What is your single most right-wing view?

That if you move to another country you should be learning that language to the best of your capabilities. I work with a lot of foreigners and the amount of them that are incapable or simply unwilling to speak, in my case, Dutch is insanely high. I do think we as a society should invest more in schooling and developing both the native and the new language of course. But learn the fucking language. At least try.
- a) languages are hard. but immersion helps
  b) I think the vast majority if expats won't even consider learning the local language.
  
  Languages is hard that's true. An initiative our party took is the 'festival of the mother tongue' in which many different nationalities can showcase their language and local cuisine and whatnot. Really helps people think about language.
  Also, it turns out that further developing your native language can also help with learning a new language. Hence why I think it's important to stimulate that as well though reading and stuff.
- Ok but it's Dutch, I understand the hesitation
  
  Everybody ganster until they have to pronounce arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering
  
  In my top 3 most ridiculous languages for sure, can't keep a straight face listening to those people, lol.
- I agree, especially for those American expats

As a global south citizen, I don't care a single iota about domestic/social cultural policies of western politicians or parties, and would be glad to see a socially conservative movement take power there if it meant an end to Genocide, War, and economic exploitation in my part of the world. I guess it is some form of critical support, same reason I support Iran and Russia in their resistance to Imperialism despite their less than ideal social stances.

I thought the question was "what is THE single most right wing view" and i was like "Idk probably supporting genocide" then i read the comments and was so confused.
Glad i didnt comment without reading the question again that would have looked bad.
Its hard cuz idk what even is right wing or isnt half the time.
I don't remember the exact quote, but i saw something like "To be a revolutionary is to be a ruthless bloodthirsty monster." attributed to Che Guevara. I agree with it. I think to operate as a revolutionary successfully against something like a capitalist regime you can't afford to limit your actions. You do what you have to do to win. No matter how cruel, no matter how unreasonable. Victory is the only goal. For any suffering you may cause pales in comparison to the suffering caused by your failure.

Death penalty is good actually, as long as it isn't used just on minorities. Super useful to scare capitalists.
- Death penalty, but only for the bourgeoisie and for politicians who betray the proletariat
  
  And child pr3dators
  
  And for supporters of death penalty
- I don't think fear is a good reason to be using the death penalty. Tho tbf, considering the topic question, it does sound pretty right-wing to be wanting to use fear as a tactic to control people.
  
  i know deterrence doesn't work for regular crime but maybe it does for white-collar crimes that are premeditated conspiracies and continuously reaffirmed by the perpetrators?
- Found Luigi's account. hi

Market reforms of Deng were amazing
- I hope you won't mind my ultra moment here. I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
  Even in retrospect, Deng Xiaoping seems to be the rightmost someone can be and still reasonably be considered a communist. Looking at some of his unimplemented ideas and the policies that were reversed in the following decades, it's understandable why someone would think he was a capitalist roader in his time. The path he set the CPC on meant that the party had to walk a difficult tightrope, fooling the westerners by obfuscating their long-term plans while keeping the creeping liberalism at check. Whole the capacity of her administrators and will of her people played the main part, China couldn't have made it to today without fortune by their side.
  Tldr I agree but only with hindsight
  
  I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
  It was a leap of faith and incredible trust in the future generations. If that went as market reforms did elswhere we would be now cursing him as second Gorbachev (or Gorbachev as second Deng). And the world could be as well completely doomed with no socialist China.
  
  I don't think this is an ultra moment, so much as leaving out dialectics. Luck always factors into things, yeah, but the results speak for themselves because communist theory and practice works, and socialist projects continuously show this. The way they went about it could have gone wrong in a number of ways, sure, but so can working toward a revolution, so can the start of a revolution, so can the day to day mundanity of organizing a local party meeting, etc. It's how you use the dialectical process to adapt to the shifting circumstances and predict outcomes that makes the difference. And of course the people themselves, the struggle they put into it every step of the way. But point being, Deng and whoever all agreed with his path were picking a path and trying it, and in some ways it worked and some ways it didn't, and they have adjusted since. It's that adjusting that is so pivotal.
  Or to put it another way, while luck is always a factor in things, analysis can usually reveal that there's less luck than it might seem at a glance and sometimes it's a matter of how deep you get into the factors in play. Casinos play on this all the time by having the appearance of handing over outcomes to luck, but in reality, being heavily weighted toward the "house winning."
  
