u/Medium_Fig_3764

Right as a hard ass liberal (not socialist but distributist) as I present myself to be I can’t help but feel more and more uncomfortable at celebrations of anyone’s deaths.

Take Ann Widdecombe for example. Never agreed with her opinions. Absolute shit and terrible views. Go fuck yourself. However I immediately felt very upset after reading the news of her death cuz after all, the old lady was hammered to death with 21 strikes which is an extremely unjustified act of aggression. RIP.

Then I turn to some (hmm guys I wonder why I said ‘some’ instead of simply ‘all’. OH RIGHT ITS BECAUSE SOME ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TAKE THIS TOO PERSONALLY) of my fellow leftist as a liberal or heck even just those who don’t like reform uk or her personally regardless of your political position and all I see are jubilant celebrations.

I’m gonna be very honest at that moment I began to question my own opinions and views and whether I’m betraying my own morals and beliefs by not celebrating with them but I just can’t bring myself to be happy.

Again this is probably just a personal thing but IMO i think the world would be ideal if we perhaps value someone dead FIRST as someone who had once at least existed, lived and walked on Earth. Then consider the rest.

P.S. I also don’t believe in the ‘world would be a better place without them’ phrase

Not really relevant to Sinophobia but I’m just curious

India claims it’s a betrayal by China since they were indeed promoting and have support for Beijing and they were not expecting a direct offensive from China.

While China claims that India technically betrayed them since despite supporting Beijing India also advocated for a free Tibet (also sheltering Dalai Lama) and was being hostile across the borders.

I don’t who the hell to trust since I don’t want to listen to either western or Chinese propaganda

Let’s say if China and Russia one day suddenly went to war with each other, would all the major western powers just completely ignore the conflict and let them fight it out so that they are weakened without needing to lift a finger and only meagrely attempt some sort of peace talks between the two or would they actually somehow send aid to both or one side?

Same goes for if NATO and the US suddenly went to war. What would the eastern power do?

For context I don’t necessarily consider myself a narcissist guy (well I hope I’m not…). Everyone around me thinks I’m a bit eccentric but overall generous and funny. No one has much negative opinions.

However I dunno why every time in pieces of literature or media when I see characters get humbled idk why I feel kinda bad. Most notable example is Brian in Family Guy cuz everyone knows how he was a sarcastic and witty voice of reason in earlier seasons but now for some reason they decide to kill off the character by making him narcissistic, sexist and literally racist which made everyone hates him (kinda stupid development of you ask me) which also made fans very happy when Quagmire humbles him.

I mean I get the good intentions but I feel like in reality others won’t take it the right way. Getting humbled is supposed to make you know your place and not be arrogant but instead I feel like people would just use this as a chance to basically have a laugh at the humbled person to satisfy and fuel their schadenfreude.

Say what you want cuz I kinda think I’m overthinking this but yeah

Long story short I used to like socialism… well I say ‘like’ but only just a bit cuz I only liked the idea of the so called ‘equality’ since apart from being slightly leftist I’m mostly simply liberal in terms of more progressive societal views, which feeds into my principles of always be empathetic and understanding.

However the more I read about revolutionary history, both from western sources AND sources from the revolution’s side (don’t worry i won’t for any propaganda) the more I felt uneasy.

Revolutions are always violent and messy, no debate about that, otherwise how would it achieve its goal. But I feel like that’s exactly the problem when it clashes with my personal views. The concept of a revolution HAS to involve a violent mass murder of all those who are responsible, slightly associated or simply just a symbol of the old world. Take Romanovs for example, the main culprit for starvation and suffering was obviously the incompetent Nicholas II, yet a few drunk Bolsheviks soldiers decide to even after abdicating the throne, to kill off not just Nicholas but his entire family, which includes the death of two underage children, the small haemophilic Alexei Romanov (13) and the older Anastasia (who may I add had to be stabbed and shot more times, same with Alexei, to be killed). Now my insight into their logic would probably stop just at Nicholas, cuz after all he was still pretty much responsible for Russia’s shithole situation. However I heavily disagree and is horrified at the idea that the entire lineage has to be killed whether they even understand the concept of taking from the poor or not simply because of the ‘blood’, the ‘association’ and what it ‘represented’, and despite not even in charge of the entire country and probably not seeing the cruel outside world due to their sheltered lives.

