Old farts are naturally conservative as youth is naturally revolutionary. The youth of today will probably find that the good old days I hanker for are a bit leftwards of the current extreme left, but that's the myopia of youth.

Depending on the issue, I'm usually either hard right or hard left, which combined makes me centrist, I suppose.

A bit of a problem:

The idea of just what is "leftist", "centrist" and what is "right-wing" differs especially between the US and Europe. Europeans who think of themselves "moderately right" would likely be percieved as "centrist" or "moderately leftist" in the US. "Moderately leftist" Americans on the other hand would like be in their views quite "centrist" or even a bit leaning to the right in the European perspective.

True.

From a recent article on Quillette:

The political spectrum creates confusion. It tells us, for example, that both fascist Adolf Hitler and libertarian Milton Friedman are on the “far right,” yet Hitler advocated nationalism, socialism, militarism, authoritarianism, and anti-Semitism, while Milton Friedman advocated internationalism, capitalism, pacifism, civil liberties, and was himself a Jew.

George W. Bush’s big-government, militarist philosophy is considered “right wing” as is Rand Paul’s small-government, anti-militarist philosophy. We say that liberals believe in free speech and conservatives believe in free markets, yet moving to the “extreme left” means clamping down on free speech (as with Stalin or Mao) and moving to the “extreme right” means clamping down on free markets (as with National Socialism). — Hyrum Lewis

http://quillette.com/2017/05/03/time-retire-political-spectrum/

So I'm not sure how to answer the poll, as a lot of what passes for "hard left" today is not part of my political outlook, even though Marx is my go-to guy. I've been called a conservative on several occasions, on this forum and elsewhere. I admit I'm attracted to conservatism despite fundamentally disagreeing with it--I think maybe because it's not culturally mainstream, such that independence of thought sometimes seems more common among conservatives, which is a big change in the intellectual landscape.

I'm not sure whether I'm best described as hard left or moderate left, but I'd say that it's either one or the other, rather than any of the other options. Relatively hard, but also relatively moderate. I'm a member of a political party, Labour, which is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom, and, within that party, I am on the left.

Anyway, I want to see the results of the poll, so I'm going to vote for hard left.

When it comes to actual issues, I'm centrist, because I think that the political system of "us vs. them" is another manifestation of the spiritual bondage of "The Other" that mankind is bound by in this world. Which at once makes me hard left and hard right; hard left in that an abolition of "The Other" would mean the total acceptance and liberation of all marginalized and oppressed groups (LGBTQ etc), race, etc. But in this view, sexuality and race are not aspects of being human that have an inherent worth that needs any celebration, but rather, immutable characteristics of individual human persons that have no real content, and do not require content. In this view a cis white male is equal to a trans black woman in the purest sense of the concept: there is no value content within immutable human characteristics. The content that we fill these concepts with is always and only ever taboos. The taboo of the LGBTQ person being a sinner going to hell, or the taboo of daring to make any reasoned argument for the regulation of the concept of equality within a philosophical context. The social taboo is the hallmark of the political, and it is meaningless in the worst way. And so I'm hard right because the desire for the abolition of "The Other" is ultimately a religious perspective: the bondage of "The Other" is a spiritual bondage; in other words, a bondage on humanity that emanates from something outside of the physical world, and can't be altered by anything from within the world itself; so in other words, can't be altered by any political force (the tepid force of humans attempting to govern themselves, like toddlers trying to build a toy fort out of blocks). So the call to equality is always a spiritual call; it's always a call that pulls us past ourselves, pulls us out of our very selves into a higher form of being. This to me is the supremely spiritual.

Which leads me to my choice in this pole: apolitical. Idealistically, I'm an anarchist; I believe that ideas like free thought and free expression are ultimately anarchical ideas: For each person to think freely and express freely, no person can exert any form of control on another person. The problem that intervenes is the human condition, which perpetuates the problem of "The Other". This is why I'm often a Christian mystic of sorts (see my post in the religion pole); it's the only way I've found to have the potential of eliminating the problem of "The Other", which is why I haven't completely defected from Christendom.