  isnt that true all the time though? i remember reading in john reeds book that what made the soldiers finally break for the october revolution was kerenski demanding and not asking. Up until then a lot were undecided and the revolution might have failed because the ones that were decided were stronger on kerenskis side? so much in life is up to chance that the best you can do is hedge your bets

There should be substantial financial and social help given to families that want to have children, and they should get more help the more children they have.
(But to balance that out with a left wing policy, i also want free contraception for everyone who doesn't want children.)
- Definitely. I hope China will be the first country to find a good solution to the birth crisis faced by all developed countries, since no capitalist country has found a solution yet. Reducing working hours, providing social support, increasing household wealth and living standards, and decreasing stress from raising kids should hopefully fix this.
- Aren't those both left?
- this 100%. We had a kid during the lock downs our government was paying everyone to stay inside. me and my partner got to stay in and focus on being parents, taking our time and doing a much better job then if we had to worry about making rent and feeding us on minimum wage.
  
  What was that time like?

Public smoking should be banned. And I'm not sure why so many people insist that they have a right to pollute everyone else's air. Especially when asthma is not an uncommom condition.
And kids are being hurt just by this drug abuse being on public display almost everywhere
- No, most of the views in this thread aren't right wing views. Not allowing smoking in public because it's hazardous to other health would be considered more of a left wing ideal because it puts the health of the working class as a whole over the desire of the individual to poison themselves.
  So many of these comments are actually just extreme views that many people actually agree with. Most seeming to be left wing oriented. Threads like this are always stupid because the author is just trying to start controversy in the community and most of the commenters aren't going to post their ACTUAL right wing thoughts because they know they will get downvoted and harassed for them.
  
  I suppose that's a way to see it. In my experience being around hippies and ultra left people, a weirdly common view is that tobacco and weed are completely harmless and it should be allowed everywhere.
  But that might have been them talking from their addicted perspective?

Reading these comments got me like "🙂"

Comrades need to look presentable and dress normally when they are representing Marxism in a public form. Part of being a communist is appealing to everyday people. There is a reason why every successful communist movement, from the Panthers to the Bolsheviks, presented themselves well and professionally.
This isn't even really right-wing.
- Yes. Optics means something to many people, and respecting that will help the movement

reform through forced labour is good, tho there is a clear distinction when it's on a capitalist country and private individuals profit of the prisoners labour to when the prisoner labour is used to develop the country, like gulags in the USSR.

Not so much of a "view" as it is an action, but I unironically love buying army surplus stuff.

Idk if it's right wing, but seconding what Comprehensive49 said, death penalty for bourgeoisie, nazis, fascists and also pedos and rapists are kill on sight.
Also, I don't know if this counts, but we really shouldn't pressure any countries to ditch their old believes and traditions which they had for centuries, for example, Muslim countries in terms of everyone suddenly accepting LGBT etc, it will come with time, it can't be done overnight. I'm of course not talking about Saudi Arabia and their monarchy, they have to go, but other Muslim countries
I have lived some time in North Africa(can't say which country) and have connection with a lot of people from there, since I'm asexual I haven't had any problems, but they really don't care about LGBT in best case scenario from my experience and some unfortunately see it as western thing but are otherwise some of the best people I met. So unless they're Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan in terms of it, I say let them be, with socialism, it will be better with time.
- I agree on allowing culture to change naturally. When you try to abrupty impose social policies that oppose aspects of people's culture, they naturally push back. I feel that much of the hostility towards LGBT and the like seems to be due to people's desperation so they think that doing what "God" likes will get them more stuff. Naturally, if everyone has all the stuff they need, then no one will need to care much.
- Wanting death to rapists is all well and good but I heard from a victim that, because most sexual abuse is committed by people the victims know, punishing them with death disincentivizes people from reporting their abusers. Maybe that can be alleviated by teaching people from a young age to recognize abuse and that rapists must die no matter how you personally feel about them? I don't know, it's a sensitive issue and I'm fearful of letting my hatred for abusers (my own and otherwise) cause me to accidentally hurt victims.
  
  Perhaps the punishment should be set after consultation with the victim. Sexual abuse absolutely must be punished and prevented though.

Gambling should be illegal

I'm just gonna say it, many of these really don't feel like explicitly right wing ideals and more just "things that most people actually see are reasonable but like, wouldn't be ok in a futuristic Star Trek level utopia," but are things that many people will agree upon makes sense given the current material and social conditions of society.
- And that's a good thing thankfully, it would be pretty alarming if there were.

