The Test:

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

Don't utilize tired cliches to determine placement or anything Mr.Test.

Per the rules:
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

I'm not a big fan of the quiz, however. The questions just come off as pretty damn simplistic and naive. Particularly the social crap.

Reminds me of a similar political grid/compass that was pretty much there to coax people into looking into the libertarian party. I'm not quite getting the vibe from this one, but, still, I'm naturally distrustful of these things.

-- Alex

werepossum:
(since Palin I've abandoned Barr)

If there's a story behind that I'd like to hear it.

-- Alex

Economic= -8.08
Social= -3.67

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

I was surprised to find out I was actually close to Ghandi. It's kind of flattering. Yes, I realize that isn't exactly an accurate comparison.

Of course, as is the case with quizzes like this, It's impossible to accurately guage someone's political views with a simple quiz. All you can do is get close.

Hmm...came up roughly were I figured I'd be on the first test. -3.50 on Economics and 2.31 on Authority.

On Shivari'sYour scored 4.5 on Moral Order and 2 on Moral Rules.

The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):
System: Authoritarianism
Ideology: Social Republicanism
Party: No match.
Presidents: Gerald Ford
04' Election: George W. Bush
08' Election: John McCain

Of the 487,035 respondents (5,939 on Facebook):
0% are close to you.
6% are more conservative.
63% are more liberal.
19% are more socialist.
1% are more authoritarian.

I figure I've been hanging around /reich/ too long.

Alex_P:
I'm not a big fan of the quiz, however. The questions just come off as pretty damn simplistic and naive. Particularly the social crap.

Reminds me of a similar political grid/compass that was pretty much there to coax people into looking into the libertarian party. I'm not quite getting the vibe from this one, but, still, I'm naturally distrustful of these things.

-- Alex

I felt that too, and I think my placing, though broadly accurate was partly skewed because of simplistic questions that I had no choice but to broadly agree or disagree with where no hard and fast rule existed in my mind.

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

What's the correct vote for "I think I understand the vague idea behind this statement and it is not factually incorrect, but I find all the misconceptions buried in the question to be morally distasteful"?

Is that "Agree" or "Disagree"?

-- Alex

Pretty much right in the middle of the Libertarian/Left square. Not surprising. The test is very flawed though, and has too many hot-button issues where your only real choice is strongly agree/disagree. Some questions are also phrased horribly, forcing you to take the middle ground (which doesn't exist) if you take the question literally.

Alex_P:
What's the correct vote for "I think I understand the vague idea behind this statement and it is not factually incorrect, but I find all the misconceptions buried in the question to be morally distasteful"?

Is that "Agree" or "Disagree"?

-- Alex

Damn, did I wish for that answer a few times. Some of the statements weren't incorrect, but the assumptions behind them made me want to track down whoever made the quiz and burn them.

Saskwach:
Damn, did I wish for that answer a few times. A few of the statements wren't incorrect, but the assumptions behind them made me track down whoever made the quiz and burn them.

There was that one question about, like, hanging out with your own race or something...

Well, from a practical real-world standpoint, being around people of a common background can be convenient. And for groups who face some kind of hardcore persecution, it's certainly safer, too. And, in general, there's nothing wrong with seeking out people with a common identity. So that's "agree"?

But then I also want to communicate that this shouldn't be some ideal and it would be repugnant for government or society to try to actively enforce that. And also that I dislike how "race" was used as a stand-in for culture in general there. So that's "disagree"?

And then I start to wonder if maybe there was some kind of racial-supremacist dog-whistle-speak in there that I just didn't notice when I read the question. If that's the case, a "strong disagree" would be more appropriate.

Agh!

-- Alex

-5.12
-6.31

but then again im idealogically schizophrenic (some days "they invaded my house and stole twenty dollars, they must be purged. we must (less than apetizing method of killing them, their families, and anyone who they have ever loved that i wont be repeating here) and do it publicly as a message to those who would steal" and other days "well yeah, she tried to kill me... i dont seem to be dead, and shes getting psychiatric help, so its fine, wont be having dinner with her anytime soon though"

politics are broken because people are broken, its very simple. if you do what your told simple because you were told and never question authority you should NEVER EVER EVER EVER enter a democracy. unless your on fire and wearing a metal sign requesting that i hit you with a stick, then its OK. i think freedom r good, and is the basis of most happy shit, but also includes the freedom to fuck up, make mistakes, and, of course, fail in new ways that revolutionize language because failure simply isnt a strong enough word.i think people should seek some form of education, and that it should be one of the highest priorities of a soceity, and i think perhaps some experimental system of attempting to redeem criminals instead of punish them would be both more effective and more cost effective than the current method, and fewer people would violate the law, they would obey out of respect(which is really the way to go), they would have their problems resolved, their prejudices dealt with, and all that shit, but if were going to punish we should make it cruel, possibly even punish the families, and broadcast it so people obey out of fear. really i know thats not right, because when you rule a soceity out of fear its just a downward spiral until all you have is a bunch of scared animals, and thats not good.

