Your Political Compass

[StoPCampinGn00b]

The Political Compass
A test to take to map out your general political ideology on a plane.
Economic result will be your left-right result
Social will be your vertical result
It's not perfect. Some questions are very general, and most of these are of American / British / Western centered topics. But it's still kind of fun whether you're really into politics, or just dwell into it at times. You can read more on what the graph tells on the political compass site.

Here's mine:

Depending on the year and circumstances, you're usually not always going to be in the same spot. I've found myself well into the Libertarian Right at times, as well as in the centrist areas.

Some subjective images to compare yourselves to:

Spoiler

And please, if you can't control yourself to have a civil discussion on any political thread, don't bother. If you want to debate someone on a political topic for days on end, head to Medivh's Tower.

 

[Cherrymage]

Here's mine:

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

Keep in mind sometimes my views about some issues and topics may change over time. I feel really unique and weird when it comes to things like politics and philosophy. I do however, find that I fit quite well with the Kuomintang of China during Chiang Kai-shek's time.

Spoiler: Potentially Cringe-Inducing Comment -- You Have Been Warned!

But there's a few things for sure to keep consistent.
I'm always an anti-abortionist, anti-communist, anti-separatist, anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-materialist for life.

For me, some stuffs that I support and care about the most are namely: spirituality, welfarism, racial unity, nationalism (both Civic and Ethical Nationalism fyi), gender equality and freedom of belief

 

[Zombie]

I lean towards Hitler the most, who would've thunk.

 

[fladdermasken]

Last time we had this thread we ended up talking about zoophilia for 6+ pages.

Good times, good times.

 

[IcemanBo]

But I must say there were some weird structured questions which baited, or were not precisely enough phrased.

 

[Naze]

But I must say there were some weird structured questions which baited, or were not precisely enough phrased.

I agree. Only Darth Vader himself would make his way into authoritarian right with such questions (okay I exaggerated). Mine:



This website is now officially under a lib-leftist government. I wonder if this common result is due to our generation or to the way the questions were phrased.

Last time we had this thread we ended up talking about zoophilia for 6+ pages.

Good times, good times.

That is because, for those members, this political compass is too simple to represent the complexity of one's political ideologies, sexual interests, favourite naruto jutsu, etc. We need this one:

Spoiler: 3 Dimensional Political Compass

Actually we need a hypercube.

 

[The_Silent]

Nothing surprising here, probably reflects my beliefs very well that it should be the goal of any government to reduce suffering and strengthen individual rights as much as possible. No authority is above questioning, no institution incorruptible, and economy, ultimately is secondary to general human welfare whenever it does not directly strengthen it. blabble blabble blabble

 

[Deleted member 219079]

I don't understand why you have to have a definite opinion on arbitrary setting. Promotion of ignorance and pre-established stand is good when you want others to inherit your political agenda though. Democracy is ridiculous and based on human manipulation, China, North Korea, Russia among others are at least putting effort into shutting ignorants up.

 

[IcemanBo]

Maybe we find an other test site! ;D

 

[The_Silent]

I don't understand why you have to have a definite opinion on arbitrary setting. Promotion of ignorance and pre-established stand is good when you want others to inherit your political agenda though. Democracy is ridiculous and based on human manipulation, China, North Korea, Russia among others are at least putting effort into shutting ignorants up.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
Democracy may have it faults, but I'm pretty sure dictatorships is only worse.

 

[A]mun]

But a Leadership might work better than democraZy. It largely depends on the subjects in control.
That counts towards all individuals anyway, giving in/resisting corruption - it just shows much more, when people are made visible in all day media.

Spoiler: my compass

Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

 

[Alok]

 

[Devine]

Hivemind?
Edit: In my country people like me are labeled center-right, which is sort of funny.

 

[fladdermasken]

I honestly think I'm far more right wing than this suggests. Probably because some questions are too dichotomized for my anarchistic values. Could have gone either way.

Economic Left/Right: 1.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

 

[Linaze]

Not sure I agree, but whatever:

 

[Cherrymage]

Well, to me, democracy may have its bad points and "holes" but it is far more better than tyranny by those Commies. But democracy works well ONLY if the general population is NOT ignorant and the people need to have some virtues such as love, patriotism, rationality, tolerance, civility and integrity. Also, it will only work if there were no serious troublemakers (e.g. Nazis, Maoists) in the first place.

Though I have to say that, the terms and concepts of "Democracy" can be abused by aspiring, hypocritical tyrants and dictators to seize power. Heck, the democratic system itself has also been abused by the Nazis to take power.

