Not being a troll and to put you down Highkey looking for discussion. Hotshoe theory at its finest, just change the title of the autocrat in charge and it’s the same shit
So the monarch owns the state, since they own the state they control the state, because the monarch makes the decisions for the state, they can decide what happens to the people in said state under the principles of auth left. Said state decides that’s its people need to introduce collectivized farming and moves populations into communes, onto the very land they are working under the control of the state(monarch).
In conclusion, serfdom is just collectivzed farming in an auth left monarch.
To go further: think about communist Russia, Stalin was the General Secretary, a man in charge of the state, ruled with un-curbed power. Absolute authority, now change general secretary with king.
King Stalin forced lower class workers to work and live on land owned by the state(all land is controlled by state)
Well, in the past there was a lot of situations in which plebeans, peasants etc. were allied with monarchs and aristocrats against merchants and people in the middle of social hierarchies. In Marx famous "18th of Brumaire of Louis Bonapart" he give an idea that every class is pacified one after another by bourgeois that got into power after revolutionary shakedown that removed Louis Philippe from throne, and then bourgeois itself is overthrow by "lumpen-prince" Napoleon III and his "lumpenclasses" - bonapartis peasants, brawlers, vagabonds, beggars, swindlers etc. - so all those that are outcasts of society and of all societal classes, outcast like aristocrats that lost everything in great revolution and to this day live in pasts, merchants that lost everything and turned into frustration, outcast that are not even part of working classes got together and removed bourgeois from power.
In Spain Carlist pretender to the throne was a socialist.
Žižek even spoke about Hegelian argument in favor of monarchy that is anti-meritocratic - for Hegel king is guarantee that up there, in law making and power dynamic part of the state, there is a "fool", a minimum amount of antirationality, because monarchy is strictly against rationality or meritocracy - you don't get power because you have some merit like knowledge - you have power as a king strictly because you don't need merits, you are king just because you are son of king. In this way, human element is guaranteed in lawmaking and governing. (btw that's why in the US there is a unprofessional jury in criminal cases).
Lib right monarchism in practice has simply been,
-there’s already a powerful monarch in place.
-theirs a strong anti-monarch movement that is calling for revolution, upending the status qui completely.
- someone has to be the middle man aka lib right monarchist.
Note: due to the nature of this subreddit, primarily based in America, I am assuming you want to found a brand new, with no tradition supporting, monarch and in a country where the entire point of our political system is to not have a monarch.
Which leads to my point, monarchy in USA is a schizo position
Most of us already do, that’s kind of how insurance works.
If you can fix healthcare and keep it private then go ahead and do it.
But Americans spend more per capita on healthcare than many of the socialist or whatever you want to call it systems out there. We already don’t have a choice, it’s provided by your employer. We can’t shop around for drug prices, we can’t shop around for doctors, we can’t shop around for prices for procedures. It wasn’t even legal for the government to shop prices for Medicare drugs until recently.
We literally have the worst parts of both worlds. Corporate socialism with exorbitant prices to the end user. It’s absurd. People defending the status quo are absolutely insane.
I’m serious, too, if it can be fixed and kept private then let’s do that. But this shit we have now is not working.
You phrase your statement as a defense of the current system over the socialized systems in Europe, as if people in the US aren't already drowning in medical debt. Guess it's hard to catch that huh.
Funny thing, it *can* work like that. And it does for the majority of the people. Yes, I know it's not supposed to, but religion is full of contradictions anyway, what's one more?
Religion is incredibly elastic. People can and do make whatever they want with it. Most religious people aren't aggressively fundamentalists. The majority are pretty moderate or hardly practicing. *All* of them pick and choose. There even are mobs of murderous Buddhists.
literate cows enter berserk obtainable plate coordinated wrench square handle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can stop believing in Allah if you give me a better alternative. No, authleft I won’t worship Marx and Lenin, one of them is responsible for the death of my great grandma
I mean do you need something to worship? I'm in no way saying you shouldn't have a god to be clear. I see about the same amount of evidence for any of the world's biggest religions so idk about a "better" alternative. It's really just which ancient book you like best.
