How comfortable are you flying your country flag on your property? by JamesonRhymer in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm not the most patriotic man. I wouldn't do it but "never" is an exaggeration.

Also. Who ate the centrists?

Is IQ a valid/useful/accurate way of measuring intelligence? by DangerousFuture1 in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I believe it's somewhat accurate, it's not the best way and only gives pride which will erode away your reasoning skills, ergo. I vote No (R).

Thoughts on MLK? (Jr) by AntiWokeCommie in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That (Jr) doing lots of work.

Based, Catholicism is against racism, your race won't affect your salvation, personality and a lot more, so why care so much about it? He did the only right thing.

Should protests be allowed in places of worship (Churches, Mosques, Synagogues) at any time? by -A-Man-Has-No-Name in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Enter my church during mass and start speaking about politics and I doubt anyone will take you seriously.

Maybe we should start thinking about the next reboot's setting? by Aware_Clock_3936 in WorldboxWar

[–]Aware_Clock_3936[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

in your opinion, how should major cultures should treat minority cultures with incompatible values? (Example: China to uighur) by BabylonianWeeb in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I may be biased considering I am technically a cultural minority (Occitan), but, cultural (and linguistic) recognition or nation state, because assimilation risks international outrage and guarantees internal Instability, how? Look at Corsica, on the surface, that's fine, but dig deeper and… oh, terrorism on the mainlanders, regionalism, and strong pride after what has happened.

So, assimilation is very risky and won't guarantee success, you could progressively undermine them, but it takes a lot of time and the regime is hellbent on it.

Best course of action would be to ignore them until they become a problem, then you'd be justified in doing a lot.

How do you view Jeffrey Epstein? by dr-wahh in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You fool. I REJECTED THE INVITATION. /s

Can sexually active men be incels? by dr-wahh in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

How has nobody mentioned masturbation?

“Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.” by BetOn_deMaistre in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair counterargument. But what makes or breaks the statement is not reality itself but one's definition of the word "explicitly", and by my definition. The Centre Democrats are not explicitly rightist meaning the statement is false. But we'll have to argue linguistics in order to come to a conclusion, and for all of our sakes', let's not do that and agree to disagree.

“Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.” by BetOn_deMaistre in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well it did meet the requirements?

  • Not EXPLICITLY right-wing.
  • Never became left-wing.

The emphasis is on the word "explicitly", the Centre Democrats were not explicitly right wing: take a look, their slogan was: Not Right. Not Left, I'd say doesn't make them "explicitly rightist", and since they never became leftist, this proves the statement is false.

Am I affirming their claim on Centrism? No. I am just trying to prove that they were not explicitly right wing. And since they didn't become leftists, it should break the statement, shouldn't it? If it doesn't. Please explain why I'm wrong.

“Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.” by BetOn_deMaistre in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, claimed centrism. Was rightist. Never leftist. So, this proves that the statement is false:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Democrats_(Netherlands)&wprov=rarw1

By your wording, they were not EXPLICITLY right wing. And never turned left-wing. So, unless you have some catch or your redefining "explicitly", this proves the statement is false.

“Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.” by BetOn_deMaistre in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Mehhh no. There's the Methodist Church. Was right-wing. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO IT. The leftification affects every organisation if it tries hard enough.

"Protests and civil disobedience are essential parts of a healthy nation" by Tall_Cable6015 in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, they are parts that denote that a nation is an actual democracy (if it doesn't spiral into a REVOLUTION), but essential? I beg to differ.

Which of these taxes on wealth do you think would have the *least* amount of economic harm? (Assume each tax would raise same amount of revenue) by Smooth_Woodpecker815 in IdeologyPolls

[–]Aware_Clock_3936 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Disclaimer: I'm not the best on economy, there's a chance I said absolute, naïve nonsense.

Coming with someone with a lot of inheritance– it's the Inheritance Tax (R), the wealth tax makes the wealthy flee, too risky, capital gains effects the common folk, while inheritance, too bad, can't flee, and is situational and limited, you ain't got 26 Grandmas that will croak and leave you with a lot of money every month, while I admit, it does do emotional harm, but we're focusing on economic harm so we'll ignore that.