The left - right distinction doesn't work. I personally appreciate the ranges social conservatism to social progressivism and economic laissez-faire to socialism.

I'm a progressive and more of a socialist on the economic, because I don't think negative freedom has any worth when there isn't positive freedom.

Keep in mind this is an American perspective:

I put moderate left because I generally find the answers to problems coming from conservative thought to be more problematic than the other side. Keep in mind that I would like to emphasize "generally," as the left can come up with some pretty bad answers as well.

I'm a Green. Libertarian though not in the American way. I don't think my politics fit the available choices.

I voted 'moderate left', but I don't think it is all that meaningful; the right/left dichotomy is not consistently relevant.

I don't know how to answer. My political views are extremely idiosyncratic. I've yet to meet someone else who already has the same views, and I've yet to meet someone else who says, "Yeah, those sound like great ideas" once I explain them in any depth, hahaha.

I've described myself as a "libertarian socialist" but that's as likely to lead to confusion as enlightenment. Other people have called themselves "libertarian socialists," too, but my views aren't the same as theirs.

If I were king, I'd dismantle our socio-economic structure and put something radically different in its place, so "centrist" probably isn't right, either.

So I'm not sure how to answer the poll, as a lot of what passes for "hard left" today is not part of my political outlook, even though Marx is my go-to guy. I've been called a conservative on several occasions, on this forum and elsewhere. I admit I'm attracted to conservatism despite fundamentally disagreeing with it--I think maybe because it's not culturally mainstream, such that independence of thought sometimes seems more common among conservatives, which is a big change in the intellectual landscape. — jamalrob

I can relate to this. Generally speaking, I would say that I'm on the Left when it comes to economic issues but tend towards the Right when it comes to cultural issues.

I feel that social conservatism--albeit with many qualifications that contrast it with what people normally understand by the term these days--is entirely compatible with a 'progressive' economic (and racial) agenda, and I'm a bit surprised this sort of hybrid isn't more common.

I would also say that I find critiques of unbridled capitalism coming form the 'communitarian' Right to be perhaps even more potent and insightful than those coming from the political Left. But to add even more confusion to the issue, I'm also a firm proponent of individuals' freedom of thought and speech and other such ideas commonly associated with classical liberalism.

Ideally, I guess, I would prefer it if people freely chose to be align their lives and well-being with other people who form their larger social/historical community, rather than being forced into such behavior through the government coercion.

A jumbled mess of seemingly conflicting views on the surface, no doubt, but intuitively appealing to me and not at all inconsistent or illogical. I'll readily concede its implausibility as things stand right now, and for a long time ahead.

Yes, and because, traditionally, conservatism is pragmatic and generally allergic to ideology, it didn't have any trouble embracing things that are now considered to be left-wing--such as the welfare state--when they seemed to promise social stability. And as you say, the communitarian aspect of conservatism looks a lot like the kind of left-wing positions taken by the Left, like the British Labour Party, for example. It's up to those in power to look after the poor, and so on. It's a patrician outlook probably partly stemming from aristocratic noblesse oblige; the decline of--and in America, the non-existence of--the aristocracy may explain why this side of conservatism gave way to the free-market, classically liberal stuff.

Myself, I don't really go for either kind of conservatism, but I appreciate some of their critiques of the Left, and their defence of individual freedoms (what some unreformed Marxists call "mere formal freedoms").

I'm a Green. Libertarian though not in the American way. I don't think my politics fit the available choices. — mcdoodle

Left, and conceivably hard left.

I don't have a political doctrine, just this political creed: individuality of everyone and exclusion of none; competition without discrimination and cooperation without subordination; (added at edit) the individual's interests are equal to those of society's.

I reject both hierarchy because it imposes superiority as to justify subordination and egalitarism because it imposes equal social status as to justify discrimination. I argue so for a balanced viewpoint, the middle way but not for centrism which I view as an abominable patchwork.

If the right argues for gender supremacism, the left for gender equality and the center for everyone with their chosen / assigned role, I argue for genderlessness, as in the abolishment of gender which I view as an obsolete social construct.

