Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Political Ideology
Other ldeology 
Which political ideology do you identify with? If you have no idea, use these to get an idea: spekr.org/ politiscales.net/en_US/ politicalcompass.org/test dichotomytests.com/
2019-03-27 01:59
politics in 2019 lul
2019-03-27 02:00
8values.github.io/quiz.html Hijacking top comment, another test for you guys
2019-03-28 01:32
2019-03-29 17:27
#100
 | 
United States Scvboy1 
Algeria in 2019 lul
2019-03-28 17:54
atleast my country is not the most hated country in the world
2019-03-28 18:38
#172
 | 
United States l1nkax 
Yeah because nobody cares about your country
2019-03-31 01:31
well its better because when people think about ur country they only think about the destruction you did over the world
2019-03-31 14:11
#126
felps | 
Brazil pluga 
politics in HLTV lul
2019-03-29 00:32
#2
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Moderate.
2019-03-27 02:02
#83
hyde | 
United Kingdom 0outof8 
Centrist?
2019-03-28 17:34
yes.
2019-03-28 18:41
Better be apolitical or political virgin in other words
2019-03-30 00:03
#3
shox | 
France mythhhhhh 
libertarian
2019-03-27 02:01
yee haw brother
2019-03-28 17:52
#142
 | 
United States Kizpif 
+1
2019-03-29 16:34
Leftie, but if ever everyone gets social stabitily, Im more liberal
2019-03-27 02:01
#8
 | 
Brazil BlueLighting 
No one will be able to have social stability with the government robbing the profits of every investor and taxing everything and everyone like the leftists of Brazil like
2019-03-27 02:06
#11
 | 
United States GenericPilot 
That's a very libertarian view of taxes.
2019-03-27 02:08
#20
 | 
Brazil BlueLighting 
Brazil is known to have one of the highest taxes on products worldwide, but look at us.... we have no hope. With such a high tax, at least the students of the schools should have a notebook to study, each student... But the only thing we see is politicians having fun with our money.
2019-03-27 02:12
#25
 | 
United States GenericPilot 
A situation like Brazil occurs when a level of corruption is reached that taxes don't go back to the public, but instead to the pockets of oligarchs and career politicians. I think you are conflating the problems you perceive to be caused by taxation with corruption of the general system of government. For example, what is generally known as the American "golden age" saw a large increase in corporate and top-bracket income taxes, almost to the point of 90%. This system could have become like the system in Brazil, were it not for a strong constitution, something Brazil lacks to this day, through no fault of their own. To summarize, I cannot blame you for being discontent of the government of Brazil, but I also think you are misattributing the cause of these problems. A working system of high taxes would see the money redistributed through government programs, (Social security, Medicare, etc.) something not happening in Brazil; causing the burden of tax to be put heavier upon students and the poorest of the economy.
2019-03-27 02:21
#30
 | 
Brazil BlueLighting 
Agreed. If the money came back to the public I wouldn't complain so much about the high taxation. But now I can't trust my money in politicians hands anymore... only I can deal with my money in a proper way... Here it seems that we work for the good of politicians and not them who are our employees... and I'm sick of it.
2019-03-27 02:31
#33
 | 
Brazil BlueLighting 
Corruption here has become a type of common thing, politicians have become gods, even the law is different for them... they even judge themselves whether they are guilty or innocent... as I said before, we have no hope anymore.
2019-03-27 02:34
the situation you describe in brazil i see in america. and in my own country. career politicians get elected with populist promises and turn around and give tax cuts to their rich buddies, while as you say historical data shows that its better for the economy when high incomes are taxed properly, up to 90%. because that enables the government to support welfare programs and education and health care that enables people to be more productive without taking poor people very highly. you say your constitution is so great but it did allow the corporatists to revert a lot of measures not that long after the new deal which introduced those 90% tax rates, and later, to revert rules on banks, which allowed the 2008 crisis to happen.
2019-03-28 18:57
#5
 | 
France I_ONLY_SAY_NT 
far right = mentally ill
2019-03-27 02:02
Why do you say that? Any specific reasoning for that conclusion?
2019-03-27 02:05
#12
 | 
Brazil BlueLighting 
he's French = leftist
2019-03-27 02:08
#54
 | 
Europe deVulse 
This
2019-03-28 01:28
#13
 | 
France I_ONLY_SAY_NT 
hltv users
2019-03-27 02:08
#26
 | 
United States GenericPilot 
It is an ideology built upon ignorance, tribalism, authoritarianism, and racism. It is contrary to the very idea of a democracy. These days, most far-righters are either Gen X White Supremacists (the kind that committed atrocities such as the Christchurch shooting) or edgy 14-year-olds (many of which you can find on this site) that base their entire political view upon memes about a man that couldn't care less about them. (Donald Trump) I believe that is the point he was trying to make.
2019-03-27 02:22
Tribalism is human nature. “An ideology built around racism” Well, leftist ideologies aren’t exactly tolerant of all races, either. A democracy is mob rule, that is not a good way to run a country. The Christ church shooting was a biproduct of multiculturalism. That’s if it wasn’t a false flag, there are quite a few signs, pointing towards that possibility.
2019-03-27 02:39
#35
tarik | 
United States nikolaii 
Does this mean that we should embrace tribalism in the 21st century? This doesn't excuse the ideas of the far-right. Do you believe that we shouldn't be tolerant of all races? The idea of many people having a say in matters is usually what people refer to when they say democracy. A democracy with some alterations (a republic or laws against cheating people over) will not screw over others and become "mob rule". This one rubbed me the wrong way in particular. How was this the fault of Muslims and integration? You are content to practically say "the Muslims brought this on themselves" without addressing the person who committed this and what he wanted. What about this idea of white people losing their identity to other races and refugees being "invaders" who we must fight against?
