Taijitu
General Category => General Board => The Debate Hall => Topic started by: bigbaldben on September 28, 2015, 10:02:36 PM
-
I've taken this test before and always fall in the weirdo quadrant:
Your Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
Anyone else share my worldview?
-
I usually fall a little more than halfway down for libertarian, and pretty much on the line between left and right.
-
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-8.5&soc=-4.72)
-
Yay, a post in the Debate Hall! It's been a very long time...
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-2.38&soc=-6.15)
I can't claim this is a reliable measure of my political leanings, though. I found myself grumbling a bit at many of the 'statements'. It's interesting that the resulting measure is two-dimensional as an aggregate of a questions that are answered on a one-dimensional scale. I wonder whether allowing more complexity in answers would lead to an improved questionnaire, or just overcomplicate things (I suspect the latter).
Are there any statements that you found particularly irritating? Broad, context-free statements like "The freer the market, the freer the people", for instance, bother me a little.
-
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.13&soc=-7.54)
I agree with Wast's concern. There are some questions that are a little iffy. But in general I feel like this lines up with my actual beliefs.
This graph might make me seem a little bit too far left though..
-
I nominate Wast to invent a 5-D test :idk:
I also hated the broad statements and am unsure how well this test reflects the truth of my political ideology. Though it was nice to notice there were less (by a large factor) of the broad statements than when I took the initial version some 5-10 years ago.
-
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-9.0&soc=-8.92)
I'm all the way down in the corner, big fuckin' surprise. :P
Agreed that some of the questions were unnecessarily broad but I still feel this is an accurate representation of my general political leanings.
-
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-7.0&soc=-8.31)
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31
They usually rank me further left than this. I'm generally in favor of private property rights so I think those questions threw me to the right a little. Generally I notice that my libertarian/authoritarian ranking is pretty accurate but I think economics-wise I'm more moderate than -7.
I notice a lot of their questions about economics are about corporations. I think some more questions pertaining generally to capitalism rather than that one aspect would be good. In general I support a mixed market economy with a large social security and welfare system, but this test always makes me out to be a total communist.
-
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-4.75&soc=-6.92)
Not surprised by the result, it's always in this area. I agree with Myroria, I think if there were more economics, foreign policy, and military oriented questions I'd be far more moderate. All of them seem to just measure our trust of government, corporations, god, etc. rather than our political opinions on any specific thing. As far as broad questions, I think about that one "Land shouldn't be a commodity to be sold" and it measures how agreeable you think about it. Well of course it shouldn't be, but there should be other laws too like it should being used in a useful way. There's the subject of saving some land for national parks, there's the subject of selling public housing to friends of politicians only to be torn down for yuppie suburban kids. Lots of things to consider for just one question.
Also I had the same feeling about the the free markets question as wast, what do they mean by free market? They run wild or they are perfectly competitive? What's the survey's opinion on it? It shouldn't even be there because that's a debate that's older than dirt, what makes a free market?
As a side note, I didn't think I'd see the day when funkadelia was more left than I was.
-
As a side note, I didn't think I'd see the day when funkadelia was more left than I was.
:bow:
-
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-2.13&soc=-4.15)
oh god I had forgotten how bad these questions were
-
Ok, so it looks like I line up with most of you on social issue type things, but I am on the right side of economics, which I think is true.
And this is where my problem comes in.
In this chart - which I think is a good reflection of political world views - most people come down in Libertarian/Left or Authoritarian/Right. You don't see a lot of Authoritarian/Left, and I never see Libertarian/Right like me.
To me, Libertarian/Left and Authoritarian/Right are hypocritical world views. (How's THAT for a conversation starter??!!) I'll focus on the Libertarian/Left since that seems to be the consensus here.
The Libertarian Social part of the equation believes in freedom and personal choice. "Keep your laws off my body," and the like. I think we all understand that.
The Left Economic part of the equation is about making peoples' lives better by redistributing wealth / welfare / etc. That's noble, but in order to redistribute, you must tax - because people aren't going to give money out of the goodness of their heart, amirite? Many people don't like that. They say you are taking away what they've earned and you are not allowing them the freedom and personal choice to be a decent human being or not. I find it hard to disagree.
