You are the only one with victim mentality here.
Please, tell me what is your problem the "victim mentality". Since you seems to think that asking for more political liberty in the discussion forum is bad... go on. Explain to me the problem with that "mentality" ?
and has its rules which you agreed to follow when you made your account.
And since when accepting to follow rules to join a group, means accepting not to question any of those rules ?
You don't see the problem with your logic ?
OH ? Do you felt like I feel censored ? Did I ever said that I felt censored ? Dude... You are really underestimating me right now...
Until now,
I've been able to say exactly what I wanted to say on this forum, no matter how many ban I faced
I understand perfectly the rules of this forum and I understand exactly why I'm banned when its happens, even if I consider those ban unjust on an ethical plan. I sometimes disagree with the sanctions, I can find the rules unjust, in fact I fight those sanction on an ethical plan (by trying to make mods understand why they are noethical), I can ask for a clarification on the sanction, but I take responsibility when they are applied mate, I don't cry because I'm being rejected from a space.
When I break a rule, I don't expect mods not to follow them since we discuss under a power that doesn't question its own rules. This is the difference between me and you. I don't feel censored at all:
Yes. I don't have freedom of speech. I'm being censored right now.
You report people that disagree with you. That info you try to censor.
Just that there is a certain area
Which is problematic for multiple reasons.
So basically what you want is to talk about Satan inside a catholic church when you can have your own Satan church to speak about it
You are making here a highly fallacious comparison. Since for it to be correct, political discussion would need to be non related to the subject of topic where I want to integrate more political discussion. Yet.. we are on a forum discussion about a story that is HIGHLY politically engaged. Meaning that politicizing the discussion in this context, especially when said discussions have something to do with the them included in the story is perfectly relevant and important.
What I want, is to stop people from separating politics from art and especially stories.
Stories are one of the most political support there is in history. Trying to depoliticize discussion about stories is a act of negation of the nature of those stories. Its a
political act of suppression of opinion and political awareness.
I don't fell like that just like you don't feel far left
But you can call me far left if you want. Contrary to you, I do not take that badly.
I would LOVE to be far left, I just don't have enough knowledge to be far left yet !
That's the difference between my political side and yours. You know full well that your far side is problematic and extremely dangerous. I know full well that mine is not.
But thanks at least to agree that I'm not fascist
Trust me, if I thought that you were fascist.. you would see a whole new face of mine.
And I'm just saying I don't think left and right are good to talk about ones political views because people have views that are told to be to one side or the other.
The problem is that you don't understand why there is a left and a right side (aside from historical relevance). The reason why those notions have survived is not because its history, its because its relevant in term of political values:
Those two groups are ennemies because people in those groups shares similar sets of value systems and because those value system enter in conflict because of their nature.
For example, the left believe in the absence of meritocracy and the notions of social capitals when the left believe in the existence of merit. This shiism is foundamental because its the basis for a entire division in terms of value systems and politics.
This type of division exist for a large number of values and this is why there is a right and a left side.
You can be for progressive or conservative values.. but you will foundamentally believe in one of the two value system that is the base of the right or the left. For example, liberal usually believe in the right for LGBTQ+ but they only started to believe in those notion because of the pressure of the environment. In reality, they believe in the power of meritocracy and capitalism which is the foundamental ennemy of the left side.
>universal healthcare
Yes. I see it in my country and it sucks. However, this depends a lot of some factors. I actually think that some of the procedures that were done in the city of São Paulo-Brazil (partnership between the government and some private hospitals) can be a step in the right direction. Basically, as long as it is in the hands of the government it sucks.
>35 hours week
It depends on a variety of factors. If someone try to claim this to every single job I will assume he is either stupid or crazy.
> Minimum wage
Yes. See answer to healthcare.
> Union rights
No. As long as the act of joining a union is voluntary
> Unemployment insurance
As long as the employee accepts the discount on his paycheck and can stop the withdraw/take away the money when he wants is ok and sometimes even useful since many people don't have the habit of saving.
> Rights of Strike
It depends.
>Retirement at 60
Yes.
>Abortion rights
As long as the pregnancy happened without the consent of the mother (rape) or the pregnancy either causes the mother to suffer the risk of death or the child suffers from some deformity that makes living impossible or a living hell. If the mother wants to kill the child because she was stupid to open her legs to a asshole fuck her.
>Same sex Mariage
No issue with civil marriage. Trying to force religions to celebrate the marriage should be prohibited.
So basically you have a lot of problem to understand what is sh*t and what is not sh*t.. Explaining for exemple to a frenchman that universal healthcare if put in the hand of the gov is a bad thing.. is really ... really bold.
Open any basic introductory book on socialism. Look at the part about abolishing private property and state based economy. Try to understand what that means.
Look at the countries mentioned by @Uncle Van and if you still dares to claim that they are socialist you should take your meds.
Socialism is very broad mate, its not a simple system of abolition of private property.. it can also pass through a compromise with the current system, Van is right here:
Socialism is an umbrella term. Abolishing private property and having a state based economy is communism. All communist are socialist but not all socialist are communist. You can call it far left socialism.
I actually have to apologize because I absolutely despise communism and socialism and looking at your posts you seem way more moderate than I was giving credit for.
@Uncle Van When an ultra libertarian conservatist call you a "moderate"... Start to panic.
