# Political Compass Thread



## Daemoniac (Aug 15, 2020)

So first things first; This is all for a bit of fun and if you start badgering anyone for where they sit, I'll report you my damn self. Mods, if you think this is a bad idea, nuke it. I understand. Just figured it could be interesting.

There are a couple of sites for this kind of thing, so for interests sake I've included two, and my results from each. It can be eye opening, to be honest. I knew I sat left, but I didn't realise quite how far left, for example.

Click the images, or links are below.







 


https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/en

https://8values.github.io/


----------



## narad (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm like 3 cells up and 1 cell right from you, so probably just going to skip out on the 8values thing and assume it's also very similar.


----------



## Ralyks (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm basically Ghandi?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Aug 16, 2020)

I usually avoid politics on here like the plague but I'm bored









I just want people to be able to get abortions, bang/marry whoever they want, all the fun drugs to be legal and for people to leave me and my guitars/guns alone. Oh also internet should be a utility, term limits for all positions in the HOR/Senate/etc, roads should be better maintained, better education across the country, taxing churches and the ultra rich, better emphasis on STEM in school, preventing religious idiots from trying to peddle creationism as science and a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 16, 2020)

this doesn't seem right. but actually maybe?

I just want perfect capitalism not bound by state, race, or identity

and for people to be able to do whatever freaky shit they want.


----------



## vilk (Aug 16, 2020)

I dunno about this test.

The question that reads something like "Our civil liberties are being curbed in the name of counter-terrorism", I believe is obviously meant to move you north or south on the compass... But really that's not even an opinion you can disagree with; it's inarguable fact. The necessity of the TSA has been totally and completely debunked several times over, for example. Or the fact that DHS doesn't even attempt to do anything about domestic right wing terrorism and instead spends all their efforts rounding up Mexicans or violently attacking peaceful protestors.




I feel like this test is going to put any knowledgeable American person several points farther south than they really ought to be simply because government authority in our country is very transparently full of shit. It's well documented that our corrupt government started the war in Iraq using intentionally falsified information, all in the name of "counter-terrorism".


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 16, 2020)

vilk said:


> I dunno about this test.
> 
> The question that reads something like "Our civil liberties are being curbed in the name of counter-terrorism", I believe is obviously meant to move you north or south on the compass... But really that's not even an opinion you can disagree with; it's inarguable fact. The necessity of the TSA has been totally and completely debunked several times over, for example. Or the fact that DHS doesn't even attempt to do anything about domestic right wing terrorism and instead spends all their efforts rounding up Mexicans or violently attacking peaceful protestors.
> 
> ...




you're not wrong...but some of the other questions are like...are you clearly a fucking racist.


----------



## vilk (Aug 16, 2020)

diagrammatiks said:


> you're not wrong...but some of the other questions are like...are you clearly a fucking racist.



But that's an established part of being right wing, isn't it? At the far right end of that X axis, doesn't one have to necessarily be racist? Or at the very least opposed to interracial mingling?


----------



## Randy (Aug 16, 2020)

Haven't taken one of these in a while and never took the bottom one before.


----------



## runbirdman (Aug 16, 2020)




----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 16, 2020)




----------



## Metropolis (Aug 16, 2020)

Wow, such centrist. I've done finnish versions of this and got more right leaning results, but it's still pretty close.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 16, 2020)




----------



## BenjaminW (Aug 16, 2020)

Time to get ran out of town


----------



## SpaceDock (Aug 16, 2020)

Interesting


----------



## Ralyks (Aug 16, 2020)

..... Didn't quite see that coming. I figured I was more moderate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 16, 2020)

vilk said:


> I dunno about this test.
> 
> The question that reads something like "Our civil liberties are being curbed in the name of counter-terrorism", I believe is obviously meant to move you north or south on the compass... But really that's not even an opinion you can disagree with; it's inarguable fact. The necessity of the TSA has been totally and completely debunked several times over, for example. Or the fact that DHS doesn't even attempt to do anything about domestic right wing terrorism and instead spends all their efforts rounding up Mexicans or violently attacking peaceful protestors.
> 
> ...




I've heard a couple of times that the first test can be a little off, hence including the second one which- by most accounts I've seen - is a more accurate representation of where one sits in relation to most issues.

Still, it's a fascinating look at where people sit, and can be especially eye opening for oneself.


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 16, 2020)

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 83884
> 
> ..... Didn't quite see that coming. I figured I was more moderate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



You and me both.


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 16, 2020)

Randy said:


> Haven't taken one of these in a while and never took the bottom one before.
> 
> View attachment 83849
> View attachment 83850



Yeah I like to do them every so often and see if I've changed. So far I have not.


----------



## Randy (Aug 16, 2020)

Daemoniac said:


> View attachment 83822
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 83824



Tbh, I expected to be a lot closer to this and previously/typically I am but politics in the US have been a clusterfuck lately. 

