How do you define your politics and attitudes?

[louis c]

I became so sick and tired of others defining my politics and attitudes when I discussed issues that I decided to research my opinions and define myself.

Religion:
Secular Humanist


Politics:
Democratic Socialist


Social Issues:
Social Libertarian

[Cant trust em]

1. Nah. I prefer to box myself into something that I can never escape from.

That way I get to belong to a little club.

[louis c]

4. You See

When I give my big government response to economic issues, others call me a Communist. But that's not accurate at all. When I give my opinion that man controls his own destiny and they should help one another, without the intervention of a supreme being, I'm called an atheist. when I say that each woman should control her own destiny, that any person should be free to marry who ever they choose, and that adults should make their own decisions concerning their own lives, I'm called an "asshole".

I like the real terms better.

[dysfunctional press]

2. liberal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Like this guy said...

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

Pigeon holes are fine for pigeons.

[OHdem10]

5. Liberal Catholic Lean Libertarian on Social issues.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Honestly,

I am an anarchist, but that's going nowhere, so I describe myself as a kneejerk liberal, and just when you think you've gone as far left as you can go, I'm the one at the farthest end, so far left from where you just stopped, you can barely see me.................

[Glorfindel]

9. You have described how I see myself perfectly

I'm delighted to know I'm not entirely alone!
:toast:

[burning rain]

7. Reserving my right to heterodoxy....

... I hope never just a puerile urge to say something surprising or take an iconoclastic position for its own sake... I'd say....

Personal conviction re. faith: atheist

Political stance re. faith: secularist

Politics in a nutshell: left-wing social democrat, republican in the French sense

Philosophy: pragmatism and consequentialism

Inclination: romanticism

[undergroundpanther]

8. Not definable...

In a society that has abolished all adventures, the only adventure left is to abolish society.


Religion:
Religion is not SPIRITUALITY!!
SO,BE YOUR OWN FUCKING MESSIAH.
I lean twords Gnostic,hermetic flavored chaos,for now. I am a maltheist,and an explorer of the unknowns without fear.


Politics:

Anarchist/tribalist, sort of. But that definition is subject to revision as situations demand it or humanity learns to be emotionally mature enough to respect boundaries,have boundaries,and develop an inner locus of control strong enough to live with each other/themselves without tolerating bullies,enablers or leaders/assholes.
For myself I accept no "superiors" and no"inferiors" to myself.I live equality, until someone decides they can try to subjugate me or box me into a leadership position, than the language of equality ends and I will speak the language of domination and submission to them until they leave, or change.Big fan of creating Asshole Free Zones.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/undergroundpanther/37

Social Issues:
Basically you are free to do whatever you want provided you are honest enough to accept,face and live with what you do or will make amends for the consequences of your whatever you did.No one likes an asshole.We need each other to survive.But we do not need to be dominated,exploited,abused or controlled by a few so a few can have it all.

[elocs]

10. I used to consider myself a Liberal until I started reading DU,

but after reading some of the posters here who say they are Liberal I do not know if I would want to be included in their company.

Do we really need all of these labels and little boxes in which we conveniently pigeonhole people for easy reference?

[scarletwoman]

11. After 8 years on DU, I have categorically rejected the label of "liberal".

I want no part of that sort of "liberalism".

I am a radical leftist, and liberals are just as much my foe as the right wing.

sw

[noamnety]

12. same here

not the 8 years part, I've only been here 5, but yes, I've come to understand better what "liberalism" is, and I am left of that.

I still use the word as short-hand in conversations with people who I know don't understand the distinctions.

[Posteritatis]

13. Death to pigeonholes! (nt)

[Quantess]

14. I would never restrict myself to labels.

I am a liberal, but even there, are some exceptions. Plus, I allow myself the option to change my mind on some issues, even though chances are slim that I will.

I don't even like the term "agnostic". I call myself an agnostic, but I disagree with the literal meaning "not knowing". In fact, I DO know that I am spiritualy inclined! I just don't want to slap a label on my spirituality.

Edit to add: I think that to label yourself is to limit yourself. Especially, do not allow others to label you, because that only causes discussions to be more boneheaded and declines the intellectual level of discourse.

[BOG PERSON]

15. LIBERAL, WHITE AND PROUD

[voc]

16. Leftist

Liberal , Progressive and Conservative all mean the same thing.
Voted for Obama.

Religion: None

[Selatius]

17. I'm a Deist as far as religious beliefs go. I favor market socialism and am socially libertarian.

That's me in a nutshell.

As far as anybody who is curious goes, is basically short-hand for trying to establish a public bank. The bank would provide funds to start up labor co-ops, which are firms owned by their respective employees. The bank would start up co-ops, provide funds to existing co-ops, and buy out failed or failing private enterprises to be reorganized into labor co-ops. Competition would ensue between co-ops and between co-ops and private enterprises. Workers would have a real choice between working in the private sector or in the co-op sector of the economy.

In time, co-ops would dominate the marketplace, in my view. Studies show employees in co-ops tend to be more motivated and exhibit higher productivity than in traditional firms. The competition between co-op firms and between co-ops and private enterprises would spark innovation and encourage efficiency of production.

[Raine]

18. Mostly liberal

with a slight touch of moderate. :-)