2019-03-27 02:42
Muslims didn’t bring it on themselves, obviously. You chose to interpret it that way. The politicians who want to bring about multiculturalism are at fault. It breeds ethnic warfare, and this attack will not be the last on both sides, unfortunately. I mean, being tolerant of all races and hating immigration are two very different things. Just because I do not want mass immigration to continue does not mean that I hate all Muslims.
2019-03-27 02:51
#38
tarik | 
United States nikolaii 
I agree, but the way you phrased that it was a product of multiculturalism made it seem like it was because of the Muslims and their inability to adapt. You do understand that overtime this ethnic divide decreases, right? As cultures diffuse and people are born into an area they tend to adopt the existing culture and blend it with parts of their own. What you criticize in Europe (and rightly so) is the mass immigration of a different cultural group that has been brought in so quickly and with little previous exposure to western ways. This has obviously created major problems. However, you can't expect 1st generation immigrants to adapt to a foreign culture as well as their children and grandchildren.
2019-03-27 03:09
Blacks still haven't adapted to USA 400 years later
2019-03-27 04:08
#56
 | 
Europe deVulse 
This LUL
2019-03-28 01:30
0/8
2019-03-28 20:10
Umm sorry but why are most crimes done by black people?
2019-03-29 13:16
A multitude of reasons. No one knows exactly, but it is most likely because of historic racism having a domino effect in black communities. I am in no way an expert in how it has effected housing and inner cities and costs, so I would recommend you look up a video on it that doesn’t say they commit crimes because of their “low iq.” Another reason would be the war on drugs which has taken many black fathers away from children. This has caused them to grow up without good influences and a strong family income, which leads to obvious problems with their future family and will eventually lead to crime. There are many more factors which go into why black people are behind, and they do not have to do with a “low iq”
2019-03-29 16:32
Why do africans or black people in general have low iq then
2019-03-29 16:44
Do we know how these tests are given and who takes them? Black students tend to perform worse because of family situations and lack of encouragement in their school systems. If these people are taking the test, it is obvious why they are doing worse. They are also designed by westerners. It is not a surprise that westerners do the best. Asians also do really well, however they have had more exposure to western technology and culture throughout history.
2019-03-29 17:03
again they have had 400 years to get used to western culture
2019-03-29 17:10
And you have missed the entire point of why black people are doing poorly. They have adopted to western culture, they just have problems that have been brought with systemic racism. These can be seen in poor white communities as well. Are they not westernized? A better example of “not assimilating” is 1st generation middle eastern refugees who have been transferred to a drastically different culture. But they too, after generations, tend to assimilate to western customs and traditions.
2019-03-29 17:27
Asian countries have the highest IQ. IQ tests are literally just identifying patterns. "Who gives them" makes no difference. Asians do the best by far and actually make the most money in America. Chinese were also very discriminated against, but look where they are compared to Blacks. It's already 2019, there's really no excuse for Blacks to be doing worse than Asians in school now, other than being less intelligent. There isn't a single black majority country that isn't a shithole.
2019-03-29 23:53
If you were actually interested in seeing why blacks are less successful you would have read my other posts. Since you choose to ignore the multitude of reasons and refused to do research on your own I can only come to the conclusion that you want to believe that black people have a low intelligence. Based on your previous ignoring of information, I doubt you actually did any research to see why African countries are underdeveloped. I doubt you know anything about European imperialism. Also not all countries are shitholes, for example Nigeria.
2019-03-30 00:58
Blacks fail in America with the system helping them through Affirmative Action. Asians still consistently do better while being penalized. There is no systemic racism that you talk about towards Blacks, but rather to Asians. Let's just assume your "war on drugs" is a reason. That's related to intelligence. If they were intelligent enough to see the consequences, they wouldn't have fallen for it. It's 2019, all of that is over, and they are still doing bad. "Strong family income" -- again, Chinese were dirt poor when they immigrated and are now top performing. Please don't ignore information to suit your own propaganda. African countries have always been underdeveloped. Take a look at how they operate politically and socially and you will find it's actually part of their culture and behavior (intelligence), not "European imperialism" that has led them to be such shit countries. Nigeria is a shit country, btw. It's one of the most dangerous countries in the world. You might want to do some research. In general, don't assume and attack the person you're debating with. Makes you look like a complete idiot.
2019-03-30 02:12
Affirmative action does nothing to help black people compared to what historic racism has to bring them down. (I don't agree with affirmative action, I think this system should be used to help people in poor economic situations, not just because they are a minority). And I never claimed that there was institutional racism in place today. Just that it has happened in the past and had detrimental effects on black communities today. LOL. Please tell me this is bait. Racist laws held black people back keeping them in economic disadvantageous positions. Because of this they show the same symptoms of other poor communities (white, hispanic. and asian too!). High drug use, higher rates of crime and so on. And everyone using weed in non legal states has a low iq? Is that what you are trying to say? I jaywalked the other day, do I have 90 iq? People make bad decisions and even more so in poor economic conditions. You are right, the Chinese are pretty successful. Why do you think this is? Come on, its another pretty common right wing argument. It is because of their strong family structure. sashimi- Haha! I got him now! He admitted that Asians are mentally superior to blacks as they have a higher intelligence to form a better family structure. Not quite so. Again, I know you hate to admit it, but historic racist institutions/laws and the war on drugs have crippled the black family, causing new generations to tend to start off less privileged. And it is clear you have never opened a history book. I don't think you have any idea about what European Imperialism was. Do you think it is just a talking point of the left? Your claim that it was because of their culture and intelligence that they are underdeveloped in completely unsubstantiated. I used Nigeria in reference to the south, which is developing at a very fast rate post European intervention. The north is still lacking. I suggest you research the history of Africa before you spout off random claims about black people having low intelligence.