I'm Progressive/Liberal left but there's a lot of ignorant people in or even un-involved with this party that are basically anarchists. The liberal equivalent of Trump voters where they know absolutely nothing nor do they inform themselves and they make these insane purity tests and extremist blood oaths for policies that are absolutely unsustainable but they haven't been around long enough nor will they stick around long enough to make it possible or deal with the fallout. So there's a number of things I'd have said 'strong agree' 'strongly disagree' on before but just 'agree' or 'disagree' this time.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 17, 2020)

Damn, I used to be almost exactly where Daemoniac is, but I guess I've been swayed a tinsy bit by ancaps or something. lmfao


Putting my 8values results in here is being weird, but I attached it and I'm at libertarian socialism. <3


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 17, 2020)

Randy said:


> Tbh, I expected to be a lot closer to this and previously/typically I am but politics in the US have been a clusterfuck lately.
> 
> I'm Progressive/Liberal left but there's a lot of ignorant people in or even un-involved with this party that are basically anarchists. The liberal equivalent of Trump voters where they know absolutely nothing nor do they inform themselves and they make these insane purity tests and extremist blood oaths for policies that are absolutely unsustainable but they haven't been around long enough nor will they stick around long enough to make it possible or deal with the fallout. So there's a number of things I'd have said 'strong agree' 'strongly disagree' on before but just 'agree' or 'disagree' this time.



That's fair enough.

I should reword my position as well, I HAVE changed, but I've become more extreme and far more radicalised than I used to be. I think last time I did this I was a just left of centre left and just lower than centre libertarian in the "compass" test (so just lower left of centre in the lower left quadrant), now I'm basically anarcho-communist, it seems.

Government intervention in personal lives should be kept to a minimum (save common sense things that tests like these don't include such as paedophilia or restrictions on pet ownership after a history of abuse type stuff), but big on government intervention in the market to protect consumers, or better yet worker control over their own workplaces (in an ideal world). 

Bit of a weird irony I'll admit, simultaneously being socially libertarian and all in favour of being all but free from intervention but then in favour of strong government (or people's control, by way of a governing body) the market...


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 17, 2020)

tacotiklah said:


> Damn, I used to be almost exactly where Daemoniac is, but I guess I've been swayed a tinsy bit by ancaps or something. lmfao
> 
> 
> Putting my 8values results in here is being weird, but I attached it and I'm at libertarian socialism. <3



I've got very little experience with actual ancaps, despite ironically basically being one these days.

But then I'm not much of a people person in general.


----------



## possumkiller (Aug 17, 2020)

Y'all ain't trickin me with that bullshit. I ain't givin them no reason to come knockin on my door.


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 17, 2020)

possumkiller said:


> Y'all ain't trickin me with that bullshit. I ain't givin them no reason to come knockin on my door.





That's fair. I'm already too deep, tests galore and my FB profile pic is the Russian ANTIFA logo lol. No coming to the USA for me.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 18, 2020)

tedtan said:


>



The original pics don't seem to be showing, so hopefully this works.

Like many, I was surprised to see that I am considered a libertarian socialist, since I'm usually one arguing for capitalism, but with government intervention to ensure that workers and customers are protected.


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 20, 2020)

Well isn't that something...


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 21, 2020)

jaxadam said:


> Well isn't that something...



Absolutely no disparagement intended here, but holy fucking centre, that's amazing


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 21, 2020)

Daemoniac said:


> Absolutely no disparagement intended here, but holy fucking centre, that's amazing



I think it must be from back in my archery days in middle school.


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 21, 2020)

@jaxadam


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 21, 2020)

Daemoniac said:


> @jaxadam



Now I just don't know if that graph means I like everybody, or if I hate everybody!


----------



## Ralyks (Aug 21, 2020)

jaxadam said:


> Now I just don't know if that graph means I like everybody, or if I hate everybody!



I mean... Why not both?


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 21, 2020)

Ralyks said:


> I mean... Why not both?



:fist bump:


----------



## TedEH (Aug 21, 2020)

I'm too lazy to post the screenshot, and only took the first test, but the result put me almost right in the center of the green square (-4.3, -5.7). It's hard not to read the test itself as being kinda biased. It felt more like a "are you as good a person as the guy who wrote this test" kind of quiz. As in, the values I would think should land you in the middle of the graph are going to land in the green square, and you'd have to skew pretty hard the other way to actually make it into the top right quadrant. It's also not asking a whole lot of "hard" questions. I feel like a more detailed and nuanced quiz would have placed me farther right than that.

Maybe the test is based on your ss.org username somehow. TedEH and Tedtan produced remarkably similar graphs.....


----------



## Randy (Aug 21, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I'm too lazy to post the screenshot, and only took the first test, but the result put me almost right in the center of the green square (-4.3, -5.7). It's hard not to read the test itself as being kinda biased. It felt more like a "are you as good a person as the guy who wrote this test" kind of quiz. As in, the values I would think should land you in the middle of the graph are going to land in the green square, and you'd have to skew pretty hard the other way to actually make it into the top right quadrant. It's also not asking a whole lot of "hard" questions. I feel like a more detailed and nuanced quiz would have placed me farther right than that.
> 
> Maybe the test is based on your ss.org username somehow. TedEH and Tedtan produced remarkably similar graphs.....



