this is no surprise to me, still dislike being called a Libertarian considering the assholes I know who claim that but whatever.
I had to look it up, and the term has been redefined so many times over the years, I'm not sure if I agree with it as applied to me or not.
Let me explain what you are... you're a Liberal, but you aspire to be a rich, cocksucker Republican.
I find it hilarious that 'libertarian socialism' and 'social libertarianism' are apparently different ideologies
(http://i.imgur.com/iCc3b8V.png)
This test is like any personality test: the questions don't ask the right things, and the answers are too vague to be meaningful. Neither are a meaningful replacement for just talking to someone for 5 minutes.
You just scored 0% for Fun.
Overall: stick in the mud.
Is that neo-liberal guy?
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
Huh. They changed the second axis.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2jg8exg.png)
I guess, given that 98% of the horseshoe is now considered to be "facists who should be smacked with a bike lock" this makes me literally hitler or something?
One criticism I've seen of it is that it assumes that there are certain positions only people on one end of a spectrum hold; for instance, it assumes that progressivism and distrust of corporations are directly correlated, when in fact plenty of conservatives are mightily distrustful of corporations.
"Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason" implies that you need a reason, which is not generally something we demand of people before we let them own things.
"Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason" implies that you need a reason, which is not generally something we demand of people before we let them own things.I would disagree. For most things, we simply agree that "I want it" is a perfectly valid reason.
"Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason" implies that you need a reason, which is not generally something we demand of people before we let them own things.
Most things don't make it easy to deliberately or accidentally kill people.
I would disagree. For most things, we simply agree that "I want it" is a perfectly valid reason.
"Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason" implies that you need a reason, which is not generally something we demand of people before we let them own things.