Printable View
I saw this on
another forum I read, thought it was interesting.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
As you'd
expect from the name, its a four-point spectrum rather than just Left-Right. It uses L-R as the economic scale, and
"Authoritarian" and "Libertarian" as the north-south axis, indicating social beliefs.
I took the test and found
myself a lot closer to the center of both than I thought I'd be.
Gee, what a surprise. I'm a
left wing libertarian. But by this test, so was Ghandi. Not a bad person to think like.
That's what I got too!Quote:
Originally Posted by belgareth
Economic Left/Right -4.00
Social
Libertarian/Authoritarian -3.64
I'm a little off from you guys.
I was dead 0.00 on the social aspects, and +2 on the economic. Its a fun exercise, and I really thought I'd be
further right on both.
You could have stopped right thereQuote:
Originally Posted by idesign
:rofl:
Why state the
obvious????
OTOH, I stand on my offal, even if it stinks to some. :)
I'd really love to see my perfume and
political pal DST take this test. Could be a fun comparison Doc, you out there?
Why state more than necessary?
:)
Yeah, Doc! Please take the test and tell us where you stand. It would be interesting.
I was actually
surprised at my results in some ways because I have always felt that government is more a burden than anything else
and have yet to find any real purpose for the vast majority of it. More than anything, the function of government is
self perpetuation which is done through lies and propoganda.
And where is KoolKing? Come out
of the woodwork fella, you're always good for some reliable commentary.
Economic
Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87
So that puts me slightly more libertarian
and left than the Dalai Lama. I guess I should be happy with that. Well hello, Dali, oh hello, Dali...
But this
test is obviously useless if it shows me and Bel in the same quad. I demand a recount. ;) Ironically, I might be
more libertarian than Bel, which is pretty bad. That's like being more authoritarian than Atilla the Hun. Who
wins, Bel? I mean I know you always win, but who wins?
I'd really hate to meet the upper right guy who thinks
multinational corporations should beat his kids like nappy headed stepchildren.
I don't know about idesign being
in the middle of the road on everything. Maybe he's a left winger locked insider a right winger, a veritable
cornicopia of contrast, the iron sheik of irony. But middle of the road? Too much traffic. Maybe idesign owns the
road and can get away with it.
It does seem a bit skewed,
doesn't it?
Come on now, doc. We may disagree in many areas but I have taken a lot from what you have argued
over the years. That you don't seem to understand where I stand is always an issue. I can stand outside and watch
and have opinions about what others do. But unless somebody is directly impacting my areas of rights and
responsibility I will do nothing other than watch and form opinions. I have no right whatsoever to force any change
on another person so long as they grant me the same courtesy. By the same token, I believe you are entitled to
believe any way you like, so long as you do not try to force me to believe or act in the same manner. Personal
rights and responsibility for ones actions is the very core from where I do everything. Often I embrace other
thoughts and idea so long as they do not ty to change that core belief. Is there some form of winning or losing in
that stance? Not from my perspective but possibly from the perspective of one who would try to force changes or
their beliefs on me. I'm not competing with anybody so cannot win or lose.
These simple tests are sometimes fun
to try, but I find, like with many of them, there are too many open interpretations of terminology in the questions.
But then again I can be a semantic nit-picker.
Like the one "are you religious" one. What is "religious?" Does
one need to be a don't do anything till you clear it with the parish priest mass twice a day ritual bound Roman
Catholic? Or can you be "religious" if you follow any set of rules laid down by a major "organized religion" (and
how closely do you need to follow those rules). Are you "religious" if you consider yourself Wiccan? How about if
you just live you life based on Shinto, some Native American beliefs, Voodoo?
I consider "religion" to be "that
set of rules and guidelines you use to live you life by" sorta thing, so even being an athiest is a form of
religion, or belief.
Anyway, enough end of workday rant.
I ended up in the area of -2.5 -3 (lower left
quad). Interesting that in their example the lower right quad had no sample names... Wonder who would fit there?
Just kidding around,Quote:
Originally Posted by belgareth
Belgareth. I definitely know you believe all that. I was talking about winning in terms of who had the higher score,
and just threw in some kidding for fun.
FWIW, there is a weird element (OK, elements) to my sense of humor that
is a little edgy; OK, a lot edgy; and I typically accept that there will be a certain percentage of
misunderstandings because of it. Y'all get the restrained version here, with a few exceptions. God forbid you have
more than two beers with me, though.
Sorry for misunderstanding you,
Doc. That's always the trouble with the written word, its sometimes hard to discern intent when you can't see
facial expressions or hear tone of voice.
FunnyQuote:
Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
comments Doc! For the sake of controversy, I can definitely see you and Bel in the same quadrant, but also
definitely see the manner of degree in which you differ.
Bel only seems to win because he's immovable. Kind
of like the statue of liberty before the apocalypse. You're the anti-apocalypse, trying to arrest the sinking sand
by force of idea. Winning and losing is not much of an issue now. Waiting is the new optimism.
You're right
Doc, I'm a Porsche motor stuck in a Honda Civic. Neither one of those is happy right now.
An interesting/amusing story
goes with the statement about being unmovable. Misunderstood is a much better description. I've been described as a
liberal, a conservative and so on but deny all the labels because they are too generic.
But, the story. When
they were young I wouldn't let my daughters get tattos, piercings or dye their hair...or so they thought. I have
good reasons for my beliefs but also have the ability to teach. My second daughter finally caught on when she walked
up to me one day and said "Dad, it's my hair and I can take care of it myself. I know the problems with too much
hair dye and I know how to take care of it. Now, can I please dye my hair." My replay was, completely accurate then
and now "I never said you couldn't. All you had to do was discuss it with me like a responsible adult and you would
have figured it out a long time ago." After the shock wore off she bought hair dye and dyed her hair. She also took
very good care of it and didn't leave a mess for somebody else to clean up.
I don't win or lose and I'm not
immovable. But I do like to make people think and I do a lot to teach others. I'd also bet that nobody on this
forum really understands where I'm coming from. It happens to me all the time.
Or, to be more accurate, if I
can make somebody think, introduce a new thought or help them grow, I win.
Sure Bel, we're all
misunderstood to some extent, hence Doc's surprise about me being in the middle of the road. I was surprised too
and, as you say, there's no way to succinctly categorize the complexities of beliefs, understandings, positions or
other calculations of life on earth.
Its all fun though, and now I can call Doc a flaming liberal with a brain,
you an incomprehensible yet stolid weirdo, and myself even more of a flaming politically cross-dressing weirdo. But
what I've learned from you guys has nothing to do with a "compass", its interaction. Debate with someone who
disagrees is, obviously, what debate is all about.
As in all discussions of this nature, on these forums, we
should accept others' positions as their positions, and call each other full of shit with some level of comradarie.
What we don't want to do is emulate politicians.