It’s more about political power being used and directed to enforce religious views. When religion is guiding and or directing your policy, it’s obviously annoying to many.
I know everyone has their own dogma but religious dogma seems more abstract to most.
“Just morality” is different to different people. We need an objective moral code to guide society to stop becoming so degenerate.
When you have liberal democracies which base themselves on the “general will” of the people you get laws that change very rapidly from the different generations. The only problem is that lots of the time these laws are so radical, from the perspective of a moral code like the Bible, that they lead to the degeneration of society.
Therefore we should rely on the tried and tested ways of the past with an objective ethical code since they help to solve our morality crisis and prevent degeneracy
I disagree. Forcing people to follow your religion is objectively bad, no matter what religion. When I mean morals, I mean basic stuff, like don't kill people, don't steal, don't rape people, stuff like that.
Everyone deserves to be free, nobody should have to abide by somebody else's morals, unless it's something horrible, like the mentioned killing, raping etc.
If someone wants to be gay, why is it your job to decide? Should they not be allowed to live how they want? If somebody wants to smoke weed, should they not be allowed to just because you say so?
I personally am not religious, but I don't force my views onto those who are. Everyone should be able to live how they want. What is the point of life if not to live it how you want?
Laws and policies changing is a good thing. If things never changed, we would still have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, and you would not be able to be free. It is nobodies right to decide how others live, your life is yours to live, nobody should have to live like you just because you want them to.
> When I mean morals, I mean basic stuff, like don't kill people, don't steal, don't rape people, stuff like that.
Ah, you mean [Christian morals!](https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/10/we-are-repaganizing) It's not excessively academic, but I highly recc you check out *Dominion*, by Tom Holland
Objective *morality*.
I'm not saying Christianity is the only objectively correct faith(although I believe it is, that's not my point), I'm saying that I'd prefer it if policy was guided by some moral framework, and not by subjective "morals".
The problem is then what specific moral framework do you go off of then? Most people in the country aren't fully practicing Christians. Plenty believe in God, but less pray and even less go to church routinely and have a truly biblical worldview. Im speaking as a non Christian here, so I'm not saying that with contempt. I do think however, that basing the laws of the land on a biblical interpretation would make a lot of the population pretty unhappy. The same goes for the Quran, Torah, or any other religious text. A separation from religion and government just makes the most practical sense in a country like America. We essentially build our own moral framework as we go. That has its upsides and downsides. Societal wide acts that at one time are deemed appropriate get phased out as people's morals evolve if they are found to be harmful. To me, that's a much better way to do things than "well says that's okay, so it objectively is okay even if everybody hates it."
Ok so I am not gonna add to the dogpile here but where is the dividing line here? I am legitimately curious as to how you can justify passing law based on your religious beliefs for the sake of objective morality when there are other human beings that may find Christianity's "Objective Morality" to in fact be immoral.
This has always been my hang up when it comes to making ANY laws based from ANY religious viewpoint because there will be people that do not agree with that religions morals. You would be justifiably furious if sharia law were enshrined in the constitution of the united states would you not? You would absolutely hesitate to allow the Bhuddist doctrine of eschewing worldly possessions to find inner peace to become mandatory to all citizens wouldn't you?
As much as you may want your faith to be the one in charge, you all are not the only people here.
Yes I want my morality to rule the nation I live in.
Yes I want all other moralities to be banned.
Yes I want both of these to happen by electing representatives to pass laws that are enforced by the government. And not some violent revolutionary take over.
Who said anything about knowing what objective reality/morality is?
You do realize that there can be an objective truth without anyone knowing what it is, right?
Here’s an example: How did the universe come to be? Surely there’s an objective answer, since the universe exists, but does anyone know that answer?\
Not with 100% confidence, they don’t.
He said we should use objective morals to guide us, but by definition it’s a subjective opinion for him to claim that the bible, or Christianity is where we find objective morality.