Take the other one then.


----------



## narad (Aug 22, 2020)

For all the lefties, I found the perfect pedal for us:


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 22, 2020)

narad said:


> For all the lefties, I found the perfect pedal for us:



Well we know it's not a Fulltone.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 23, 2020)

Randy said:


> Take the other one then.





I suppose I'm not super surprised by any of this, except that I don't feel like I'd call myself "progressive" in most contexts. When framed as "the opposite of traditional", then yeah, I'm pretty progressive I guess. I don't think I'm 2020-social-media-progressive though, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Randy (Aug 23, 2020)

Perhaps the problem is less the test and more to do with the definitions people are associating with things on social media.

I'm a life long progressive and I think the culture of the left, and especially 'progressivism', on social media reflects me nearly 0%.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 23, 2020)

I think I've said it before in other threads that I tend to avoid much labelling when it comes to views/politics/etc., 'cause everyone kinda means something different by the same terms. My very "progressive" friends probably would call me right leaning even though I don't think I am, and my actually right leaning friends probably think of me as the kind of person that fits with the "social-media-progressive" types. But I'm probably misusing the terms myself. Who even knows anymore.


----------



## mastapimp (Aug 25, 2020)

No surprises here...kind of what i was expecting.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2020)

Took this just to kill a few minutes on lunch, and no real surprises here. I'm basically a hair to the right of Randy, which is kind of funny considering how often we're debating each other around here. 



EDIT and here's the other one:



Surprising in that spot checking a few of these, I get a lot a flack for being the token establishment Democrat, but I'm actually more progressive than a bunch of you.  I've long held that the difference between the establishment and progressive lanes isn't objectives, it's pragmatism about what we can actually achieve, so maybe that isn't very surprising. My views are pretty progressive, but I'd rather take small concrete steps to make lives better, than try and fail to do something revolutionary.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 25, 2020)

^ That's a good point, as progressive ideals are great, but not necessarily practical to implement in one fell swoop, so getting to the goal line in several smaller steps beats not getting there at all. That's something that a lot of people don't understand until they get a bit older and have a little more experience with the real world.


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2020)

Drew said:


> My views are pretty progressive, but I'd rather take small concrete steps to make lives better, than try and fail to do something revolutionary.





tedtan said:


> ^ That's a good point, as progressive ideals are great, but not necessarily practical to implement in one fell swoop, so getting to the goal line in several smaller steps beats not getting there at all. That's something that a lot of people don't understand until they get a bit older and have a little more experience with the real world.



Yeah but that's kind of an idealized characterization of it. We're talking about income inequality and class separation in the other big thread and in the Bezos thread. We had 8-years of a Democratic president and an economic recovery culminating in all time highs of the stock market. What specifically did the Obama presidency do about income inequality that had a concrete effect on the average person's life being better than it was BEFORE the recession? Pragmatism would be great but sometimes it's a lazy explanation for being dragged by the tide and not actually doing anything.

What's hilarious to me is that 'progressivism' used to BE the concept of pragmatism. Progess is the idea of 'one foot in front of the other', the only caveat is that it means movement should always be forward, never backward but always constant. For whatever reason that concept seems to get stuck in some people's craw.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 25, 2020)

Randy said:


> Yeah but that's kind of an idealized characterization of it. We're talking about income inequality and class separation in the other big thread and in the Bezos thread. We had 8-years of a Democratic president and an economic recovery culminating in all time highs of the stock market. What specifically did the Obama presidency do about income inequality that had a concrete effect on the average person's life being better than it was BEFORE the recession? Pragmatism would be great but sometimes it's a lazy explanation for being dragged by the tide and not actually doing anything.



When I say practicality, I mean actually getting something done, not just making excuses. And while you're right about Obama, I think a lot of that was a result of his being stymied by a republican congress trying to cock block him at every turn, which, frankly, was probably because he's black (the GOP may not have liked Clinton, but they worked with him whereas they outright refused to work with Obama).




Randy said:


> What's hilarious to me is that 'progressivism' used to BE the concept of pragmatism. Progess is the idea of 'one foot in front of the other', the only caveat is that it means movement should always be forward, never backward but always constant. For whatever reason that concept seems to get stuck in some people's craw.



I agree with the concept of continuous improvement. I'm just saying that when it is not possible to make large strides, small strides are still preferable to making no strides at all.


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2020)

My biggest complaint about party-line 'establishment wing' Democrats is refusal to criticize their guy since the other guy is worse, and (especially in Drew's case) refusing to put responsibility for any change in the lap of industry regardless of how much wealth they consolidate. It's always, like, "Yeah it sucks doesn't it? Huh" and then things stay the same, so then you can't shop change without sounding like fuckin' Carl Marx because industry doesn't need to pickup the slack for lagging incomes, so then the government has to. What's pragmatic about that?


