Support NeoGAF

[Thamauturge]

It's the internet in general that does this, not just NeoGaf. For example, GameFAQs should really just be called LibFAQs.

I identify more with the conservatives when it comes to social issues especially, that I simply try to avoid politics most of the time. I do appreciate some of the progressive people of the past though, I just find most of what they believe in the modern world unnecessary, with no offense to someone that disagrees and feels the opposite way of course.

 

[Acheron]

Yea this is a load of crap. Most of us have filed taxes especially the regulars when it comes to poligaf and other threads.






Yea this is pretty much the exact opposite of what your thinking. Its a rarity when a conservative gaffer can come up with solid arguments that are backed up by anything at all. Thats the problem in most threads when people just start making up stuff on the spot. They get called out and then they retreat to their corners spouting of stuff like you just posted.

How you would be able to know that a video game forum is majority tax payers when much of it is high-school/university students is quite an amazing feat. Given that clearly wasn't made up on the spot I must retract.

I recall the Hollande 75% top marginal tax rate and potential maximum salary and everyone loved it because they didn't take into account relaxed capital controls, ignored productivity as a factor, started trotting out communist policy as why china is growing (it's not). Then there are the MMT proponents who are as outside mainstream scholarship as the Austrians.

 

[Wiseblade]

Are we talking real left-wing politics, Or American "left-wing" politics? Because they are very much different.

 

[Delusibeta]

Are we talking real left-wing politics, Or American "left-wing" politics? Because they are very much different.

I'll be willing to bet good money that most people on here who think GAF is too left wing is talking about the America definition of the term (also known as the political centre outside of the States).

 

[Deleted member 17706]

1) Filling out your tax return and seeing the money melt away is probably the biggest impetus for fiscal conservatism. Seeing 20k evaporate isn't fun regardless of what the average rate, median income blah blah blah shit is. I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet.

2) Conservatives may not always be socially progressive but are typically far, far ahead of Conservatives in the US who don't quite get the non-interference pillar. GAF has a massive minority community due to its zero-tolerance policy on racism, sexism and homophobia and most are Americans so right wing has "hateful" connotations.

3) Gaffers don't understand economics. Any thread about capitalism gets filled with myopic shit about fiat money being limitless, rose tinted glasses about state capitalism, elitism regarding where resources ought to be allocated, peak oil and all sorts of other fringe beliefs with minimal scholarly backing.

With good reason, too.

Also, nice assumptions on tax returns and people not understanding economics.

How you would be able to know that a video game forum is majority tax payers when much of it is high-school/university students is quite an amazing feat. Given that clearly wasn't made up on the spot I must retract.

I recall the Hollande 75% top marginal tax rate and potential maximum salary and everyone loved it because they didn't take into account relaxed capital controls, ignored productivity as a factor, started trotting out communist policy as why china is growing (it's not). Then there are the MMT proponents who are as outside mainstream scholarship as the Austrians.

I think you'll find that high school and university students aren't quite so numerous as you may think.

 

[Wiseblade]

I'll be willing to bet good money that most people on here who think GAF is too left wing is talking about the America definition of the term (also known as the political centre outside of the States).

I wouldn't exactly call a group that only recently decided that gay people should probably be allowed to get married and that everybody should probably have some kind of healthcare protection as "Centre".

 

[Chumly]

How you would be able to know that a video game forum is majority tax payers when much of it is high-school/university students is quite an amazing feat. Given that clearly wasn't made up on the spot I must retract.

Please point to us all the high schoolers from the gaming side that discuss politics.

I recall the Hollande 75% top marginal tax rate and potential maximum salary and everyone loved it because they didn't take into account relaxed capital controls, ignored productivity as a factor, started trotting out communist policy as why china is growing (it's not). Then there are the MMT proponents who are as outside mainstream scholarship as the Austrians.

Cute..... Its pretty obvious from your two posts that you wouldn't understand the economical arguments anyways. MMT does have restrictions but yet you would just go LOL zimbabwe. I look forward to your well thought out arguments in those threads where everyone is celebrating communist policy.