Now some extreme communist leftists here may argue that my empathy is hypocritical since it does not extend to the millions of lives of the poor children starved to death and to that utilitarian argument I respond with this:

Yes, obviously I know the deaths of peasants and feel terrible. But in my eyes, I’m sorry to tell you this but in my eyes are lives are equal whether great or small. By seeing a child merely as a symbol of the older world, we have collectively failed to see the human within. The famous philosopher Kant once famously said ‘do not treat humans merely as means’ (but then I would proceed to entirely disagree with Kant on the idea of retribution and moral duty like a life for a life since annoyingly to some extreme leftists and conservatives I don’t particularly like the death penalty either).

I don’t know how you will view me after reading all this but just know I’m probably more idealistic than most people on both side of the political spectrum. You can summarise my loyalty as ‘if there is a child killed simply for the symbol and what it would potentially be, I switch sides’.

There are obvious flaws to the capitalist system; no one disagrees. Hence why we need reforms and not necessarily revolutions. Socialism and communism fail simply because it cannot achieve the goals that it set out to create; there will always be someone or heck even something that will control the centralised economy and have more rights over everyone (and hence why I’m also a distributism supporter cuz it perfectly balances both by mainly supporting small businesses, not big corporations nor letting people control your possession)

So after all this… am I now leaning less and less left simply because I feel bad murdering kids even though it might achieve the goal I initially wanted?

P.S. as Charlie Kirk (never agreed with him but this made some sense) said there is a distinct difference between leftist and liberal. I just wanna stay liberal and solely be progressive in societal views about more openness of LGBT community, more on gender equality and race etc while staying away from more socialist ideas.

AND NO I WILL NEVER BECOME ENTIRELY RIGHT LEANING NOR BECOME A MAGA SO PLEASE CAN WOKE COMMENTERS DONT PUT WORD IN MY MOUTH AND START SCREAMING IM A TRUMP AND RAPIST SUPPORTER

I started off as a Free Iran person long before the Oct 7 event and as soon as IDF and Hamas started doing horrible shit I was like ‘f*** naw. Free Palestine from Israel’s genocide and Hamas. Someone please send foreign aid instead of Hamas to help Palestine’.

But then Khominei’s death happened and America and Israel started bombarding Iran. I initially resented the fact the freeing act is done by US and Israel instead of some country that is less controversial and hated but I grow to realise it can’t be changed and just stayed silent and quietly prayed for Iran.

Personally I just think it’s hypocritical to support a free Palestine but not Iran and vice versa. Some extreme leftists that support Palestine don’t support a free Iran solely because the idea of the Shah returning horrifies their anti-monarchist views instead of actually caring for the oppressed people. On the other hand certain MAGAs just says ‘GO DADDY TRUMP AND NETANYAHU’ on whatever America or Israel do

For context even though I like to remain politically neutral I still lean strongly towards Palestine and strongly condemn actions done by Israel.

However, what confuses me the most is the fact that other fellow Palestine supporters seem to not like me when I also say ‘free Iran’. I mean c’mon the Iranians are literally suffering for decades due to the horrible regime just like Palestinians experienced with Hamas and Israel (by the way I would strongly recommend people to separate Palestinian civilians and Hamas altogether). While the things Trump and Netanyahu have done are VERY questionable and unethical, I do think freeing Iran is a good thing (objectively), though I am annoyed that it was the US and Israel who has supposedly done it using some extreme measures, like for example bombing schools unnecessarily. However this does show that none of the countries care about the welfare of the Iranian people that somehow the US and Israel has got there before the actually morally good countries.