Not sure if this counts as right wing, but I sympathize with some of Dostoevsky's philosophy. If we look at how fascism triumphed over socialism, there was an irrational and emotional component to it that drew people in, which in some ways socialism fails to do because it's rooted in objectiveness. And I believe Dostoevsky touches on this in his works where he has characters that are disillusioned with society but also disillusioned with the revolutionary movement, because it all boils down to objectiveness. I believe he is a reactionary, but also in real life he was part of revolutionary movements so he has real lived experience of what it's like to try to change society, which I find interesting.
That being said I do think socialism can have a subjective appeal to the masses, in that it aims to ensure prosperity and liberation for all.

While I am a stern believer in criminal justice reform, we should be like China, absolutely no crime is tolerated, and addictive drugs, excluding marijuana, should be banned. This only happens if the police are controlled by the people, not the billionaire class.
- any society will need some form of policing, we can only argue on how it should be structured.
  however, we can't forget that the biggest factor for crime is poverty, once people aren't desperate for basic material needs, crime drops.
  so any crime remediation that focuses mostly on policing is bound to only enforce a class division and is inherently regressive.
  
  policing needs to be done with the utmost accountability to the people. the US system of cops are just a gang that will execute anyone they feel like and suffer no consequences it's hardly what i would call policing in any real sense of the word.
- we should be like China, absolutely no crime is tolerated, and addictive drugs, excluding marijuana, should be banned.
  If the revolution doesnt come with ending the drug war, what was the point?
  
  This is a good example where context matters. China's policy comes in part out of the Century of Humiliation and manipulation through Opium. In the US, the "war on drugs" was used in part to target black revolutionaries, along with mass incarcerating minorities in general. So any new state in the Turtle Island region that said "we're going to be socialist but still be repressive about drugs" would be justifiably concerning.
  That said, I don't know how all China handles it in the particulars, but I believe there has been at least one country in the world where they tried decriminalizing drugs (not to be confused with legalizing the sale of) and creating programs to help people rehabilitate, and that seems like a sensible path forward for a place with history like the US.

Honestly, many of these posts aren't even "right-wing" views, they're just shared positions like "guns are empowering to civilians", "have some respect for cultures you're entering and learn to communicate", "people raising a child should be supported", "child abusers should be removed from society".
The framing of some of these as "right-wing" or "anti-left" due to progressivist liberals is harmful and something we have to punch through. In my union, I had to put on a nice face and discuss with a member who only knew how to frame their legitimate proletarian objections to offshoring and porky's cost-cutting through terms like "woke nonsense", "diversity" and the like. And it sucks for them too, because their unfortunate, inaccurate choice of words lumps them in with absolute scum, and so they have to justify every other sentence with a good ol' "I'm not a racist" to try and clarify their objection (which, in this case, based on their other views and talking to them further, I really think was true and not just the classic shield tactic that Nazi scum abuse to feign humanity). When progressive liberals have garbage analysis and advocate idealist misguided solutions, that alienates reasonable people who might end up believing themselves to be "anti-left", given the Overton window puts proglibs in the "left" here.
I can only imagine if they talked to someone else who took their language at face value and then (understandably) dismissed them as an anti-worker pro-bigotry bastard etc. etc., instead of realizing it's just (for lack of a more neutral word) ignorance. Their legitimate proletarian concerns would be answered with dismissal or an attack. That's why we need to say loudly and clearly that we have shared proletarian values, not just "leftist" values.
(daily reminder that "left-right" is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
- (daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
  I'm not convinced it's nonsense as a whole, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. Especially in situations like US electoral "republican-democrat" dichotomy, where people sometimes label republican as right and democrat as left, which is indeed nonsense. I think it's kinda like "fascism" where there is historical meaning and then there is how it gets bandied about, and there's a lot of muddied use of it.
- Well said. This really gets to the heart of it. I forget where I heard this quote but "the culture war is a proxy class war" is something I feel has a lot of truth to it.
  