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2020)

You honestly can't make an appeal for income equality and strengthening the middle class without sound like a Communist because the disparity is so great that you're either advocating restrictions on wealth or you're telling the government to pay people for existing. I don't know what a pragmatic solution is that looks like progress that even your own party will agree on, or even compromise on, muchless trying at all to appeal to the Trumpublican Party.


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2020)

tedtan said:


> stymied by a republican congress trying to cock block him at every turn, which, frankly, was probably because he's black



Maybe but Obama won, even with a funny black/Muslim name, along with both houses of Congress, then two years later the US voted in the fundamentalist polar-opposite of Obama to the Senate in a near historic number of seats, then they voted Obama in a second time. So I dunno how to read that. The US is racist but they voted him in twice but they also voted in the people to undo him in the middle?

If we couldn't move the needle in 8-years I'd like to know what the scale for lurching progressivism is. Maybe I can find an affordable house in 40 years? Likewise, if all Presidents are going to get a pass because they only control 1/2 to 3/4 of the branches of government, then nobody's ever responsible for anything and we should just give up trying to make change at that level.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 25, 2020)

The max federal tax rate on the highest income earners now is under 40%. During the economic boom during the 50's and 60's, the highest tax rate was between 70% and 92%, and was as high as 94% during WW II. We have a lot of room to address the income inequality without going full communist.


----------



## Edika (Aug 25, 2020)

No surprises there lol!


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2020)

tedtan said:


> The max federal tax rate on the highest income earners now is under 40%. During the economic boom during the 50's and 60's, the highest tax rate was between 70% and 92%, and was as high as 94% during WW II. We have a lot of room to address the income inequality without going full communist.



Ask Jeff Flake or Richard Spencer if they feel that way. Or even Andrew Cuomo for that matter.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 25, 2020)

I’m sure plenty of people will try to spin it as communism, but we went through McCarthyism and his commie roundup during the early to mid 50’s and had high higher tax rates then, so if it wasn’t communism then, it’s not communism today, either.

What we need to do is get rid of the BS idea of trickle down economics the right has been pushing since Regan/the 80’s.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 25, 2020)

Drew said:


> Took this just to kill a few minutes on lunch, and no real surprises here. I'm basically a hair to the right of Randy, which is kind of funny considering how often we're debating each other around here.
> View attachment 84283
> 
> 
> ...





tedtan said:


> ^ That's a good point, as progressive ideals are great, but not necessarily practical to implement in one fell swoop, so getting to the goal line in several smaller steps beats not getting there at all. That's something that a lot of people don't understand until they get a bit older and have a little more experience with the real world.



@Randy pretty much hit the nail on the head.

These posts are how the Dems lost the Midwest and a not insignificant amount of the blue collar/working people vote. Probably for good.

It's easy to fall back on the old "well, they can only do so much" when you're not behind the 8-ball. 

The fact that the big changes can't even be talked about without being talked down to is the problem.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 26, 2020)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The fact that the big changes can't even be talked about without being talked down to is the problem.



I'm all for big changes, I just realize that they're not always possible. And when they are not possible, I'd rather make some progress than no progress (note that I am not saying that we've been successful in making progress).


----------



## Randy (Aug 26, 2020)

tedtan said:


> I'd rather make some progress than no progress (note that *I am not saying that we've been successful in making progress*).



Bolded for relevance. If this COVID relief battle is any indication of Democratic strategy in negotiations, it's no wonder they've made no progress and you have to question if it was ever their intention at all. That's why I harp on Nancy and the tax credit instead of direct payout issue, and now the not taking a $600/wk bridge or $400/wk fully covered federal extension. They walked away from the table and now they're maybe getting $300/wk that could take up to 20 weeks to kick in for some places. And they walked away to try and lever for state/local funding which they didn't get anyway, so it remains zero. 

I'm not sure the leadership of this party can process or even wants "some progress" TBH.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 26, 2020)

tedtan said:


> I'm all for big changes, I just realize that they're not always possible. And when they are not possible, I'd rather make some progress than no progress (note that I am not saying that we've been successful in making progress).



It's not about making every policy a moonshot, it's about driving to goals and moving the needle closer to said goals. 

It's that simple, but we can't even get there without being called stupid children, and that's why this party stands a pretty good shot of blowing it again. 

That's the go-to response. The yin to the GOP's "you're not patriotic enough" yang.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 26, 2020)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not about making every policy a moonshot, it's about driving to goals and moving the needle closer to said goals.



That was the point that I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly enough. To make a football analogy, if after you snap the ball, you have a receiver wide open down field, go for it. But if he's covered too closely, you have to check your other receiver; if he's also covered, then you go to your check down or scramble for three or four yards and try again next down.

Essentially, take as much as you can at each step of the way.




Randy said:


> I'm not sure the leadership of this party can process or even wants "some progress" TBH.



I agree.