And to those antisemites out there who can’t seem to understand the difference between normal Jewish civilians and Zionists and using Israel’s actions to justify hate towards Jews in society and online, please stop saying ‘+271k’ every time I suggest ‘free Iran’

Introduction (THIS POST IS VERY LONG):

Before I start, since I’m politically centrist (economically right leaning, socially left so liberals please don’t start calling me a camouflaged conservative), I want to reiterate that I do appreciate the initial idea and motivation behind revolutions like the French Revolution, and that was great.

However, revolutions are never peaceful, hence why I stated the ‘initial’ idea of it was good. While the French Revolution did achieve freedom for future generations and secure the foundation for a democracy, the bloodied path it took is a horrific one.

As much as I hate the ridiculous billionaires around the world, I do, however feel sympathetic for individuals killed in the French Revolution like princess de lamballe, who despite being called a princess isn’t a monarch due to the weird title system of her Savoy branch house and just your regular aristocrat back in the day. However what made her stood out is her extensive charity work carried out to the poor when she was alive in great comparison to the other ignorant aristocrats albeit insignificant, but still shows that she is, at least, different and more sympathetic than others to the poor.

She initially should’ve avoided the revolution completely as she was abroad, but due to her unwavering loyalty for Antoinette she came back knowingly into danger, which was then followed by her death, and in my opinion, one of the most unjust, cruel and undignified death in the entire French Revolution timeline. Details I won’t state in great detail how. sources state that she was stabbed by a large crowd of men and her head was sawed off and put on a pike in order to present to the already imprisoned Antoinette to kiss, instead of the quick guillotine that everyone else got. (RIP)

I have split arguments against into two parts, one for the left and one for the right.

Arguments against the ‘left’ defending mob violence in revolutions or riots:

I have seen many extreme leftists and communists defend this act as necessary, because this is the no.1 issue with revolutions. Once the crowd goes insane in vengeance and eyes of violence they won’t stop. They will forget the good and the bad altogether and thus voila, perfect recipe for many innocent or at least ‘sympathetic’ aristocrats killed.

A personal thing also. I’m TIRED of people using ‘killing innocent because necessity’. One clear example is the murder of Romanov family. While I can see why Nicholas’ killing is justified I’ve completely failed to see the justification in the killing of Alexei and Anastasia (12 and 17 respectively). ‘But they will become future rulers for pro-monarchy supporters’ You DO NOT know that 100%. I do not care what circumstances it is. Children’s lives are intrinsically important and valuable and you cannot use anyone purely as means.

As I have said, this is my argument for the left. Would you still know how to differentiate between the good and the bad in the so called ‘all bad’ group or will you treat the entire group as means while ignoring innocence?

Arguments against the right defending mob violence in riots and revolutions:

Let me start by asking those who participated in the Belfast riots in this June 2026. Are those families houses that you burnt and people displaced even related to the Sudanese guy who tried to behead a man?

I agree. Immigration without regulation is terrible. However, we cannot use that to fuel pure racism just because the government is terrible at handling situations like immigration problems. Everyone (except the politicians) knows the natives struggle with identity when they see thousands of unknown faces flooding their homeland and we understand your frustration. But again, there is no justification for pure mob violence, literally targeting and burning immigrants houses and businesses like you’re reenacting the medieval pogroms and the literal Kristallnacht except with literal fire instead of stones.

Conclusion:

One thing I notice that is a common reoccurrence in both left and right is that the majority will dominate everything, disregarding morals, individuals and sometimes lives altogether.

The right, using the facade of a so called ‘I’m becoming a minority in my homeland’ is manipulating ethnic minorities into forced submission to white supremacy.

The left, using the facade of a so called ‘it is necessary even if they are innocent’, the most unhinged of the unhinged utilitarian arguments, to cover up messy deeds in the so called liberation process and freedom.

However, this is not me trying to discourage everyone from taking sides. The right has its own good like how they prioritise families and traditions which I can respect, while the left deeply cares about personal autonomy and identity and freedom for the rigid system of the last.