2019-03-31 00:49
I'm reading a lot of fluff. European Imperialism aka African leaders sold their own citizens. Asians are more intelligent as shown not only in America but across the globe. Btw, IQ tests have no prejudice, so stop using that bullshit as your reasoning. Summing up the reason why Chinese are doing much better than Blacks to a single "strong family structure" shows ignorance. There has never been as much high crime rate in Asian communities (poor or not) compared to Blacks. Hint* Being poor does not make it okay to commit crimes. If they were smart, they would have instead put all their energy into education to make it out (like the Chinese). Just take a look at African languages and you will see their intelligence. They lack many words to describe things that would allow them to have abstract thought. Try doing business in Africa - it's FILLED with corruption and laziness. It's really no wonder that Africa has never achieved anything. Ultimately, it boils down to this. Intelligence is genetic, just as height and skin color are genetic. Blacks are taller and more athletic, but also less intelligent. Simple. I suggest you research history of Africa and America, as well as have some common sense before spouting off your bullshit propaganda.
2019-03-31 04:38
So you don't know what European Imperialism is, good to know. It is not the slave trade, it is the economic and political domination of Africa by the Europeans. I am not going to teach you all about Imperialism in hltv. It isn't worth it as I know it will be a waste of my time. Here's a copy paste about the iq test stuff "Simply put, if you take the IQ scores of blacks and whites, blacks score lower than whites by about 15 points. This statistic of course, doesn't take into account anything other than race. Let's go through why most of the academic community isn't concerned about this. 1. The gap we see here is not at all unique. There have been many instances of populations of people with lower than average IQ that have closed the gap entirely. For example, women used to score far lower than men on IQ tests. This is no longer the case since women have gotten more educated. In this case, [we are starting to see the IQs of women surpass those of men (in general)] (newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/16/why-women-f..)]. Another example is the IQ data gathered from East and West Germany prior to unification. East and West Germans were / are genetically indistinguishable, but there was a gap between the two reaching 17 points in some areas. If you take IQ as being mostly genetic, these results are highly problematic. Heres a link: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0.. A third example (and I could go on for longer but this is already long enough) is the Flynn effect. This is the well documented phenomenon that observes populations IQs rising as they develop economically. The average black person today gets the same score as the average white person did in the US in the year 1950. The average black person's score is 15 points higher than the average white person just 100 short years ago. Unless you think there was a major genetic change in whites in the past 50-100 years, the rise in scores (for both races) was due to environmental changes. Whites have simply enjoyed a higher standard of living (then and now) which leads to them having environments more conducive to learning. I know I said that was the last example I'd give, but let me do one more because I think it illustrates my point. Another big difference in IQ scores can be seen between northern Americans and Americans in the South. In fact, there have been studies done where blacks in the north scored higher on IQ tests than whites in the south. Are northerners different genetically than southerners? If not, then why the difference? If we accept whatever that difference is, why are you not using that to explain the black - white difference? The above examples give pause to the idea that IQs for groups are set in stone (they 100% are not and that's a fact), and that genetics are the primary determination of a persons cognitive ability. 2) IQ scores only measure one type of intelligence (poorly) IQ scores can only measure one type of intelligence, and it doesn't even do that as well as we'd like. IQ tests don't accurately measure strategic intelligence, or even creative intelligence. This is a huge problem since these forms of intelligence that the IQ tests cannot measure are some of the most important. Creativity lies at the soul of every major invention. It lies in the soul of every song, movie or play. Similar things can be said of strategic thinking. Would we think worse of people like Jimi Hendrix and Genghis Khan if we found out they scored low on an IQ test. If we would, we probably shouldn't. 3) IQ scores cannot measure potential There are certain types of questions asked on IQ tests that you can get better at with practice. For example, pattern recognition and memorization are two things you can improve on drastically throughout your life (if you practice). This has two problems. One, it gives advantages to people who do similar kinds of thinking activities daily (this explains some of the Flynn effect we discussed earlier). Two, we may mistake someone had a low genetic limit based on someone not normally having to perform those kinds of activities, or not having as good of tools throughout their lives. Here is someone discussing this here: youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI&feature=.. 4) At this point people will often say that when you control for certain variables the differences don't entirely disappear. For one, the differences fall away quite rapidly once you start controlling for things (income and neighborhoods mostly). Second, we have no way of controlling for other things that effect IQ testing scores. One such example is Stereotype Threat. This is a phenomena that we've seen in not only IQ scores, but in math, reading, sports and (essentially) any other area where a stereotype exists. Stereotype threat is the phenomena that shows people perform worse if there is a fear that they will further a certain stereotype about themselves. The presence of this cannot be totally corrected for (although it can be manipulated somewhat). Another example is cultural differences. We know that there are many ways that different races raise their children that influence their cognitive development. I really want to wrap this up, but one such example is the word gap (I had to delete the link, hltv wouldn't allow it)" Of course it isn't only the strong family structure, but this has led to other factors that have made them succeed (such as the development of their communities). And the hypocrisy to say that "it can't only be the family" while you say "it is only because of intelligence" is hilarious. And the rest of your points are hilarious. "Look at this language it is bad." I'm not going to continue to get baited. Have a good day. Hopefully one day you can understand that black people aren't less intelligent because their skin color is darker. That is a cop out answer for much bigger problems. I also advise you to read a history book on Africa, some things will really surprise you as they were not sitting around huts all day until the Europeans showed up.
