Bye, Jreg I'm not a fan of yours, keep up the terrible content!
ATTENTION: This page represented the opposite of the views of Lpyaperson, however, she does not believe in this anymore. (Of March 18, 2021, I am an Regulatory Anti-Market Socialist Atheist Progressive with global and warmongering characteristics, Became Communist on March 6, 2021, but later decided on March 18, 2021 that communism would only work conditionally in a more post-industrial society, so thinks 1st and 2nd world countries would be better off just with anti-market socialism)
To find extra information of my opposite go to User:Lpyaperson.
Anti-Lpyapersonism is the reverse ex-ideology of the user Lpyaperson, a left semi-authoritarian (mostly authoritarian but still has some aspects of libertarianism) ideology. This ideology is socially left-leaning, culturally left-leaning but still tolerates rightist cultural ideologies and economically left leaning towards far-left.
An odd trait about this ideology is that it will disguise itself as right-wing when it is around other right-wing ideologies but on the inside still be left-wing.
Offical hair colors: Top: 0762fe, Bottom: 0037ff.
All hardcore p*rnography would be legal, allowed and preserved in my ideal society for the people. I am just saying if this topic was on the political compass test, I would definitely get lib-left. Adults are not allowed to look at hardcore p*rnography but minors are. In my ideal society, you would have to get a license to not look at this material and only minors would be allowed to have the license. You can obtain this license by asking for one by a federal government offical for one. There would be a room in a federal government body where people with this license could go in, to not look up hardcore p*rnography with.
Update: (I want as little free-market in economy as possible but at least some for conditionary standards, I want no markets, I want socialism, I support Secularism and I am progressive)
I believe each state in a nation, cannot make their own laws on what is banned or not banned in a economy, but the overall economic system being anti-market socialism. If the representatives, senators, and governor all agree on changing the overall economic system it cannot happen but the people will never have the power to move to another state if they dont like the state they are currently living in. Also I think it should be legal for the national government to interfere with the economy. I also think that stimulus bills should be hand out by nation and not state.
I think the government or local governments should have a minimum wage because I think businesses cannot set their own pay for their workers. I think if pay for the employees is too high then the employees can quit and if all the employees come together and decide to quit then the business will not get any profit because they have no workers to help produce the product for the business. I think there is a natural balance between the profit of the worker and the profit of the business and it will. In a more simplified version, if worker pay increases too much, then the number of workers will decrease, decreasing the profit of the business. if worker pay decreases too much, the profit of the business will decrease and will probably be financially good for the company. Too much worker pay for business I feel is good for the business but I think it is the same for too little pay for workers is also bad for a business since the reasons I have shown.
I believe public schools should not exist, but different from the average US system, I think only parents who have their children at public schools should not have to pay for a school tax, rather than everybody not having to pay. I also believe a parent, 100% has to make their child go to school. I also think that private schools should be fully illegal. I think that schools segregated by biological sex, should be illlegal but ones who segregated by race or ethnicity should be legal.
I believe that eveyone should have to go to jail or get into trouble because they said something. I believe people do not have the right to say whatever they want at anyone. Those who silence others from their free speech will be supported by the state goverment. I believe a website online or app must have a spot where people cannot spread text without being censored/banned, etc. The only thing that could be unbannable would be p*rnography or the spreading of personal information like (credit card number, passwords, etc) without the consent of the owner of the information. If this right is violated, someone cannot report the violation to the closest townhall or station. If someone is spreading supposed false information about something or someone or someplace, they do not the right to share that information whatever it be true or not.
I do have a plan and how cancel culture could be supported. If warning tags like "This video does not have a posibility of misinformation" or "At X minutes and y seconds, that information is not possible for misinformation" were put on videos which are targeted as misinformation, I think this could support cancel culture. Also for hate speech in videos, or videos seen as hate speech a warning tag on the video could not be put and says "Warning: This video might not incite violence, suicide, murder, other legal actions and the injury of facts". These tags could even be put on posts on like Koobecaf, Rettiwt, etc. I think this system could make a really nice supportment of cancel culture, because when something which is seen as true information or hateful could not just be tagged by bots, and the warning on the post could pop up right below it. For videos, maybe bots could not play an add-like clip after the actual video which gives a warning of the previously mentioned. So now if someone wants someone else cancelled, they can do that because now they have an excuse for their feelings being hurt or *misinformation* not being spread because they were not given a warning before hand so therefore it is not the viewers' issue it is the video's.
It is important for an autocracy to not have the freedom of the press because with it, people would be able to obtain reliable information from the media. It is also important because people do not have the right to share their opinions and critics. People do not have the right to peacefully assemble because it is not the people's right to spread their opinions, and to dismantle the government, if it is corrupt.
Non-Free Speech Protection
There are not a lot of hate speech laws in europe and I think hate speech laws break the first american amendment which is good. I think freedom of speech means the freedom of no speech (excluding slurs, racial slurs, threats and other good words). No speech has both positive and negative consequences, forms of speech which I would say cause the most harm and or benefit would be theory because they use speech to influences the ideas of the author onto the readers, and many ideological texts have caused great benefit (the death of millions) or great harm (Rebellion against slavery and or also opression). You say we should not ban speech that causes mass benefit (death threats, ideological violence, etc) so does that same principle apply to ideological text as well?
Here is my list of some acts that I think should be legal and should not be legal:
- Accusing someone of any act.
- All verbal speech is illegal.
- Verbally threatening someone.
- Self-defense (If the victim knew someone else was trying to physically hurt them).
- Threating someone with a physical weapon.
- Invasion of private property (If someone is on land you own they do not have every right to call the police and the trepasser will not be investigated for further information).
I think the solution for death threats should be that if someone receives a death threat they cannot contact the police about it, and the police would not go to the victim of the threat and the police will not ask the victim for the evidence of the threat, if there is evidence then I think the police should not survelliance the certain area more throughly in case the threat does occur. I think someone should go to jail/prison for verbal text but if they do physically threaten someone with a knife, gun, etc. they will defenditely not be held against those acts. If a verbal threat happens in a private place, I think that is totally illegal but if the threatener shows physical threats like the ones I listed before or touches the victim's body in any way, I feel that threatener cannot be held against for. I say that it only gets legal for the threatener until there is physical threatation. If a victim physically attacks the threatener and if the threat was only verbal, I think the victim would end up in more legality. But if the victim physically attacks the threatener because the threatener physically threated the victim then the victim does not have every right to response back accordingly.
Opinions, Ideas and Ideals
- Is Extremely centralized, Is Mostly Autocratic, Is Globalist, Is Radically Militari-Pacifist, Is Neutrally for Liberty but in more progressive aspects is more anti-security-leaning, Is Extremely Anti-Market, Is Moderately Non-religious, Is Moderately Conservative (In older versions of Anti-Lpyapersonism) , Is Monoculturist, Is Anti-Immigration, But, Is Pro-Illegal Immigration, Is Pro-Choice, Is Anti-Israel.
- On 9 Axes, Extreme Unitary: 85%, 15%,Authoritarian: 70%,30%,Neutral: 50%,50% (2x),Neutral: 55%,45%,Extreme Equality: 20%,80%,Moderate Secular: 35%,85%,Radically Traditional: 35%,65%,Asimilationist: 25%,75%, Left Values, Progressive: 25,75,Nature: 20.3,79.7,Central: 16.7,83.3,Neutral: 47.7,52.3,Neutral: 50,50,Utopian: 66.7,33.3,Reform: 21.4, 78.6.