Reformation, even though admittedly less efficient than revolutions, enables us to a more peaceful pathway to change, without bloodshed and unnecessary suffering.

This post serves as a reminder that anything, without a degree of moderation, can be detrimental to the overall belief and goal of a party, even as much as they express how much they love XXXXX.

Any opinions and counter arguments please comment below.

The viral Harvard speech about understanding and empathy

Personally as someone who sometimes disagrees with both conservatives and liberals opinions since I’ve grown to realise I’m operating on complete different axioms of moral basis from both of these two groups, this speech is the one that genuinely resonated with me the most since it precisely reflects on what my views are on society in general. We have indeed grown collectively to argue and debate more about ‘winning’ than actually intellectually grow when hearing others and that in my opinion is a fundamental flaw in both conservative and liberal thinking

Here’s the transcript. Remember his name - Noah Eckstein:

My life begins with something that could be the start of a joke, and it goes like this. A Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew walk into a bar.

I know historically the setup is a little bit dicey, but this time, this time was a little bit different. This time, the Christian married the Muslim, and they had a daughter. That daughter grew up Christian until she met the Jew, converted to Judaism, married the Jew, and had a son. 22 years later, that son is standing here with all of you, graduating from Harvard University.

I am a proud Jew. I’m also the proud grandson of a Christian, and the proud grandson of a Muslim. But that isn’t a contradiction in any sense of the word, it’s proof of a concept, and that concept is what I want to talk to you all about today, because my family taught me something I think this world could really use right now, which is that the counter to division isn’t necessarily agreement, it’s understanding.

Our world today, all the way from the global stage to right here at Harvard, has been split into two sides. There are two sides to every story, of course, only two sides. Two sides to every conflict, argument, disagreement, good and bad, give and take, right and left, progressive and conservative, capitalist and communist, oppressor and oppressed, rich and poor, U.S. and China, U.S. and Russia, Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, Israel and Iran, U.S. and Iran, U.S. and Israel and Iran. All in binaries. At least, they’re presented to us in terms of binaries.

Here’s the issue. What do you think? What side are you on? Come on, where do you stand? Who do you stand with?

In my family, well, my family wouldn’t exist with that kind of approach. My grandfathers — one, a Pakistani Muslim, who grew up in the middle of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. The other, a Jewish refugee of the Holocaust — met many times over the course of their lives. As you might imagine, they disagreed on a great many things.

And yet, one of the main memories I have of them growing up was seeing them sitting together at a coffee table, discussing everything under the sun. And when they weren’t in close proximity, I remember hearing their voices over the phone, as they called my parents. Always remembering, at the end of each call, to ask about the other. How they were doing, what were they up to?

Of course, there are many differences that they never resolved. But still, they acknowledged each other, they cared for each other, they stayed in contact, and they debated with each other. Their vast disparity in life experience, viewpoints, ideology, faith, and beliefs — a point of contention, yes, but not a point of division.

And yet, somewhere in between their generation and ours, something in the conversation shifted. The debates got louder, the noise got louder, the listening stopped, it got harder. On the news, on your timeline, at the dinner table, people speaking without listening. People arguing, having already decided their own allegiances. People debating not to listen, understand, or to learn, but to win. To humiliate, to be right. And somewhere along the way, the person sitting across the table stopped being a person and became an obstacle.

Now, some would say that there are, in fact, people in this world for whom understanding is neither owed nor even worth the attempt. People whose very irredeemable actions or beliefs place them beyond the reach of dialogue. People who, indeed, have become nothing more than obstacles to the greater good. And maybe that’s true.

Well, my grandfathers survived the atrocities of war and worse. And they knew better than anyone that people can do monstrous things. They also knew the most terrifying fact of all. Which was that those people doing those monstrous things, they were human. Not forgivable, not necessarily redeemable, but human. Terrifyingly so. And it’s precisely because of that human capacity that understanding them mattered. Dialogue still mattered. Not necessarily dialogue in the sense of extending grace or providing a platform, but again, understanding.