This is my overall standing on political matters, hope I made it pretty clear. I could put a name on this ideology but it's 'already in use'.

I don't have a political doctrine, just this political creed: individuality of everyone and exclusion of none; competition without discrimination and cooperation without subordination.

I reject both hierarchy because it imposes superiority as to justify subordination and egalitarism because it imposes equal social status as to justify discrimination. I argue so for a balanced viewpoint, the middle way but not for centrism which I view as an abominable patchwork.

If the right argues for gender supremacism, the left for gender equality and the center for everyone with their chosen / assigned role, I argue for genderlessness, as in the abolishment of gender which I view as an obsolete social construct.

This is my overall standing on political matters, hope I made it pretty clear. I could put a name on this ideology but it's 'already in use'. — Noblosh

You hope you made it pretty clear? Well, those first two paragraphs are not clear enough for my liking. Too vague and abstract. And what I can make sense of I find problematic, in the sense that it strikes me as too idealistic and impractical, or perhaps even contradictory.

You reject hierarchy? How would society function without any form of hierarchy, then? Has there ever been any precedent for this which has passed the test of time and proven a success in comparison to alternatives?

Why do you think that imposing equal social status would justify discrimination? I don't see how it supposedly would. Quite the opposite. It is inherently anti-discrimination. If equal social status was imposed, then discrimination on that basis would either cease to occur or would be suppressed. What possible alternative could you have in mind which would not be susceptible to the same problem? Any non-egalitarian society must involve discrimination - not to mention a hierarchy, which would be inconsistent with your rejection - and so any justification for such a society must by implication justify discrimination. Do you think that sticking your head in the sand and pretending that discrimination or social status does not exist will magically make the problem go away?

My stance, and those on the left who are of like mind, includes wanting to see greater equality, or proportionality, both economically and socially - and that includes gender equality, by the way - rather than dealing in absolutes. And it seeks practical and realistic solutions - proposals that can actually be implemented and would not just be for show. The ludicrous proposal that gender be abolished, for example, is therefore not compatible with my kind of politics for the aforementioned reasons and also because it would clash with my liberal principles.

Individuality for everyone, but you're not allowed a gender? So, individuality, but with restrictions, and you're the one who sets them? Individuality, so long as you think like I do, and don't get any funny ideas about being male or female?

it strikes me as too idealistic and impractical, or perhaps even contradictory — Sapientia

That's how I would also characterize an ideal. It's not meant to be anything else but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. An ideal is something to pursue, a direction, not something to achieve, a target.

How would society function without any form of hierarchy, then? — Sapientia

Hierarchy implies authority, correct? In a perfect society, people would no longer need that, reason would suffice.

Has there ever been any precedent for this which has passed the test of time and proven a success in comparison to alternatives? — Sapientia

Look, I'm not really providing a political theory here but if I would ever come up with one, it would be along those high principles I aspire to, as in following them closer than everything we currently have.

Why do you think that imposing equal social status would justify discrimination? — Sapientia

Because people are not equal and I see no benefit in trying to equalize them and it would also violate my individuality principle. If people are not equal, they can not handle the same set of rights, obligations, behaviors and duties which defines a social status and therefore should not be forced, not even encouraged to but instead let to follow individual paths even if that means they would inevitably end up with different achievements and so different social statuses.

I don't see how it supposedly would. Quite the opposite. It is inherently anti-discrimination. If equal social status was imposed, then discrimination on that basis would either cease to occur or would be suppressed. — Sapientia

On the contrary, it would be the ultimate discrimination, governing society based on a single preconceived notion of how everyone should operate, no longer recognizing individual success or failure because that would mean alteration of the social status which would defeat the very point of egalitarianism.

What possible alternative could you have in mind which would not be susceptible to the same problem? Any non-egalitarian society must involve discrimination - not to mention a hierarchy, which would be inconsistent with your rejection - and so any justification for such a society must by implication justify discrimination. — Sapientia

But the only solution to discrimination is to judge everyone individually and no longer define anyone by their memberships to groups they don't freely associate with or by those they don't even fit the criteria of. If your goal is, for example, to eliminate all factions in a society in the name of unity and inclusion and you end up with a single all-encompassing one, you didn't really achieve your goal, did you?.