 

[Karakand]

2) Conservatives may not always be socially progressive but are typically far, far ahead of Conservatives in the US who don't quite get the non-interference pillar. GAF has a massive minority community due to its zero-tolerance policy on racism, sexism and homophobia and most are Americans so right wing has "hateful" connotations.

Love the air quotes.

 

[dabig2]

I wouldn't exactly call a group that only recently decided that gay people should probably be allowed to get married and that everybody should probably have some kind of healthcare protection as "Centre".

Obama and virtually every Dem in public office today are straight up center-right. I don't even know how that's being argued by some. And I'm not talking center-right compared to the "socialistic" European countries either. I'm talking center-right compared to the majority of 20th century America.

 

[Champomade]

I think it's because video games is a working / middle class hobby. It is quite cheap in terms of $ / hour and thus many people playing video games will have a lot of free time and not a lot of money.

I'm sure if you go to a polo or watches forum, most people will be conservative, at least economically

 

[IceCold]

Gaf is not just extremely liberal but also pretty PC. Sometimes a person will use the wrong word or pronoun without the intend of offending anyone, and a bunch of people will quote the post and act offended ("wow, just wow") or bait the poster to get that him banned. It's annoying since it tends to derail threads.

 

[jgkspsx]

Slashing public sector unions, multi-sourcing, avoiding over reach and guess what? Public healthcare because it is actually cheaper, and in my country the right supports it.

If you don't live in the US, I suspect you have little idea what supporters of the modern American right are like. For starters, they find the idea of public healthcare intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

 

[Acheron]

Please point to us all the high schoolers from the gaming side that discuss politics.




Cute..... Its pretty obvious from your two posts that you wouldn't understand the economical arguments anyways. MMT does have restrictions but yet you would just go LOL zimbabwe. I look forward to your well thought out arguments in those threads where everyone is celebrating communist policy.

You appear to be in the same corner that you accused others of running to. My point that a majority of Gaffers haven't paid taxes yet has been merely countered with all the PoliGAF regulars who you know pay taxes, not really the same thing.

As for the second, I'm sure in the next ultra left Econ topic you'll see me. It's not like I don't support stimulus when it's required. When you guys start discussing salary caps, investment restrictions and nationalization sure.

 

[Lesath]

Gaf is not just extremely liberal but also pretty PC. Sometimes a person will use the wrong word or pronoun without the intend of offending anyone, and a bunch of people will quote the post and act offended ("wow, just wow") or bait the poster to get that him banned. It's annoying since it tends to derail threads.

I have never witnessed an occasion of this that wasn't called for. Perhaps you'd like to share an example?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You appear to be in the same corner that you accused others of running to. My point that a majority of Gaffers haven't paid taxes yet has been merely countered with all the PoliGAF regulars who you know pay taxes, not really the same thing.

As for the second, I'm sure in the next ultra left Econ topic you'll see me. It's not like I don't support stimulus when it's required. When you guys start discussing salary caps, investment restrictions and nationalization sure.

Where are you getting this from? Why do you even have this impression? Because we talk about video games in the other forum?

I believe his point was that of those members who participate in threads with political topics, such as this thread, most are probably not in high school or college. Even if the video game side was all high school kids (it's not), it wouldn't matter if none of them participated in political discussions on the Off-Topic side.

I have never witnessed an occasion of this that wasn't called for. Perhaps you'd like to share an example?

I've seen it happen lots of times when people write "jap," for example. I don't find it annoying like IceCold, though. People should realize what they are writing.

 

[Chumly]

You appear to be in the same corner that you accused others of running to. My point that a majority of Gaffers haven't paid taxes yet has been merely countered with all the PoliGAF regulars who you know pay taxes, not really the same thing.

As for the second, I'm sure in the next ultra left Econ topic you'll see me. It's not like I don't support stimulus when it's required. When you guys start discussing salary caps, investment restrictions and nationalization sure.