Asking, how did they get to this point? How did they reach this conclusion? Why do they believe this? Asking these questions in this context holds a light up to the darkest parts of what it means to be human. And as such, we have to grapple with them.
But such questions, necessary questions, important questions, are not only reserved for the darkest parts of human history. If such questions of understanding — why do they believe this? — if such questions of understanding matter that much at that extreme of humanity, how much more do they matter for the people sitting around you right now?

For that family member at Thanksgiving that you stop bringing certain topics up around. For that person on the internet that says things from a viewpoint that seems kind of unimaginable sometimes. For that student in section that you smiled at once and said, “Interesting point,” and then went back to your dorm and complained about to your roommate.

Or for that one friend that you started to phase out because they said some things once that just didn’t sit quite right with you.

Take about 8 billion of those people, put them together, and you get our world.

Many of us who come to Harvard have dreams of changing the world, of leaving an impact. But you cannot change a world that you refuse to understand, to talk to. You cannot convince someone of something if you do not understand them first.
Peace through understanding can survive conflict, while peace through agreement lasts only as long as everyone keeps agreeing. In most cases, understanding is difficult. Sometimes you have to fight for it. Sometimes you have to fight yourself and your own beliefs first before you can truly achieve it. It takes effort. My grandfathers knew that, but they chose to try anyway.

So, as we all go out into an increasingly troubled and divided world, I want to leave you all with one simple practice. Whenever you meet someone you disagree with, state your case, yes. Stand up for what you believe in, absolutely. But also, ask the other person about their beliefs. Ask them how they got there. Place yourself in their shoes and ask, “Why do I believe this?”

I told you my life begins like a joke. Well, my Muslim grandfather was buried facing Mecca. My Jewish grandfather was buried in accordance with Jewish law. My Christian grandmother was buried with the cross. In a way, the punchline never really came. There was no resolution to the setup. They were all very stubborn, and they held on to their own ideals and traditions until the very end. But still, they respected each other, they chose each other, and at the end of the day, they were proud to be of one family.

Look around you right now. Look at the people around you. The person to your right, the person to your left. You’re sitting now amongst people of every belief and every background. A family that we have built over the years here at Harvard. Do we agree on everything? Ask the section kid. Will we ever agree on everything? Certainly not.
The world beyond these walls has all the same disagreements, the same differences of opinion, the same divisions that we have. But I urge you, see the people in your class for who they are as people. Fight to understand them and their beliefs just as much as you stand up and fight for your own.

And after you walk through the gates of this yard for the first time as Harvard graduates, do the same for the people of our world. Because in a time this complicated and this divided, understanding and a genuine willingness to look a little bit deeper is how those divisions start to heal.

Killing children for the sake of millions…

With everything going on around the world, it for some reason makes me wonder about past events like Romanov murder, or any young, very young children of tyrants in history who paid the price of their parents fault (eg son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette literally mistreated to death before 18 after the revolution)

The general consensus I see is that the majority unfortunately agrees with the sentimentality of killing for the sake of the lives of millions.

Take the Romanovs murder again for example, if only Tsar Nicholas II was murdered and not the rest of the family then I probably wouldn’t even have made this post, given how badly he treated his people and my personal hatred due to me being Chinese and how back in the early 1900s they were one of the empires invading China, but what troubled me is the fact his descendants, ignoring the over 18 ones, but even Alexei Romanov who also seemed to suffer from haemophilia B, making him partially immobile was killed arguably in the worst way during the whole massacre too.

Look I get it. Even though I don’t really like the Bolsheviks and Soviet Union in general, I can see where the ‘oh you’re feeling sorry for the kids now and not the million of starving children that died back then’ argument come from and how the poor back then would justify it, and how the idea of removing the monarchy completely is essentially requiring you to eliminate all quote on quote ‘threats’.