I've said it before, but I'm, not a fan of the two party political system we have here. Eight plus parties that have to come together to form add hoc coalitions over actual issues would work much better IMO. And I might go further to even preferring a parliamentary system where the president (prime minister) is actually accountable to the parliament rather than allowing for this rogue behavior from Trump and his camp.

But there is no incentive for the parties to change that, so I'm, not sure its even worth mentioning.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 26, 2020)

“Before taking the test: Please note that this isn’t a survey, and these aren’t questions. They’re propositions. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are moderate. That’s how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass. Your responses should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.“


----------



## SpaceDock (Aug 26, 2020)

I had some Republicans take this test and they were both real sore that their results came out right wing authoritarian when they like to call themselves libertarian. You can’t be libertarian if you are telling people they can’t protest or get an abortion.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 27, 2020)




----------



## narad (Aug 27, 2020)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> “Before taking the test: Please note that this isn’t a survey, and these aren’t questions. They’re propositions. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are moderate. That’s how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass. Your responses should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.“



Still seems like a bit of a cop out to me that people can read some of the circumstances of these questions in different ways, react to it, and are scored accordingly. Like if anyone ever criticizes my writing in the future, "no, no, it's intentionally vague."


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 27, 2020)

Edika said:


> View attachment 84291
> View attachment 84292
> 
> No surprises there lol!



*Nods head* Comrade. 

I have little to add to the discussion. I feel like I've been radicalised so much these past few years, seeing what's happening (or not happening) in both the world (at least in the UK, Australia, and USA), and more specifically the US. At this point I just don't have much to the discussion, because the system is so fundamentally broken I feel like it's pointless, and I'm tired of arguing why I think people deserve better lives than they have.


----------



## Daemoniac (Aug 27, 2020)

And maybe that makes me part of the problem right now, I don't know. I mean I still vote, if I lived in the US, I'd be holding my nose and voting Biden in, vomiting on the way out of the polling place... But I just don't feel that it's doing anything.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 27, 2020)

narad said:


> Still seems like a bit of a cop out to me that people can read some of the circumstances of these questions in different ways, react to it, and are scored accordingly. Like if anyone ever criticizes my writing in the future, "no, no, it's intentionally vague."



True, but I think the reaction it gets from you is important in judging where you are. An anarcho-libertarian would react differently to a socialist when presented with the statement, “Taxes are good.” Ultimately it’s an internet quiz and looking for it to be anything serious is maybe misguided but the preface is something a lot of people miss about this particular quiz and I just wanted to bring it up.


----------



## Randy (Aug 27, 2020)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> True, but I think the reaction it gets from you is important in judging where you are. An anarcho-libertarian would react differently to a socialist when presented with the statement, “Taxes are good.” Ultimately it’s an internet quiz and looking for it to be anything serious is maybe misguided but the preface is something a lot of people miss about this particular quiz and I just wanted to bring it up.



Yeah, it's a bit of a cop out to say the questions are leading. A lot of people underestimate the range of perceptions on a given topic would be. The fact a lot of people of varying political beliefs end up somewhere in the bottom left quadrant has less to do with the test trying to shame you there and more to do with cultural norms wherever you're from and how far we deviate from them. This is a somewhat homogeneous group in a somewhat homogeneous culture. The results would deviate much more if you were reading test results strictly from The_Donald members or people from North Korea, for example.


----------



## Randy (Aug 27, 2020)

Daemoniac said:


> And maybe that makes me part of the problem right now, I don't know. I mean I still vote, if I lived in the US, I'd be holding my nose and voting Biden in, vomiting on the way out of the polling place... But I just don't feel that it's doing anything.



Yeah, TBH, I voted an idealist/protest vote in 2016 for Jill Stein (Green) and that ended up being just as big a compromise as voting for Hillary would've been. The Green Party pitch is/was basically that they 'walk the talk' of Democrats, and the Democrats don't intend on doing any of the shit they're saying anyway so why compromise? And as a protest vote that appealed to me but ultimately, you had the outcome you got (Trump) and then you had Jill Stein photographed sitting at a table with Putin (who directed his intelligence to help get Trump elected) and Michael Flynn.

In that context, you honestly have to rethink even the most supposedly principled 'third party' run in US politics. I expected Trump to lose but barring that, expected to send a message to the Democratic Party about not running crappy candidates and next election cycle we got more swamp anyway (albeit an improvement over Hillary and huge improvement over Trump). These third parties know their spoil-ability and in Jill Stein's case, very potentially worked directly with Trump/Russia to steer the election his way. The party and/or the candidate are exceptional levels of naive and/or actively undermining the same people they tell "not to compromise".

TBH, these days, an act of protest is honestly supporting insurgent candidates in primaries or on the local level, or doing as possumkiller did and leaving. Trying to send a message with a protest vote (meaning someone you know will lose) and might end up being as big or a bigger piece of shit sends no message unfortunately.