Your polar opposites in the Authoritarian/Right have the same problem in reverse.
Authoritarian Social believes in a moral, caring society. In order to do that, they help keep them from making what they view as horrible moral choices, resulting in a horrible moral society. In order to have that righteous society, you must have moral laws and order - because people aren't going to go out and do good on their own, amirite? Many people don't like that.
The Economic Right part of the equation believes in freedom and choice for business people, profit makers and corporations. "A truly FREE market," or the freest it can be, will always benefit the economy.
QUAD blue and QUAD green hold incompatible world views. QUAD purple makes sense to me. And QUAD red, not surprisingly, might has well be a different species.
Knowing of course that people can't (all) be hypocritical, there is some sort of framing I am missing here. In other words, I frame my worldview as above and it makes sense to me. How do you frame your worldview so it makes sense?
Liking all this conversation - I've kind of lost the ability to do that given my last two career choices. :idk:
-
I'm not sure if leftist qualifies for me, I'm anti-centralization yet pro-organization, I support a strong commons and a greater list of rights for fiscal as well as humane reasons (such as a basic guaranteed income). My futurist visions are largely along the lines of luxury communism (like star trek). When interfacing with our current system I am in favor of more globalization and the death of the nation-state.
-
Property is exactly as legitimate as taxes.
-
"A truly FREE market," or the freest it can be, will always benefit the economy.
What exactly is your definition of a free market? Is it the lowest possible amount of regulation? That's such a common misconception among quizzes, articles, political debates. The free market is a lot more complicated than some think, and I think the best measure for a free market is by how competitive it is
-
Edit: Nevermind.
-
Edit: Nevermind.
:kitty: :wb:
-
Edit: Nevermind.
:kitty: :wb:
:ghost:
-
"A truly FREE market," or the freest it can be, will always benefit the economy.
What exactly is your definition of a free market? Is it the lowest possible amount of regulation? That's such a common misconception among quizzes, articles, political debates. The free market is a lot more complicated than some think, and I think the best measure for a free market is by how competitive it is
I'm of the opinion that there has to be regulation on several different levels of the economy. That's why I'm not very far right on economics, I think. Lowest possible amount of regulation leaves far too much possibility of human bad behavior and greed to flourish - monopolies, collusion, along with all the investment and financial manipulation that I can't even begin to understand.
To your point, yeah, I hear a lot of talk about the free market exactly as you describe - no regulation.
The people I know who push the "freest market possible" admit there needs to be some regulation -- but like anything remotely political, they push for something unrealistic knowing that setting the bar so far away will get them where we "should" be, i.e. a free-er economy.
This is a galling part of politics for me.
I know many people in the NRA who have no interest in owning assault rifles and the like, and they don't really think that others need it either, but they will support and push for that right because it's a step further away from what they really fear, which is an appeal or re-framing of the second amendment.
Extremism. And what do opponents do? Push in the extreme the other way. And then you have no room to compromise. And that's America in 2015. A bunch of people running around saying crazy things, each trying to out-crazy the other.
-
The people I know who push the "freest market possible" admit there needs to be some regulation -- but like anything remotely political, they push for something unrealistic knowing that setting the bar so far away will get them where we "should" be, i.e. a free-er economy.
I once met a libertarian from Ft. Worth, Texas, and I brought up how not all regulation is good, there are colluding, monopolistic regulations too. The State of Texas was lobbied by the city of Ft. Worth to prevent Dallas Love Field from making flights beyond cities one state away, but Dallas-Fort Worth International, located near Fort Worth, was free from this regulation. Eventually the guy who lobbied the whole thing died and the law preventing love field from doing making flights beyond one state expired with his corrupt cowboy ass.
This libertarian was shocked by what I said, more so than I thought he would because I thought he'd agree with me. However he, remember a libertarian, argued that DFW's domestic flights could never compete with love field making full domestic flights because it has a better location, lower hassle, less confusing traffic situation, and is cheaper to park at. He then said that regulation was necessary. Moral of this story, people who are libertarian have their exceptions, and they're just ignorant to the rest of the problems needing fixed because they don't affect them.