  Great phrase, I'll have to remember that one! And that's absolutely at play here from the "progressive" liberalist side too - I suspect a significant chunk of the frustration with "DEI" and "woke" is due to the capitalist abuse the underlying progressive movements, comparable to rainbow capitalism. Offshoring (I originally miswrote that as "outsourcing" before you replied) to cheap underqualified labor is justified as "diversity", but local workers suffer because the capitalist is hiring people who aren't doing the job as well. The capitalist is justifying their anti-worker exploitation as being social justice! So for people who are brought up in a casually racist environment [read: most citizens here] and just not used to thinking about how they say things, they can thoughtlessly say something that's easily misinterpreted as racist bigotry. Consider: "They keep giving our jobs to Indians who can't do it as well" - it absolutely comes off as racist (or nationalist) to me, but could also just be someone who seriously doesn't care about whether they're from India or a different race, they're objecting to the outsourcing which just happens to currently be to India. Thoughlessness, which leads them to have to justify with defenses: "I'm not a racist, the Indian coworkers over here are wonderful, I have an Asian wife", you get the idea. Again, I know those lines are also abused by dissonant racists, but we would be foolish to just assume.
  The person I was talking about before had earlier complained that they were also getting in trouble at work for being direct and blunt, rather than diplomatic and polite, like if someone was talking loudly on their phone while others are trying to work, or they didn't put enough greetings and sugar in their email and someone got offended. And they mentioned that it wasn't easy for them to adjust, because they'd been conditioned in certain engineering and military [fuck the troops] jobs where you don't have time to formulate and beat about the bush or worry about politics, direct and timely communication matters, and I suspect that leads them toward this thoughtless unfortunate phrasing, forcing them to backtrack with those defenses; "they can't say anything anymore". And, yes, again, that's the same line we also see used by pieces of crap who want to say racist garbage. It's all so tiresome!

Maybe there should be limits to kids being on social media and on the internet
- I've thought about this before, and i think while limits are a good idea, most peoples approach to this would be a disaster.
  Using the internet is a skill. One that most of us alive today have naturally developed over time. Kids need to be able to do this too. Otherwise once they become adults they will be very confused, and susceptible to scams. Much like how elderly people who didn't use it as kids are now.
  For that reason i think its necessary to have an internet that is just for kids. I'm not talking about like the typical youtube kids sort of thing. I mean like an entire separate net. Similar to the one everyone else uses, but with guardrails in place. Give them all a little currency of digital points they can use to buy things like cosmetics for their profiles, or even real things. Maybe stores could offer little treats, or toys to them for the points. Then let them have ways to scam each other, and ways to earn the points by doing things like watching educational content, or doing good in school.
  Moderate it heavily for content. But not for how they act towards each other. It would allow them to experience being scammed and losing their hard earned points in a controlled environment without it being real money once they're an adult. Things like bullying, while they should be monitored, i would allow to an extent. It's going to happen on the real internet, and people need to get used to ignoring it. I would even argue professional adult educators should have fake profiles in this kid net where they play bad actors. They comment things like "This is stupid" under posts, they try to scam them, stuff like that. Then we foster a culture among the actual kids where they are good at spotting these scams, it could be taught in school then used in practice against the fake accounts, and dealing with bullying. Teach them when someone comments a mean thing you respond by refuting it, and complementing the person it was directed at.
  I think this mainly comes down to one thing. Kids are not gonna stay kids. People these days tend to act like they will. Like sheltering them from everything is the answer. People learn through experience, and if you shelter people through their childhood they lose out on opportunities to learn things naturally like this. Then they become adults who are naive, and vulnerable.
  So we simulate the real internet in a controlled environment. Foster a culture on this fake internet that is positive, and robust against bad actors. Then let it slowly bleed over into the real internet as these kids get older. I'd probably allow them on the real internet once they turn 15 or 16, and allow them to stay on the kid net until 18. So there would be a transitional period.
  As for enforcing it the most i would do if a kid somehow like jailbroke their device and got on the main internet is some sort of school punishment. Extra work or something. Maybe involving computers since they have shown an interest in that by doing it. As for adults who get on the kid net unauthorized I'd treat it as a serious criminal offense. Depending on what they were doing anything from massive fines, to prison time.

