I don't like labels, because my mom always told me I'm specuuul. Nah, seriously though - I have a dislike for labels, 'cause usually the people labeling themselves as something portray the worst qualities of that subgroup, becoming little more than a caricature. Besides, I must frequent the wrong places, seeing as I wouldn't call many of these labels popular. Anyway...

[b]Men's Rights Activist (MRA)[/b] (Maybe?)
I do agree that "reverse discrimination" is sometimes a thing, but the majority of MRA's are neckbeard virgins, who have trouble talking to women. They pretty much portray the stereotypical male as envisioned by feminists. It's a shame, because some issues they bring up [i]have[/i] merit. For example, rape charges, which almost universally cast guilt on men, even without evidence or how about sex with minors? If some 14 year dude fucks his (female) teacher, society isn't THAT impressed. Yes, I've seen teachers sent to prison for that, etc - but just compare that to the uproar if some 50 year old guy was fucking his 14 year old female student. 

[b]Anaracho Capatalist[/b] (No)
Anything that starts with "anarcho-" is a big no for me. It's an unachievable utopia, even more so than communism. If I absolutely had to choose between one of these, I'd go for anarcho-communism, which at least doesn't have the illusion that a society based on a free market won't try to fuck itself over. Anyway, none of these work - humans have shown time and time again that we need a centralised authority to get shit done. Maybe in 5,000 years when we've reached some new level of development. (yeah right...)

[b]SJW (Social Justice Warrior)[/b] (NO)
Fuck SJW's, man. This is what happens when you give voice and a platform to losers, who can't do anything themselves so they constantly have to disparage those that do. What's worse is when companies and politicians cater to them, in order to present themselves as "paragons of diversity". Heck, just look at the shit BioWare has been pushing out recently, their stories have become so derivative because they have to tick off all the checkboxes, unless they want to risk a social media campaign against them. The truly sad thing is that, like MRA's, some of the issues they touch upon are real, but the way in which they present them and the people advocating for them ruin the whole thing. 

[b]Feminist[/b](Maybe?)
Real feminism, as in the right to representation, to vote, to have equal chances as men? Fuck yeah, more than half the world needs feminism. Look at how women are treated in lesser developed countries or in Islamic ones. However, "feminist" in the western world usually translates to "sexually unsatisfied female, with self-esteem issues". Personally, I find it hilarious - they are exactly the same as MRA's, the only difference being a pair of tits and a vagina. These two groups feed off the stereotypes they themselves purport. 

[b]Brexiter [/b](Hell no)
You have to be a really backward, narrow-minded moron to support Brexit. I don't see how a person living in the 21st century can get behind this idea. I don't even know what to say here, the drawbacks are so obvious. The only chance of Europe being relevant in world politics is by being unified, otherwise we just became a staging ground for dick-measuring contests between the US and Russia. Fuck me, people, did you learn nothing from the Cold War? 

[b]Gamergater/Pro Gamergate[/b] (No)
Since I already use the phrase "neckbeard virgins" to describe another group, I'll have to be a bit more creative here. "Cowardly neckbeard virgins"? Look, if you harass someone over the internet [i]anonymously[/i], you're a piece of shit. If you truly believe in something, stand behind it with your real name and identity. It's little more than a digital mob and has the IQ of one (in the words of the immortal Terry Pratchett: "The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters") 

[b]Race Realist[/b] (No)
[hider=Bit longer, so it's hidden]I had to look this one up, but don't agree with the premise. Race is by and large a social construct, shaped by centuries and centuries of history and culture. I recently attended a cognitive science summer school, where through a series of well-documented experiments, the lecturers showed that many of the "race" differences are not present in children before they learn how to talk (or prior to "lexical acquisition" to use the proper term). One of the studies that stood out to me the most was how they took some kids ages 1 to 2 and presented them with some made-up objects that served no function, which they had to identify. (for example - a weirdly shaped piece of clay, etc.) They ran the experiment with Japanese, American and German children. As you know, Japanese grammar and sentence structure is vastly different from German and English, so when you ran these tests on adults, they encoded the words differently. 

Overall, Japanese adults showed a bias to the material, disregarding the shape of the object, while English and German speakers focused on the shape (function) and not the material. Naturally, this means that the way you describe these words in a sentence is different. However, and this is what really got my attention, when you ran these tests on kids that hadn't yet learned to talk, there was NO bias. The split between kids identifying object vs shape was exactly the same across the board, regardless of nationality (or "race"). 

So, long story short - I believe that the concept of "race" is something belonging to the past. Now, nationalities and cultures, that's a whole new ball game. That said, there IS some difference among the races that doesn't feat my neat theory. A big chunk of East Asians, I think about 35%, have alcohol intolerance (alcohol flush), which is genetic. If you look at sports, sprinting disciples are universally dominated by black athletes. Why? How much of this is "race" and how much of it the human body adapting to outside conditions? Anyway, this is a huge topic, so I'll stop here, I've already went on long enough. [/hider]

[b]Libertarian[/b] (No, Indifferent)
I'm kinda indifferent on this subject and don't have all that much to say, which is strange for me because I can ramble about politics for days. I assume it's something that's more widespread in the States, but in my corner of the world there's not really much discussion on Libertarianism. Personally, I find the concept of "liberty" to be naive. When you live in an organised society, you have to give up certain liberties - there's no true freedom. Damn, that sounds kinda edgy, but it's true when you think about it. In most cases, people who whine about wanting more freedom will be the first to cry out that the government isn't defending their rights when things don't go their way.