Because this is supported by soooooooo many people ::rolls eyes::


You made an assumption that most people on GAF don't pay taxes but yet can't explain why all these people posting in leftist threads haven't paid taxes. All that really matters is if the people making these "crazy economic and political ideas" have paid taxes.

 

[bill0527]

If you don't live in the US, I suspect you have little idea what supporters of the modern American right are like. For starters, they find the idea of public healthcare intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Its not the idea of public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Its the idea of government-run public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Conservatism at its very core is for limited, smaller government and conservatives feel that government run healthcare mandated for every single person in the country is an over reach of government and that the government does not have the capacity to manage such a system without waste, fraud, abuse, and running deficits.

I've been alive since the Nixon administration and the only years that I can recall where the government has been able to run an annual budget surplus was during the Clinton years. And previously before that you have to go back to 1969 to find a budget surplus. Conservatives base this belief on the fact that the government has not been able to successfully manage its other large entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is expected to run dry in 2033, meaning, the generation paying into it right now, will not see a dime from it unless a massive overhaul happens (and this isn't likely). Social Security payments cannot keep up with the rate of inflation. Because of this, the government wants to hitch it to the Consumer Price Index instead of inflation, which is nothing but window dressing to make it look like Social Security payments aren't as bad as they really are. Nobody can live off of just social security anymore. Medicare has always ran deficits, and any time the federal government finds itself in a cash crunch, Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are always the first thing that gets cut.

 

[Puddles]

You appear to be in the same corner that you accused others of running to. My point that a majority of Gaffers haven't paid taxes yet has been merely countered with all the PoliGAF regulars who you know pay taxes, not really the same thing.

The issue here is that you attempt to explain GAF's hypothetical liberal bias by stating that most of GAF hasn't paid taxes and doesn't understand economics. The implication here is that paying taxes and having a good grasp of economics would make one more likely to be conservative.

Now this might make sense if you're talking about far-left (supporting actual socialism) vs European fiscal conservatism. But you're attempting to explain a liberal bias that only exists if you view GAF's politics on the American spectrum. So my answer is that there is no way in hell that having a good grasp of economics would make one more likely to be American conservative (Republican).

Then again, you said that you support universal healthcare and stimulus. You'd be a liberal in the U.S. Fox News viewers would launch all kinds of ad hominem attacks against you. So perhaps you're just talking about communist-wingnut GAF that only comes out in certain topics, like the 75% tax thread you mentioned. In that case, I'd argue that they're actually a small minority on this forum.

 

[Acheron]

Because this is supported by soooooooo many people ::rolls eyes::


You made an assumption that most people on GAF don't pay taxes but yet can't explain why all these people posting in leftist threads haven't paid taxes. All that really matters is if the people making these "crazy economic and political ideas" have paid taxes.

I really don't give a god damn how you parse what I write. I said "I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet." in a thread about GAF, I don't need to survey the subset you want to focus on, this is a wider question.

As for salary caps etc., there were quite a few Melenchon boosters earlier in the year, so yes there is support for fringe hard-left policies on GAF.

 

[Delusibeta]

I wouldn't exactly call a group that only recently decided that gay people should probably be allowed to get married and that everybody should probably have some kind of healthcare protection as "Centre".

Fair point, I should have said "centre right" (although to be honest the idea of gay marriage or civil partnerships only really became acceptable politically within the last 10-15 years or so, and the idea that everybody shouldn't have some kind of healthcare protection is seen as preposterous outside of the far right and the United States).

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Its not the idea of public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Its the idea of government-run public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Conservatism at its very core is for limited, smaller government and conservatives feel that government run healthcare mandated for every single person in the country is an over reach of government and that the government does not have the capacity to manage such a system without waste, fraud, abuse, and running deficits.