----------



## Drew (Aug 27, 2020)

Randy said:


> In that context, you honestly have to rethink even the most supposedly principled 'third party' run in US politics. I expected Trump to lose but barring that, expected to send a message to the Democratic Party about not running crappy candidates and next election cycle we got more swamp anyway (albeit an improvement over Hillary and huge improvement over Trump). These third parties know their spoil-ability and in Jill Stein's case, very potentially worked directly with Trump/Russia to steer the election his way. The party and/or the candidate are exceptional levels of naive and/or actively undermining the same people they tell "not to compromise".
> 
> TBH, these days, an act of protest is honestly supporting insurgent candidates in primaries or on the local level, or doing as possumkiller did and leaving. Trying to send a message with a protest vote (meaning someone you know will lose) and might end up being as big or a bigger piece of shit sends no message unfortunately.



To this, I'd add two additional observations: 

I'd argue, with I think a fair amount of evidence, if you don't think that holding your nose and voting for a compromise candidate and then vomiting on your way out the door doesn't do anything, then simply turn to 2016 and look at all the people who _didn't_ do that, and how narrow the margin actually was that elected us a white supremicist fascist hell-bent on breaking the democratic checks against his power, instead of merely "more of the same." 

Second, I _really_ wish I could find the pertinent clip from Henry Rollins' _Think Tank_, but I think he absolutely nails it, on the subject of protest voting, when he says that voting _itself_ is the highest form of protest. Paraphrasing, he says that you're never going to feel about the president the way you do about Ozzy Ozzbourne (this was the mid-90s). You're never going to be out there going, "fuck yeah! the president rules!" (ok, ok, maybe Trump supporters are the exception to the rule here, lol). Because of this, you're always going to be choosing between the least of two evils, and you should absolutely think of your vote as a protest vote against the greater of two evils. That, when you vote, you should walk into the voting booth the way Joe Strummer taught you, with both middle fingers held high. I think he's 100% spot on here. 

If voting for Ted Nugent would do the most harm to Trump's campaign, I'd vote for Ted Nugent with a smile on my face, a clean conscience, and a couple middle fingers directed at them both.


----------



## lurè (Aug 29, 2020)

Prog Gandhi


----------



## narad (Aug 29, 2020)

lurè said:


> Prog Gandhi


----------



## lurè (Aug 29, 2020)

^ that looks like Phil Collins and the rest of Genesis on LSD


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 11, 2020)

Those are very 'murican questions. In europe, the social side of things isn't very much of a debate, as the conservative people against same sex marriage etc usually are the far right racist parties. To us, economics make 90% of the political arena.
That said, here are my scores. Nothing surprising, really, except I expected to be higher up in the authoritarian scale on the grid one.







> I have little to add to the discussion. I feel like I've been radicalised so much these past few years



I haven't been radicalised, mainly because I find the people who are shouting 24 hours a day over the internet are tiring, even those who supposedly share opinions with me.
I'm mainly off TV, I have a sub to a national french newspaper and I keep it at that. While people are very busy creating "offended"-based businesses, pointing fingers and creating stupid new standards, I just go on with my life.

I think one of the major mistakes of the young adults today is to believe the boomers give a rat's ass about social media noise: they don't even go there to begin with. And while the young joke about "ok boomer"... the rich still have the money and power, and laugh about how the young are satisfied with empty victories and never take meaningful action.
While some are very busy posting on Tweeter, I was offered 30 days securities at 20% today. *That* is power. Who you know and will bring business to you is power. Getting offered the easy jobs for a lot of money is power. 
Ranting on Twitter isn't.


----------



## Faldoe (Oct 21, 2020)




----------



## InHiding (Oct 24, 2020)

Some of the questions were pretty stupid and obviously not thought through, but I guess overall the test is ok. I did the first one and had exactly the same result as Andromalia a few posts above.


----------



## Vyn (Nov 9, 2020)

I actually thought I'd be more Authoritarian than that, however apparently not haha.


----------



## Kaura (Nov 9, 2020)

Wow, my goal was far-right.


----------



## Faldoe (Nov 28, 2020)

I think the questions have a kind of Left encouraging bias in terms of how they’re worded.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 29, 2020)

Faldoe said:


> I think the questions have a kind of Left encouraging bias in terms of how they’re worded.


In the current political landscape, empathy seems like a leftist plot.


----------



## vilk (Nov 29, 2020)

I thought he was referring to the questions that ask you outright if you're racist. Which brings me back to my only-half-rhetorical question posed earlier in the thread: isn't being racist necessarily part of being right wing? I mean, no one likes to put it so bluntly, but I'm not a political scientist, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly makes something (person, policy, movement) right wing vs left wing, and the major point of difference I keep coming back to is belief that humans are or should be treated as equals.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 29, 2020)

vilk said:


> I thought he was referring to the questions that ask you outright if you're racist. Which brings me back to my only-half-rhetorical question posed earlier in the thread: isn't being racist necessarily part of being right wing? I mean, no one likes to put it so bluntly, but I'm not a political scientist, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly makes something (person, policy, movement) right wing vs left wing, and the major point of difference I keep coming back to is belief that humans are or should be treated as equals.