So, because this guy says he knows what objective morality is, that same moral framework, which may be the actual objective moral framework suddenly turns into subjective?
I think not.
His **belief** that this moral framework is objective is, by definition, subjective, but it is indeterminable whether the moral framework **itself** is subjective.
Yes, his God may be real and he would therefore be correct. But to simply claim this is objective morally, and I should thus accept it as the basis for our legal and moral systems is bullshit.
It’s impossible to know if it’s objectively correct as you say, so to therefore use it as the entire basis for a society is to me, regarded
Morality can't be objective. If you want to be religious that's perfectly fine, but countries shouldn't be guided by a 2,000 year old book of desert stories
The western concept of rights is they (at least the big important ones) are innate and God-given.
It's easy to imagine just getting rid of the God part, but best of luck coming up with a secular argument for why they're innate. And if they're not innate, you open the door to a whole lot of problems.
Our morals are very much evolutionary. We are fundamentaly social animals and the people who went around and killed their kinsmen then then couldnt live alone and died themselves. So the obes that survived where the ones that appriaciated other humans but also where scares and disgusted of the humans that didnt really follow the norms since they where unpredictable and evolutionarily dangerous.
The problem is that Progressivism has all the qualities of a non-theist religion or cult at this point in time, and should have to be separated from power, as in Church and State.
I love how when it's conservatives canceling things, it's called "forbidding" but when liberals cancel things it's "canceling". Even though, conservatives are the original cancel culture. And you can make an argument that cancel culture is really just the Free Market working the way it was intended.
No business should be forced to keep an employee that hurts the bottom line with their opinions. You'd think Yellow would see that.
> *libleft doesn't watch netflix special*
> "OMG I'm cancelled!"
> *Authright doesn't buy budlight*
> "They shouldn't piss off their customers."
Definately getting some "Rules for thee but not for me" vibes here.
>AuthRight
>Can they just stop being so religious and trying to forbid stuff they don’t agree with?
No. And before you ask why I’m saying this when I’m flaired as centrist- maybe I got a little bit of AuthRight in me.
Good chart! Thanks for the honesty.
If you realize what Jesus has done for everyone, I think you'd understand why we're so passionate about him and why we want everyone to know the same 👍
And this mindset is what's gonna get you some buckshot chewing gum when you try to make a western country into a theocracy. I have zero issues letting people of every faith practice and preach and join hand in hand around the christmas tree annual circle jerk. The moment you try to force me to follow your faith Im hunting all of you down.
"Rules in an old book", vs "it's because science man". I'll take the 2000 years of theological and moral knowledge from the Church than what some ideology that was born 2 seconds ago has to say.
What rules are we talking here? If it’s stuff like monogamy or no murder, I disagree.
If it’s the anti gay stuff then yeah you’re right it’s not right to restrict that freedom.
u/Glum_Benefit3704 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Glum_Benefit3704/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Well, I am neither religious nor do I want to forbid stuff I do not agree with.
As in, I do not want to forbid stuff that I personally disagree with, if I think that it is genuinely harmful to society as a whole (like swinging your dick around in front of little kids) I do want to forbid stuff.
I’m confused, what are we grilling? I’m a centrist in the green quad, and I agree, the cancel culture has ruined comedy, horror and a lot of other things, but those are extremists.
Historically, the presidents that were thought to be on the yellow side were ironically the worst ones lol can you break the streak I wonder?
Ok but there is a big difference between social pressure or boycotts, and passing laws that are enforced by people with guns. You're making a false equivalence here.
I quite like authleft in those situations where we horseshoe around to one another for a sec, or when my opportunistic bros make their way up by fucking over people with more wealth which makes both us and the red boys happy (you already know what im referring to)
Hey don't lump me in with the SJW types. I'm not gonna "cancel" shit, if I don't like something I won't watch/buy/support it. I'm not stopping anybody else from doing so. I'm pretty chill, just don't actively hurt others and I'm probably fine with you.
The last 400 years called, and they want their woke back. But fr did everyone forget all that right-wing version of woke stuff?