2019-03-31 05:49
For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies. A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries. The indispensable condition for ensuring a people's sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity.
2019-03-28 17:52
First let me ask, do you actually believe that democracy (with certain restrictions to prevent people cheating others), isn’t possible in the modern world?
2019-03-28 20:11
Yup, America is falling down the rabbit hole too quickly to recover now.
2019-03-29 00:27
Who’s fault do you think this is? Do you believe that a certain group of people is making it so democracy isn’t a viable option? And if so, what is the replacement?
2019-03-29 01:54
Too many variables to really pinpoint "fault." Not so much a certain group; America is just too diverse. It's too easy to immigrate and become a citizen here, and allowing illegal immigrants to vote is terrible for democracy. I really don't know of a "replacement" to it, but getting rid of a birthright citizenship (unless your parent(s) are citizens) that many illegals are taking advantage of and applying a mandatory military service to vote should help.
2019-03-29 02:11
The whole idea of voting is very complex. I think you make a pretty good point with the idea that immigrants might not know what is best for a specific country. However, it isn’t really that “easy” to immigrate to the US. Hence why people immigrate illegally. I also don’t think that this is mainly the fault of diversity/new people. Idiotic voting decisions can have as much blame on old white people as they can on young black people. Getting rid of birthright citizenship would only create more illegal immigrants for the time. I don’t love the idea of birthright citizenship, but it tends to come into play is when a child is more assimilated with American culture than other immigrants. And I’m sure you know from different groups that as generations go on (or when people are born in the US), it matters less where they came from/what culture or religion they followed because they assimilate into American culture.
2019-03-29 11:42
#145
autimatic | 
United States j_k 
Just because old white people vote differently than you doesn't mean it is an idiotic voting decision... Each person has different experiences in life which leads them to their beliefs in way their country should go politically and culturally. Those people have grown up in the US and been here their whole lives so how does that make it an idiotic voting decision? You are clearly saying that because they have different views than you. With illegal immigrants coming in and voting, what American values do they have? It isn't their country, they don't know our history, and they've barely been here and what makes it okay for them to be able to vote as soon as they hare here? That's why it takes so long to become a citizen so we can avoid this, but of course politicians will do anything for votes so they pander to those people. That's why America voted for Trump, most middle class Americans felt like nobody cared about them and the needs. So no, any American citizens isn't an idiotic vote. It is idiotic to think someone else's vote is idiotic because they don't agree with you.
2019-03-29 16:58
Great how you come to the conclusion that I used idiotic because I don’t agree with them. I used idiotic to refer to idiotic votes. Funny how you didn’t acknowledge idiotic votes from young black people, is this because they think differently? I generally use idiotic to refer to lack of education, intelligence, or experience. Anyone can make an idiotic decision, but they tend to be made by young and old people. For example, young people tend to vote far left or right depending on what information they are exposed to as they are easily manipulated. Older people tend to be too focused on their experiences and not on the facts of the matter or are out of touch with what currently works. That is why the “best” voters tend to be 30-50. And I agree that immigrants should have knowledge of what happens in a country to vote, but this only happens with experience. Giving a test about the president or general branches of government won’t help someone voting and isn’t worth extending the immigration process. If you complain about people coming illegally and then tell them to come legally but wanted to expand the process and make it harder, it just seems like you hate immigrants.
2019-03-29 17:22
#155
autimatic | 
United States j_k 
Ah the good ole racist card at the end, gotta love it. Didn't say anywhere where I want it to be harder for immigrants, do you not understand the process of becoming a citizen? It's exactly learning the history of America and understanding our values as Americans. So no I don't want to make it harder because it's already hard enough. My point is that we shouldn't just let people in. You obviously just want to make my opinion invalid by calling me a racist who hates immigrants, but that's clearly not true because I just want people to come in legally and through the system of becoming a citizen. Good try at trying to call me a racist. Second off, I don't think anyone has a wrong opinion, because opinions can't be wrong. Yes you are correct that they can be misinformed and uneducated, but that's on both sides no matter the age. That isn't something you can ever fight because not everyone might care about as much as you and me. Some people vote based off of values. some might vote off of what they feel is right, some might vote for another because they just hate the other candidate. Nothing can be done to combat that.
2019-03-29 18:23
Nice to see you've been brainwashed by Mr. Shapiro, Crowder, McInnes, and the rest of the right wing squad to think that anyone with opposing opinions just wants to label you as racist. When you say "With illegal immigrants coming in and voting, what American values do they have? It isn't their country, they don't know our history, and they've barely been here and what makes it okay for them to be able to vote as soon as they hare here? That's why it takes so long to become a citizen so we can avoid this, but of course politicians will do anything for votes so they pander to those people." But then say "So no I don't want to make it harder because it's already hard enough. My point is that we shouldn't just let people in." It seems like you are contradicting yourself. Based on your original statement, I thought you agreed with the idea that immigration should take even longer for minimal gain (based on reasons stated before about how you can't "learn a countries values" based on a test). So yes, I wanted to point out to you how your claims sounded racist, no need to let your feelings overcome you. And secondly, of course their is no such thing as a wrong opinion, because it is an opinion. However, people can 100% have stupid opinions. It seems you agree with me that people can have stupid opinions which manifest into stupid voting decisions, no matter the reason they vote said way. So why are you trying to argue this?
