Printable View
Pretty sure there has been a thread on this before but I'm making a new one cuz that's how I roll
The Political Compass - Test
Here were my results:
http://i.imgur.com/epcWK.png
edit, apparently this grid gives you a label. enjoy your label.
http://i.imgur.com/J9ZXi.jpg
here is ftr so far
http://i.imgur.com/xRJMp.png
also may be interesting to pull up the past thread(s) if someone can find them to compare past results to see how much people have changed.
but i'm not doin' it, ain't nobody got time for that.
sup
http://i.imgur.com/aNqyO.png
best buds
ARE YOU ME?
btw i'm going to plot everyone's results on a cumulative ftr chart, so take the test EVERYONE
Mine were:
Economic = -2.25
Social = -6.82
well show the graph you lazy fuck
edit - here is mmm
http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...2.25&soc=-6.82
This is not a valid statement
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
you're a towel.
Pretty much the same result as you two buds.
Economic = -3.5
Social = -4 ish
at least i got to page two this time. i must be in a carefree mood
there was something in there about "regulation" too suggesting command and control regulation but not specifying exactly, could be self-regulation or anything on the spectrum but I still answered it :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://i.imgur.com/CXqGC.png
1,-4.7
I'm Gandhi!
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...6.38&soc=-3.44
This question is dumb. How does it know one of the inferior races isn't answering it wrong?Quote:
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
I actually had to pause and consider if it meant the human race or like... caucasian, african...
Man, I gotta stop reading Sowell.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...1.62&soc=-5.64
I don't understand how people can score deeply in the green or blue quadrants. I feel like that's being irate at the god damn government for controlling half my life while completely embracing it as it controls the other half of my life. Maybe its just because the freedom to smoke weed or have gay sex or practice any religion is closer to home than economic freedom.
edit: Not trying to derail the thread, just a thought.
here is ftr so far
http://i.imgur.com/qgEVU.png
yer doing better than me. tilting at like every second question.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I agreed with all those things but I also said stuff like I don't think religion should be taught at schools blah blahQuote:
Originally Posted by Renton
For bode (can't put a non-image in image tags :( )
http://i.imgur.com/Lx4cg.png
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...3.00&soc=-7.08
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
pretty sure I've moved to the right since i last took one of these, but still as strongly (social) libertarian as i was then.
Economic freedoms tend to have a much bigger impact on others than personal freedoms do. A simple example is basic environmental protection: If industry has no environmental regulations, are only accountable to shareholders, and it's cheaper to dump toxic waste in a river, then they will, at the expense of the health of communities reliant on that river.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I'm not anti-corporation, or anti-capitalism by any means, but I do believe that there are some basic rules that should be in place. Much like we need laws to protect people from cunts on an individual level, we need protection from cunty organizations on a larger scale. What gets regulated, and where the line is drawn is certainly a source of debate, but I think extreme laisse-faire capitalism is a disaster.
So... time for FTR to start some sort of anarcho-syndacalist youth movement, apparently. One notable anarcho-syndicalist would be Noam Chomsky.
http://i.imgur.com/TBi02.png?1
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82
These questions are missing a neutral "I don't care" option though.
We take it in turns as a sort of executive officer for the week,Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at the special bi-weekly meeting
by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs
but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...7.12&soc=-6.21
As someone who is deep in the green quadrant, I can shed some light on this. As an active, dues-paying member of Amnesty International, I come at all this from a human rights perspective, where we should create and enforce laws that facilitate human rights while striking down laws that don't. Since huge, multi-national corporations aren't the best at upholding human rights when unregulated, I welcome that type of government control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Nailed it imo. Beautifully put too.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
FYI I think I'm h on the above distribution.
So yeah for those who aren't in touch with anarcho syndacalism> Anarcho-syndicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-managed is the keyword I think; no state/bureaucrats/politicians to turn to to ask for help. The idea is that there can be no state that does not govern in favour of the ones that hold the most power, and that power corrupts.
In theory, according to the results, these ideas should find some resonance with those who got results in the green quadrant...
Anarcho-syndicalists, the way I understand it, is a form of self-organized worker-based society where there is no state governing the workers, and it fits deep in the green quadrant. I'm noticing basically all of FTR is tending away from the authoritarian side of the chart, and either medium-left (where I scored) or centre-right (where you scored). I think the main difference is what our ideas are of what individual people strive to do in our perfect society. Do they prioritize success and profit, or do they prioritize human rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
weeeeee, i'm close to the dalai lama!
http://i.imgur.com/BYinF.png
I don't understand how people don't understand how people can score deeply in the green or blue quadrants.
Maybe you feel wrong. Sometimes the gov't is just what we call it when we all pull together to do something, a sometimes check and balance on the free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Take for instance the free markets solution to high fructose corn syrup. If you put fructose in food, people will like it, people will buy it. Therefore, put more fructose in food.
Too much fructose in the food supply? You get an obese people. An obese people are a diseased people.
If only we could have some mindful force to fight back against that trend.
How's about we all come together and do it for ourselves. Let's call it - government.
-"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
Wut? I know communism or marxism but... what? I need the 3rd option for a lot of these questions. Either I find it non-sense or I can't make sense of it.
Though, some of them are really good.
-Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
On the one hand, if someone owns a land, they can make it profitable and profit is usually a good thing. But what if someone can make your land more profitable than you? And you're clever enough to rent instead of sell? And you're clever enough still to take a % in perpetuity? Now you're a straight vampire of wealth. A gluttonous growth of the progress of the free market.
And what happens if an owner will not sell or move in the face of a project of such public wealth and good that everyone else finds his decision to be wanting? Or such private wealth that someone is moved to move you.