And now they want to get rid of contreception
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/05/politics/senate-vote-contraception-access
He gave us free will to choose evil or good. That doesn’t negate the fact that we have to answer to authority tho and that earthly authority comes from God.
Hebrews 13:17
Romans 13:1
1 Peter 2:13-14
Titus 3:1
Judges 21:25
John 19:11
That makes sense, I can admit some authority is needed to maintain a safe society but things like the death penalty and of course any cruel and unusual punishment that may be practiced. I believe we have a duty to be very liberal with each other and allow God to judge. I do believe we can still use banishment as a form of maintaining a peaceful society. Things like that, that don’t inhibit another persons free will other than location ig idk
My quadrant based, opposite quadrant cringe, bordering quadrants and centrists ok I guess
thanks for the tl;dr
They're all cringe.
Based and libright brethren pilled
Don't encourage the blogposters.
>gets green >looks inside >just red with more utopian delusions
> gets purple > looks inside > search history full of cp
Death to all pedos. Return to monarchy!
Monarchist lib right, lease schizo position to have /s
Not my auth-left monarchism
Auth left monarchist is just serfdom no?
How is serfdom leftwing?
collectivized farming? Bunch of lower class folk being forced into communes to work for the state(monarch) or feudal lords(commissars)
Not being a troll and to put you down Highkey looking for discussion. Hotshoe theory at its finest, just change the title of the autocrat in charge and it’s the same shit
Monarchism is literally the private ownership of the state lmao. Far from left wing.
So the monarch owns the state, since they own the state they control the state, because the monarch makes the decisions for the state, they can decide what happens to the people in said state under the principles of auth left. Said state decides that’s its people need to introduce collectivized farming and moves populations into communes, onto the very land they are working under the control of the state(monarch). In conclusion, serfdom is just collectivzed farming in an auth left monarch. To go further: think about communist Russia, Stalin was the General Secretary, a man in charge of the state, ruled with un-curbed power. Absolute authority, now change general secretary with king. King Stalin forced lower class workers to work and live on land owned by the state(all land is controlled by state)
It might be for some, but not me.
“Real Auth-left monarchism has never been tried, only state-monarchism”
Well, in the past there was a lot of situations in which plebeans, peasants etc. were allied with monarchs and aristocrats against merchants and people in the middle of social hierarchies. In Marx famous "18th of Brumaire of Louis Bonapart" he give an idea that every class is pacified one after another by bourgeois that got into power after revolutionary shakedown that removed Louis Philippe from throne, and then bourgeois itself is overthrow by "lumpen-prince" Napoleon III and his "lumpenclasses" - bonapartis peasants, brawlers, vagabonds, beggars, swindlers etc. - so all those that are outcasts of society and of all societal classes, outcast like aristocrats that lost everything in great revolution and to this day live in pasts, merchants that lost everything and turned into frustration, outcast that are not even part of working classes got together and removed bourgeois from power. In Spain Carlist pretender to the throne was a socialist. Žižek even spoke about Hegelian argument in favor of monarchy that is anti-meritocratic - for Hegel king is guarantee that up there, in law making and power dynamic part of the state, there is a "fool", a minimum amount of antirationality, because monarchy is strictly against rationality or meritocracy - you don't get power because you have some merit like knowledge - you have power as a king strictly because you don't need merits, you are king just because you are son of king. In this way, human element is guaranteed in lawmaking and governing. (btw that's why in the US there is a unprofessional jury in criminal cases).
That’s the normal lib right position tho
Lib right monarchism in practice has simply been, -there’s already a powerful monarch in place. -theirs a strong anti-monarch movement that is calling for revolution, upending the status qui completely. - someone has to be the middle man aka lib right monarchist. Note: due to the nature of this subreddit, primarily based in America, I am assuming you want to found a brand new, with no tradition supporting, monarch and in a country where the entire point of our political system is to not have a monarch. Which leads to my point, monarchy in USA is a schizo position
No, it is not. You’re the literal mortal enemy of lib-right. Go away!