I've been alive since the Nixon administration and the only years that I can recall where the government has been able to run an annual budget surplus was during the Clinton years. And previously before that you have to go back to 1969 to find a budget surplus. Conservatives base this belief on the fact that the government has not been able to successfully manage its other large entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is expected to run dry in 2033, meaning, the generation paying into it right now, will not see a dime from it unless a massive overhaul happens (and this isn't likely). Social Security payments cannot keep up with the rate of inflation. Because of this, the government wants to hitch it to the Consumer Price Index instead of inflation, which is nothing but window dressing to make it look like Social Security payments aren't as bad as they really are. Nobody can live off of just social security anymore. Medicare has always ran deficits, and any time the federal government finds itself in a cash crunch, Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are always the first thing that gets cut.

What a great post. Well done.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I really don't give a god damn how you parse what I write. I said "I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet." in a thread about GAF, I don't need to survey the subset you want to focus on, this is a wider question.

As for salary caps etc., there were quite a few Melenchon boosters earlier in the year, so yes there is support for fringe hard-left policies on GAF.

Yes, there are people of wildly varying opinions here on GAF--that's what makes it so great. Just look at yourself. You're a part of GAF, too. Yes, that's right.

 

[Wazzim]

I really don't give a god damn how you parse what I write. I said "I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet." in a thread about GAF, I don't need to survey the subset you want to focus on, this is a wider question.

As for salary caps etc., there were quite a few Melenchon boosters earlier in the year, so yes there is support for fringe hard-left policies on GAF.

Hard-left policies only exist to shift the political spectrum to the left. You can't change shit with your 'center-left' parties for example, the hard-left is essential.

That taxes bit is obviously ridiculous, everyone on GAF has payed sales tax at least once and most with jobs/students pay their fair share of taxes too.

 

[AntoneM]

Its not the idea of public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Its the idea of government-run public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Conservatism at its very core is for limited, smaller government and conservatives feel that government run healthcare mandated for every single person in the country is an over reach of government and that the government does not have the capacity to manage such a system without waste, fraud, abuse, and running deficits.

I've been alive since the Nixon administration and the only years that I can recall where the government has been able to run an annual budget surplus was during the Clinton years. And previously before that you have to go back to 1969 to find a budget surplus. Conservatives base this belief on the fact that the government has not been able to successfully manage its other large entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is expected to run dry in 2033, meaning, the generation paying into it right now, will not see a dime from it unless a massive overhaul happens (and this isn't likely). Social Security payments cannot keep up with the rate of inflation. Because of this, the government wants to hitch it to the Consumer Price Index instead of inflation, which is nothing but window dressing to make it look like Social Security payments aren't as bad as they really are. Nobody can live off of just social security anymore. Medicare has always ran deficits, and any time the federal government finds itself in a cash crunch, Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are always the first thing that gets cut.

Buh? Where did you find this info? If absolutely nothing is done, payments will have to be reduced, but I've never ever seen a scenario where people will not get anything from social security.

That said, simply removing the maximum amount that one must pay in taxes to social security would go a long way to help. Some one making $110,000 in wages pays the exact same gross amount of dollars to SSA as some one who makes $1,000,000 in wages, about $4500.

 

[Chumly]

I really don't give a god damn how you parse what I write. I said "I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet." in a thread about GAF, I don't need to survey the subset you want to focus on, this is a wider question.

As for salary caps etc., there were quite a few Melenchon boosters earlier in the year, so yes there is support for fringe hard-left policies on GAF.

So basically your going to cherry pick a few posters and blame left GAF on it? I never said that extremely hard left policies didn't have support at all.

1) Filling out your tax return and seeing the money melt away is probably the biggest impetus for fiscal conservatism. Seeing 20k evaporate isn't fun regardless of what the average rate, median income blah blah blah shit is. I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet.

3) Gaffers don't understand economics. Any thread about capitalism gets filled with myopic shit about fiat money being limitless, rose tinted glasses about state capitalism, elitism regarding where resources ought to be allocated, peak oil and all sorts of other fringe beliefs with minimal scholarly backing.