Do you think that sticking your head in the sand and pretending that discrimination or social status does not exist will magically make the problem go away? — Sapientia

That's the point, addressing discrimination, on a constant basis. As for social status, I've already said I see no problem with it and it could very well exist even in a classless society.

My stance, and those on the left who are of like mind, includes wanting to see greater equality, or proportionality, both economically and socially - and that includes gender equality, by the way - rather than dealing in absolutes. — Sapientia

I know that but that doesn't mean I truly understand why, some people are after all better at making a profit than others, the left seems to try to deny that blaming all inequity on social inequality which is true in a sense but avoids the fact that equity doesn't mean equal profit.

The ludicrous proposal that gender be abolished, for example, is therefore not compatible with my kind of politics — Sapientia

Well, what can I say but the fact that I don't really see the point either in gender or in political loyalty as these just seem made-up limitations to me.

Individuality for everyone, but you're not allowed a gender? — Sapientia

I argue that gender divide has become arbitrary and so lost its meaning. You can now behave in a certain way or own a certain pair of genitals without the need to abide to one particular gender, so why keep this social construct around when it's obviously obsolete?

That's how I would also characterize an ideal. It's not meant to be anything else but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. An ideal is something to pursue, a direction, not something to achieve, a target. — Noblosh

I wasn't arguing against ideals. My criticism was that your thinking was too idealistic (at the expense of practicality). I understand the distinction you've made, and why you've made it, but it only applies to some, and not all, possible cases. The two can, and in some cases do, overlap. They need not be mutually exclusive. So your last sentence amounts to a false distinction.

To say that your thinking is too idealistic is to suggest that there isn't enough overlap between ideal and target.

Hierarchy implies authority, correct? In a perfect society, people would no longer need that, reason would suffice. — Noblosh

In a perfect society...? Why should I care about about a purely hypothetical society which is far removed from reality, and which cannot become a reality? We have to work with what we've got, which means working with imperfection. Perfection is not on the table. Oftentimes, the best approach is to make the most out of a situation which is far from ideal, rather than indulge in wishful thinking.

Here in the real world, hierarchy serves a fundamental purpose, and if you're going to reject it, then you ought to have a workable alternative.

Look, I'm not really providing a political theory here but if I would ever come up with one, it would be along those high principles I aspire to, as in following them closer than everything we currently have. — Noblosh

That's fine if you've got clear principles which make sense and can stand up to scrutiny, rather than vague rhetoric with little substance and which suffers from internal contradiction.

Because people are not equal and I see no benefit in trying to equalize them and it would also violate my individuality principle. If people are not equal, they can not handle the same set of rights, obligations, behaviors and duties which defines a social status and therefore should not be forced, not even encouraged to but instead let to follow individual paths even if that means they would inevitably end up with different achievements and so different social statuses. — Noblosh

That is a non sequitur and a red herring. It does not answer my question, which asked why you think that imposing equal social status would justify discrimination.

On the contrary, it would be the ultimate discrimination, governing society based on a single preconceived notion of how everyone should operate, no longer recognizing individual success or failure because that would mean alteration of the social status which would defeat the very point of egalitarianism. — Noblosh

But you still haven't explained how that would count as discrimination, let alone as "the ultimate" discrimination. You're giving me the impression that you do not understand the meaning of the term "discrimination". You don't seem to realise that you're actually criticising egalitarianism on the basis that it does not discriminate (in terms of individual success or failure, with the implication being that you think it ought to discriminate in this way). That argument would make sense if you weren't explicitly contradicting yourself.

But the only solution to discrimination is to judge everyone individually and no longer define anyone by their memberships to groups they don't freely associate with or by those they don't even fit the criteria of. — Noblosh

Not only is that not the only solution, it's not a solution at all, because it necessarily involves discrimination, since, in order to distinguish an individual from others, one must discriminate between one and other.