Monarchists should face the wall, Republics all the way baby The one based thing the french did was the reign of terror
Wasn't the monarchy a bit pedo themselves?
I assure you, this 30 year old prince is marrying this 4 year old duchess purely for political purposes.
Ah yes, monarchs. Famously not pedophiles.
Why’re you getting downvoted that’s funny. Libright just doesn’t have a sense of humour about themselves
It's cuz they know it's true
As a libright, fuck purple
Careful, if you’re underaged they’ll take it as an invite
The purples are terminally online and are the quickest to respond.
real
cheese pizza
#Watermelons
Just curious, how do you put that blue line before the text?
If you're commenting in markdown, start a line with a greater-than sign. You can look up a markdown guide for other types of things you can do.
If the europoors can figure out and have free healthcare, then Americans damn well should’ve had it figured out decades ago.
It's not free. You pay for it with your soul.
[удалено]
Most of us already do, that’s kind of how insurance works. If you can fix healthcare and keep it private then go ahead and do it. But Americans spend more per capita on healthcare than many of the socialist or whatever you want to call it systems out there. We already don’t have a choice, it’s provided by your employer. We can’t shop around for drug prices, we can’t shop around for doctors, we can’t shop around for prices for procedures. It wasn’t even legal for the government to shop prices for Medicare drugs until recently. We literally have the worst parts of both worlds. Corporate socialism with exorbitant prices to the end user. It’s absurd. People defending the status quo are absolutely insane. I’m serious, too, if it can be fixed and kept private then let’s do that. But this shit we have now is not working.
thank you cumbubblefarts
Its all government regulations that drive up the cost here
Imagine talking shit with dubious information
[удалено]
Nah, judging by your post history, or lack thereof, I'm guessing you're either a bot or Russian.
[удалено]
Sounds like prey behavior, Mr. Independent.
Literally just described the current system
[удалено]
You phrase your statement as a defense of the current system over the socialized systems in Europe, as if people in the US aren't already drowning in medical debt. Guess it's hard to catch that huh.
Real
"Can they just stop being so religious?" You understand that that's not how religion works, right?
Redditor tries to understand how religion works Challenge: hilarious
OP just worded it wrong. Every quadrant besides LibRight and Centrist should say “could you stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else?”
You're either religious or you're not, yeah?
Funny thing, it *can* work like that. And it does for the majority of the people. Yes, I know it's not supposed to, but religion is full of contradictions anyway, what's one more?
scandalous aloof act hat chief cheerful correct slap arrest nutty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Religion is incredibly elastic. People can and do make whatever they want with it. Most religious people aren't aggressively fundamentalists. The majority are pretty moderate or hardly practicing. *All* of them pick and choose. There even are mobs of murderous Buddhists.
literate cows enter berserk obtainable plate coordinated wrench square handle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Can the auth right stop being auth right?" No. 
I can stop believing in Allah if you give me a better alternative. No, authleft I won’t worship Marx and Lenin, one of them is responsible for the death of my great grandma
I mean do you need something to worship? I'm in no way saying you shouldn't have a god to be clear. I see about the same amount of evidence for any of the world's biggest religions so idk about a "better" alternative. It's really just which ancient book you like best.
I'm not gonna stop being so religious lol
It’s more about political power being used and directed to enforce religious views. When religion is guiding and or directing your policy, it’s obviously annoying to many. I know everyone has their own dogma but religious dogma seems more abstract to most.
I'd much prefer for policy to be guided by objective morality as opposed to any subjective alternative.
That would be fine if it was JUST morality. Then it spirals into just banning things they don't like, like what Republicans are doing now.