Ngl I'm not sure so I'll name a few.
1.Im very pro-natalist. I think, under well and stable circumstances (so not china during the one china policy) people should be encouraged to have children and preferably 2 or more. Obviously there should be provisions for this to make sure it doesn't turn criminal or get out of hand, but I think having a large and fresh young generation is very good for preventing lapses into unproductivity and conservativism. (However, abortion and such shouldn't be criminalized, Obviously)
2.I kinda like Theodore Roosevelt, at least on a personal level. I know I know imperialist warmonger, you don't have to remind me. But as a physically deficient near sighted kid, he really inspired me to both be more active and more curious about the world. It was kinda a never meet your heros thing, but I still have a soft spot for him
3.Up to a reasonable point, you should obey authority with little question (in day to day activity). Obviously it shouldn't be unquestionable or unqualified (not even Confusious thought that authority should be completely unquestioned), but I always feel like getting person x the y they ask for without question makes things a lot smoother than constantly butting in, trying to wield authority ypu don't have. I'm also a much larger fan of consistency rather than pure benefit (i.e, if one mathematics professor has a different system for notation than the rest of the field, even if that notation is better I woukd rather just be taught the consistent notation). [Side note:this makes me hate capitalism even more. Like how are you so bad that the person who bows so easily doesn't even believe in you?]
- I have the same view as you about the first one. It feels nice not being lonely! High five!
- This is one of the few truly right wing comments that's truly right wing enough to furrow my brow. Have an up vote on your way to the gulag comrade.

It is either:
Pornography should be illegal
or the Axis of Resistance should be supported.
- Based

trans ppl should form an ethnostate in great britain and expel, enslave, and/or exterminate the cis population. all the property of the cis inhabitants should be confiscated without exception and distributed among the worthy members of the Party as well as soldiers who have been accorded honours for bravery
- I thought this was the thread for right wing views???
- This is the future Labor wants
- I seriously struggle to comprehend why anybody would want to step foot in that godless isle. And to bounce off your idea, all Lesbians must live on the island of Lesbos! It is the natural order! xD
  
  Bc it's our land. Trans people have been living in Great Britain for 900,000 years. Even many transphobes will acknowledge that "transgenderism" originated in the West. The cisoid population of Great Britain are not British at all but Roman, Norman, and Saxon settler colonists who stole the land from its original inhabitants

We should attempt to get rid of alcohol and drugs in society. That’s not say immediate criminalization but we should go after producers of these ills and work to eliminate them through gradual, supportive-of-addicts means entirely.
- I partially agree, I think drugs should be outlawed and/or limited. I'm not against people in certain mental health situations being given ayahuasca or similar drugs with potential therapeutic effects but I don't think people should be able to buy heroin at the corner store for regular recreational use and that there should be allowed this drug culture (420, etc) around it.
  I think ceremonially people should be allowed reasonable limited amounts of certain substances like alcohol (and weed) in state regulated amounts (like tied to a state ID card) like a bottle of wine for new years and a few other holidays and a bottle of whiskey a year but not like 2 bottles of whiskey and a case of beer a week type consumption. Not you know spending every other day high out of your mind on weed for hours at a time. I think what weed that is available recreationally should be weakened back to mid 20th century levels of THC and no one under 24 should be allowed access to it given the potential dangers to developing brains. As smoke is a carcinogen by itself consumption in that form should be discouraged for those who wish to use it, those who require it be done that way for traditional ceremonial/cultural reasons can still do so but most should be encouraged to bake it into foods or imbibe in some other manner that reduces the harm.
  I understand why under capitalism people drink heavily or do lots of drugs, how miserable life can be, how hard labor conditions are so I'm not in favor of harsh restrictions on alcohol/weed under capitalism (though I'm also not in favor of legalization of more hard drugs which would be used to harm the proletariat, drug people into a sense of uncaring acceptance, exploit people to addict them to a product for profit, etc).
  I think it's a definite harm and people don't understand that say the type of weed that Stalin smoked was like a hundred times weaker than the stuff you can buy in a shop today. Back in Stalin's day weed was a mild relaxant really compared to what it is today.
  
  Even if marijuana could be more mild, it still impairs driving. There is absolutely no reason for recreational marijuana to be legal and I think that attempts to take down these dealers is important since they kill people through impaired driving. I think it needs to be dealt with through long term social reform, elimination of poverty, arrests and destructing of the dealers, and education.
- Agreed, but there's a lot of places where being a leftist = liking weed and people really think letting recreational drugs go loose is some benefit to society.