-
The people I know who push the "freest market possible" admit there needs to be some regulation -- but like anything remotely political, they push for something unrealistic knowing that setting the bar so far away will get them where we "should" be, i.e. a free-er economy.
I once met a libertarian from Ft. Worth, Texas, and I brought up how not all regulation is good, there are colluding, monopolistic regulations too. The State of Texas was lobbied by the city of Ft. Worth to prevent Dallas Love Field from making flights beyond cities one state away, but Dallas-Fort Worth International, located near Fort Worth, was free from this regulation. Eventually the guy who lobbied the whole thing died and the law preventing love field from doing making flights beyond one state expired with his corrupt cowboy ass.
This libertarian was shocked by what I said, more so than I thought he would because I thought he'd agree with me. However he, remember a libertarian, argued that DFW's domestic flights could never compete with love field making full domestic flights because it has a better location, lower hassle, less confusing traffic situation, and is cheaper to park at. He then said that regulation was necessary. Moral of this story, people who are libertarian have their exceptions, and they're just ignorant to the rest of the problems needing fixed because they don't affect them.
Wow, yeah, that's the exact opposite of what you would expect from a free market ideologue. Do you have a high opinion of this guy's intelligence? Or does it matter if he just doesn't have the mental capacity to see how he contradicted himself or if he knows he contradicted himself but doesn't care? Which is worse?
Your example is not exactly what I'm trying to understand, but it's close. People recite their standard libertarian/republican/liberal talking points without a care for the vast number of times they have convenient "exceptions" or opinions based on rationale that is non-transferable to other subjects.
-
This libertarian was shocked by what I said, more so than I thought he would because I thought he'd agree with me. However he, remember a libertarian, argued that DFW's domestic flights could never compete with love field making full domestic flights because it has a better location, lower hassle, less confusing traffic situation, and is cheaper to park at. He then said that regulation was necessary. Moral of this story, people who are libertarian have their exceptions, and they're just ignorant to the rest of the problems needing fixed because they don't affect them.
The 1% problems are fascinating.
-
Lol, II don't think highly of any libertarian's intelligence. Nor do I think too highly of any extremist's.
-
Your example is not exactly what I'm trying to understand, but it's close. People recite their standard libertarian/republican/liberal talking points without a care for the vast number of times they have convenient "exceptions" or opinions based on rationale that is non-transferable to other subjects.
Time to make a second attempt at the thing I deleted earlier...
I think people believe that concessions in service of an ideal are pragmatism rather than hypocrisy. If the ideal society cannot be achieved, then it is better to compromise to do the best we can. In a consequentialist framework, this is philosophically consistent. The trouble is that libertarianism (and most formulations of liberalism) don't fit into that framework - they're rights-based instead (*). The rhetoric, reflecting the philosophical basis (or not), tends to be framed around 'rights' instead. Even though no one cares about political philosophy, the contradiction between 'rights' and 'doing-what-makes-society-best' is apparent, especially if the rhetoric isn't very precisely articulated.
The oversimplified version, in my view, is something like this: Libertarians want to start with the ideal of no government, and add just enough to have the 'minimal' size to keep society working. Liberals imagine a (large) government that secures the welfare of society, and trim it to keep society as free as possible. Whichever side you're on, you end up somewhere in the middle - the only difference is context, and who you irrationally dismiss as wrong.
(*) I don't actually remember any of this, so I'm probably wrong.
-
Your example is not exactly what I'm trying to understand, but it's close. People recite their standard libertarian/republican/liberal talking points without a care for the vast number of times they have convenient "exceptions" or opinions based on rationale that is non-transferable to other subjects.
Time to make a second attempt at the thing I deleted earlier...
I think people believe that concessions in service of an ideal are pragmatism rather than hypocrisy. If the ideal society cannot be achieved, then it is better to compromise to do the best we can. In a consequentialist framework, this is philosophically consistent. The trouble is that libertarianism (and most formulations of liberalism) don't fit into that framework - they're rights-based instead (*). The rhetoric, reflecting the philosophical basis (or not), tends to be framed around 'rights' instead. Even though no one cares about political philosophy, the contradiction between 'rights' and 'doing-what-makes-society-best' is apparent, especially if the rhetoric isn't very precisely articulated.