We can see how the shameless bandit Mao Tse-tung used "democracy" and "communism" as lies to cause trouble while China was in hard times (fooling and pulling patriotic people away from fighting the Japanese, accusing Kuomintang of "dictatorship" while he's actually wanting to be a dictator himself, selling harmful opium to people in hard times, separatist movements while the Kuomintang was preparing to defend China from the Japanese, etc.). They accused Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang for "corruption" and "dictatorship"; yet years later they became the most corrupt, selfish tyrants ever existed in history, even thousand times worse than the Kuomintang.

Chiang Kai-shek was pushing China into democracy and even invited the Commies, but they refused. despite their cries for "democracy!

And then four years after World War II, yes only four years, they seized power and so forgot all they said about "freedom" and "democracy". Anyone asking for freedom and democracy would then be tortured, despite the Commies firstly gathered the people to provide their opinions; tanks and troops were sent to suppress the students asking for democracy, those who defected from the Kuomintang and other parties in the name of "democracy" would then be tortured too...... (bla bla bla, more details if anyone asks) The same does also go for Tsai Ing-wen too.

 

[Eagle XI]

Economic Left/Right: -3.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

meh

 

[GhostThruster]

im pretty moderate too guys

 

[Deleted member 219079]

im pretty moderate too guys

I think that graph is fake.

 

[Naze]

I'd better step out of @Linaze's and @fladdermasken's lawn

 

[Cherrymage]

@Naze: I'm not afraid of politics... or in another world, not afraid of talking politics in front of close friends and people seemingly safe and trustworthy.

I'm simultaneously highly anti-commie, anti-capitalist, anti-Nazi and anti-abortionism. But me always pro-nationalism (pro-unity yet anti-racist), pro-life, pro-Kuomintang and pro-Tridemist but a little bit leaning towards feudalism

 

[Chaosy]

Interesting.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Some of the questions are basically trick questions

'The rich should be taxed more' is irrelevant because the rich can afford to lawyer up and avoid all taxes all together

'Land should be a thing to be bought and sold' Well it depends, are they buying and selling already owned land. Kicking people off their land? America does that quite frequently, big corporations buy out peoples land for nothing and make big profits off their lives... Blood money. Regardless of if the people want to leave their land or not.

'Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.' Again it depends on if the pupils want to go to school, like are they being held back by parents who would rather enjoy sexually assaulting them instead of educating them. ie should school be compulsory under the age of 18, YES!

'All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.' It depends, are these different people coming from other lands with skills or to fuck up my country? What value do they bring to my country. I like the German law in this regard. In Germany they kick people out of their country if they can't learn the language with in 4 years. If you are going to live in my country, you better contribute. Don't expect me to learn your language so that you can buy and sell, work and be educated.

'In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.' Uhm... NO! That goes against individualism. Unless they want us to be slaves unquestioning to their command.

Result:

Wow I'm just the same as everyone else That can't be!!!! I believe criminals should be subjected to slave labour and that homosexuality is inherently evil. How can I be the same?!

 

[GhostThruster]

i agree with thelordofchaos201, these questions are way too tricky and we, being intelligent gentlefellows, definitely havent missed any of their points

'Land should be a thing to be bought and sold' is irrelevant, because rich land owners can always afford to lawyer up and not have their land bought or sold

'Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory' is irrelevant, because rich school kids can always afford to lawyer up and not make classroom attendance compulsory

'All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind' is irrelevant, because rich people can always afford to lawyer up and avoid different sorts of people altogether

'In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded' is irrelevant, because rich people can always afford to lawyer up and have people below to be commanded

 

[Devine]

In the end we need economic incentive for people to work hard and think outside of the box so they can lawyer up as frequently as needed.
A poor people can always working hard and lawyer up with the earned monkey.

This thread is trash.

 

[WhiteFang]

meh,was waiting for a download so I thought "Why not?"

Don't really care about politics at all,and I don't like the subject.

 

[Cokemonkey11]

It seems like most of us are moderate lib/left -

> Don't really care about politics at all,and I don't like the subject.

I think people tend not to care about things that either they can't control, or they perceive as a solved problem.

I'm with you in both cases.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

now class does anyone know how politics was developed?

.....

That's right Bianca, politics as we know it today was first developed in Rome where the first governments and diplomatics was made. now does anyone know what a president would have been even before the kings and emperors?