2019-03-31 00:23
#170
autimatic | 
United States j_k 
How is that contradiction?? I said "So no I don't want to make it harder because it's already hard enough." But I also said we shouldn't just let people in and they should do what everyone else is already doing to get in. Please explain how that is contradictory. Also, you literally said I hate immigrants. How is that not saying I'm a racist? Jesus Christ you're not very bright are you?
2019-03-31 01:11
"If you complain about people coming illegally and then tell them to come legally but wanted to expand the process and make it harder, it just seems like you hate immigrants." "So yes, I wanted to point out to you how your claims sounded racist, no need to let your feelings overcome you." Please reread the statements. I said that your claims make it seem like you hate immigrants (which isn't even necessarily racist). My point was to point out how your claims sounded racist. I already explained why it seemed contradictory. It is because of how you phrase your first claim. When you justify how the process should be long for reasons that I don't agree with it seemed like you were arguing for why it should be even longer. My apologies if I took this claim the wrong way. (Also no one wants to let in immigrants for free here). It seems like we agree now if your only problem was my misinterpretation?
2019-03-31 04:09
#36
 | 
United States codgun 
wokest user on HLTV?
2019-03-27 02:50
Nah, I’m a nonamer
2019-03-28 00:45
#55
 | 
Europe deVulse 
+1 especially on the false flag point so gotta say +2
2019-03-28 01:29
#32
tarik | 
United States nikolaii 
Since you seem like you know what you are talking about, I would like to ask your opinion about the rise in popularity of the right-wing among young people. Do you think that this will actually spread as time goes on and become an issue? Or will people outgrow this ideology as they grow up and experience the real world instead of online arguments?
2019-03-27 02:32
#57
 | 
Europe deVulse 
Everything is looking good, young generations look promising then, unlike the generation of people like you, mentally disabled libtards.
2019-03-28 01:31
#77
tarik | 
United States nikolaii 
Alright buddy. I’m one of these “young people”. A hardcore conservative just a couple months ago. But then I realized what bs I was buying into.
2019-03-28 17:08
#78
 | 
Europe deVulse 
judging by your #32 comment, im pretty sure you're a old fashioned liberal, so just as the rest of you, you probably also "evolved" into a far-left lunatic with socialist and communist fanatical views, literally like 90% of todays so-called "liberals". so nt, but we both know the truth, leftie
2019-03-28 17:15
you got rekt by facts and logic buddy 😎👍
2019-03-28 18:44
#114
 | 
Europe deVulse 
Absolutely lul
2019-03-28 19:06
Not at all. Saw how everyone brain dead hated on Trump like everyone else and became a pretty hard conservative and bought into all the arguments. But as a couple years went on I realized that a lot of the arguments were just for show and the right doesn’t have all these “facts” on their side. And communist/socialist? Not at all bud. They’re just as crazy. At this point I’d say I’m just a boring liberal.
2019-03-28 20:09
#85
hyde | 
United Kingdom 0outof8 
Probably because far right tends to end up with massive inequality, genocide etc
2019-03-28 17:36
I think someone needs a little education on the red terror, and the holodomor
2019-03-28 17:39
#24
 | 
Mexico <3 Zetas 
Fck the French, they're a bunch of socialist pussies
2019-03-27 02:15
#49
 | 
Brazil Haschera 
Any far is ill :)
2019-03-28 01:18
#84
hyde | 
United Kingdom 0outof8 
+1
2019-03-28 17:35
#93
 | 
Europe cArn5 
Any reasons?
2019-03-28 17:43
#124
Toxic | 
Croatia ^BCko^ 
Trying to reason with a leftist, are you crazy?
2019-03-29 00:28
and who would want to reason with someone like you?
2019-03-29 01:56
Bcko along with 0x0 accounts are the wokest users on hltv
2019-03-29 01:58
degenerates.
2019-03-29 02:00
wrong
2019-03-29 03:20
+8000
2019-03-29 02:12
#6
 | 
Brazil BlueLighting 
Minimal State. Politicians are scumbags., but we need state some times.
2019-03-27 02:04
Liberal Centrist
2019-03-27 02:07
Radical Feminist
2019-03-27 02:07
OFC you're, like a rad fem would browse HLTV. It's like saying u're an anarchist in the facebook lmfao
2019-03-27 02:09
what does anarchy have to do with facebook?
2019-03-31 04:40
#14
 | 
Russia QibyVGZEN 
i am radical mao-feminist politsturm.com/k-kritike-maoizma/
2019-03-27 02:10
left
2019-03-27 02:09
Only one topic matters in 2019 Pro 3rd world immigration and anti 3rd world immigration. If you still believe in multiculturalism in Europe you should have your head checked.
2019-03-27 02:10
Multiculturalism breeds ethnic warfare We are headed towards some rough times
2019-03-27 02:12
Just merge. And dont accept outside culture. Put yo dik on the table n say in here we do it like this. Eat meat. pork. drink beer. Only accept bigamy n so on. Hahahhaha #peace.
2019-03-28 01:50
<<<<<<<---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stalinist.
2019-03-27 02:11
#21
 | 
Ukraine Ukrainian 
Poroshenko 2019
2019-03-27 02:12
Right leaning but both sides of the spectrum are delusional; only I align more with right values.