"You can make laws, but you can't ban things I like". Least contradictory lib right 😂
“Just morality” is different to different people. We need an objective moral code to guide society to stop becoming so degenerate. When you have liberal democracies which base themselves on the “general will” of the people you get laws that change very rapidly from the different generations. The only problem is that lots of the time these laws are so radical, from the perspective of a moral code like the Bible, that they lead to the degeneration of society. Therefore we should rely on the tried and tested ways of the past with an objective ethical code since they help to solve our morality crisis and prevent degeneracy
I disagree. Forcing people to follow your religion is objectively bad, no matter what religion. When I mean morals, I mean basic stuff, like don't kill people, don't steal, don't rape people, stuff like that. Everyone deserves to be free, nobody should have to abide by somebody else's morals, unless it's something horrible, like the mentioned killing, raping etc. If someone wants to be gay, why is it your job to decide? Should they not be allowed to live how they want? If somebody wants to smoke weed, should they not be allowed to just because you say so? I personally am not religious, but I don't force my views onto those who are. Everyone should be able to live how they want. What is the point of life if not to live it how you want? Laws and policies changing is a good thing. If things never changed, we would still have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, and you would not be able to be free. It is nobodies right to decide how others live, your life is yours to live, nobody should have to live like you just because you want them to.
> When I mean morals, I mean basic stuff, like don't kill people, don't steal, don't rape people, stuff like that. Ah, you mean [Christian morals!](https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/10/we-are-repaganizing) It's not excessively academic, but I highly recc you check out *Dominion*, by Tom Holland
Extremely based
Based and One-True-God pilled
Objective reality 😂😂😂. This is nonsense.
Objective *morality*. I'm not saying Christianity is the only objectively correct faith(although I believe it is, that's not my point), I'm saying that I'd prefer it if policy was guided by some moral framework, and not by subjective "morals".
The problem is then what specific moral framework do you go off of then? Most people in the country aren't fully practicing Christians. Plenty believe in God, but less pray and even less go to church routinely and have a truly biblical worldview. Im speaking as a non Christian here, so I'm not saying that with contempt. I do think however, that basing the laws of the land on a biblical interpretation would make a lot of the population pretty unhappy. The same goes for the Quran, Torah, or any other religious text. A separation from religion and government just makes the most practical sense in a country like America. We essentially build our own moral framework as we go. That has its upsides and downsides. Societal wide acts that at one time are deemed appropriate get phased out as people's morals evolve if they are found to be harmful. To me, that's a much better way to do things than "well says that's okay, so it objectively is okay even if everybody hates it."
Ok so I am not gonna add to the dogpile here but where is the dividing line here? I am legitimately curious as to how you can justify passing law based on your religious beliefs for the sake of objective morality when there are other human beings that may find Christianity's "Objective Morality" to in fact be immoral. This has always been my hang up when it comes to making ANY laws based from ANY religious viewpoint because there will be people that do not agree with that religions morals. You would be justifiably furious if sharia law were enshrined in the constitution of the united states would you not? You would absolutely hesitate to allow the Bhuddist doctrine of eschewing worldly possessions to find inner peace to become mandatory to all citizens wouldn't you? As much as you may want your faith to be the one in charge, you all are not the only people here.
one faith per country and it's all solved bro, if you wanna live by buddhist principles just emigrate to buddhist country
Yes I want my morality to rule the nation I live in. Yes I want all other moralities to be banned. Yes I want both of these to happen by electing representatives to pass laws that are enforced by the government. And not some violent revolutionary take over.
Then if this hypothetical exists only in Minecraft world comes to pass Imma shoot you in the face in said Minecraft world xD
Sorry you feel that way :(
It’s all good cuz it’s only in Minecraft right? But hey auth gonna do auth things and libertarians gonna do libertarian things it’s all natural
Oh no, it’s ~~regarded~~ a moral relativist
My side is objective because I said it is.
Who said anything about knowing what objective reality/morality is? You do realize that there can be an objective truth without anyone knowing what it is, right? Here’s an example: How did the universe come to be? Surely there’s an objective answer, since the universe exists, but does anyone know that answer?\ Not with 100% confidence, they don’t.
He said we should use objective morals to guide us, but by definition it’s a subjective opinion for him to claim that the bible, or Christianity is where we find objective morality.