Alex_P:
There was that one question about, like, hanging out with your own race or something...

Well, from a practical real-world standpoint, being around people of a common background can be convenient. And for groups who face some kind of hardcore persecution, it's certainly safer, too. And, in general, there's nothing wrong with seeking out people with a common identity. So that's "agree"?

But then I also want to communicate that this shouldn't be some ideal and it would be repugnant for government or society to try to actively enforce that. And also that I dislike how "race" was used as a stand-in for culture in general there. So that's "disagree"?

And then I start to wonder if maybe there was some kind of racial-supremacist dog-whistle-speak in there that I just didn't notice when I read the question. If that's the case, a "strong disagree" would be more appropriate.

Agh!

-- Alex

Here was one of mine: "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."
Now, obviously there are different cultures and it's difficult to say which is objectively better or worse, but there are some aspects of any culture that are negative, while there are others which are positive. For example, valuing hard work. You can always say, "Well, what's actually good about a strong work ethic, when you get right down to it and nitpick the hell out of everything? Deconstructivisitism, narrativihermeneutics, etceteranium." Still, it should be agreed that for the sake of a society to function and thrive there are certain values that are just necessary - and others that are nice and helpful, if not actually required.
But it's also wrong to say that these things inherently define a people as always savage or civilised. Cultural values change with time; at the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in Britain it was often hard to get into workers' heads that they should turn up to work on time and not hungover. Nowadays, Britons just accept that that's the done thing (mostly).
So the problem was, I couldn't choose any option because I didn't believe either 'truth': that a people are inherently savage or civilised OR that all cultures are equal (as the question seemed to be implying). I was given a false dichotomy and I wanted no part in it.
This one too:
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
Sure, it's true, I guess, when you put it that way, but I just know that clicking Agree will get me Authoritarian points when I would never in a million years suggest a one-party state. Sometimes it'd be nice if the delays just disappeared, but without them...
Oh, and your one really got the blood pumping, too.

Now excuse me while I find some lighter fluid.

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

Saskwatch,

Yeah. All of those, definitely. They were so annoying I repressed them or something.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

werepossum:
(since Palin I've abandoned Barr)

If there's a story behind that I'd like to hear it.

-- Alex

It's pretty simple. I dislike McCain, who since at least 2000 has been a Democrat in everything but name - except maybe for abortion (and I'm not a big anti-abortion guy) and Second Amendment right (on which we agree.) SNL had it exactly right when they labeled him McCain (R-media), as he has been the media's darling as long as he was attacking Republicans. The guy wants to put Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat who as Clinton's HUD director raised Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portion of sub-prime mortgages and is thus one of probably three people most responsible for the current mortgage mess, in charge of fixing it. WTF? Furthermore, McCain wasn't bright enough to understand that the media was ONLY supporting him because he was attacking Republicans and would turn on him as soon as he threatened the Ascension of ANY Democrat. That doesn't bode well for his strengths as president. Plus, I was thoroughly disgusted with the Republicans who, in control of both branches of government, behaved like - well, Democrats.

Then we have Obama. His signal accomplishment in eight years as a state senator was sponsoring a bill expanding coverage in an existing government health care plan. His signal accomplishment as a US senator is sponsoring yet another Senate ethics bill which never even made it to a vote. The title "seat warmer" is the rank this man should be trying to attain, not "president". On top of that he attended an America-hating Black Liberation Theology church, started his political career with a fund raiser hosted by William Ayers (unrepentant terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and police stations, urged teenagers to murder their parents, and spent millions of dollars appropriated for education on groups like ACORN - which is where he and Obama first became friends. Then we have his political views, which are somewhere to the left of Stalin and thus anathema to me. We have his repeated votes to allow doctors to legal allow infants accidentally born to die of blood loss, exposure, or whatever other factors they may have - that's just pure evil. And when speaking without a TelePrompter or memorized statements, the man makes Bush look positively eloquent. No way in HELL would I ever vote Obama.

That leaves Barr. After Reagan I've voted Libertarian except for 2004, when I voted Bush. But Barr was (I thought) a knee-jerk social conservative as a representative, and afterward joined the ACLU, the center and protector of so much that's evil today. And I've never thought Barr to be particularly bright. And he has no sense of humor. And worse, he thinks he has a sense of humor, so when after laborious thought he detects humor he attempts to engage in it himself. Nonetheless, Barr was my man by default.

Then McCain picks Palin. I was already a big fan of Palin because of her struggle against corruption in the Alaska Republican machine and because of her successful fight against the good old boy network between politicians and oil companies in Alaska. (Basically she ended the practice where the governor assigned an area or pipeline to an oil company and the oil company decided how much the government (Alaska) should get.) I was thrilled to see her get national exposure.