Because this post certainly seems to paint left leaning GAF with some pretty broad strokes. You attempted to associate having to pay taxes to making people conservative but have been unable to explain why everyone posting all of these leftist thoughts haven't been paying taxes. My argument that people posting in political threads have been paying taxes and are general more educated. If someone doesn't pay taxes and doesn't post in political threads then it has NO bearing on how "left" GAF is. Furthermore since people under 18 can't vote in the US I find it hard to believe that this segment of GAF is posting hardly at all in political threads.

 

[Piecake]

Its not the idea of public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Its the idea of government-run public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil.

Conservatism at its very core is for limited, smaller government and conservatives feel that government run healthcare mandated for every single person in the country is an over reach of government and that the government does not have the capacity to manage such a system without waste, fraud, abuse, and running deficits.

I've been alive since the Nixon administration and the only years that I can recall where the government has been able to run an annual budget surplus was during the Clinton years. And previously before that you have to go back to 1969 to find a budget surplus. Conservatives base this belief on the fact that the government has not been able to successfully manage its other large entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is expected to run dry in 2033, meaning, the generation paying into it right now, will not see a dime from it unless a massive overhaul happens (and this isn't likely). Social Security payments cannot keep up with the rate of inflation. Because of this, the government wants to hitch it to the Consumer Price Index instead of inflation, which is nothing but window dressing to make it look like Social Security payments aren't as bad as they really are. Nobody can live off of just social security anymore. Medicare has always ran deficits, and any time the federal government finds itself in a cash crunch, Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are always the first thing that gets cut.

I really dont understand how conservatives can square this type of thinking with all of the real-life examples out there. I mean, basically all first world countries have government run health care and that government run health care costs them about half as much as a percentage of gdp than it does America.

Much cheaper health care that anyone can use sure as hell doesnt seem evil to me.

 

[Kad5]

There IS a difference between a conservative and a liberal/libertarian.

Conservatives tend to keep the status quo no matter what it is.

Modern American liberals are really just social democrats (Left-Wing statists).

I know plenty of progressive thinking Libertarians. You can believe in progress without excessive government intervention. Although most of GAF is dominated by modern liberals.

And I can argue that GAF might even have a decent amount of left-libertarians. I actually sympathize with a lot of left-libertarian ideals personally.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Buh? Where did you find this info? If absolutely nothing is done, payments will have to be reduced, but I've never ever seen a scenario where people will not get anything from social security.

That said, simply removing the maximum amount that one must pay in taxes to social security would go a long way to help. Some one making $110,000 in wages pays the exact same gross amount of dollars to SSA as some one who makes $1,000,000 in wages, about $4500.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505244_162-57491665/social-security-surplus-dwarfed-by-future-deficit/

The problem is that the baby boomers are starting to retire. Trustees are saying it could be tapped out by 2033 unless something is done. Now the question is what to do. Make the current workers pay more? It's unsustainable in the long run because there's the chance that it could become this vicious cycle.

On the other hand, birth cycles have evened out after the baby boom generation so there's a chance that SS could be fine if it weathers the storm properly.

 

[bill0527]

Buh? Where did you find this info? If absolutely nothing is done, payments will have to be reduced, but I've never ever seen a scenario where people will not get anything from social security.

That said, simply removing the maximum amount that one must pay in taxes to social security would go a long way to help. Some one making $110,000 in wages pays the exact same gross amount of dollars to SSA as some one who makes $1,000,000 in wages, about $4500.

http://www.app.com/viewart/20120817...insecurity?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Living|s

Let me make a correction, by 'running dry', I mean that you will not get the maximum amount of benefits that you paid in. Estimates are at best, you'll get about 75% of your benefits. And the only choices floating out there are that the current generation has to accept less benefits, or higher taxes. Nothing will get done because no politician out there has the stones to cut any part of social security and conservatives will always be against higher taxes for anything.

 

[teruterubozu]

Because of '08 PoliGAF. I think a lot of conservative GAF bailed after that.

