TOP 10 interesting facts about Magnus Carlsen

@BestSiteEver yeah you got it right

Social democracy is part of the left wing, which aims to reach the welfare state (totalitarism) through the public institutions.
The crazyness starts from the point that they need to break the western culture and the jewish-christian morality first, because no one would accept to be controled by a central government like the UN, so they relativize everything to melt down brains. We see zombies supporting abortion, civil disarmament, they take legitimate struggles as the end of racism to convert it into racism against all the others and stuff, always screaming like a freak.
Sadly, Mr. Carlsen supports this, I hope the problem is only to recognize the true enemy, and he realizes that the sooner he can.

@josevitor91:
There are many things in your comment that I don't agree with but I will just provide some context to what social democracy is in Scandinavia.

First and foremost: there is movements on the left wing which are very skeptical of the state (therefore: anti-totalitarian).
French libertarianism, which is part of the left wing, wish to destroy the state because it sees it as totalitarian?

Social democracy is not "Stalin-communism".
I'm from Denmark and our system is pretty much like Norway.
A saying in Denmark goes like this: "in danish politics everyone is a social democrat.
Even the most liberalistic party in Denmark support health care services: the discussion is about how much of the wealth should be redistributed.

The #1 nationalistic party in Denmark (the danish peoples party = dansk folkeparti) is very much social democratic in their stance on taxation, health care, elder care etc. and they are, too, very concerned about the jewish-christian morality; they even say that these values is the only thing which ensures the continuation of the social democratic system.
The danish peoples party is THE ONLY party in Denmark wanting to reform/break down parts of the conventional international cooperation strictly because of ideals of sovereignty (the EU, UN, charters on human rights etc.).
... and they are in essence social democrats...

Last time the social democratic party (socialdemokraterne) formed a government, with the support of the outskirts of the left wing, they made policies which was considered "liberalistic" by their left wing supporters.

A month ago there was published a study in the newspaper "Information" which stated that the social democratic party was more willing to vote with the "liberalistic" parties than with "socialistic" party.
So social democracy, in the danish form, is something very different than "socialism".

The most surveillance skeptical party is on the left wing.
The three euroskeptical parties is the most socialistic party, the most liberalistic party and, as mentioned, the most nationalistic party.
The social democrats have privatized the DONG (the biggest energy supplier of Denmark).
Right now the liberalistic government parti (with the ironic name "Venstre" which translates to "Left") are working on large scale surveillance and predictive policing (both policies I consider VERY totalitarian because there is practically no debate on these issues in the public).

Best regards

Disclaimer: i'm not a social democrat myself.

@KateKidna
@TheIceManV
It's pescetarianism (also known as flexitarianism and semi-vegetarianism).
Flexitarians, I think, eats meat, which they consider a broad category, sometimes (this is not just fish). For a flexitarian it is all about minimizing the amount of meat intake actively. I have heard this term many times being used to describe pescetarianism.
Semi-vegetarianism is just an umbrella term for all the variants of vegetarianism, but it's often used to describe pescetarianism as well.

@DeltaPsi
Everytime we collide into disagreements, I recommend to come back to the basic concepts. The right and the left wing distinguish themselves by the concept about how the economics must work.

- The right goes to the opening and the free market, trending to zero regulations, people know what is good for themselves, the own free market recognizes demands and any interference brings chaos in greater or lesser scale.

- The left goes to restrictions regulated by the government, trending to 100% of regulations. The welfare state can only be reached by a government, for some reason, people can not naturally organize themselves so the state is necessary to identify and to intervene in all aspects the own state judge it is necessary.

When you say that the left wing is not only composed by stalin communists, yeah, there are a lot of strands, and as a rope, there are the radicals in one of the ends, and the progressives in the other, both want in different levels the overbearing goverment dictating the rules.

The right wing goes for liberty on economics, there are the conservatives in one end of the rope and the libertarians in the other, diverging about the morality (from God or from the human being), the human can live in peace if their morality are solidified on the divine or if you are able to respect the non-agression pact.

The Scandinavia became the new cradle of the left wing in Europe, specially Sweden.
My country was a good place to be in some decades ago, now the left reached such point that no one can have guns to defend their properties, Brazil is in ruins but the sheeps still scream against the ghost enemy inside their minds, and supporting the wolf. Learn with the Österreich school, not with the Frankfurt one, the old and free Scandinavia is an example to the world to follow

@josevitor91
You're wrong about Sweden.
Denmark is more "socialist" than Sweden.
I think I know why you say that Sweden is socialist; however, I can guaranty you that you don’t know anything about the situation in Sweden from reading online articles.
The market economy is much more free in Sweden than in Denmark, no doubt about that!

“The old and free Scandinavia?”
come on! Do you even know the history of Scandinavia?

About your generalizations:
If not your generalization are considered to be relative truths (in this instance it's important that the ideological segregation is strongly connected to how the left and right "distinguish themselves" AND NOTHING MORE - except if you actually provide further argumentation) then it's essentialism. What you say is something which must be understood as relative since it's not making sense otherwise - and even though: your logic about globalism and erosion of judeo-christian tradition by the left is far fetched since it’s VERY general and not a meaningful description of all the possible varieties of causality which are more proper guesses. When you try to defend your use of words you very much seem to understand this meteodologic limitation. Because you’re treating my input, the way you do, I think that, I can defend saying that it’s you who are relativizing by trying to make your generalizations seem sound. What you said initially is undeniable not what you're defending: you're defending generalizations and not why social democrats wants to build an autoritharian government. You're not even providing any reasons for why you think the use of your binary right-left tool can give meaningful answers to how socail democracy should be understood.
What you do is a way of relativising the question about the soundness of your initial comments.
Are you trying it "to melt brains"?
Don't blame all leftist to be postmodern social constructivist either - because it's not true! Right wing parties also use relativization when it fits their agenda. Like you do.

About your "trends":
Just because this exists (i guess it does: it's a very used mental scheme to understand the wings) you just can't take social democracy and say they are guilty of whatever your ideological position say. That is lazy.
Social democracy is a point, on this robe you’re using to exemplify your point, and they deserve a more nuanced analysis like every other political party.
I think you know all about how people are treating the NAP (which I find interesting) by the means of disrespectful generalizations.

French anarchism is not just seeking "overbearing government dictating the rules". They want communal anarchy; that's not restriction thinking - that's a ideology based on participation.
Libertarians also "tend" to want regulation when imposing the market: french anarchism actually want to destroy every kind of arbitrary institution by destroying the right of property as well.

When you say that “everytime we collide into disagreements, I recommend to come back to the basic concepts” you are lying and you know it yourself (this is VERY uncontroversial and don’t pretend it’s not). You are not a pragmatist who seeks to clarify the world for “the seeking” by the means of axiomatic argumentation.
You’re interested in wildly criticizing those whom you don’t agree with.

Best regards

Personally I like the NAP even though I think it's being misused ideologically. It's a lot like a negative version of Kant containing the very true criticism that "every law apears to be a gun". I think it is illustrating very clearly the ideal law for a deontologic society.
Rand called Kant: "the most evil man ever".
Her critic is stupid since she totally misunderstands the concepts of his philosophy.

I do wonder, what's the point of this video? It's 10 facts about Carlsen, presented as 10 sentences of text. 10 sentences which could have been read in 30 seconds or so, or in whatever pace you want to read it. A video forces the reading pace upon the watcher.