moderates

[evenifigoalone]

So there's a large attitude on this forum that anyone slightly left of them is basically a liberal. Which is the exact same attitude the far left has to anyone slightly right of them.

I'm a moderate/centrist, have been for a long time. I used to be a right wing libertarian, until recently (see below picture). While I have for most of my life been right wing, apparently I've drifted into center left. There is a LOT of leftist stuff I either cannot get behind, or that I can only partially get behind, so I don't really consider myself as allied with them. But my fiscal views have drifted away from right wing of late--my social views are more or less where they have been for 6 years (being libertarian in that time, and all).

I have no high expectations of anyone on this board, but before you call us moderates "liberal lite", consider that the left strongly considers us "conservative lite", if not outright using the "Nazi" label to describe us. (I'm dead serious, the amount of times I've seen leftists describe centrists as being "Nazi sympathizers" is too dang many to count.)

Anyway, have your hayday. I'll continue to be here regardless, your hate will not stop me.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one here hates you.

 

[MartyF]

I voted for Ross Perot twice, Obama twice, and I will likely vote for Trump twice in the regular elections. I don't consider myself a moderate, right, or left. I tend to vote for people who are either the lesser of two evils or whom I hope will lead the country best.

I have always been

1. anti-illegal immigration
2. anti-free trade, pro fair-trade
3. for the meeting of obligations to the poor and working-class in the U.S.
4. for civil rights over crime-fighting
5. against silly liberal causes such as "save the whales", "stop children from starving in the U.S.", "Eliminate all Nuclear weapons", "Just say NO!", "Fight Global Warning" . . . basically anything which is promoted through hysteria in the corporate media.
6. against the fighting of wars in a silly manner like Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama did.
7. in opposition to the cutting of taxes for votes like W did.
8. for the maintenance of military technology.
9. against a large standing military.
10. for a larger reserve and national guard.
11. against contracted government workers and the robbery of the rest of the country by Northeastern Virginia.
12. against gay-marriage.
13. against organized religion in public government.

I don't consider these views to be moderate. For example free-trade was championed by both the "right" and the "left". Illegal immigration was championed by Bush and Reagan, but also Obama. Reagan, Clinton, W, and Obama have all eroded civil rights for the sake of "public safety". They all have taken up on silly liberal cause or another. Clinton reduced the size of our military but not our foreign involvement. Same with Obama.

Long story short, I try not to think in terms of right, left, conservative, liberal. I think in terms of individual issues and I choose what I think is the best candidate for those issues.

P.S. The chart is silly and so are the questions creating it.

 

[Reynolds]

So there's a large attitude on this forum that anyone slightly left of them is basically a liberal. Which is the exact same attitude the far left has to anyone slightly right of them.

I'm a moderate/centrist, have been for a long time. I used to be a right wing libertarian, until recently (see below picture). While I have for most of my life been right wing, apparently I've drifted into center left. There is a LOT of leftist stuff I either cannot get behind, or that I can only partially get behind, so I don't really consider myself as allied with them. But my fiscal views have drifted away from right wing of late--my social views are more or less where they have been for 6 years (being libertarian in that time, and all).

I have no high expectations of anyone on this board, but before you call us moderates "liberal lite", consider that the left strongly considers us "conservative lite", if not outright using the "Nazi" label to describe us. (I'm dead serious, the amount of times I've seen leftists describe centrists as being "Nazi sympathizers" is too dang many to count.)

Anyway, have your hayday. I'll continue to be here regardless, your hate will not stop me.

I just consider you liberal.
Labeling disagreement "hate" confirms that you are a leftist liberal.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Glad to be of service

 

[evenifigoalone]

Can you read some of the statements of people on this website and honestly tell me that it's "just disagreement"? There's a very real disdain for anything not far right here, the word liberal is pretty much treated as a synonym for "evil". That definitely goes deeper than simple "disagreement".

 

[MartyF]

Glad to be of service

????

Can you read some of the statements of people on this website and honestly tell me that it's "just disagreement"?

Yes

There's a very real disdain for anything not far right here, the word liberal is pretty much treated as a synonym for "evil".

Leftists are evil. Liberals are not.

If you want to kill me for expressing viewpoints different from mine, then yes I will definitely oppose you as someone who is evil.

If you want to have government regulation to stop "climate change", I will oppose you because I believe you are ignorant of the facts and promoting something that can personally hurt me. But I won't think that you are "evil".

That definitely goes deeper than simple "disagreement".

It is different than a simple disagreement, but that does not mean it is elevated to hatred like leftists have. However, I can be worried that policies espoused by someone will make my life harder and more painful and I should be allowed to express my views as such.

What you seem to be headed toward is trying to say that people shouldn't be allowed to strongly voice their disagreements. When you head down that route, you're entering leftism by introducing censorship.

 

[evenifigoalone]

What you seem to be headed toward is trying to say that people shouldn't be allowed to strongly voice their disagreements.

Nope.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Seriously, there's a huge difference between going "hey, maybe you should rethink how you speak" and "I'm going to make it illegal to say that"

 

[evenifigoalone]

If you want to kill me for expressing viewpoints different from mine, then yes I will definitely oppose you as someone who is evil.

Part of the problem is you think all the left wing wants that. I would implore you to consider that the left does the same in viewing the right as all white nationalists/""""Nazis""""". Generalizing a large portion of the population helps no one.