The division of classes is a part of classical right wing politics, yes.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 29, 2020)

I never read it as outright "right = racist", but more of a right = more interested in systems than people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 29, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I never read it as outright "right = racist", but more of a right = more interested in systems than people.



Right wing politics is founded on the idea that caste systems exist and are both natural and proper. Left wing politics is based on the concept of equality.

The "left" and "right" comes from the French Revolution, where those on the right were for the monarchy and those on the left were for reform.

Which is to say, when someone identifies themselves or others it rarely follows the classical concepts.

So yeah, if we're getting technical, being right wing supports a system of inequality, which racism can be an example.

I'd never say that anyone right leaning is automatically racist in a burning crosses on the front lawn sense, but if they know what they're talking about, they're at least amenable to the concept that not all people are equal.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 29, 2020)

I get what you mean. I'm sure it's that way for some people. I know my view of people tends to be naive - I try to leave room for people to hold whatever views without assuming malice.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 30, 2020)

Faldoe said:


> I think the questions have a kind of Left encouraging bias in terms of how they’re worded.


If you talk to to US Conservatives, reality has a rather pronounced liberal bias. Our Left is still right of center compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## Drew (Dec 1, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I never read it as outright "right = racist", but more of a right = more interested in systems than people.


I'm not going to make any claims that this has historically always been the case...

...but in America, a conscious racial dog-whistling strategy has been part of Republican politics since Richard Nixon's Southern strategy. Talking about "law and order" and "states rights" rather than about segregation and disenfranchising minority voters, etc.

I'm not going to quote it directly here for reasons that should become _abundantly_ clear once you start reading, but scroll down and read Lee Atwater's off-the-record hot mic explanation of what the term "Southern strategy" means, in the "Evolution (1970s and 80s) heading, for a crystal-clear explanation on why the right wing of American politics is frequently accused of being deeply racist.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 1, 2020)

Yeah, I understand that. I've seen that quote before too, I'm sure. Granted, I'm not in the US and I think our version of racism is different (not non-existent, just different) - and I know I tend to frame things naively. I know it's not realistic, but that naive framing makes it a lot easier to deal with how many people probably believe some pretty terrible things about their fellow man. Part of me would like to reserve some room for the idea that while none of what you're saying is false, there are some people out there who fall into that political category but are also looking at things that naively.

I mean, it still amounts to "right = doesn't really care about people" one way or another, I guess.


----------



## Drew (Dec 7, 2020)

TedEH said:


> Yeah, I understand that. I've seen that quote before too, I'm sure. Granted, I'm not in the US and I think our version of racism is different (not non-existent, just different) - and I know I tend to frame things naively. I know it's not realistic, but that naive framing makes it a lot easier to deal with how many people probably believe some pretty terrible things about their fellow man. Part of me would like to reserve some room for the idea that while none of what you're saying is false, there are some people out there who fall into that political category but are also looking at things that naively.
> 
> I mean, it still amounts to "right = doesn't really care about people" one way or another, I guess.


I think that's definitely part of it, to be fair. 

But, there are two additional things I'd say: 
1) if a set of policies is designed with the explicit goal of perpetuating a racist structure, and you happen to support that same set of policies for some _other_ reason having nothing to do with race... can you really dissasociate yourself from the intent (however covert) of those policies? Or do you need to take ownership of the fact that, however these policies may help you, it's at the direct expense of a different demographic group? 
2) I think the evolution of a lot of contemporary "conservative" politics in America as having been borne from explicitly racist goals is pretty clear. I think maybe it gets a little less clear - and this could be my own unfamiliarity - in other countries.... but it's not like other countries haven't had their own racist histories, and that kind of gets back to point 1. If you're in favor of zero tolerance drug policies, aggressive policing and sentencing policies, school choice programs, etc (rhetorical you, not you specifically), and you're NOT American... how do you defend those positions when you look to America and see where, and why, those policies came from? What doubly complicates this is the amount of international clout America has, and how we made things like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, both of which have strong racial undercurrents, global crusades. 

At the end of the day, I think a lot of conservative politics can be distilled to "screw you, I got mine, you look after yourself." But I also think it's not a coincidence that this is a conversation we're having in a country that's long been overwhelmingly white, is still majority white, but as a country that's long held itself as a land where immigrants can make a new life for itself from the humblest of beginnings, is less white than it used to be.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 7, 2020)

I took this test roughly 10 years and was planted firmly in the center of auth-right. Now...







And they say that people get more conservative as they grow older.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 7, 2020)

Drew said:


> I think that's definitely part of it, to be fair.
> 
> But, there are two additional things I'd say: [etc]


I don't disagree with you at all, generally speaking, but on some level I don't think that very many consider those views that deeply. I think that those who follow politics and get into discussions about them do - they think about the history and the purpose behind a particular political stance - but I don't think the average person (who isn't very politically minded, or has a strong understanding of history, etc) go much farther than "does that idea make some vague sense to me?".