.....

no? well back way back when, before cities and large buildings and even larger communities, the world was divided into villages. in each village the people would come to an agreement on who should lead the village and make sure its people are safe from famine and or war. these people were called the village elders. when ever there was a problem the people would go to the village leader to resolve it. the elder would at times ask the community for help if he or she could not resolve the problem alone.

this was basically your taxes and voters rights back in the past. you as a village could demand something be done and as the elder they decided if it should be done or even if it is an accepted solution to a problem among the community. in times of famine and war if you were to ask for help the village elder might reject your plea based on your reception in the past. say if the village was being flooded and you and your family refused to help dam up the raising waters, then in times of trouble your value or worth wouldn't mean much and as such no one would care if you were starving or being raided and raped on a regular basis.

however if you did help in the past and the village leader refuses to help, you can threaten his/her life. if the elder refuses a larger percentage of the village then well the elder won't be elder or alive very long after. ^-^

the problem is now in this modern world we can not knock on our elders door. you can't visit the president and complain. we can not even threaten the leaders in any way unless we are leaders our selves. effectively we as people have no voice and the government has no obligation or fear of their failure to commit to them. yet we still have to pay taxes, in fact we are forced to pay taxes with little to no benefit what so ever. if we starve, die because of war or suffer some other otherwise government related fault, then the government can tell us, 'fuck off its not our problem'

which is why I vote for us going back to village elders not presidents

 

[Naze]

which is why I vote for us going back to village elders not presidents

Although proposing us to go back for pre-feudalism village elders sounds comical, decentralizing power with local elected representatives is pretty much a debated topic and a serious political position held by a lot of people. However this topic can get complicated. Even EU, which has been criticized about being too "restrictive" with the associated nations (therefore denying political freedom of "local communities", in other words, centralization) has subsidiarity* as one of their principles (which can be roughly understood as decentralization). Yes a very debatable topic...

*Subisidiarity (in Wikipedia): In its most basic formulation, it holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Although proposing us to go back for pre-feudalism village elders sounds comical, decentralizing power with local elected representatives is pretty much a debated topic and a serious political position held by a lot of people. However this topic can get complicated. Even EU, which has been criticized about being too "restrictive" with the associated nations (therefore denying political freedom of "local communities", in other words, centralization) has subsidiarity* as one of their principles (which can be roughly understood as decentralization). Yes a very debatable topic...

*Subisidiarity (in Wikipedia): In its most basic formulation, it holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.

We've had the same system in the UK and new Zealand. problem is without the title of president people treat the priministers rather poorly.

still this is very effective at sending the message that the people are not happy

 

[NightStalker]

Heres me

Well, to me, democracy may have its bad points and "holes" but it is far more better than tyranny by those Commies. But democracy works well ONLY if the general population is NOT ignorant and the people need to have some virtues such as love, patriotism, rationality, tolerance, civility and integrity. Also, it will only work if there were no serious troublemakers (e.g. Nazis, Maoists) in the first place.

Though I have to say that, the terms and concepts of "Democracy" can be abused by aspiring, hypocritical tyrants and dictators to seize power. Heck, the democratic system itself has also been abused by the Nazis to take power.

We can see how the shameless bandit Mao Tse-tung used "democracy" and "communism" as lies to cause trouble while China was in hard times (fooling and pulling patriotic people away from fighting the Japanese, accusing Kuomintang of "dictatorship" while he's actually wanting to be a dictator himself, selling harmful opium to people in hard times, separatist movements while the Kuomintang was preparing to defend China from the Japanese, etc.). They accused Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang for "corruption" and "dictatorship"; yet years later they became the most corrupt, selfish tyrants ever existed in history, even thousand times worse than the Kuomintang.

Chiang Kai-shek was pushing China into democracy and even invited the Commies, but they refused. despite their cries for "democracy!

And then four years after World War II, yes only four years, they seized power and so forgot all they said about "freedom" and "democracy". Anyone asking for freedom and democracy would then be tortured, despite the Commies firstly gathered the people to provide their opinions; tanks and troops were sent to suppress the students asking for democracy, those who defected from the Kuomintang and other parties in the name of "democracy" would then be tortured too...... (bla bla bla, more details if anyone asks) The same does also go for Tsai Ing-wen too.

I just saw this i agree to you to some extent. Democracy has many problems, yeah in order for it to work as best as it can, the society should be well educated and must be aware of all things that would have effect on them. The problem is perfect Democracy seems like a distopic society. There would be many limitations to the people and there wouldn't be so much freedom.

And yeah, false democracy leads to dictatorships and oligarchy or totaliterians. It is quite common in history.

 

[Rui]

Fortunately, I had recently redone the test. I remember last one I took before that, I ended up on the center of the graph.