I believe in the death penalty as a security measure, but not as punishment, at least in theory.
In practice, the cost to society to ensure absolute certainty in guilt almost always far outweighs the security gain, so it doesn't make sense. Maybe once a century.

as far as the western political spectrum is concerned, I would say a strong belief that you should maintain a close relationships with family even if they hold beliefs that are reactionary or culturally conservative as long as they aren't overtly hurting you. it's better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on. isolation is one of the main things that leads to the type of derangement you see in the modern western fascist movements. obviously there is lots of nuance to this but generally speaking
- This is essentially saying that the western patriarchal family unit is a force against fascism. If that were the case, then fascists would be against "the family", but exactly the opposite is true. You also more or less directly say that compromising with reactionaries will somehow make people less fascist, which is ridiculous. Someone who's estranged from their family specifically because they're reactionary isn't going to somehow become more fascist as a result of that, that doesn't make any sense. A deranged ultra or something, perhaps, but that's not the same thing.
  I get that this is a thread about your most right-wing opinion, but yeah, this idea is reactionary as hell and trying to clumsily graft on an argument about isolation doesn't make it any better. Isolation is deranging and that is a societal problem, but this idea is absolutely not a solution to that. If anything it's a description of the problem - yes, a society where community and public spaces have been destroyed makes for a situation where this "family or isolation" dichotomy exists, and that can lead to derangement and ultimately fascism. The solution to this problem is to fix that situation, not decide that it's a good thing.
  
  I think you're completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not making a "thing good" or "thing bad" argument. Like I'm not saying "the family as it has been constructed under capitalism is as force for good and should be protected at all costs"
  it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on
  what I'm specifically talking about is in a context that is totally removed from any real political action, which is most conversations with my reactionary family members. at least in my context they aren't materially opposing me in any real way, they just saw some shit on facebook and are vomiting it me. what I mean by find a synthesis is not find the direct center point between my opinion and theirs(my opinion being based in reality and theirs not) but instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs. the thing about peoples insane right-wing delusions is most of the time its not grounded in anything other then rhetoric, at least here in north America.
  (sorry if I didn't use the quote function right, I'm very new to lemmy)

In a functioning post-capitslist society, people should be expected to work if they are reasonably able. (I'm not sure if this is really even right wing but I know a lot of people who would say that it is).
- You're right, this isn't right-wing, guaranteed employment is in socialist constitutions. The more of us working, the less we'll individually have to. Contrast with, say, nazi Germany where they had relatively few people working many hours.
- Lenin said that he who does not work shall also not eat

I don't want no gubbermint taking my guns.
- Not even right wing, Marx said this shit

Compulsory military service is extremely important for actual democracy.
- Depends, if its compulsory military service but its for a neo-liberal country id rather just shoot my commanding officer at that point lmao
  
  I call it voting by bullet box.
- This isn’t right wing, it just doesn’t make sense in many contexts. Time in the military is time that could be spent in education or other socially beneficial activities
  
  The professional army is a cancer and the power to inflict organized violence should be spread out as evenly as possible. Also the military should allocate some of its time for infrastructure work and maybe other community services like DPRK does.
- That is, if the military isn't a shit show for anything but arms training and physical conditioning

Based on all the discourse recently, my position that AI and LLMs should be outlawed.
I am an unapologetic Butlerian Jihadist
- I understand the sentiment in your view, but I politely implore you to think of all the people and scientific advancement that A.I. is already helping.
  There have been numerous cases of researchers using A.I., and the A.I. discovers numerous treatments for many types of diseases/illnesses, like types of cancer.
  Or the A.I. come sup with new types of steel and building materials, that actually work.
  
  I have a background in virtual screening software, where we just brute forced every compound that was commercially viable to produce (ZINC database) to see if it would bind to a cell receptor.
  Having a new way to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks does not impress me.
- Not sure if I'd go so far as "outlawed" (not really sure how that would be accomplished, at least in our current society), but I otherwise agree, and the discourse about the topic on this site has been genuinely upsetting the hell out of me lately, particularly because of much it truly is downplaying/denying the very real harm it's causing, with some of it honestly coming across as cheering on said harm
  So many of my friends and loved ones are artists too, so it's particularly personal for me

Idk if it's most but "Richmond is a hard road to travel" is a good tune.
It's a Confederate song about how the Union struggled to fight the slaver states, in the first half of the Civil War.

