Aliens.

Over acceptance under the guise of inclusion under penalty of being labeled intolerant; not sure what it would be called though

Authoritarian might be the word you’re looking for.

LGBTWTFBBQism.

Insanity.

Political movements are all equally dead. When you've got useds and consumer hooked up to the system and the wealth it provides to them, you don't need no parties. This is why mass organisations went the way of the dodo as soon as my country of birth (Italy) reached decent living standards.

I would predict that "temporary" and above all fixable issues such as unrestricted immigration will very well bring the hard right to power. The left self-destroyed itself by selling out to tycoons and pandering to every minority imaginable instead of caring for whatever it was supposed to care for - workers and their families.

yeah...being nice to each other and tolerant of diversity. crazy eh? but first we're gonna have to deal with some selfish choosers who think nonconsensual treatment is fine, probably because they like the energy deltas, regardless of the costs to themselves in this hall of mirrors.

Diversity: the state of being diverse; variety. a range of different things.

If everyone submits to a singular premise diversity ceases to exist. Diverse cultures and nations have existed throughout time.

yes it's paradoxical if you limit yourself to finite language. but really it's just the golden rule.

You have an infinite language?

Like any word can mean anything?

Dude is metatron.

Elaborate with infinite language then.

Encouraging diversity [utilizing the essence of meaning] would require protecting, encouraging and respecting difference of opinion and biology.

In the socially perceived version that would likely be interpreted as bigoted.

Elaborate with infinite language then.

well that's just it isn't it. some models are inherently broken linguistically and can't ever reflect the underlying intention. the golden rule is a pretty good, terse summary of the intention of my comment.

Encouraging diversity [utilizing the essence of meaning] would require protecting, encouraging and respecting difference of opinion and biology.

yes

In the socially perceived version that would likely be interpreted as bigoted.

no. depends on how you implement it. when you fract light thru a prism there is still order, yes?

Its curious you cite the golden rule, but in observable history it has very limited practicality at the state level. War becomes very problematic because now you've agreed (logically) that all wars are justifiable against your nation state so long as its engaged in war.

It's much better applied to individuals. Individuals can respect each others diversity without legislating it into an authoritative system, by which de facto eliminates the ability to express said diversity.

in observable history we have bad design at the gov level. that's pretty much it. there are lots of ways to spectrumize choice so that both individual freedoms and tendencies can coexist with order. we just haven't done that. we're happy to let a few people boss us around instead of choosing another design pattern.

"Every government has failed but our idea is going to work". It's ignoring history and human nature. Once you figure out both it becomes much clearer.

Deal with the problems at hand before creating new ones.

"Diversity" in the current environment means allowing mass immigration from certain cultures and not getting in the way of them implanting their own culture into your country, while limiting yours so as to not offend them.

yeah well that's just a bad design. we have lots of bad design around. some things are incompatible with each other and it's better to recognize that than to force them to mix.

Whatever is most convenient to the international oligarchy that currently controls all things. Maybe with some Western theocratic traditionalism thrown in.

Somebody said ideologies are dead in here and I mostly agree, we're in an era where the already powerful and already rich will back anything that allows them to further consolidate their control. Whether that's Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Fascist, Communist, Theocratic...does not matter. In some ways it never really has.

Hell no, they get the money from that oligarchy. But I like to think they're not a cohesive bloc, there must be factions with different goals and different

One wants to exercise control by exporting democracy. The other wants to spread Islam.

Hopefully one that is focused on transparency in government.

I’ve watched Idiocracy twice, making me a expert in future political movements.

The pirate party will rise to dominance until everyone is tricked into believing the Jedis.

Should be decentralized Humanism 2.0 / Universal Basic Respekt / Post Ideologic Democracy. That's just me.

Basic income experiments might work out and lead to a shift to the left in some European countries. The US will continue to move to the right for a few more years.

With ever increasing population, dwindling resources, automation taking over jobs, and an ever increasing social status gap, I'd say genocide.

National Socialism or Fascism hopefully. Only way to save Europe or at least buy it time, sadly I can't see it happening.

Hopefully none, but if it's in the cards, maybe the world will be run through technocracy as a a form of idelology?