If your goal is, for example, to eliminate all factions in a society in the name of unity and inclusion and you end up with a single all-encompassing one, you didn't really achieve your goal, did you? — Noblosh

There can be no such thing as an all-encompassing faction, because that's a contradiction in terms. Eliminating all factions would simply lead to unity.

That's the point, addressing discrimination, on a constant basis. — Noblosh

Address it? You mean, as a problem? As something bad? But, on the other hand, whether you realise it or not, you've implicitly endorsed discrimination. The problem here is that, somewhat ironically, you've failed to discriminate between different kinds of discrimination. The term has negative connotations, but not all ways in which the word is used are negative.

As for social status, I've already said I see no problem with it and it could very well exist even in a classless society. — Noblosh

You're trying to reconcile too much, and without sufficient care, and, as a result, you're just ending up in contradiction. If there's inequality, and social status, and individuality, then there is hierarchy, and class, and a basis for discrimination - which will inevitability occur - and all of the problems that accompany these things. The bottom line is, you can't have your cake and eat it. It might be a nice idea, but it just ain't possible. You're biting off more than you can chew, methinks.

I know that but that doesn't mean I truly understand why, some people are after all better at making a profit than others, the left seems to try to deny that blaming all inequity on social inequality which is true in a sense but avoids the fact that equity doesn't mean equal profit. — Noblosh

Very few people would deny that some people are better at making a profit than others, and very few people would argue that we should all be making equal profit. These are common misunderstandings of leftist strains of thinking, such as Marxism. I'm not sure how to correct that, other than by reiterating points I've already made. It's about a greater focus on need, rather than ability. And it's not so much about equality, strictly speaking, but about proportionality. There is a small minority who horde a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth. No ability is so great as to merit that much relative wealth, and there are plenty of others who do more to deserve a fairer share of that wealth, or who are in greater need of it, so it ought to be redistributed - and not so that everyone gets an equal proportion, but so that people get the right proportion, based upon a fairer assessment of needs, skills, importance, and so on.

Well, what can I say but the fact that I don't really see the point either in gender or in political loyalty as these just seem made-up limitations to me. — Noblosh

Gender identification is important to vast numbers of people. You could think of virtually any defining feature as a limitation in some way, but that's what makes us who we are. You yourself have endorsed individuality, and this is part of that. Selectively calling only this or that particular aspect of individuality pointless strikes me as one-sided, seems to miss the point, and looks like special pleading (unless you concede that all aspects of individuality are essentially pointless).

As for political loyalty, that is no more or less pointless than the loyalty you presumably have for "those high principles" you "aspire to". I don't know about you, but my political loyalty is based upon principles I believe in.

I argue that gender divide has become arbitrary and so lost its meaning. You can now behave in a certain way or own a certain pair of genitals without the need to abide to one particular gender, so why keep this social construct around when it's obviously obsolete? — Noblosh

It obviously serves a purpose, has a use, and is valued, by innumerable people, all across the globe, and this will most likely be so for years and years, for generations to come. So it is not obsolete in any of those respects. And why desire to abolish it if that'd be futile? There isn't really an option to keep it or dispose of it - that's just more hypothetical tomfoolery. Rather, it will either stay or leave based on various factors such as appeal, usefulness, and how ingrained it is.

I wasn't arguing against ideals. My criticism was that your thinking was too idealistic (at the expense of practicality). I understand the distinction you've made, and why you've made it, but it only applies to some, and not all, possible cases. The two can, and in some cases do, overlap. They need not be mutually exclusive. So your last sentence amounts to a false distinction.

To say that your thinking is too idealistic is to suggest that there isn't enough overlap between ideal and target. — Sapientia

An ideal serves the exact function I pinpointed and it's by its nature impossible to achieve. On the other hand, you can have dreams that you can accomplish. For me a dream and an ideal, a target and a direction are indeed mutually exclusive and it's important I never forget this distinction, as trying to achieve an ideal will inevitably lead to tragedy. Don't bother accusing me of asserting facts (see what I did there?) because I'm fully aware of and plead guilty to that.

