I'm curious where I stand these days on the political spectrum. I identify as a radical centrist, giving both sides their due and chosing neither (most of the time). But I suppose our views are relative to one another, so my moderate thoughts might seem more leftist or conservative, depending on the populace I'm a part of. Anyways, you be the judge, based on my answers to each question.

A video version of this podcast is available on my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/pew-research-98011067

Martin Luther King dreamed that people would one day be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. How are we doing with that?

It is the moral impulse of many that Palestine is an oppressed victim, exploited by a colonizer apartheid Israel. History doesn't explain this, nor do the religious and cultural differences between Israel and Palestine.

It is more just and virtuous to advance society through education, medicine and technology, to recognize the human rights and dignities of women, children and gays, to attract tourism of all sorts, and to defend an existing homeland... than to wage constant war against your neighbors, to pursue above all else their destruction, to fight for the spread of your religious zealotry, to insist on the utmost word of one's god, to use humans as shields, to continually advocate for war while also crying victimhood.

Here is my reasoning for supporting Isreal.

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been going through quite an interesting set of controversies lately, surrounding their LGBTQ Pride Night in June. It's been pretty silly to watch. And it makes me wonder: why are things that are meant to be inclusive so often actually divisive? Is it wrong to focus on celebrating truly universal things? Given that people's interests and experiences vary so wildly in a pluralist society, what's the proper amount of compromise?

A New Yorker died on the subway recently. He was mentally unwell, and the city hadn't done anything productive to deal with his situation, which was ultimately decided in a complicated and controversial form of vigilante justice. This is a teaching opportunity for New York and our society - it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Hopefully radical politics don't interfere with what can certainly be a rational and popular solution: mandatory institutionalization.

I was banned from several subreddits recently, for merely commenting in a totally separate community. Maybe you think it's a good thing, that certain voices be silenced in order to protect others from dangerous ideas, or something like that. But it must be recognized: an insidious trend is growing - people are power-tripping, possessed by idiology, and turning everything political. Conversations are getting harder, people more radical, and spaces less tolerant. I shouldn't be banned from participating in a photo community merely for having certain skepticism about lockdowns. That doesn't make sense. And dare I say it: it's something straight out of 1984 and Big Brother - all activity is being monitored and screened for wrongthink. I hate to sound paranoid, and I really don't care too much, but even if you're on the side of power, why would you want to alienate your "enemies" to this degree? Nothing good comes from it.

Climate change is a real thing, and I'm not going to say that I don't care about it. But I will say that I don't worry about it to the extent that it feels like we're asked to. I don't see it as the biggest crisis of our time, and in fact, I think that mindset can be quite dangerous. I'm more just confused why we don't appreciate our ability to master our environment, and aim to harmonize with the planet, instead of remorsefully deify it. I don't relate to the worship of this earth goddess concept - nature is amazing, but it's also terrifying. Our ability to control and coexist with it should be commended and encouraged, not demonized and shamed. And indeed, it is the poorest of humans who pay the price for our seemingly virtuous environmentalism. How arrogant are we to shill these sorts of ideas to the less fortunate?

A new study shows that mask mandates were essentially ineffective. The lab-leak hypothosis is being strongly favored by a broad consensus. The impact of the actual corona virus seems less and less fatal, while draconian lockdown measures are proving worse and worse for individuals and society as a whole. And yet, throughout the havoc of the pandemic, we were told to "trust the science", as if science were some sort of authoritative monolith, not to be questioned. Ironically, that's the very opposite of what science teaches us to do. And in fact, there were plenty of scientists who doubted Faucci's policies, but who were effectively silenced by a mainstream narrative. What the hell happened?

I think of it like this: a fight, or debate or whatever, is when two parties have conflicting goals, and each advocates for their side. A misunderstanding is when two parties have compatible or shared goals, but through advocacy of them, somehow conflict anyway. I really dislike misunderstandings.

What counts as violence? Certainly a mass shooting, but how about being bumped on the subway? How do we balance our sensitivities with the brutal facts about the world? Can we regulate away everything that offends us? Is it really possible to live in a safe world? I think not. And I wonder what the point even is to the whole gun control debate. The real issue to be dealing with, in my opinion, is mental health care and support. I'd rather work towards a more compassionate system for derranged people than to pretend than anything substantive can be done about gun culture (which, by and large, is harmless).