I just feel like this argument shouldn’t be used here as it’s illogical, aside from being also a bit cruel which makes you no better than Nicholas II but we will get on to the empathy factor later.

Tell me in any way how does a 12 year old is responsible for the deaths his incompetent father had caused. Tell me in any way why for some random fuckass reason one man’s fault needs his entire family to pay. wtf is this? Death by revelance? In my opinion here Alexei is as innocent as the millions of starving children, given how he also has haemophilia, which adds to the sympathetic factor. And also wtf? This is also why I don’t get humans because this happens a lot in history where entire bloodlines are eliminated, whether guilty or innocent just because the mob probably got a bit too red-eyed.

Believe it or not I’m not a conservative, in fact I’m extremely liberal even though I don’t like socialism if you go see my other posts. Yet this is what I’m worried the most about my own side (libtards of the liberals), or rather extreme leftists, that this is what might happen in the future. Children will be killed by the already suffering and starving poor just because of ‘relevance’ which will eventually make them look no different to their oppressors, hence also why I’m extremely skeptical of revolutions and champion mild reforms rather than bloodshed and mob violence.

Modern day examples are prominent in this matter as well. The wars on terror where innocent civilians and not just children get killed in the process, only labeled as ‘collateral damage’ (hence why I’m also a pacifist) for the sake of wiping out the terrorists, which in turn somehow created more casualties than intended. The Uyghurs, although some did some extreme riots and acts of terrorism across Xinjiang, instead of only locking the violent ones up my country has decided to COLLATERALLY lock them all up inside concentration camps (hence also why if I show only a bit of sympathy towards Alexei Romanov only on the Romanov murder matter, I would be harassed so much online)

Overall, what I’m trying to get at is the idea of wiping out the so called ‘bad blood’ and do it ‘for the millions’. Unless if you can really sacrifice yourself for the sake of millions at a critical moment and have the courage to do that, I don’t want to hear you talk these utilitarian talks. And besides, it’s not even our lives. Why are you dictating others lives?

So what’s your view? Is this just another senseless 2am rant just because of a minor inconvenience in life or is it not that bad of a view?

Every time you go through works by Mozart, Bach (except the well tempered klavier) etc. most of the time you would notice simple key signatures with like 1 or 2 accidentals are used basically all the time (G major, F major etc).

I wonder what’s the reason other than maybe because everyone knows writing in keys like E flat minor is a bit complicated?

As a Libra male with a Virgo moon and Virgo in the seventh house, I have a (unhealthy) thing for Virgo women. Contrary to stereotypical beliefs, I find them to be really nice to hang out with.

But it has just been turned into my biggest nightmare.

I dated a Virgo f for like literally three weeks (let that sink in). We thought we could work out but turns out our personalities are polar opposites, and despite the saying ‘opposite attracts’, there is a limit to how big the difference is and when can someone actually stop tolerating it. So, in typical heartbreaker Libra M fashion, I ended it.

I said we could still be friends since she is really hurt by the breakup, but every time we talk she keeps bringing up our relationship and how we should get back together even though I don’t want to. We talk on snap but I blocked her after being sick with her endless talk about getting back together, which then caused her to start buggering my other friend for my number, and since my other friend is a Scorpio, he got very protective and loyal and said to her ‘no I won’t give you his numbers since you’re just invading his privacy. Stop asking for it’ (thank you).

She is still hanging out with our friend group cuz in honesty we all feel pretty sympathetic for her (including myself) since she has no other friends and everyone finds her to be weird. However, when I approached my friends who were chatting with another girl one day, she directly pulled me to the side afterwards and asked ‘why are you trying to make conversation with my op’.

(For context: my ex considers that girl (Pisces) to be her op since from her perspective that girl has been always rude to her even though she clearly isn’t, which means that girl doesn’t really care and consider my ex to be her op as well since she just takes my ex as a weird and sometimes annoying introvert.)

There are so many other dumb things that my ex has said and done to me in front of everyone that I won’t go into the details of.

I’m just gonna stay single for a while…