So if Palin is to be VP, I can hold my nose and vote McCain.

Labyrinth:

So let me begin by introducing a website and a quiz I have long-standing respect for.
This site contains scholarly and mathematical attempt to graph political views according to a bi-axis spectrum. As can be seen on the site, the y-axis is social views, while the x-axis is economic opinion. This leads to a graphic demonstration of the political continuum.

Am I the only one who strongly rejects some of the questions posed on the site, either being unrrelated to the political landscape of our nation, or for being flawed?

Examples:

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
--Well that is the advantage of a one-party system, the only advantage. But what does significant mean? If I vote that I agree with it, does that imply that I support one party systems?

"In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded."
--Again, a language question. It sounds like we're talking about feudalism here, but what is the alternative? Everyone self-governs? People pave their own streets? Or does this not include the view of government as an agency that serves the people?

"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."
--Not a political issue! I promise, that you will never vote on an initiative to require mothers to stay at home and be homemakers.

"Astrology accurately explains many things."
--WHAT THE HELL? What is the point of this question? Are "left-wingers" more likely to accept astrology? Why not include questions like, "The earth is flat," in an attempt to label ultra-conservatives.

My score:
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

But I reject the results on the basis that the questions are 50% bullshit and unrelated to politics in America.

My genuine view:

Abortion is NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Let the states decide.
--Morally, in times when the mothers life need be saved, then abortion is acceptable.
--Morally, since many women seek illegal abortions in the absence of a legal outlet, then we have some responsibility to make sure that we at least provide safe, licensed, clean outlets, so that we do not have infanticide and clothes-hanger, back alley abortions, with botched attempts clogging our ERs.
--Morally, the mothers right to coose does not trump the fetuses right to be born.

Gay marriage is NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. THERE SHOULD BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROTECTING OR LIMITING THE RIGHT OF GAYS TO WED.
--The degree to which gay couples can obtain the legal standing of hetero-couples should be limited on to the degree to which gay couples start families. Tax breaks and co-habitation laws were created to foster the development of families in the US, and couples not breeding the future generation are not entitled to those benefits.

NEARLY all social issues ARE NOT matters for the federal government to involve themselves in.

Government regulation of industry is required, read The Jungle by Sinclair.

Over regulation is bad. Markets naturally respond by eliminating bad businesses and punishing bad decisions, and the government will always fail to regulate an economy as well as private businesses.

Bureaucracy is bad. It just hurts the little guy.

Now this is interesting, and shows me that the one or both systems are flawed:

Your scored -2 on Moral Order
and -2.5 on Moral Rules.

So I'm a liberal by one and a libertarian by the other.

Why you shouldn't vote for Barack Obama:

Very Liberal President
+
Extremely Liberal Congress
+
As many as five supreme court seats opening up
=
The disappearance of balance of power, the disappearance of the two party system, and the potential for ground-shaking change in how our government is run. And this change coming from socialist leaning big-government advocates.

Which could potentially lead to less freedom in America.
Which could potentially lead to us becoming exactly like Europe, where in countries like France and Germany you are tracked into your profession by your school system, where your income is redistributed to the rest of the nation, where unions clog industry with demands on the behalf of an over priveleged group of workings.

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

It's pretty much just that I don't want anyone to be hurt.
Except my enemies of course, I want them battered into the ground.

Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95

Meh, i filled the form in because im well bored. But my views are more convoluted than the questions allowed for, and more widely varied on specific issues. Giving me a pretty central position overall.

Uszi:
Why you shouldn't vote for Barack Obama:

Very Liberal President
+
Extremely Liberal Congress
+
As many as five supreme court seats opening up
=
The disappearance of balance of power, the disappearance of the two party system, and the potential for ground-shaking change in how our government is run. And this change coming from socialist leaning big-government advocates.

Which could potentially lead to less freedom in America.
Which could potentially lead to us becoming exactly like Europe, where in countries like France and Germany you are tracked into your profession by your school system, where your income is redistributed to the rest of the nation, where unions clog industry with demands on the behalf of an over priveleged group of workings.

because your system works just fine it would seem, where you only get 2 weeks holiday and people live in abject poverty, having their homes reposessed, despite being in thre richest nation on earth.
Not to mention your current economic situation.

werepossum:
So if Palin is to be VP, I can hold my nose and vote McCain.

You're not put off by the way she lies smilingly even long after being caught? I find that really creepy.

-- Alex

werepossum:

So if Palin is to be VP, I can hold my nose and vote McCain.

If Palin is to be VP, I WILL hold my nose and close my mouth until i turn blue and die.

