As soon as I saw where Dennis placed, I knew you would say something. lol
Further proof the first poll was badly constructed. When Ron Paul places authoritarian, and you place with Kucinich, something is rotten.
Political Compass
- Thread starter turbolapp
- Start date
Further proof the first poll was badly constructed. When Ron Paul places authoritarian, and you place with Kucinich, something is rotten.
I wonder if they just fucked the graphic up somehow. Because, look at it and imagine dragging all plot points together, as if they were on a separate layer together, and moving them down and to the left, say four or five points each way. Then it sort of makes sense.
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."
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."
The graph is fucked up, and you're looking like a douche while guerilla's being surprisingly civil considering I would have raped you several posts back.
And Dispel has made some great posts in the past, but this just looks petty and ridiculous. Some stupid argument about interventionism? Where'd all the guerilla-hate come from?
Damn people, keep your personal insecurities to yourselves. It's just embarrassing to watch.
lol
This is on their site :
In their "reading list" they have Ron Paul as "libertarian right."
So "Anarchism" might be a better label for them to use in their charts.
something isn't right here, because Mike Gravel is not more libertarian than Ron Paul. Just because he ran for the LP in the primary means nothing
Self surveys are ridiculously biased by the very nature that they're self surveys to say nothing of the quiz it's self. No one here would argue that this is not the end all be all to exactly where you stand in the political spectrum. That being said, this compass, the first time I took it, was a real eye opener for me. I think it made me more self aware which then helped me continue down a path that I was already inclined to anyway with out resisting due to some silly preconceived notion of who I was supposed to be. Which is why I brought it out again.
I'm not sure what exactly the spanking question was about but if I had to guess I would say two things. Spanking is an authoritarian tendency(physical punishment used to control behavior). It's also something we were mostly all brought up with but has recently undergone a reconditioning in society. So the people that are more likely to question authority(tradition) and possibly go against the grain would maybe be opposed to spanking.
The one party thing is appealing to people who are tired of things not getting done because everyone is arguing all the time. (I hear this alot from my parents) It's the extreme. If I had to choose between the two evils. I personally would much prefer stuff to never get done (which yes totally sucks) than an authoritative one minded state.
I would say the opposite is true. People that are opposed to spanking are going with the grain since that is the prevailing tendency now. Those who still think spanking can serve a purpose are the ones going against the grain. And my guess would be that it is a determinant of your placement on the left/right axis, not the libertarian/authoritarian axis.
That being said - kids need an ass whooping every once in awhile.
You reminded me of one of the questions that was dumb.
They asked something like would a one-party system get laws passed quicker.
Well, I answered YES, because it's true. However, I'm totally opposed to a one party system. But I'm guessing they gave me an authoritarian point for that.
Just because dictatorships and kings get decision making done faster (A simple fact for everyone) does not mean I support those things in any way.
There were a few other questions like that which pissed me off.
All of you true libertarians are gona shit your jeans when the government MAKES you purchase health insurance or be fined. The last hold out in the senate has just been bribed/threatened into compliance with dirty reid. Mandatory health care is almost here!
As for me I WILL NOT PAY! I'll cash out/sell all assets and close all bank accounts so they won't steal the money from me. I'll fuckin go cash if I have to. The government WILL NOT force me to buy ANYTHING.
As for me I WILL NOT PAY! I'll cash out/sell all assets and close all bank accounts so they won't steal the money from me. I'll fuckin go cash if I have to. The government WILL NOT force me to buy ANYTHING.
I know, Ben Nelson makes me sick. First Mary Landrieu, then Lieberman, then Nelson. Who can't fucking be bribed in the Senate? Is there anyone?
BTW, did you hear how Obama's team threatened to close down one of the Senator's army bases if they didn't vote correctly? How fucked up is that shit?
This is an example why quizzes with these sort of "temperament analysis"(if you will) questions will always yield inaccurate results for me. Because I think I answered yes on the one party question. One party systems and/or authoritarian regimes do get shit done. Acknowledging that doesn't mean I approve of them or would want to live under one. There's a few questions like that, that if they used the answer to determine my political bent, then they were being misled, on their own account, because of a poorly worded or thought out question.
Just because you acknowledge a positive or negative attribute of something doesn't mean you approve or disapprove, respectively.
I want to give out so much rep in this thread but I have to "wait 24 hours".
Fuckers.
Seriously though, other than droplister, some great discussion here.
Fuckers.
Seriously though, other than droplister, some great discussion here.
I have remained a liberal-libertarian-Democrat. A few of the questions were unanswerable, like the companies using DNA from crops.
The government already forces you to buy car insurance in order to legally and safely operate a vehicle. If you're not buying it, god help us all.
It's going to take is a CATO or ACLU lawsuit to get this thrown out of the books. It's unconstitutional on religious grounds, because there are groups who don't believe in any kind of health care.