And what happens when land because too valuable that only the titans may use it? Can the efforts to derive a profit from the land overwhelm the needs of far too many?
And on the other side, what do you do without ownership. How did those indians fair?
Shit vexes me, yo!
I know that I would like to own land.
-It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
How does anyone answer these questions?
I'm sure some know how to manage risk and allocate capital very well, other serve to make liquid and readily available capital to those with an idea, but on the other hand, the under hand, there are many opportunities for money movers to place a penny in their own pockets.
I'm starting to think this compass isn't a true compass at all!
i had a very intelligent friend who went on a very long rant about how sad it is that so many brilliant minds who could change the world end up in finance so they could make mad paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
fucking commies itt
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...7.50&soc=-6.36
http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...7.50&soc=-6.36
Hopefully they get good an rich and spend their leisurely retirement doing something worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bikes
Tycho Brahe was good an rich when he collected all the data Kepler would eventually work through to form his equations.
Blaise Pascal never worked a day in his life and made many contributions to the world, including being the lesser father of probability theory.
So many of these quandaries cut both ways.
Again not trying to derail the thread but this example of government need I find curious. If people want to eat food with HFCS then they should be able to, and companies should be able to meet that demand. This doesn't even have to do with economic freedom; it falls squarely on the bottom edge of the compass. If you want to mitigate the externality of this, an obese people, you might as well tax everything on the planet that is associated with risky behavior as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Also, the reason why HFCS is in all our food instead of sugar is due to protectionist policies and corn subsidy. It is largely a govt enabled problem.
-All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
What are you saying? I get the boys hang with boys, whites hand with whites, until they can fend for themselves, there's a natural trust.
But the words chosen are so damn vague.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Want is precisely the problem here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I want to stop smoking, but I also want a cig.
And HFCS is only an example because it's a real example.
Or should I more amusingly say, want is ambiguously the problem here.
-The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
No means everything else. If a close secondary function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs, then disagree is the way to go.
Test, you suck.
Sometimes people don't know what's best for them. I smoke and I enjoy smoking, but at the same time I hate the fact that I wanted to smoke - not in a "I want to go to the movies way", more in a "I neeeed to smoke". I'm pretty liberal but sometimes people honestly need help. If tobacco was banned and no one knew what tobacco was/it was impossible to get hold of a lot of smokers would be a lot happier. The only reason it isn't banned is because the government rakes it in in tax. The fact a pack of cigs is £1 in Eastern Europe and £7 here for exactly the same product shows that pretty well
Here's a good one.
-A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
China is a one party state, with many parties inside of it. Russia is a two party state, with one party holding the lion's share. America is a two party state, with the world watching. Saudi Arabia has no parties and oil richness.
An orgy of info and too many ways that two party systems can seem a lot like one party systems and vice versa.
edit oh right, disagree is all other options. Test, man. Get it together.
-Some people are naturally unlucky.
Some people do live a die a bit under the mark, but the choice of 'naturally' makes me say no. They could live 1000 lives and be naturally lucky in many of them.
Test, why?
http://i.imgur.com/QEGgQ.png
I'd like to make a better test, though.
this is more of a question to see if people believe in things like "fate" and "everything happens for a reason" and "god predetermines everything" "god wills it" etc imoQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
As poker players don't see how anyone could answer "Some people are naturally unlucky."
It's just probability that they will be on the wrong side of "chance" more often than not.
karl pilkington wants this man DEAD
This is definitely an example of failed government intervention. Subsidies as a whole seem too heavy handed an approach for an interventionist government. The results are too difficult to predict, and typically are done with tunnel vision on one goal, bi-products of said intervention are ignored or disregarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
-5.5, -5.3http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...5.50&soc=-5.33
Im worried that some of these questions dont actually follow the rules of logic when deciding things, and also dont appreciate how choices might be made regarding that logic.
Like, "rehabilitation is a waste of time for some criminals". Well, yeah. Some criminals are terminally ill and will die within the hour, thus rehab is waste of time for them and thus a waste of time for some. Bam.
Strongly agree. But wait, is it gauging what i think 'some' means? Well shit, strongly disagree then. Wait, does that mean i think its false? /head asplode
If Disagree says that God wills it, I ended up in that camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by bikes
It's also a glorious triumph. Like how waste whey from cheese production becomes valuable proteins or waste compost can became valuable methane, there was an enormous pile of cheap waste corn that someone turned into a ubiquitous sweetener.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
I got a 100! All the right answers!
I also am awed by industry's ability to capitalize on opportunities in innovative ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...5.38&soc=-5.08
Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
No one is authoritarian in the slightest?. Id guess most of us were morelibertarian, but im honestly surprised there isnt a few dots above that x axis
i was something like two blocks up from the bottom and 3 from the left
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...-3.38&soc=9.08
I purposely chose the cuntiest answers to each question. Yay boredom. Interestingly even choosing the most abhorrently communist possible answers I still am not as far left as some of the previous posters!
that would be partly because communism isnt really left-wing. if the left-right spectrum is used with communism on the left and fascism on the right, it has to turn into a circle where communism and fascism meet. but even that is a little odd because the spectrum/compass and labels used are all pretty much shit.
the only kind of a meaningful political spectrums are ones with a dichotomy with something like "special rights vs communal rights". the appropriate way to make a spectrum is by setting a basic presumption (like "governments should serve all citizens equally), then the spectrum becomes "what achieves that vs what doesn't achieve that".
No, it's because he's known Freedom.
No free man could ever be a true communist. Even if they were just pretending.
complete graph
http://i.imgur.com/xRJMp.png
My scientific science says that point Y was fabricated. Why would you mislead me you know I trust you :(