It's really just a place for me to type out my thoughts on certain issues or events, I will unlikely cover recent events as I don't really want to be a political commentator, I moreso would like to lay out my beliefs for mostly my own sake. I don't like handwriting them and if I'm going to type them out, I may as well present them here for the offchance that someone would want to critique or hear them. Ideas tend to ferment if not released out into the public, and that kind of pressure tends to drive people crazy.
I'm more schizoid homeless ramble-wing than anything, I think it's pretty important for me to distance myself from either grouping though because both sides have a tendency to only consume media from their selected ingroup, and that practice is counterproductive if we're seeking to establish a better society, it's only good at dividing the people and furthering the radicalization of the people to come. It's great for making sure either side doesn't cannibalize itself, but really bad at furthering intellectual progression.
That's a really hard question for me to answer, not because I have a shakey grasp on my moral code, but because I am hesitant to pigeonhole myself into any given predefined ideological structure. I would say the baseline for all of my opinions is a belief that humanity as a whole should regress technologically and halt all technological progress. My reasons for wanting so are far to lengthy to put into this one post, so I'll let that subtextual Thatclue linger as I add more to this philosophical section. I do understand that such an idea is likely to be unreachable within my lifetime, maybe totally unreachable, so in light of that fact I'll say that if technological society has to continue, that it should continue in a more socialistic state than it currently is. My reason for wanting so is twofold, mainly because profit to the extent we have now is undoubtably immoral/theft, and because despite what commies or socialists would like you to think, a socialistic mode of production is inherently slower than a capitalistic. I don't care at all about technological progress, I mean some of it is cool to think about but ultimately it is degenerative to the human condition, which is the end goal of technological progress. Anyways, this is a point that will be better explained in an article that explains my technological views better. The following sections will just be a political topic and then my view on it. I will explain these ideas more thoroughly in other articles, this is just to paint a picture of my broader ideas.
I mean just look at the name of the website we're on, it should be obvious. I don't care much about non-cartel dealers who just sell weed or psychedelics, but cartel affiliated/hard drug dealers are obviously scum. I don't think any person should be impeded from creating or growing something for their own personal use, but selling addiction to people is evil, just as evil as when pharmaceutical companies do it. If it's immoral for a corporation to expoit the masses and labourers in the pursuit of profit, it is immoral for cartels or dealers to do the same.
The most important thing a free society could have. This includes hate speech, transgressive media, and anything anyone wants to say. Placing any kind of limitation on this will result in totalitarian control, which should be fully understood by the left and the right. The only absolute way to control what is and isn't allowed speech is in an autocracy, in a democracy like the United States, any declaration of speech being illegal will just be exteneded the next election cycle, as is happening right now with flag burning laws and the designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization. These kinds of laws are a delayed suicide for every party involved until the purity spiraling causes speech to be lacking of any kind of meaning, resulting in effectively a totally controlled and 1984-esque speech.
I can include this one now while the topic isn't so explosive in terms of social attention. I'll say this explicitly, if a government can own it, a civilian should be able to as well. This sounds crazy and stupid in our current world context, and it should. Just think for a moment the power governments have over you, it's inifinite if left unchecked and still pretty damn scary if not. The world governments have enough of an arsenal combined to kill the planet's population and make earth uninhabitable forever multiple times over, this should be a glaring mistake that every member of the world should be scared shitless about, but for some reason we aren't. It was one thing when the difference between the common man and his army was numbers and metal boxes that shot big guns, but now it's 1000x more numbers AND magical rocks placed inside of metal boxes that can level the city/town/middle-of-nowhere that your entire living genetic lines occupy. It's so removed from the effects during the button pressing too, atleast a methed up homeless wizard with an axe thinks he's slaying warlocks while on a killing spree in a city, but the same methed up wizard could press a button for funzizes and end up destroying the free world. That is far far crazier than saying a civilian should be able to own a rifle in case of tyranny. I understand the downsides to gun ownership is gun violence, but it is kind of stupid to place so much effort into wanting to strip the civilians of their weaponry rather than just having a fucking mental health social program widely available. Lets think about the cost differnece between the two, billions of dollars and thousands of deaths in order to take away metal boom sticks, likely sparking a civil war, OR maybe billions of dollars (certainly less than what would be needed to round up the 500+ million guns in America alone) and taking a closer look at youth indoctrination/youth mental health in general. I think it should be obvious that someone needs more help than pills or a padded cell if they're having homicidal thoughts, because both are finite resources. Instead, we should be proactive in insuring that mental needs are met.
I'll be probably the first ever pro-technological regression guy to say that at no point in societal history was life great for men and women, especially women. The fetishization of the 50's and 60's home life is a farce, that is pretty clear. But it is counterproductive to assume that just because the propaganda of the nuclear family during that time didn't line up with reality, that the nuclear family as a mode of reproduction isn't one of the only good options of sustained reproductive practice. Hell, I'd prefer a tight knit tribal situation over anything though, but that doesn't work within the confines of modern technological society, as you essentially need despotic figure(s) in order to establish unintrinsic manners or cultural ideas.
If i think of anything else or have time at some point, I'll add more things here to talk about, you can also make requests via email if you'd like me to add a topic I just didn't think to respond to here, my email for this site is tellyourtaletome@hotmail.com