I'd like to say that I think more people DO consider history or look to America or whatever other source of an idea might be.... but that just wouldn't be true. In my experience, most people don't know their history, don't understand the intent or source of the ideas they're presented with, etc. which is both good and bad. Bad because maybe people should know better, but maybe a little bit good, because (if I'm right) I can at least say I don't have a reason to attribute malice to most people.


----------



## Drew (Dec 9, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I don't disagree with you at all, generally speaking, but on some level I don't think that very many consider those views that deeply. I think that those who follow politics and get into discussions about them do - they think about the history and the purpose behind a particular political stance - but I don't think the average person (who isn't very politically minded, or has a strong understanding of history, etc) go much farther than "does that idea make some vague sense to me?".



Well, it's like that old history joke. 

"What do you call people who maybe didn't agree with Hitler on race, but voted for him because they really liked his economic policies?" 
"Nazis." 
"No, not the ones who supported gassing Jews, but the ones who just wanted to see inflation return to normal and see their fellow countryman have good jobs" 
"Nazis." 
"No, not the ones who supported concentration camps. The ones who just went along with him because they thought the Treaty of Versailles was too burdensome, and that Germany was unable to support itself unless the terms of peace after the Great War were changed." 
Yeah. We call them Nazis." 

One of the challenges in representative democracy is that you don't really get to pick and choose which policies you support from a party - if you put one party in power, they're going to implement their full agenda, or as much of it as they can. If someone doesn't understand the full implications of an agenda, but supports it anyway, they still own the outcome of that agenda so long as they continue to support it.


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 9, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I don't disagree with you at all, generally speaking, but on some level I don't think that very many consider those views that deeply. I think that those who follow politics and get into discussions about them do - they think about the history and the purpose behind a particular political stance - but I don't think the average person (who isn't very politically minded, or has a strong understanding of history, etc) go much farther than "does that idea make some vague sense to me?".
> 
> I'd like to say that I think more people DO consider history or look to America or whatever other source of an idea might be.... but that just wouldn't be true. In my experience, most people don't know their history, don't understand the intent or source of the ideas they're presented with, etc. which is both good and bad. Bad because maybe people should know better, but maybe a little bit good, because (if I'm right) I can at least say I don't have a reason to attribute malice to most people.



You are absolutely right that the average person is “lazy” intellectually when it comes to voting and using their voice. 

However, each person is still responsible for their own laziness. 

As an example of not thinking too deeply on a set of policy ideas:

“I didn’t know” doesn’t help someone else whose family member is imprisoned with a mandatory minimum sentence for having a joint on them. Due to a policy that was put in place by the elected official who promised tax cuts, along with an increase in aggressive policing and very-outdated views on weed IE “just throw everyone in jail as a deterrent”. 

Being lazy doesn’t excuse bad decisions. It wouldn’t hold up at work, so why should it hold up outside? Then again, many people wouldn’t admit it aloud but they actually DO support those same aggressive policing ideas.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 9, 2020)

I mean, politics are sort of designed to operate on that level, and in some ways I think very deliberately exploit the fact that people are not very good at history. Trump didn't exactly give an in-depth history lesson next to every statement or promise he made.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 9, 2020)

The problem with politics is that it requires everyone to have a good understanding of what is going on around them from a local to global level, just to work in principle. To work in practice it requires that plus everyone to set aside their biases and care for their fellow human.

And you need both because without he first one you get people voting on issues they don't understand, and without the second you get people voting against their best interests to spite others.

That's why democracy is dumb and you should go to your local public house to affirm your faith in StevenC as Supreme Leader of Earth and their Colonies.


----------



## Drew (Dec 9, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I mean, politics are sort of designed to operate on that level, and in some ways I think very deliberately exploit the fact that people are not very good at history. Trump didn't exactly give an in-depth history lesson next to every statement or promise he made.


VERY accurate.


----------



## Furtive Glance (Dec 11, 2020)

I did this a few years ago and I was dead on that line between Auth and Lib and maybe 2 notches to the right.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Dec 11, 2020)

can i have a little utopia, as a treat


----------



## c7spheres (Dec 15, 2020)

The questions are impossbly vague. I could have went between either extreme in many instances depending on what the real life scenario would have been. Guess that's why it's near the middle.


----------



## Justaguitarist (Feb 24, 2021)

https://imgur.com/vd5N2xv

These are my political views. I would call myself a democratic socialist mostly. Also, I´m a very secularist person (personally atheist-agnostic, but I think people should be able to believe in whatever they want as long as they don´t hurt anyone in the process). Even if I was religious I would still be in favor of the separation of Church and State. Also, I identify ideologically with the Three Arrows, which is anti-authoritarian left, anti-fascist, and anti-conservatism (especially reactionary conservatism).

These views are not really set in stone of course. I still wanna read some more political books to learn more about other perspectives.


----------

