There's what you say, and then there's...what you say. I rephrased your points to highlight the way in which you conduct a "discussion" the one in which you advance your ideas and then keep everyone else out because they don't know how to have a discussion on your level.
Your first post in the thread starts by throwing out the graph as false. So from there on if anyone does want to talk about it it doesn't matter because it's false now.
Anytime someone references the graph, which is obviously inaccurate it's just not possible to have a standardized test that generalizes to anyone (but it's not without value), you bring up how it's not made properly so it doesn't matter.
"The problem with this quiz, is that they are testing on two axises simultaneously and accept 4 degrees of positive response."
4 degrees of positive response? Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree? Are these the 4 degrees of positive response? They are just qualitative amounts which in calculation are probably just -2, -1, 1, 2. So I'm not sure what your beef is with the graph. They aren't testing on two axises, whatever that means. They are plotting a point where two lines intersect. Whatever your total for economic questions is becomes one line and your total for social becomes another line.
The quiz isn't about, is this a fair question? It asks do you agree or disagree with this statement. They aren't going to rephrase it for you.
And to claim that neo-liberalism (read: capitalism) is socialism? What the fuck? Just because neo-liberalism doesn't rely entirely on a free market doesn't make it socialism.
And you brought up how they are all socialism, again, to explain how this graph is wrong. According to you this whole graph collapses to one line in which you are either libertarian or not.
You believe uncompromisingly in liberty or your a socialist.
And this idea that democracy is about day to day feelings? "Oh, I feel like I'll vote for panda bears today." I don't understand how you can argue this while feeling that you yourself are qualified to vote. You only extend the acknowledgment of the ability to reason to yourself or those that agree with you?
Why does this internet graph, read:lolgraph, need to go from hey check this out, to hey that doesn't agree with me, to no one understands what fascism and communism and socialism are, to this downward spiral of bullshit.
You claim to be appreciate the complexities of social constructions, but your very first post drops people into 4 groups. There is so much gray, but for you it seems to always boil down to black and white... Either you believe this or you can't possibly believe anything this -ism "stands" for.
I don't understand your burning desire to state obvious things as if you are in on a secret and everyone else is clueless. All rights are derived from property. Got it. Already understood. Roger that, mate.
But that is no argument against Dispel, or against this graph, but you retreat to it often. "It comes down to liberty, and property. Got it?"
Dispel doesn't mean that the world is complex in that it cannot be understood. The world is complex in that not everyone is of like minds. Each acts simultaneously to achieve goals in every different direction. Your argument is that if the government would just get out of the way everyone could get to what they really want to do and that is to have their own property and liberty.
But that isn't what everyone wants. History has shown time and time again that having your own property and liberty is not enough, you must have more. The existence of governments is proof enough I think. You also act as if governments weren't comprised of individuals.
So yes, you are arguing for a Utopia like world where things are explained and categorized easily by normative -isms. And where people act similarly towards the same goal, but pesky government is in the way.
An further more. A one state example, Switzerland, is not enough when you are talking about all states. There is not one social or economic -ism that can generalize to every state. There will always be at least one that doesn't fit. Often that example is China, North Korea, or the US.
And then about here in the thread you bring up logical fallacies. You use decorum all of a sudden, on wickedfire, to stonewall opposition.
Dispel points out this. You've side stepped and changed the topic. Just as your first post in the thread steered it off into la la land because you'd rather not talk about the political compass.
You even need to argumentatively agree with LogicFlux on not loving politicians.
And that's about where I come into to hurr durr up your quotes for what they really say.
"that arrogant prick guerilla said something, and he says it is right because he is guerilla and guerilla is awesome."
Uh, ya. That was the argument bro.
And on where politicians land on this graph. I don't see an issue with it. They took each person, looked at their track record, and the actions they've taken or positions they've stated, etc. and those are more than enough to determine whether they agree with each statement or not. Where they are on the graph, is where they land on that graph using this system of measurement. You can't just look at the graph and think, "oh that's not where they would land."