The oversimplified version, in my view, is something like this: Libertarians want to start with the ideal of no government, and add just enough to have the 'minimal' size to keep society working. Liberals imagine a (large) government that secures the welfare of society, and trim it to keep society as free as possible. Whichever side you're on, you end up somewhere in the middle - the only difference is context, and who you irrationally dismiss as wrong.
(*) I don't actually remember any of this, so I'm probably wrong.
It gets much worse if you try to grasp the more leftist versions of libertarianism, many come from anarchist/communist/socialist movements that sprouted all over Europe in the 1800s. Many of these discard the more...unorganized thoughts of Anarchism (Bakunin's ramblings) and they tend to be linked with political philosophies that heavily criticized the communist/Bolshevik regimes or organizations, and now they tend to criticize the "Social-Democrat" thought pushing it to the right-wing field when many of this neo-libs are likely agreeing in part with the "social state" yet going for economic freedom/pro-private sectors.
They probably have a similar path from the American Libertarianism except in the opposite spectrum of politics. Like Wast said, they focus much more on individual rights/civil liberties and they see the decay of solidarity on the lower class through economic constriction. In their quirky way these vile creatures are anti-capitalist.
Many of these can be simply put as being anarchic for everything but the defense of basic rights...erm..social state then, in a way they are socialist who don't want a heavy regime taking over the strings, many embracing ideals that give more autonomy to small areas of territory so that there's less centralization and more processes of decision being public and participative.
Now comes the nuances.
Collectivist anarchism is pretty much advocates a territory is just a collection of participist communes where there's no actual land owners. People work on whatever there's to do and they get a say as much as anybody else. Very pretty but...erm...don't those weird religious cults in the middle of the USA kinda use a distorted doctrine similar to this?
Anarcho-syndicalism is similar to the last one except it's more like a "silent" proletariat dictatorship with local organizations to avoid any tendency to elitism and the creation of government.
Libertarian Socialism are the ones I modeled to make the beginning of this post, those ugly know-it-all bastards think they can create a society that regulates civil-liberties but then throw it all to the pigs by not having a centralized hierarchic government from which to run the territory. Instead they tend to think like the collective anarchists in which people can govern themselves out of necessity.
Mutualism is pretty much an anarchic society of entrepreneurs/creative people.
Anarcho-communism is the most Frankenstein of them all, yet one of the most successful historically, being one of the drivers towards the revolutions and their subsequent failures and demise of democracy in Spain, Italy and Russia. They are the reasons of the rise of dictators in these countries, and without WWII they'd have survived and likely still be a challenging force to it all. They all died tragically, either devoured or imprisoned by Bolsheviks, either bombed by Hitler's and Mussolini's bombers in Spain, or starved and skinned and stoned to death in Italy's lovely landscapes.
There are more nuances but "Libertarians" in europe kinda spring from any of these dark, shady, dirty corners. Now there is only world guru, Noam Chomsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky) :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance: :obeisance:
-
I would consider myself pretty libertarian on most issues (especially social). Of course, regulation needs to exist where it needs to exist, but a free market is (almost) always a good thing.
-
Your example is not exactly what I'm trying to understand, but it's close. People recite their standard libertarian/republican/liberal talking points without a care for the vast number of times they have convenient "exceptions" or opinions based on rationale that is non-transferable to other subjects.
Time to make a second attempt at the thing I deleted earlier...
I think people believe that concessions in service of an ideal are pragmatism rather than hypocrisy. If the ideal society cannot be achieved, then it is better to compromise to do the best we can. In a consequentialist framework, this is philosophically consistent. The trouble is that libertarianism (and most formulations of liberalism) don't fit into that framework - they're rights-based instead (*). The rhetoric, reflecting the philosophical basis (or not), tends to be framed around 'rights' instead. Even though no one cares about political philosophy, the contradiction between 'rights' and 'doing-what-makes-society-best' is apparent, especially if the rhetoric isn't very precisely articulated.
What is this "consequetialist" of which you speak?