In a perfect society...? — Sapientia

Yes, as in an ideal one because that's what an ideal implies: perfection.
Yet me saying that all would listen to reason in a perfect society doesn't mean progress can't be made in the real one regarding the cause of reason.

hierarchy serves a fundamental purpose, and if you're going to reject it — Sapientia

Of course it does and I accept that, yet I say I reject it as I say I reject evil and still understand evil will not go away and I'll have to constantly deal with it.

rather than vague rhetoric with little substance and which suffers from internal contradiction — Sapientia

Let's just say I like to keep my options open and my principles universal. My petty humor aside, I consider them contradictory only in a practical sense but that is exactly what it confers them practical value as they help me always identify the flaws of say, political movements which exist and therefore are flawed as in imperfect.
If I understood you right, you have this impression that this rhetoric of mine lets me ignore or evade reality but in fact it does the opposite, it anchors me into it and that is its purpose.

That is a non sequitur and a red herring. It does not answer my question, which asked why you think that imposing equal social status would justify discrimination. — Sapientia

Sure, sure, I quoted too much my bad. You're so right to sold me but I noticed the opportunity to explain you why I disagree with equal social status and I took it.

You're giving me the impression that you do not understand the meaning of the term "discrimination". — Sapientia

it necessarily involves discrimination, since, in order to distinguish an individual from others, one must discriminate between one and other — Sapientia

You're the one who seems to confuse discrimination with differentiation. Injustice and prejudice are the basis of discrimination. The prejudices I see based on the idea of equality is all people are equal so they should be given equal or if they're not equality must be imposed because it would be the ultimate form of decentralization. If you put these ideas into practice you're sure to create maximum discrimination.

There can be no such thing as an all-encompassing faction, because that's a contradiction in terms. — Sapientia

Yes, it's intended to be an oxymoron. But one can argue that if you eliminate all kind of dissension in a society in the real world, you've successfully transformed that society into one big faction that's all-encompassing in its own societal context. It's just a pretty way of saying unity through force not through free association.

The problem here is that, somewhat ironically, you've failed to discriminate between different kinds of discrimination. The term has negative connotations, but not all ways in which the word is used are negative. — Sapientia

I'm not talking about any negative connotations, I'm talking about the 1st definition that comes up: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. I understand it is defined as differentiation too but I don't use it like that. If you have another word for 'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people' that you use, I would be interested to know, which is it?

You're trying to reconcile too much, and without sufficient care, and, as a result, you're just ending up in contradiction. If there's inequality, and social status, and individuality, then there is hierarchy, and class, and a basis for discrimination - which will inevitability occur - and all of the problems that accompany these things. — Sapientia

Oh, but there's no contradiction between a classless society and social status. Unless you have the same understanding about class as you have about faction so I should try to explain what I understand by 'one faction' and 'one class': the abolishment of free will. I argue: what are classes for? Social structure, of course. But they always have these negative side-effects so we should try to come up with better ways to keep the social structure instead of repressing individuality to hide the class system's defects. You see, there's some irony in your political thought as well: instead of being about adressing the imperfection of the system, it's about adressing the inherent imperfection of the individual, specifically you try to eliminate discrimination by eliminating its basis, individuality which in my book is the same as trying to solve your life's problems by commiting suicide or in political context, trying to achieve a perfect society by giving up a perfect society.
Or maybe I'm asserting too much about your position but I don't think I'm wrong.

The bottom line is, you can't have your cake and eat it. It might be a nice idea, but it just ain't possible. You're biting off more than you can chew, methinks. — Sapientia

This is the misunderstanding, this where giving up the perfect society ensues from. It's true, if you try to do the impossible you're certain to fail but just as I've already covered my view on that, just because something can not be logically achieved doesn't mean it's also illogical to pursue it.

Yes, I'm trying to reconcile something here, mainly realism with idealism. This duality does nothing but limit us.