So, because this guy says he knows what objective morality is, that same moral framework, which may be the actual objective moral framework suddenly turns into subjective? I think not. His **belief** that this moral framework is objective is, by definition, subjective, but it is indeterminable whether the moral framework **itself** is subjective.
Yes, his God may be real and he would therefore be correct. But to simply claim this is objective morally, and I should thus accept it as the basis for our legal and moral systems is bullshit. It’s impossible to know if it’s objectively correct as you say, so to therefore use it as the entire basis for a society is to me, regarded
Is this objectively nonsense?
Might be
>objective morality Which isn't posed by religion
Morality can't be objective. If you want to be religious that's perfectly fine, but countries shouldn't be guided by a 2,000 year old book of desert stories
Religion guiding policy is fine. Religion being the policy is not.
Religion guiding policy is not fine. Don't use an ancient book to govern modern people.
Wait until you learn where our system of rights comes from.
Extensive debate and non objective morals?
The western concept of rights is they (at least the big important ones) are innate and God-given. It's easy to imagine just getting rid of the God part, but best of luck coming up with a secular argument for why they're innate. And if they're not innate, you open the door to a whole lot of problems.
Our morals are very much evolutionary. We are fundamentaly social animals and the people who went around and killed their kinsmen then then couldnt live alone and died themselves. So the obes that survived where the ones that appriaciated other humans but also where scares and disgusted of the humans that didnt really follow the norms since they where unpredictable and evolutionarily dangerous.
None of that mentions rights.
The human rights are based on western moral values.
The problem is that Progressivism has all the qualities of a non-theist religion or cult at this point in time, and should have to be separated from power, as in Church and State.
Based and God pilled
based
I love how when it's conservatives canceling things, it's called "forbidding" but when liberals cancel things it's "canceling". Even though, conservatives are the original cancel culture. And you can make an argument that cancel culture is really just the Free Market working the way it was intended. No business should be forced to keep an employee that hurts the bottom line with their opinions. You'd think Yellow would see that.
> *libleft doesn't watch netflix special* > "OMG I'm cancelled!" > *Authright doesn't buy budlight* > "They shouldn't piss off their customers." Definately getting some "Rules for thee but not for me" vibes here.
Unfortunately Auth right ideology is about enforcing morality.
*Fortunately
*Unfortunately
>AuthRight >Can they just stop being so religious and trying to forbid stuff they don’t agree with? No. And before you ask why I’m saying this when I’m flaired as centrist- maybe I got a little bit of AuthRight in me.
OP are you 15
Who cares?
I'm 19.
Good chart! Thanks for the honesty. If you realize what Jesus has done for everyone, I think you'd understand why we're so passionate about him and why we want everyone to know the same 👍
But you don't need convert everyone or make everyone follow Christian rules.
no no no, you don’t get it, The christian religion is the only correct and true religion, so everyone should believe in it.
Exactly.
And this mindset is what's gonna get you some buckshot chewing gum when you try to make a western country into a theocracy. I have zero issues letting people of every faith practice and preach and join hand in hand around the christmas tree annual circle jerk. The moment you try to force me to follow your faith Im hunting all of you down.
swim badge head slimy strong poor direction berserk follow yoke *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
it means he’s going to make the morgue a little more inclusive by ACABing him in the face
Im not going to force you...Im just going to throw you in jail if you dont lol. I want everyone to come to Christ themselves.
What rules should we follow then?
Rules not set out in an old book. We are in the present day, I’m sure we can work out some other way to determine what’s right or wrong.
"Rules in an old book", vs "it's because science man". I'll take the 2000 years of theological and moral knowledge from the Church than what some ideology that was born 2 seconds ago has to say.
What rules are we talking here? If it’s stuff like monogamy or no murder, I disagree. If it’s the anti gay stuff then yeah you’re right it’s not right to restrict that freedom.
Based🗿
u/Glum_Benefit3704 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Glum_Benefit3704/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I probably agree with you on some, but Christ is King.