 

[AntoneM]

http://www.app.com/viewart/20120817...insecurity?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Living|s

Let me make a correction, by 'running dry', I mean that you will not get the maximum amount of benefits that you paid in. Estimates are at best, you'll get about 75% of your benefits. And the only choices floating out there are that the current generation has to accept less benefits, or higher taxes. Nothing will get done because no politician out there has the stones to cut any part of social security and conservatives will always be against higher taxes for anything.

Good to know that "not see a dime from it" actually means 75% of your benefits... scare tactics and hyperbole.

 

[Aaron Strife]

To me the gaffers complaining about "the mods ban you for posting conservative beliefs!" just remind me of the redneck teenagers who whine about not being able to say the n-word and opine (loudly and frequently) why there isn't a White History Month.

 

[watershed]

To me the gaffers complaining about "the mods ban you for posting conservative beliefs!" just remind me of the redneck teenagers who whine about not being able to say the n-word and opine (loudly and frequently) why there isn't a White History Month.

Did gaf seriously use to be like this? Thank god I'm still relatively new. I wouldn't want to be part of a forum where this would be routine.

 

[bill0527]

Good to know that "not see a dime from it" actually means 75% of your benefits... scare tactics and hyperbole.

Good to know you think 75% of what you paid in is good enough and that the program has been perfectly ran and managed by the federal government.

And it won't even be worth an actual 75% because social security can't keep up with inflation now. What do you think social security is going to be able to buy in 2023 much less 2033.

 

[AstroNut325]

1) Filling out your tax return and seeing the money melt away is probably the biggest impetus for fiscal conservatism. Seeing 20k evaporate isn't fun regardless of what the average rate, median income blah blah blah shit is. I don't think most Gaffers have had that experience yet.

May I ask what amount you would be ok to see evaporated?

 

[RiccochetJ]

Good to know that "not see a dime from it" actually means 75% of your benefits... scare tactics and hyperbole.

I always like getting back a fraction of my money from something that is supposed to be an investment.

And they did say that it will run out if something isn't done. Increasing payments and reducing the amount that you'll get back doesn't sit well with people.

 

[BananaBomb]

Good to know you think 75% of what you paid in is good enough and that the program has been perfectly ran and managed by the federal government.

And it won't even be worth an actual 75% because social security can't keep up with inflation now. What do you think social security is going to be able to buy in 2023 much less 2033.

talk about putting words in people's mouths.

 

[Game-Biz]

I have never witnessed an occasion of this that wasn't called for. Perhaps you'd like to share an example?

I tend to agree with him, but then again I can't find an example, either. Probably any word or joke that is misogynistic or homophobic. Many times outrage may be appropriate but often I think people are just too sensitive and easily offended. Having said that, I realize that both those things are sensitive issues at this period of time so it really doesn't bother me that much.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Good to know that "not see a dime from it" actually means 75% of your benefits... scare tactics and hyperbole.

I was just gonna say. Way to flip-flop, but you've beaten me to the punch. That's the biggest right-wing myth that SS will go bankrupt.

 

[Karakand]

Hard-left policies only exist to shift the political spectrum to the left. You can't change shit with your 'center-left' parties for example, the hard-left is essential.

Sure you can change shit as a center-lefter, for example destroying non-communist working class internationalism like the various social democratic parties of the Second International did.

 

[AntoneM]

Good to know you think 75% of what you paid in is good enough and that the program has been perfectly ran and managed by the federal government.

And it won't even be worth an actual 75% because social security can't keep up with inflation now. What do you think social security is going to be able to buy in 2023 much less 2033.

I never said 75% was enough, but, it's sure more than "not a dime". As far as being run and managed by the federal government, I think SSA has done a tremendous job consider Congress refuses to take any action to fix it's funding. It's a funding problem, not a management problem.

Also, you know those projections take into account inflation as best they can given it's 20 years in the future. For all we know, you'll be right and there won't be SSA, it's as plausible that it will be completely solvent and be paying 100% of funds.

 

[Neo C.]

I rather see myself as progressive, but often progressive and left are the same...
I don't think GAF leans too much left, it's more or less in the middle of the (global) spectrum. It only seems to be left because the US is hopelessly extreme right. Your grand kids would look back and think: "WTF happened in this era?"