It's about a greater focus on need, rather than ability. — Sapientia

I know the left's paradigm and right's one is basically the opposite. But why even 'discriminate' (as in the way you're using this word) between need and ability? Where does the focus on need end and where does the one on ability begin, or the other way around?

There is a small minority who horde a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth. — Sapientia

That's not a problem in itself.

No ability is so great as to merit that much relative wealth — Sapientia

And this does not result from the previous statement.

and there are plenty of others who do more to deserve a fairer share of that wealth, or who are in greater need of it, so it ought to be redistributed — Sapientia

I don't understand on what the left is basing this train of thought. Inequity is a consequence of reality itself so I don't deny it, I reject arbitrary redistribution. Make a better system and wealth will redistribute itself and inequity will automatically decrease, until the new system's contradictions will start to mount up again of course.

and not so that everyone gets an equal proportion, but so that people get the right proportion, based upon a fairer assessment of needs, skills, importance, and so on. — Sapientia

I understand, you're talking about equity.

Gender identification is important to vast numbers of people. You could think of virtually any defining feature as a limitation in some way, but that's what makes us who we are. You yourself have endorsed individuality, and this is part of that. Selectively calling only this or that particular aspect of individuality pointless strikes me as one-sided, seems to miss the point, and looks like special pleading (unless you concede that all aspects of individuality are essentially pointless). — Sapientia

Society's function isn't to endorse individual claims. You can call yourself whatever just don't expect special treatment because of that. Gender used to have a role in keeping the social structure now it lost it with the gender revolution so why keep it around? It's a relic that does no longer have any societal value. What is now called gender is just a bunch of preferred behaviours or lifestyles, nothing more. The new dichotomy is gestator or inseminator, roles which define genders no more.
There are a lot of limitations that help society function, gender is no longer one of it.

As for political loyalty — Sapientia

I was restating that I don't conform to any particular political doctrine.

It obviously serves a purpose, has a use, and is valued, by innumerable people, all across the globe, and this will most likely be so for years and years, for generations to come. — Sapientia

Not an argument, just an allusion to cultural conformity.

And why desire to abolish it if that'd be futile? There isn't really an option to keep it or dispose of it - that's just more hypothetical tomfoolery. Rather, it will either stay or leave based on various factors such as appeal, usefulness, and how ingrained it is. — Sapientia

I'm not talking about cultural eradication of gender but the end of societal endorsment of the notion of gender through constitutions and legislations.


This was not intended to be a debate anyway, just my viewpoint on political affiliation.

Mostly, what I'm saying is that one can be political without having to choose any of the options presented.

If the right argues for gender supremacism, the left for gender equality and the center for everyone with their chosen / assigned role, I argue for genderlessness, as in the abolishment of gender which I view as an obsolete social construct. — Noblosh

No I don't think the right argues at all for gender supremacism. That's a meme of the left, and despite your protestations to the contrary, you are a radical leftist.

No I don't think the right argues at all for gender supremacism. That's a meme of the left — Agustino

You're right, I meant patriarchy, sorry.

and despite your protestations to the contrary, you are a radical leftist. — Agustino

I dare you to come up with something to support that claim of yours, like an argument. For example, just because I reject traditionalism doesn't mean I embrace modernism so try not to make that fallacy, if you're going to argumentate, of course.

You're right, I meant patriarchy, sorry. — Noblosh

Please provide an argument showing that right ideology argues for patriarchy.

I dare you to come up with something to support that claim of yours, like an argument. For example, just because I reject traditionalism doesn't mean I embrace modernism so try not to make that fallacy, if you're going to argumentate, of course. — Noblosh

I just did - the fact that you use unsupported leftist memes (such as the Right being patriarchal) shows that you are a leftist, despite your protestations.

But I'm waiting for you to provide arguments for why I'm a radical leftist, that's the issue at hand.

Generally speaking, I would say that I'm on the Left when it comes to economic issues but tend towards the Right when it comes to cultural issues. — Erik

You can still be politically liberal If you're just personally conservative on culture. Being a liberal doesn't mean that certain aspects of culture aren't palatable to you or that you don't have a hard time understanding some minority issues, it just means not being culturally imperious.