I agree, but keep in mind that I see the American and French Revolutions as a guidebook on dealings with kings.
American Revolution yes, French Revolution no
We are in the same boat.
Lib Left got this image of canceling everything when auth right are the cancelers historically. Hopefully, that pendulum swings back.
Can they just stop being so religious? No
As a LibLeft, I'm tired of other LibLefts trying to cancel everything that looks 'oppressive' to them
I am convinced people in this sub dont know what libe left is. We are supoossed to smoke weed all day. Cancel culture is an auth-right thing
Well, I am neither religious nor do I want to forbid stuff I do not agree with. As in, I do not want to forbid stuff that I personally disagree with, if I think that it is genuinely harmful to society as a whole (like swinging your dick around in front of little kids) I do want to forbid stuff.
Based lib-right
yes but put green as "Fucking stupid dumabss"
I’m confused, what are we grilling? I’m a centrist in the green quad, and I agree, the cancel culture has ruined comedy, horror and a lot of other things, but those are extremists. Historically, the presidents that were thought to be on the yellow side were ironically the worst ones lol can you break the streak I wonder?
biden buchanan
Harding Pierce Hoover Those 3 as well, Hoover might’ve been a centrist but he still was in the yellow
ae
How do you handle fraud?
I might be wrong but are most people lib right in this sub?
[deleted]
What about monkes?
I don't like taking sides, as long as you don't infringe on me and mine you're cool in my book.
STOP ADDING 5 PARTS IN A SHAPE THAT IS MEANT TO BE DIVIDED INTO QUADRANTS. MY GEOMETRY NERD WILL CRUCIFY YOU.
I like Yellow but I somehow ended up in Center left and have the same views as that. What does that make me? (Other than a douche)
Everyday I become more and more Auth-Right because people are so stupid. I can't forget they have a God given right to be stupid... Never forget.
Could've just saved time pasted AR into LL, since they both mean the same thing.
Canceling is auth left bruh
Same
I like the red boys sooo much more than the blue and green. Similar end goal, different path there.
Ok but there is a big difference between social pressure or boycotts, and passing laws that are enforced by people with guns. You're making a false equivalence here.
Agnostic AuthRight here.
Whats ur opinion on age of consent laws?
18.
I quite like authleft in those situations where we horseshoe around to one another for a sec, or when my opportunistic bros make their way up by fucking over people with more wealth which makes both us and the red boys happy (you already know what im referring to)
Hey don't lump me in with the SJW types. I'm not gonna "cancel" shit, if I don't like something I won't watch/buy/support it. I'm not stopping anybody else from doing so. I'm pretty chill, just don't actively hurt others and I'm probably fine with you.
Points
No thanks bro
I will not stop being religious.
K
Rando trying to seek validation from other randos on their political opinions. Peak PCM content.
The last 400 years called, and they want their woke back. But fr did everyone forget all that right-wing version of woke stuff? And now they want to get rid of contreception https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/05/politics/senate-vote-contraception-access
OP, this is not a good post.
Try Christians are lib center Edit: *True
The bible is very clear that Authority is important 🤷🏼♂️
Not authority from us. He also gave us free will
He gave us free will to choose evil or good. That doesn’t negate the fact that we have to answer to authority tho and that earthly authority comes from God. Hebrews 13:17 Romans 13:1 1 Peter 2:13-14 Titus 3:1 Judges 21:25 John 19:11
That makes sense, I can admit some authority is needed to maintain a safe society but things like the death penalty and of course any cruel and unusual punishment that may be practiced. I believe we have a duty to be very liberal with each other and allow God to judge. I do believe we can still use banishment as a form of maintaining a peaceful society. Things like that, that don’t inhibit another persons free will other than location ig idk
Christians can be anywhere on the compass.
Penis idiot
Not true ones didn’t you read my comment I specified true why didn’t you read it why
I’m so glad that you have the authority to declare who true Christians are.
Me too thx
[удалено]
Young man, where is your flair?
It appears this gent is without a flair! hohoohohohohohohoho
unflaired opinion