Regardless, are you saying that individual rights and best-for-society ideals are mutually exclusive? In that the more you have of one, the less of the other? And that it gets worse when people can't or don't explain the trade offs that they personally would like to see?
Interesting. I'll have to mull over my own political philosophy in this framework.
-
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, but they are fundamentally different. By 'consequentialist' I mean judging the goodness (or rightness) of something by its consequences. In a rights-based framework, you start by claiming people have certain rights that need to be protected (property, privacy, liberty etc.) and then go from there. So there are situations where it would be wrong to take away rights even if society as a whole might be improved in some other way (this sentiment comes up often in America with respect to things like freedom of expression). This is much more rigid than the approach that just assigns some value to protecting rights and weighs it against other benefits.
People seem to have a habit of claiming they have certain rights (like FREEDOM), but failing to articulate exactly what they are.
-
Where can this test be taken?
-
Where can this test be taken?
Oh, duh, a link might help, eh?
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
-
So, here is my test:
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-2.75&soc=-5.38)
Now, I will read this thread.
-
Didn't load for some reason:
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-2.75&soc=-5.38)
I agree with what most of you said about the waugeness of some questions.
After reading your statements, I reallize that I am younger and more inexperienced than you lot. I find this debate VERY interesting, and I must say this is something I do not have a firm opinion on (yet). This is what I am trying to lern more about.
Having said that, I still have opinions. One is that I find the old left-right scale to primitive and somewhat outdated. I also think authoritarian / libertarian is a bit oversimplified.
There are a few basics I would like society to adress more:
# is it really OK to have people live well off of other people's work?
# is it OK to tell other people how they should live their lives?
# is it OK to criminalize actions that concern no one else but the person in question?
I think there are no intrinsic rights, only those rights that we can agree upon.
Agreeing on rights, is a way of limiting conflicts between people, as we get a code of conduct.
I think we need a bill of rights, and that must be extensive, but with it comes responsibility for your own life. You can't have rights and then expect the government to take the responsibility for you.
I'm not sure if I make any sense here, but I let it stand so you can tear it apart... Hopefully i will learn from it.
:whoops:
-
There are a few basics I would like society to adress more:
# is it really OK to have people live well off of other people's work?
# is it OK to tell other people how they should live their lives?
# is it OK to criminalize actions that concern no one else but the person in question?
Two of those are easy, in my view - but it doesn't take much for murkiness to cloud the answer.
For instance, no, in general, it is not OK to tell other people how they should live their lives. This applies most straightforwardly here in the States to issues such as sexuality (gay marriage) and morally tinted issues like abortion. It becomes murky when you talk about issues that involve far more people. Is it ok to keep poor people from buying fast food?
And why is it that, more often than not, it is the same people up in arms about the right to abortion services yet insist that we shouldn't sell fast food to poor people? To me, that's inconsistent. I think what Wast is saying is that it is a matter of rights vs. what is best for society. Right to abortion, from a consequentialist point of view - I think, and Wast, please correct me if I'm wrong - is justified b/c it ... keeps unwanted children from existing and negatively impacting society. Keeping fast food away from poor people, from a consequentialist point of view, helps keep obesity and related maladies from driving up healthcare costs and negatively impacting society. In that way they are consistent.
Where you draw the line must then be a more accurate reflection of your belief system, right? And everyone (except psychopaths and sociopaths), draws a line somewhere.
Also, no it is not OK, in general, to criminalize actions that concern no one else but the person in question. But again, murky, and all about where you draw the line. Marijuana legalization for instance. But many of the same people for legalization are also FOR laws requiring people to wear helmets when on a motorcycle. I think this question is even murkier because I have trouble tying either of those to the betterment of society at all. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what Wast is saying. Or maybe my line is really far to one side?
Is it really OK to have people live well off of other people's work? I don't know. This is a damn good question, and I wonder if it's a basic belief in "non-American" cultures that it is not fair. My initial reaction is yes, if those people are smarter, harder working and more driven than the other people, then it is not only OK, it is admirable. That's why dirt poor Republicans will rage against the 1% being excessively taxed - the 1% earned it, they believe. And they believe that, if they were smarter, or harder working, or more driven, they could be in the 1% as well. It's the "American Dream" after all.