For me, it's stuff that I consciously realize is wrong but unconsciously and irrationally still believe in to some extent.
I still believe in personal responsibility bootstrapping to an unreasonable degree. For example, I see obesity and drug use as personal moral failings that are wholly on the individual, and only the individual, to rectify -- for myself anyway. I don't wield it as a cudgel against others at least. Come to think of it, I think I mostly believe in this solely so I can be hard on myself.
I also for some reason vacillate between reactionary Dawkins style anti-theism (extreme to the point where I'm convinced I'd crucify Jesus again if I ever met him) and being convinced that religiosity and spirituality are prerequisites to being a good person and that my inability to convince myself that god is real means I'm an ontologically evil subhuman.
Also also I find it hard to resist my hard-wired programming to be a knee-jerk western chauvinist. A lot of my "unlimited genocide on the first world" style posting is partly to counteract this tendency within me with an opposite extreme. I guess growing up during the war on terror and never coming across opinions like "maybe all those people our government is bombing are human beings actually" until I'm an adult will do that to a person.
- I still believe in personal responsibility bootstrapping to an unreasonable degree.
  Same, and that's coming from someone who has been in the gutter himself. But I think that me getting out of it on my own causes thoughts like that because I also realize that systemic oppression and liberalism and whatnot play a huge part in keeping people down, so much so that bootstrapping alone isn't helping that.
  I managed to get out of my shit due to 1) a lot of discipline and character and 2) let's not kid myself, privilege. And I see so many people stuck in the shit at my job and I think to myself: man, if only you'd do this or that and things might improve. But that's arrogant on my behalf, really. Like I know it all.

I'm somewhat of an anti-natalist. I don't think it's necessarily smart to have children, only if you really want to but even then not too many.
I think there are too many rules when it comes to things like alcohol and cigarettes because I think it is the responsibility of the person itself and not the government. But fuck cigarette and alcohol advertising though
Lastly I don't like it when people are too affectionate in public and think they should keep it to themselves
- 100% on that last point LMAO, not the rest though
  
  OK let's meet halfway, state sponsored translucent kissing booth?!
- Agreed besides for the last point. I don't mind holding hands and kisses on benches. I can see your point if you mean making out or further intimacy.
  Every person I know with a child does not regret having them. However, from an outside perspective, every person I know with a child has had to eat some form of major shit because of the fact they had a responsibility for that child. You are easier to control with a child. That is a simple fact.
  Either or not that is worth having a child in this current system is up to you and I don't think anyone should be limited from having a child.

maybe that being a communist doesn't require to be a militant atheist. Atheism is a method for some people to avoid reactionary traps that usually come with religion
- Out party consists of many religions and (so far) no problem has occurred. Not between the Muslims and the Christians, or even Muslims and LGBTQ+ community like so many libs like to go on about. Nothing. It can absolutely work when working towards socialism.
- To be a communist is to be a materialist. You cannot separate the two of them
- I agree, I think a materialist perspective in the realm of political thought is key, but as for people’s personal lives they can believe what they wish about the nature of the universe outside of that. So long as the org is secular and people are applying a materialist philosophy in their analysis of the natural world here then it’s completely compatible
- It doesn't necessarily require it, sure. But people are frequently presented with issues which have a materialist solution that conflicts with directly with their religious idealism. It happens all the time and when that's combined with the threat of eternal punishment for doing the "wrong" thing, the idealism usually wins to the detriment of everyone.

While I strongly believe in rehabilitation, I think that convicted pedophiles/rapists should be put down. I'm not sure if I want would it to be the case for every single one, but it should be on the table.
I think that everyone should have the right to own a gun for self-defense purposes. At least, ideally.
I guess in a vacuum, I can understand that proper documentation could be required in order to vote. But only in a socialist society, and only when the state guarantees everyone can access their own documents freely and like candy.
- How do you handle false convictions? They are obviously very rare but doesn’t it seem like executions should be avoided considering that they do in fact occur.

Definitely not my most rightwing view, but my most rightwing conscious position is that comrades should join and build up whatever organisations they can, even if they are right-deviationists or contain reactionary elements, and fight over those inside the organisations. This includes parties with settler, LGBT-phobic, misogynous among other deviations.
I also have another view that may be seen as rightwing here (and is definitely controversial) that settler-colonialism is not the principal contradiction in current day USA, North America, or most of the rest of the Americas. It's first between the international bourgeoisie (with home base in the US) and the international proletariat, then between peripheral nations and the imperial core finance, military and cultural sectors, and only after that it's between oppressed minorities (be they native or "imported") and the national state repression force. Some day I'll take the time for this struggle session.

Rothbard has awesome smile

I think the government should have a balanced budget.

I do not believe any serious future society will allow completely anonymous internet for its users. There's just too much harm that comes from being able to say and do whatever without your person being associated with it.