2019-03-27 02:14
#23
autimatic | 
United States nohj 
center right
2019-03-27 02:15
Marxist fundamentalism
2019-03-27 02:24
#28
 | 
Lithuania Sedge 
liberal whatever that means, i skipped many questions though tbh...couldnt care less about politics
2019-03-27 02:27
#31
ZywOo | 
Colombia 7RU7H 
2019-03-27 02:32
#34
 | 
Lithuania Sedge 
2019-03-27 02:41
#39
720 | 
Germany felixlulz 
NSDAP 1935
2019-03-27 03:14
lol
2019-03-28 02:36
Ehrenmann
2019-03-31 04:41
Left in the proper meaning, you know, economic/social left without the environmental-hysteria and migrant-loving of today. So this means I am right-wing today, funny as it sounds. Right is much more 'left' than today, the left has turned into the 'greens', and is betraying their own citizens. Sadly the true left movement in the NL has died since ~2000 and beyond, when the biggest 'labour' style party got a new leader, a greenpeace activist, who turned the party into just another environment-activist style ridiculous party. Left is all about 'green' these days, they're not the true left anymore, no care in the world for their own citizenz, social problems, healthcare or monetary inequality. It's all about looking for approval of their friends in Europe and their social circles, putting massive economical pressure on the people citing evonrinmental-issues, hurting democracy demonizing 'right' parties, abolishing referandums and opening the borders to people with an imcapatable religion or economic migrants. It's funny that the 'populist' (another hated term suddenly in the NL, as if simply stating the general feelings of the public, aka being popular, is somehow a bad thing) are 100 times closer to the oldskool left party, in the NL the PvdA of around 2000 socially, than the current PvdA is. Anyone voting for either the PvdA, or SP before ~2010, and has got the same ideas still about most of the issues, migration, healthcare, salary, economics, education, the list goes on, should in theory vote FvD, because the left has abandoned all of these issues in favour of burdening to public with a migrant/climate problem and costs, and the FvD program you could 1 on 1 copy to around 2000 and read a PvdA or other left party's program. But no, FvD is somehow seen as extreme right wing, and when people even call them racists or nazi's and you ask them "why"? "explain"? They either have no answer or cite their own news outlets, without facts, and try to play on emotion, which has no place in an argument. It's their new 'learned' oppinion, like puppets, or in this case like religious nutters. But lefties don't see it, they are mostly factless and baseless, simply hating. They have no understanding of any numbers regarding climate and shunt any news item not fitting in their bubble. It's called the evironment-religion here, and for good reason, they're acting as believers, and crusade against democracy and reason because their 'gods' tell them to. Ever wondered why "global warning" got changed to "climate change"? (which is in essence, a term without meaning, it always changes); It's easier for their religious followers to try and kill arguments with 'climate change is real', as if that sentence has any meaning. In the Netherlands, and I bet in a lot of other countries as well, there is no true left party anymore. And any party resembling the true left is being called extreme-right-wingers. Since the new left is all about hating your own country.
2019-03-28 01:06
Global warming is a farce to make money; here in America, they advocate for a new policy called the green new deal, and it literally appeals to the lowest IQ people. It advocates for an elimination of air travel, space travel; they want to tear down buildings that aren’t ‘environmentally friendly’, and finally, implementing that gives the government complete and total control. Far left freaks implementing totalitarian communism in that very deal.
2019-03-28 01:07
Yes, "Global Warming" is all about control, directed by the IPCC of the UN. It's funny that the same people that recognized (Every discussion while young at school as atheist always pointed to the fact the church was a human invention aimed at controlling the public, and rightfuly so) the catholic church being there solely to control people back in the day, and keep them in line, are now standing front row on climate-marches, doing the same. Blind to see this though, since they haven't ever learned to form their own oppinion or do their own research, they simply do as told by their political leaders, without question or suspicion. In a few centuries people will no doubt look back at this period as one of the darkest periods of mankind, full of deception, lies, and disinformation. You can't even get published anymore as a scientist if your study shows anything else than a negative effect on climate, which is why everyone who dares to speak out against the status quo are old men, nobel prize winners and professors. This is being framed as people being old and senile, or 'out of touch', but it's simply the fact they have to wait until they're 65+ to speak the truth, otherwise they'll lose their jobs. Sadly this whole new climate religion seems to be everywhere and unstoppable, the next decades will be all about wasting as much money as possible before people are willing to see the truth, we'll be long dead by then.
2019-03-28 01:15
Unfortunately, but I just hope people will see the truth one day. Climate change is a cyclical process, implying anything else is intellectual dishonesty. In this age scientists are bought out by lobbies, there is no such thing as real science anymore.
2019-03-28 01:16
Yep, and sadly politically, there is no party anymore that is rational about the environment/migration isue AND is left economically. The NL used the have a lot of left parties, Groenlinks (the crazy left of today basically), PvdA (Labour, or in better terms labour party for the middle class), SP (left for lower class) and D66 (Eu lovers). Everyone except Groenlinks were social/economically on the left side of the spectrum (affordable healthcare, good social security system, building affordable housing, not burdening the public with depth so no loans for education etc) Sadly now, all of these parties turned into a combination of D66 and Groenlinks, which do not comform with my political beliefs as someone oldskool left and more of a mix between PvdA and SP. They do not care people are drowning in taxes, we lose a lot of jobs, and people cannot even afford their 1 holiday a year anymore, they only care about meeting environment C02 numbers, betraying their voters in the process. My energy bill has doubled this year, it's beyond a joke that the left says they realise people are struggling, yet let costs rise like this. They've lost the plot. Left has been 'taken over' by the greens. Most people don't see this and still vote their PvdA, their D66, or their SP while not realising they have more in common now with right-wing parties. But it's almost impossible for these people to realise this or let them know. So right now they have started to call right wingers nazi's, or fascists, they need these strong terms to keep their voters in line (no one is even gonna look up plans from the 'nazi's' right?), because when the people finally realise the truth, which is the right wing parties are actually a better fit for them, they'll lose their votes, can't have that of course. Sad thing is this is working. Saying you do not want uncontrolled migration = being a fascist, in the new left's eyes. At this point it's like still cheering for fnatic every CS:GO tournament and wearing your flusha shirt and saying how great olofmeister is, they don't realise these players are now playing for other teams. This is why the left is causing such issues, they think they have a mandate, because of dumb voters.
2019-03-28 01:30
which right wing parties do you like then? VVD only wants to put more money into their own pockets, profit from exploding housing market after they bought up all the real estate in the financial crisis. the crisis in which they on purpose decreased the budget deficit when literally every economist in the country told them to go into debt to stimulate growth. FvD is literally fascists. Baudet has said literally, i quote "bla bla door de nederlandse bevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen zodat er nooit meer een nederlander zal zijn". this is classic nazi rethoric. baudet is known to hang out with alt right / neo nazis. this stuff about our blood being thinned out, ive heard it before, its from some neo nazi conspiracy that the jews are orchestrating migration of muslims to make us subhumans or something. its fucked up. and then i havent even gotten to wilders yet. medium.com/@sanderphilipse/dit-is-het-slecht-verhulde-nazi-gedachtegoed-van-thierry-baudet-3464b8efdc91 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_con.. i mean if i am you and i dont believe in climate change, i would still prefer to waste a lot of money on sustainable energy and technological progress rather than put the nazis in charge or let the VVD steal from me for another 4 years. at least spending money on green energy will have a payoff. even if there is no harmful climate change or its not caused by man, which is of course a ridiculous point of view, but i will accept that you believe it, even then, we will run out of oil and coal some day and then we will need windmills and solar panels. letting the VVD manipulate the housing market only pays off for you if you are already very rich. having the nazis in charge wont pay off for anyone because we will have to shoot them again. i think guys like wilders and baudet make it very easy for the fake left parties to get votes because they say fascist shit.
2019-03-28 18:10
#87
hyde | 
United Kingdom 0outof8 
Wow a proper answer
2019-03-28 17:37
Left politicians talk heavily about climate change because it's an impending real threat that can only be fixed through collective effort i.e. the ultimate refutation of libertarian capitalism. Climate change is completely real - the reason it's a huge topic of what the left speaks about is because the left are the only ones who care about the long-term future of the livability of the planet; other ideologies just advocate what its proponents believe to be short-term benefits for the selfish or intentionally ignorant about the reality of the situation. Your climate denialism is in the same vein as all other types of nonsensical denial: you believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Just like evolution denial, geocentrism, etc. But your denial is more like AIDS denial, or denial of the danger of the tobacco industry. It is immediately dangerous to deny these things, and these denialisms (and yours) are to a large extent partially rooted in the capital interests who spread misinformation to prevent action being taken against them for their harmful practices. It's amusing how you in a later comment complain of so much misinformation in the world and then gobble it all up. Just like AIDS denial and denial of danger in the tobacco industry, the rhetoric for climate denial can be found being peddled for people who have something to lose if climate change is real. In my country there is a large propaganda outlet called "PragureU" that largely operates online and finds viewers through massive amounts of online ads. They spread anti-climate propaganda to massive amounts of people, and you can see many talking points here that were clearly sourced from there. They are in a large part funded by the fracking industry. I understand you're dug into your delusion and it's hard to get out. But I urge you to explore the type of arguments used and the thought process of the other common science denialisms I brought up, and what drives people to believe in those ideologies. I'm sure you'll find some commonalities.
2019-03-28 18:08
the people who complain the most about fake news are usually the ones who believe the most of it. they cant tell the difference between real and fake news and they are too lazy or dumb to do their own reasearch. its 2019. everyone has an internet connection. theres no excuse for not knowing whether something happened or not, you can look it up anywhere. so, you cant argue the point against these people. they just choose to ignore that like they ignore everything that contradicts whats inside their conspiracy bubble.
2019-03-28 18:14
"Fatherland · Work · Liberty" not bad
2019-03-28 01:03
these tests are pretty shitty and stupid and won't tell how things and conjuncture really are
2019-03-28 01:17
I agree but just for the sake of the thread I put them in. If you’re really serious about finding out where you stand, you need to do your own research. Relying on a mere test to tell you where you stand is pretty fucking stupid.
2019-03-28 01:18
i know where i stand and who i am, and tests didn't help me at all and won't help anyone who isn't delayed :^) all tests do are catching data how many people are leaning towards left and right and so on... i can tell you that i proclaim myself as a traditionalist and that's it and you can also add this one 8values.github.io/quiz.html if you're able to edit your previous posts
2019-03-28 01:28
I knew there was a test I forgot, I’ll hijack the top comment
2019-03-28 01:31
what if everyone made their decisions on their own w/o being biased by these sides/ideologies
2019-03-28 01:18
+1
2019-03-28 01:46
#60
 | 
Europe deVulse 
Left wing = autistic, mentally ill and so on. Right wing = intelectual, alpha etc.
2019-03-28 01:33
#64
 | 
Germany nobodyCS 
such accusations only state something about your standard, not that of others..
2019-03-28 01:54
+1
2019-03-28 02:15
+1 he is the mentally ill one lol
2019-03-28 02:37
#76
 | 
Europe deVulse 
nt commie
2019-03-28 16:51
#88
hyde | 
United Kingdom 0outof8 
+1
2019-03-28 17:37
+1
2019-03-29 02:01
eren faction
2019-03-28 01:41
Conservative nationalist
2019-03-28 02:21
#67
halo | 
United States QastLe 
Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 1.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15 So I am center right with a slight Libertarian bias.
2019-03-28 02:27
National socialism.
2019-03-28 02:40
#143
 | 
Sweden Hi im Lirax 
+1
2019-03-29 16:36
Economic Left/Right: -5.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49
2019-03-28 03:14
Economic Left/Right: 5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.97 politiscales.net/en_US/results/?b0=24&b1..
2019-03-28 03:42
#73
 | 
Brazil ragemasterBR 
Totalitarian monarchist
2019-03-28 03:48
#74
 | 
United States litdabber21 
Im a PolPotist tbh
2019-03-28 03:49
#75
 | 
Other xrist 
Omni liberal
2019-03-28 03:57
leftardism
2019-03-28 17:16
#80
allu | 
Sweden Aquaaaa 
Nationalist / Conservative
2019-03-28 17:20
#81
 | 
Hungary HAS12 
These tests are always completely biased.
2019-03-28 17:20
Far right/nazi Party 😎😎😎
2019-03-28 17:27
nazi party is center auth men)😎😎
2019-03-28 17:52
nazi party is leftist men))))
2019-03-29 17:00
being a reasonable human being
2019-03-28 17:37
#91
hyde | 
United Kingdom 0outof8 
Where is being a reasonable human being politically to you?
2019-03-28 17:39
that depends on the situation
2019-03-28 17:40
i mean i guess you could say im a socialist because i think we need more wealth redistribution and fascism needs to be suppressed because currently it is out in the broad daylight in europe. but on the other hand i dont believe that there should be no private property or one world state. im not an ideological socialist. i just think giving poor people more money is good for the economy. instead of letting a couple people accumulate all of it and investing it back and getting more returns. i also believe the surveillance apparatus is turning europe and the USA into orwellian surveillance states, which are a lot more dangerous than the terrorists they supposedly catch. and that throwing more bombs on the middle east doesnt make peace. i dont feel close to any political party in the netherlands or in europe. its a bunch of people being unreasonable and trying to further their own career. take the refugee issue. it actually took basically a bunch of fascists getting elected in italy, for europe to stop picking up refugees in the mediterranean and bringing them to shore safely. thats fucked. the people who are in charge are not in control of the situation. they couldnt agree on how to distribute the refugees, all those people got stuck in italy, and that got the fascists a lot of votes.
2019-03-28 17:53
the eu paid north african countries and turkey to stop refugees and violate their human rights and put them in camps with inhumane conditions until they give up and go home. thats not a reasonable policy. the USA has spent decades fucking shit up in the middle east, which is the cause for al qaeda, ISIS, the refugee crisis. that was not reasonable policy. is that enough for an impression?
2019-03-28 17:52
#121
acid | 
Estonia MC_Ride 
how is paying countries to stop immigrants from illegally entering EU an unreasonable policy?
2019-03-28 20:45
totalitarian libertarian
2019-03-28 17:38
communist
2019-03-28 17:53
img.ifcdn.com/images/ffacff7e13e5f4aa756.. not mine bc i cba doing it again as ive done it thousands of times but im not far
2019-03-28 17:54
libertarian socialism
2019-03-28 18:01
Middle, tend to lean right on social issues and left on economic issues
2019-03-28 18:14
welcome to my world.
2019-03-29 01:56
Labels only divide people.
2019-03-28 18:15
If I would put myself on usual political compass it would be somewhere near the center on libertarian right side
2019-03-28 18:20
socialist libertarian
2019-03-28 18:44
Left leaning but I find extremism stupid on both sides.
2019-03-28 20:09
Politics is made to make us devided. Parties are a smoke screen.
2019-03-28 20:16
#120
acid | 
Estonia MC_Ride 
i was spekd as conservative economic 31 cultural -27
2019-03-28 20:42
Just did the test here: spekr.org/ the results were -3 economic and -48 cultural
2019-03-28 20:54
Conservative, right.
2019-03-29 00:30
VERY far on the right , almost a Minarchist , hardcore libertarian.
2019-03-29 00:58
German nationalist
2019-03-29 01:55
Third Position.
2019-03-29 02:17
radical laissez-faire, liberal, monarchist, conservatism-reactionism
2019-03-29 16:59
2019-03-29 17:14
#154
Luminous | 
Tunisia me_ 
Both sides are delusional in their own way, I think the standard varies from country to country. I would be leftist on the American standard.
2019-03-29 17:36
"Both sides are delusional in their own way" +1
2019-03-31 00:50
#156
frozen | 
Slovakia S1W0 
Conservative right
2019-03-29 18:25
#157
 | 
France Zangtar 
Economic Left/Right: -5.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
2019-03-29 18:33
catholic lol
2019-03-29 18:36
#160
 | 
Norway AleXeiCS 
Facism
2019-03-29 23:56
None it's like a religion at this point and no I don't let other people decide my world views for me.
2019-03-29 23:59
#162
Liazz | 
Europe nyoha 
the left=braindead ppl
2019-03-30 00:01
+1
2019-03-31 00:49
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.