 

[MartyF]

If you look at this forum, it is likely the most open forum on the internet for Christians. I cannot think of another forum which allows free and open speech as much as this forum does. I don't think it is just coincidence that it is a more conservative forum. I have found conservatives to be more willing to allow opposing speech than "liberals" do.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook go out of their way to oppose conservative speech by preventing it. So, I really wonder why you think this forum opposes you. I mean, just look at agent47's posts. Just imagine if someone from the conservative side started posting like that on Twitter. Actually, I don't. Twitter has banned all of them.

"hey, maybe you should rethink how you speak"

Just like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, you don't have to illegalize speech to stop speech. And yes there are many on this forum with radical views. I tend not to agree with the guy represented by Stonewall Jackson all the time either, but that does not means that there are not some points I can agree with.

There will always tend to be more radical views on the internet. It is the nature of the beast. Isolation doesn't make people any saner and talking in an echo chamber will cause people to be more extreme.

 

[evenifigoalone]

If you look at this forum, it is likely the most open forum on the internet for Christians.

Doubtful. 90% of the views expressed here are very right wing. I'm a mod on another Christian forum, that one also leans conservative. But even they aren't as extreme as those here.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Just like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, you don't have to illegalize speech to stop speech.

No one in this thread is saying we should make crap illegal

 

[evenifigoalone]

Isolation doesn't make people any saner and talking in an echo chamber will cause people to be more extreme.

I'm not advocating for isolation and I'm not in favor of echo chambers. I'm just saying this forum has a serious issue with labeling anyone who disagrees with them in extreme ways. Please, do tell me where I have advocated for those members to be banned and censored. I'm simply calling it out--not that I expect it do any good.

 

[MartyF]

Part of the problem is you think all the left wing wants that. I would implore you to consider that the left does the same in viewing the right as all white nationalists/""""Nazis""""". Generalizing a large portion of the population helps no one.

White Nationalists are leftists.

Nazis are leftists.

Both of these groups want government control over the economy. Both want speech regulated. Both want massive social programs. Both want to define people based on race.

This is not a generalization, this is a category. I don't consider all liberals to be leftists but at the moment the leftists are trying to take over the liberal institutions. These institutions are now banning speech. Something a liberal institution would never do. Your thinking that liberal = left is part of the problem.

 

[MartyF]

I'm not advocating for isolation and I'm not in favor of echo chambers. I'm just saying this forum has a serious issue with labeling anyone who disagrees with them in extreme ways. Please, do tell me where I have advocated for those members to be banned and censored. I'm simply calling it out--not that I expect it do any good.

Oh goodness! have you read the Calvinist vs. Arminian forums? Calvinists have openly called me a heretic. The political forums pale in comparison.

But yes, I will no longer imply that you are trying to censor anyone. I apologize for the accusation.

 

[MartyF]

Oh goodness! have you read the Calvinist vs. Arminian forums? Calvinists have openly called me a heretic. The political forums pale in comparison.

But yes, I will no longer imply that you are trying to censor anyone. I apologize for the accusation.

And then there are the translation forums where multiple people have openly said that the translators of the NLT are going to go to hell.

 

[evenifigoalone]

White Nationalists are leftists.

Nazis are leftists.

Both of these groups want government control over the economy. Both want speech regulated. Both want massive social programs. Both want to define people based on race.

This is not a generalization, this is a category. I don't consider all liberals to be leftists but at the moment the leftists are trying to take over the liberal institutions. These institutions are now banning speech. Something a liberal institution would never do. Your thinking that liberal = left is part of the problem.

I find your definition of left and right wings rather questionable honestly. The platofrums change a bit (or a lot) over time based on swaying public opinion, but we tend to define in our time them based particular positions they hold.
Having similarities, does not mean they are the same. You could make that argument about almost anything, because a dog has four legs and a cat has four legs, a dog has a tail, a cat has a tail, a dog has whiskers, a cat has whiskers, they must be the same.

Today's altright is white nationalist. It is not the majority of the right wing, no, and hopefully never will be. But they are still right wing.

Oh goodness! have you read the Calvinist vs. Arminian forums? Calvinists have openly called me a heretic. The political forums pale in comparison.

But yes, I will no longer imply that you are trying to censor anyone. I apologize for the accusation.

I do not frequent them. But if I did, I would call them out as well.

 

[MartyF]

I find your definition of left and right wings rather questionable honestly. The platofrums change a bit (or a lot) over time based on swaying public opinion, but we tend to define in our time them based particular positions they hold.
Having similarities, does not mean they are the same. You could make that argument about almost anything, because a dog has four legs and a cat has four legs, a dog has a tail, a cat has a tail, a dog has whiskers, a cat has whiskers, they must be the same.

Today's altright is white nationalist.

It's probably new top you and I don't expect you to change your mind and even if you do, I doubt it will happen "instantly".

But there are other ways of looking at things. The point is to not to look at the political spectrum like this.

Leftist - - - liberal - - - conservative - - - rightist

But instead like this,

Leftists _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Conservatives
Rightists - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Liberals

I do not frequent them. But if I did, I would call them out as well.

Lol! The point is that you should not take the comments as personally as you might be taking them.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Just adding my voice and diversity of thought here, as well as calling out stinkin' thinkin' that I've come across in my time here. Can't let the right wingers have all the fun.
Anyways. I'm gonna go to bed. I let myself stay up late because I don't have work until tomorrow afternoon, but I shouldn't stay up all night.