Last time we had this thread we ended up talking about zoophilia for 6+ pages.

Good times, good times.

That's part of letting discussions flow. And it was still better than consecutive weeks in which it seems like nothing happens anymore.

 

[Zombie]

I just found this via /pol/: 8values

Something akin to this political compass thingy, although perhaps more broken down and (at least in my case) less accurate.

 

[Naze]

That's part of letting discussions flow.

And how they flew back then!

I just found this via /pol/: 8values

Something akin to this political compass thingy, although perhaps more broken down and (at least in my case) less accurate.

(Oh my, 60 questions!)

Hmm, the presentation of the concepts of tradition against progress is kinda polemical - of course that a lot o people that consider themselves conservatives and traditionalists won't agree that it is the direct opposite of progress (e.g. some guys from /pol/ I guess?).

 

[Zombie]

Hmm, the presentation of the concepts of tradition against progress is kinda polemical - of course that a lot o people that consider themselves conservatives and traditionalists won't agree that it is the direct opposite of progress (e.g. some guys from /pol/ I guess?).

I agree, I view traditionalism as something that defines how people should behave, whereas 'progess' means the advancement of technology in my opinion.

Perhaps 'progress' in this sense is meant to refer to the political group calling themselves 'progressives', which actually is opposed to conservativism.

 

[LordDz]

Meep.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

View attachment 266017

Meep.

What is this about?

and what is this about?

#12 + Quote Reply

I'm pretty sure that last one should be banned on the hive... linking to youtube is something not everyones monthly data can handle

 

[LordDz]

Linking to youtube a bannable offense?
Lol.

 

[Devine]

My ideal world relies heavily on technology, peace and equality for the population of the world to thrive. As the world becomes increasingly automated, it makes sense to provide a basic income.
It's a world where people can afford to fail, in pursuit of something that might help everyone.
It relies on the idea that people function at their best when their needs are met, and when they are inspired, as opposed to being forced and consequently unmotivated.
A world where people can freely develop themselves, basically, and where there is incentive to excel.

Is this Utopian? Maybe. Is it a viable model in today's society? Probably not.
But it seems like a good model to adopt over time, as we see technology advance, and as we see the average person get smarter, healthier, higher educated and more efficient.
One thing is for sure: we must find ways to expand equality -to a certain extend- globally.
Strive for a world where all human potential gets a chance to flourish, where the struggle to survive becomes outdated everywhere and where people are only left with the question "what should I possibly do with my life to give it some meaning". A social narrative of community and togetherness is key to all this.

This is more elaborate than a graph. Pick it apart, I'm willing to learn!

 

[Naze]

This is more elaborate than a graph. Pick it apart, I'm willing to learn!

Well there isn't much to debate from your ideal society, I guess that is pretty much where most of us are aiming for. The disagreements may start at how people believe is the right way to achieve that: through open market? Through stronger state regulations of goods and services? What about liberating drugs? [tense music]

 

[Devine]

Well there isn't much to debate from your ideal society, I guess that is pretty much where most of us are aiming for. The disagreements may start at how people believe is the right way to achieve that: through open market? Through stronger state regulations of goods and services? What about liberating drugs? [tense music]

Hmm. Well with this ideal society in mind, I answered all of these test questions. I imagine someone who answered the questions differently also has a different view on the long term state of things.
@Zombie , how do you see this?

 

[Zombie]

I pretty much agree. I think every sane person wants a society where everyone is happy, there is equality, wealth and there is peace. I myself read some analysis on how on the long term, due to the advancement of technology, capital income would replace labor income within the world, but I think that too would be merely the privilege of a few, as most people don't understand how capital income works and probably never will, since they don't have the mental capacity to do so (edit: I mean, a lot of manual laborers don't really understand how the job market and labor income works to begin with). I think technology will make the social divide even wider, the poor people will be poorer and the rich people will be richer.

Manual laborers will lose their jobs and since they don't have the capacity to invest or appreciate their basic income, they'll probably just get out and protest, waiting for the government to solve their problems.

And with such a model, you don't even take the differing cultures, immigration and religious divide into account.

I think people with differing ideologies disagree on how the same utopia be achieved and moreso, whether that can be achieved at all.

I for one, as much as I would like a utopia like yours, don't believe that it can be ever achieved, mostly because
A) People are stupid
B) People are lazy
C) People are selfish

And these three characteristics cannot ever be exterminated from the human race.

 

[A]mun]

I hope Star Trek's depiction of an abundance-society comes to realization, next century maybe :F...