But I'm not tied to my initial reaction, because at some point, it becomes unfair and/or too much. Unfair that some people (like Mr. Trump) start with millions of dollars and turn it into billions by being a ruthless businessman who will cut hundreds of thousands of jobs to earn an extra million in profit. Too much when an HP exec. slashes and burns through a company, laying off 1000,000 people and decreasing it's stock value 60%, and then leaves with a $75 million golden parachute while the laid off people have to go on welfare to survive. Just another question about where you personally draw the line?
-
Thanks for your answer BBB!
I think the fast food issue is a very good example. For me it is clear that you can NOT keep fast food away from poor people. They must have the right to make their own choices. The fact that it is bad for them is irrelevant. Comfort eating fast food, or sweets, &c. is only a symptom of powerty, not a cause, just as alcoholism is a symptom. If we are going to ban por people from doing things that are harmful to them we have ended up back in the good old days when the sucsessful people will tell the poor how to live their lives, i.e. tyrrany.
The prohibition did not help in "protecting" people from alcoholism. Instead it helped creating organized crime in the US, a level of criminality that was unheard of until then. The present ban on drugs does nothing to help those dependent on drugs. Instead it is draining public funds, have created the drug cartels, and are turning the drug addicts into criminals so they can support their ailment (addiction).
Is banning fast food and getting speak-easies where you can get a big greasy hambuger if you order a sallad for $100:- an attractive future?
The problem with a lot of well meaning people is that they think it is OK to ram these "protective" measures down other people's throats and thereby "save" the society. I say that is tyrrany. Well meaning does not enter in to it. I am convinced that Hitler and his Nazis believed they were going to save the German people, still...
# is it really OK to have people live well off of other people's work?
This is probably the trickest issue of them all. I believe big bussiness have gone to far. A hundred years ago, the US government broke up the big-business oligopols through the anti-trust laws. Now it seems big money can build huge corporations, corner the market of their respective domain and in practice end competition. What does Congress do? Nothing! Look at Microsoft, for instance. A disgrace, and it is, in the long run, undermining US competativeness against foreign developers. How long will it take before the Chinese will deliver a new (probably free) OS with a new range of cheap computers? What then? A trade war?
BBB's comment on Trump is to the point, and dismanteling companies and destroying jobs to make a profit ahould be nmade outright illegal. There must be some way for future corporation law to include a say in major policy matters for the employees. Trade unions have proved pretty tothless. In the US they are sidelined, and in socialist states they are only catering to the socialist governments' agenda, not to the worker's needs.
-
Might as well try this again.
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-1.75&soc=-5.08)
Edit: back in 2012 (http://forum.taijitu.org/zocalo/political-compass/) I scored -1.8, -4.2. I don't think I changed any serious thinking, just a few marginal differences in how I felt like answering some of the questions I imagine.
Edit2: And a chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=bigbaldben&ec=0.88&soc=-3.79) of all the results from this thread combined:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=bigbaldben&ec=0.88&soc=-3.79)
-
Might as well try this again.
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-1.75&soc=-5.08)
Edit: back in 2012 (http://forum.taijitu.org/zocalo/political-compass/) I scored -1.8, -4.2. I don't think I changed any serious thinking, just a few marginal differences in how I felt like answering some of the questions I imagine.
Edit2: And a chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=bigbaldben&ec=0.88&soc=-3.79) of all the results from this thread combined:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=bigbaldben&ec=0.88&soc=-3.79)
OMG I'm a freak! :laugh:
-
Thanks for the comparative img.
-
Don't worry BBB, I'm a bit of an outsider as well.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Letonna&ec=-5.63&soc=-1.18)
-
I'd say Khem and Letonna are more outliers than BBB: BBB's on the main blob, just at one end of it.
-
I'd say Khem and Letonna are more outliers than BBB: BBB's on the main blob, just at one end of it.
I'm probably more authoritarian than this quiz gives me credit for
-
I'd say Khem and Letonna are more outliers than BBB: BBB's on the main blob, just at one end of it.