(not really im not american and if i was i wouldn't care that much)

a political thread hmm?
My political views are very simple.
No one is allowed any power whatsoever.
Money does not exist.
Anarchy. I had a iscussion about this a while bakc on Passion of the Wiggly facebok page if anyone is interested.

I'm almost in the middle, Economic Left/Right: 0.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44.

I thought i would have been more liberal because i'm all for people doing what they want as long as it dosen't affet others.

werepossum:

Then McCain picks Palin. I was already a big fan of Palin because of her struggle against corruption in the Alaska Republican machine

I don't want this to become a whole big thing, but HUH?

Selective reading much?

The Political Compass:

Economic -4.62
Lib/Auth -0.31

Huh, I'm a lefty. Should have seen that one coming.

Shivari's thang

Your scored -1 on Moral Order and 0.5 on Moral Rules.

The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):

1. System: Socialism
2. Ideology: Social Democratism
3. Party: Democratic Party
4. Presidents: Jimmy Carter
5. 04' Election: John Kerry
6. 08' Election: Barrack Obama

So I'm voting for Barrack, eh? I bet America will have something to say about that.. I'm British and I'm fairly certain we had a falling out over who should be running America... LoL.

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

I'm right over there with Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama...yeah I'm thinking this test is pretty much bullshit.

There is a disappointing lack of Trotskyists on the Escapist.

TheDean:
a political thread hmm?
My political views are very simple.
No one is allowed any power whatsoever.
Money does not exist.
Anarchy. I had a iscussion about this a while bakc on Passion of the Wiggly facebok page if anyone is interested.

Fail ideology is fail.

I'm sorry, but this sets off my rant-glands like nothing else. If humans are going to accomplish anything socially, then we need a hierarchy. Like it or not, there has been no egalitarian society that has been able to survive for long. Even in modern democracies, there is no real equality. A society with total equality has no leader. A leaderless society has no direction. An undirected society will never be able to survive.

To advocate Anarchy as a supposed utopia or even a decent form of government shows a glaring lack of sense. In any society, you've got people with predatory tendencies and people with no ability to protect themselves from said predators. The existence of a state is the most efficient method to protect people from harm brought about by their fellow man.

Finally, just take a look at the world around you. Would there be an infrastructure able to support something as complex as a computer network, an electrical grid, or even a system of roads, without a controlling body? If we lived in a society without money or power, would there be incentives to improve the world around you? Why would anyone do anything if there was no way they could benefit from it? History has shown us time and time again, that when under the authority of a strong central government, things previously thought impossible can be accomplished in short order. Alexander the Great unified nearly all of the ancient world in a matter of years, the Egyptians used religious authority to drive the masses to build great monuments, the Romans didn't bring peace and stability to the Mediterranean without a strong ambition and efficient method of governance, nor did America simply pull itself out of the Great Depression without the intervention of the government.

While I try to remain open to a variety of political views, I just break out in a fit of nerdrage whenever I see someone claim that no one has the right to lead. People don't lead simply because they've got some secret power you lack or are better than you, it's because they either have the ambition and vision to lead or are chosen to lead by their peers. There are all-too-frequent times where people need to simply follow one path if they want to get out of the forest. Any path will do in theory, but there must be a path. Saying that everyone should pick there own path will accomplish nothing. If you want to live in a world where you're not constantly battling simple things conquered by the first civilizations, then fine. Anarchy is best suited to a world like that. But, if your goal is to live in a world where there is cooperation and prosperity, then you must accept that some people will have to lead you.

/nerdrage

democratic meritocracy based on psychology and sociological studies. you can discuss why you're right or wrong, but nothing could change the world for the better more than if everyone did what everyone was best at.

... and nobody is good at discussing politics.

Imitation Saccharin :

werepossum:

Then McCain picks Palin. I was already a big fan of Palin because of her struggle against corruption in the Alaska Republican machine

I don't want this to become a whole big thing, but HUH?

Selective reading much?

No, but thank you for asking.

You know, until she was selected as a candidate for veep the Dems held her up as an example of a good Republican for her work in stopping the Bridge to Nowhere.

theklng:
democratic meritocracy based on psychology and sociological studies. you can discuss why you're right or wrong, but nothing could change the world for the better more than if everyone did what everyone was best at.

... and nobody is good at discussing politics.

Wow, the only way that could go wrong would be for the people in power to be less than strictly honest. Nah, that could never happen.

EDIT: Galt, I worked with a shop foreman who was an avowed anarchist. He also wanted to move into marketing, his dream job. I could never make him see the problem in those two ideas.

werepossum:

No, but thank you for asking.

You know, until she was selected as a candidate for veep the Dems held her up as an example of a good Republican for her work in stopping the Bridge to Nowhere.

I'm not a Dem, so I fail to see how that holds any relevance.

But to the point, what exactly happened to that Bridge money?