 

[AntoneM]

I always like getting back a fraction of my money from something that is supposed to be an investment.

And they did say that it will run out if something isn't done. Increasing payments and reducing the amount that you'll get back doesn't sit well with people.

That article said the surplus would run out. That's not the same as social security running out of money, just surplus money. When did social security become an investment? It's a source of last resort for funds after you're too old to work, essentially too disabled to work.

 

[Ledsen]

It's pretty interesting that "liberals" refers to the left in the US, but the right in Sweden (and I imagine most other european countries).

 

[Seguin]

Conservatives are too busy shooting their guns and protesting homosexuals to spend their time on a videogame message board

 

[Videoneon]

The answer for you is probably sociological, demographic studies, etc.

GAF is far and away largely socially "liberal," while the fiscal part doesn't normally attract attention to GAFfers that aren't already interested in politics. The default answer I see sometimes is "socially liberal, fiscal conservative." That being said, on the whole I think GAF approaches the center--lots of leftist and right-wing stances on economics/fiscal stuff.

I think the targets for moderation and banning also contribute too.

That being said, if you think GAF is appallingly leftist, I don't understand you. Maybe it's because America is decidedly center right on the whole, maybe it's because I take for granted GAF's moderation policies as mostly acceptable (this, only because I haven't found an instance I disagree with, though I'm not researching "undue moderations").

 

[YoungHav]

Are we talking real left-wing politics, Or American "left-wing" politics? Because they are very much different.

can you explain the difference to me? I'm American and only really started paying attention to politics around 2006. I do not like the Democrats much and consider myself left of them. I am curious as to people's perspectives since I've seen "the US left would be Europe's right" a lot in this thread.

 

[Gotchaye]

GAF is far and away largely socially "liberal," while the fiscal part doesn't normally attract attention to GAFfers that aren't already interested in politics. The default answer I see sometimes is "socially liberal, fiscal conservative." That being said, on the whole I think GAF approaches the center--lots of leftist and right-wing stances on economics/fiscal stuff.

Of course, "fiscal conservative" is basically meaningless. In the US it's used as "for responsible fiscal policy", where "responsible" is doing all the work and depends on one's theory of economics. It'd probably also be hard to get agreement as to what counts as "fiscal policy". Certainly very few people on GAF agree with US conservatives on fiscal policy.

can you explain the difference to me? I'm American and only really started paying attention to politics around 2006. I do not like the Democrats much and consider myself left of them. I am curious as to people's perspectives since I've seen "the US left would be Europe's right" a lot in this thread.

France has universal health care and university education; consumers of health care and university education pay almost nothing out of pocket for those things. They have extremely strong protections for workers. The recently elected president wants a 75% top marginal tax rate on everything above a million euros, I think. Obama's signature health care reform bill comes nowhere close, and the Democrats have pushed to make student loans slightly less burdensome. The left in many states is fighting to keep public sector unions alive, and many states are right-to-work. Obama would like the rich to pay a slightly higher share of taxes than they get of income.

 

[jaxword]

Did gaf seriously use to be like this? Thank god I'm still relatively new. I wouldn't want to be part of a forum where this would be routine.

It still is a bit that way, just look at this thread at the people who are passive-aggressively whining about how they can't post their persecuted religious/conservative beliefs.


WHY CAN'T I OPENLY HATE THE GAYS/ATHEISTS LIKE THEY DESERVE??????

 

[Aaron Strife]

Did gaf seriously use to be like this? Thank god I'm still relatively new. I wouldn't want to be part of a forum where this would be routine.

That's hardly a gaf thing, though I don't think I've seen it here.

There are plenty of white teenagers (mostly male, mostly redneck) who ask, without irony, why there isn't a White History Month or WET or other such bullshit.

edit: And as jaxword says above, yes this totally applies to gays/atheists too it's not just a race thing. Conservatives basically asking "Is it a crime to be openly bigoted!?"