I'm probably more authoritarian than this quiz gives me credit for
Likewise. I mean I think free will is to some extent a lie and thus ideologies based on the autonomy of such are most likely flawed.
-
It's ok BBB :D
(http://i.imgur.com/eQygrzv.png)
-
It's ok BBB :D
(http://i.imgur.com/eQygrzv.png)
Yay! lol, like Eluvatar said, I am near "the blob," but I'm glad someone is on the right of that big thick line down the middle.
-
It's ok BBB :D
(http://i.imgur.com/eQygrzv.png)
but what are the NUMBERS D:
-
My bad :D
Economic: 0.50
Social: 0.51
-
New chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Prydania&ec=0.5&soc=0.51):
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Prydania&ec=0.5&soc=0.51)
-
YOU'RE ALL HIPPIES!
:P
-
Eh, here's mine for the mix.
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08
-
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-3.5&soc=-5.49)
Economy = -3.5
Social = -5.49
(Slightly more left-winged than I think I am, but I think adding a "neutral" option to the quiz would help. This is the best measure I have. :))
-
The poor chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=AwesomeSaucer&ec=-3.5&soc=-5.49) is getting pretty crowded.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Khem=-8.5%2C-4.72&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=AwesomeSaucer&ec=-3.5&soc=-5.49)
-
Updated score: (https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.13&soc=-1.49)
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49
-
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08
-
Updated score: (https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.13&soc=-1.49)
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49
That's a significant shift! What cause?
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08
Added to the chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=OT&ec=-5.88&soc=-1.08) :D
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=OT&ec=-5.88&soc=-1.08)
-
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
-
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46
Dat linear correlation tho.
-
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46
Dat linear correlation tho.
I think the chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Red+Mones=-0.13%2C-3.13&OT=-5.88%2C-1.08&Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Gulliver&ec=-1.25&soc=-4.46) is overflowing.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Red+Mones=-0.13%2C-3.13&OT=-5.88%2C-1.08&Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Gulliver&ec=-1.25&soc=-4.46)
-
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46
Dat linear correlation tho.
I think the chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Red+Mones=-0.13%2C-3.13&OT=-5.88%2C-1.08&Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Gulliver&ec=-1.25&soc=-4.46) is overflowing.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Red+Mones=-0.13%2C-3.13&OT=-5.88%2C-1.08&Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Gulliver&ec=-1.25&soc=-4.46)
I think we see two blobs forming. One (left-right) starting at Allama and ending at BBB; and the other (left-right) starting at Khem and ending at SD.
-
That's a significant shift! What cause?
Parenting? Or realizing free will might be a lie. Or Libertarians turning me off from individual vs collective ideology? Maybe some combination of the above.
-
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46
Dat linear correlation tho.
I think the chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Red+Mones=-0.13%2C-3.13&OT=-5.88%2C-1.08&Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Gulliver&ec=-1.25&soc=-4.46) is overflowing.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdchart?Red+Mones=-0.13%2C-3.13&OT=-5.88%2C-1.08&Khem=-8.13%2C-1.49&AwesomeSaucer=-3.5%2C-5.49&Soveriegn+Dixie=0.5%2C1.08&Prydania=0.5%2C0.51&Letonna=-5.63%2C-1.18&bigbaldben=0.88%2C-3.79&Wast=-2.38%2C-6.15&Funkadelia=-6.13%2C-7.54&Allama=-9.0%2C-8.92&Myroria=-7.0%2C-8.31&St+Oz=-4.75%2C-6.92&Dyr+Nasad=-2.13%2C-4.15&Lindisfarne=-2.75%2C-5.38&Eluvatar=-1.75%2C-5.08&name=Gulliver&ec=-1.25&soc=-4.46)
Now I kinda want to make a quick and dirty SVG and JavaScript version that permits some kind of zooming.
-
For a moment I thought, "Hey! This comparison makes me look like a left-wing extremist!"
Then I realized... that's absolutely accurate. >_>
-
(http://i.imgur.com/ewhwx3y.jpg)
-
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67
-
For a moment I thought, "Hey! This comparison makes me look like a left-wing extremist!"
Then I realized... that's absolutely accurate. >_>
:heart: :heart: :heart: