Exh myvnuyyg

 Over 77 percent of mainstream political scientists would say I am Left Wing , Alt Left or Left Center (between Center left and Left Wing)

If the MSM, like USA Today, Washington Post, NYTimes, The Atlantic, Medium, CNN, The Hill, Cbs, The Guardian, the Independent, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Salt Lake City Tribune,  NY Daily News, Denver Post, Uproxx, TMZ, Time , PBS, NPR, Orlando Sentinel, Crikey Australia, Daily Mail, NY Post, Fox News, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Orlando Weekly, Asbury Park Press , Philly Tribune, Huffpost, Mother Jones, Slate, Vox, Salon, Billboard, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, The Nation, Red state, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera TV, Breitbart, Boston Globe , Cato Institute, Reason, Politico, Snopes, Politifact, Associated Press, Reuters, World Socialist Website, RT, The Global Times, Economist, Economic Times, Financial Times, Sputnik, The Grayzone, Mediate, Newsweek, Buzzfeed, Daily Dot, New Republic, National Review, Bullwark covered me or wrote an article on me or that mentioned me, all of them obviously would refer to me as one of these labels: 

Far left/Ultra Left/Hard Left, Left Wing, Alt Left, Left Center, Center Left, soft Center Left, Progressive, uber SJW, Radlib/Liberal, Liberal Syncretic, Culturally Variable

NONE of those MSM would refer to me as being Center right, Conservative, Right wing, moderate/centrist , far right, hard right, alt right etc

I am Left Wing. You cannot prove I am not Left Wing with scientific evidence. At worst you would have to say I am between Radically Centrist and Soft Center left (soft Center left is between Center left and Centrist)

The people who would smear people on the left like me, BGJ, Krystal Ball , Jeremy Corbyn, etc as fake leftists or even center rightists are what Jordan Peterson and Jung would call 'ideologically possessed', and so its a matter of ideological purity, and purity tests. 

There will be always new tests of purity and righteousness, like stuff you are supposed to and not supposed to do, think or say. Since they are psychologically 'possessed' by their belief system, their self-id and ego is dependent upon passing purity tests and looking fine and dandy by the metrics of their ideology.

They get self-centered, and less empathetic - more prone to dehumanization, madness, hostility, hatred and fear towards those who are not of their ideology. This leads to an us and them mentality in which outsiders are seen as threats or apostates, lacking in moral worth and worthy to be berated at the very least, shamed or harmed at the very most.

This is the point where confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance rears its head, to shield them from changing their minds - since their ego is resting upon their ideology similar to a crutch and they are scsred of that crutch being removed. So their minds filter out or conveniently reframes any info that doesn't conform to their ideology, and pays added attention to what does conform to it. They interpret information either too charitably, or uncharitably, based upon that.

Thats why fair reasoned points by commentators like Steven Pinker, Joe Rogan and others outside of woke ideology are interpreted as dumb or malevolent, and they will overlook the clear meanings of what, say Joe Rogan, says. So in their distorted reality, Joe Rogan truly is saying dumb and or repugnant stuff. When they falsely and wrongly say that people like Tim Pool or Bari Weiss are nazis, they aren't exaggerating - their perception of reality is so distorted, that they cannot tell the difference. They are living a nightmare of their own creation. Its just that they take it out on others.

I guess some leftists are apostates to other leftists and liberal 2.0ers. They hate when people on the left or who lean left don't conform to their religion of leftism.

I am not a -phobe , -ist/-ic, or racist, bigot and you cannot prove I am . Sometimes people like Liberal 2.0ers project their own political baggage onto others who don’t pass their purity tests

I am rubber people whoever calls me a -phobe , -ist/-ic, or racist, bigot is glue if they say I am a -phobe , -ist/-ic, or racist, bigot it sticks to them and I call them a -phobe , -ist/-ic, or racist, bigot

Far left, Radlib, Radically Centrist and far right are the four extreme spectrum wings, so the political spectrum is running out of space. Plus there are syncretic politics which rejects the conventional left–right centrist liberal 2.0 spectrum

Evidence suggests that there could be as many as 6 dimensions of political opinions in the US and 10 dimensions in the UK. This conclusion was based on two big datasets and uses a Bayesian approach instead of the traditional factor analysis one.

We need to abolish the political spectrum and whole concept of left, liberal 2.0, centrist and right. The political spectrum is an archaic concept from the French revolution where the seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799), had the radicals on the left and aristocrats on the right 

Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, being occasionally on the American left (social liberalism) and other times on the American right (conservative liberalism or classical liberalism)

To fix that, you'd also have to find a way to disincentivize that system for the people already in power (ie the people who currently benefit from that system) as well as the media systems that push those agendas (which are becoming worse and more powerful influences on our political systems).

It's not really a matter of changing how we, the voters, view politics. How we view politics is a symptom of how the systems at large function, you cannot truly change the former without first correcting the latter.

Those old labels (left and right) don’t really tell us much anymore.”  People have different views that don't always match the entire platform of a political party. No group is a monolith.

Political scientists have frequently stated that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing differences in political beliefs and incorporate other axes to compensate for this issue. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites can vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are commonly split between economic issues (on a left–right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority–liberty dimension).

At the same time, many have criticized the multi-axis spectrums on the order that those on the political left and right have differing philosophical conceptions in regards to what constitutes liberty or authoritarianism, which thus render the second axis meaningless.

More here, here, here, here , here , here, here diff takes here. Also google it

If I ask people 'how do you define a 'left/liberal/right/etc' we will get different answers from different people. Some people don't even know what they think about it when pressed. I get that not everyone is a political scientist or whatever, but that's exactly the problem. What makes a liberal a liberal? Is it the collection of traits?

There are also imagined extremism. This comes in a via conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial-ethnic incident, the attitudes of certain social viewpoints etc  . Most Democrats see Republicans as fascists , most Republicans see Democrats as Socialists

Like saying someone who is against someone saying that Transgender women shouldn’t compete in Women’s sports  ‘doesn't want Transgender people to exist’.  or saying that someone who is against the 1619 project being taught in schools is ‘against students in schools learning about slavery’. or saying that supporting states requiring id to vote is trying to prevent minorities from voting or that those laws are ‘Jim Crow 2.0’.  All sides , especially Liberal 2.0era use strawman and hyperbole on every non Liberal 2.0 viewpoint and action

In disputes on politics, everyone seriously overestimates the polarization between both sides. This is due to demonization by each side toward the other

Like why would you accuse 'the conservative' of something when you have no clue what his/her views are? 'You conservatives want to ban gays' as if it's an argument against the increase of fire arms rights. I'm not saying it is not happening, but so much of the arguments only end up in ad hominens. If someone is talking about increasing fire arm rights, that in no way means they want to ban gays. There may be a correlation in that people want more gun rights but ban gays etc, but the issue with these terms is that you assume right off the bat you are 100% correct.

This is the reason a lot of people are so disillusioned with US politics though. Supporting gun ownership shouldn’t necessitate someone supporting anti-LGBTQ+ through a republican vote. Saying it’s impossible to separate the two is merely building us into boxes that don’t fit, and is in the interest of the two-party. If we ever wanna to break out of this b.s we’re going to have to be creative and get ready building movements from the ground up, that more accurately reflect the views of the average person.

To quote William Mckinley “our differences are policies our agreements are principals”

People can be conservative on a very few views but progressive or left on vast other views and be considered Center left or Left Wing. Saying someone is right wing for being conservative on a very few hot button issues while they are progressive or left on vast other views is as dumb as reactionary Donald Trump Jr’s bigoted poison skittle in the skittles bunch stunt