|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted February 29, 2004 08:08 AM |
|
|
Remember -- the candidates didn't take the test. The results are based on what the authors of the test assume the candidates responses would be (to questions that are loaded to begin with).
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 08:19 AM |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
|
|
Dragon_Slayer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
toss toss toss
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 08:25 AM |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -3.61
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
Is this good???
Edit: Re-took test with more thought
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 09:14 AM |
|
|
What's up with all these damn liberals?
Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.62
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 02:41 PM |
|
|
I hope no one takes any offense, but I believe some of the people that got severe left wing results gave idealistic rather than realistic answers.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
posted February 29, 2004 08:31 PM |
|
|
Great work comrad Svarog 
Quote:
I hope no one takes any offense, but I believe some of the people that got severe left wing results gave idealistic rather than realistic answers.
Some of my answers could be seen as less 'realistic' because they are not widely socially accepted (such as the right for adoption for gay couples). That doesn't mean I can't believe it is right, and when my voice is needed in a demonstration or protest march I will be there. Even -like with the attack on iraq- when there's only a slim chance the demonstrations will have any 'actual' effect, as they did in that case.
I'm not active politically, but I do believe that by making yourself heard (in a peaceful way) you can bring change.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 08:47 PM |
|
|
Nidhgrin++
Many of these questions asked for our ideology and not for what we believe is realistic in the world right now. And there is nothing wrong with it, too. Just because something seems difficult to achieve now, doesn't mean it's not possible in the future.
And as for socialism, I believe that it is possible on at least some degree, even in today's world. All we have to do is find the form of socialism that works best - meaning that we shouldn't go for the extreme forms of socialism (such as anarchy or complete communism) but something in the middle.
____________
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 11:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I hope no one takes any offense, but I believe some of the people that got severe left wing results gave idealistic rather than realistic answers.
''typical materialists idea''
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 01, 2004 01:03 AM |
|
|
Idealism:realism:materialism
Heey, how dare you accuse me of idealism?! I’m a materialist myself! *confusion, shock, disbelieve. “How can he be materialist, when he is advocating a system as unreal as socialism?!”*
Calm down, guys! It’s only a matter of perception and meaning. (And is it not everything like that?)
“Idealism” – term originating from the term “idea”, as opposed to “Materialism” originating from the term “matter”. Idea vs. Matter, simple as that.
Philosophical idealism is belief in the spiritual or mind-connected nature of reality. While philosophical materialism defines the mind as a part of the universal reality. Which is true? It’s a question of personal choice. I, being an atheist and all that, undoubtedly believe the latter one. Therefore I’m a materialist. The teaching of Marx, the founder of the “idealist” society known as socialism, was actually a materialist. A branch of philosophy known as historical materialism. According to him, historical development is directly a consequence of “material conditions” in society. And this is yet a different kind of materialism, than the one connected with universal reality.
That’s what science has to say about this dilemma. Let’s hear the common man now. “Mr. Robinson, what are materialism, realism and idealism according to you?”
Mr. Robinson: “Well, materialism is when you value money and material good only. Realism is something that exists or when your beliefs are steadily on ground. And idealism is when you are high “up in the air” and have no true perception of the conditions and possibilities here “on ground”.”
Very good, Mr. Robinson. But I’m gonna have to disagree with you.
You see, real expectations are the once we consider easily attainable, something that you can get without really trying hard about it. But, let me ask you something, Mr. Robinson. Wouldn’t you agree that banishment of slavery would be a ludicrous idealism, should you lived about 2000 years ago? You would have thought it would never come, would you? What if, at that time, everybody thought as we do today, that slavery should be illegal? Don’t you think that slavery was possible to disappear even then, and not only several decades ago?
No, it surely wasn’t easy for those people to believe in that and to fight for it. But is it worth the fight, if the cause is just? Damn right it does!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted March 01, 2004 07:14 AM |
|
|
Lefty-Uppy Here...
Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72
According to this test, I'm a moderate communist and a mild authoritarian. Good to know.
I'm honestly not surprised Wolfman is the only other person in my quadrant (hopefully just for now, anyways ). We seem to agree on a lot of issues while most everyone else takes a more liberal viewpoint. Also, from what I've seen, we seem to be the only two who seem to favor Bush in the next election, yet only one of us will be able to vote. 
____________
>_>
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted March 01, 2004 09:41 AM |
|
|
I got the same results as shadowcaster. IDENTICAL results
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 01:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I hope no one takes any offense, but I believe some of the people that got severe left wing results gave idealistic rather than realistic answers.
No offence taken -- I think the same of people who got severe right wing results.
Seriously, I agree with IYY. The questions were geared at ideology, not practical action. In a perfect world, no one would go without necessities and comforts, everyone would work hard and well, everyone would be free to do as they wanted and at the same time not step on each other's toes, and so on. In the real world, there are limited resources and unequal distribution, so some people starve and live in horrid conditions. In the real world, some people are lazy and/or incompetant in their work. In the real world, some people want to harm other people, or their actions would harm others and they don't care. In order to construct a political view, one has to make certain assumptions (idealism) in order to accomodate other realities. For example, I think that all people are worthy of good living conditions regardless of their personal character. Someone like Ayn Rand (or perhaps Terry Goodkind) would disagree and argue that nothing should be handed to people and they should earn their living. Both views are selectively idealistic -- mine that people will not exploit the system out of laziness; Goodkind's that people will not exploit the less fortunate out of greed.
I know socialism has some issues in practice. In its extreme forms, it has a particularly troubling (historic) association with authoritarian regimes.  However, free-market capitalism has troubling side effects that bother me even more. Also, some democratic countries have managed to support semi-socialist states. So, between the two, I think socialism is a better starting point to work with in finding a system that really works. Finally, in the end, I'd rather support a bum who wasn't really earning their keep than let a hard-working person fall between the cracks. It's a subjective choice, but it's my opinion. That's why my results turned out as far economically left as they did.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 02:34 AM |
|
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 03:30 AM |
|
|
Oh come on. You can't blame communism for what's happening in North Korea. These guys went against everything that communism ever stood for and have a leader who's clearly not inerested in helping the people. If you blame communism for NK, you might as well blame capitalism for Nazi Germany.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 03:32 AM |
|
|
You can't blame capitalism for how a business advertises either...
____________
|
|
Deimos
Known Hero
LHW Paladin
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 03:37 AM |
|
Edited By: Deimos on 1 Mar 2004
|
About The Political Compass
Thanks for your time. In a moment we'll show you where you belong on the political compass. It just needs a few words of explanation first.
Remember that before the test, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line?
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Following is where you stand on our political compass. Thanks for visiting us and be sure to tell family and friends, It should spark off some lively dialogue, and you may discover that you didn't know them as well as you thought you did.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67
Authoritarian
Left
Right
Libertarian
Show graph on separate page for printing
Now you know where you are on The Political Compass, you might like to explore the ideas of those with similar (or wildly differing) views in our Reading List.
International Chart
A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of globally known figures to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass. Libiral Autharitism. That's me.
____________
Let's Have War=Best thread on HC.
By the way, my name is Deimos, not Diemos.
Some people don't have a life. Others spend it on HC- Lord Woock.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 10:01 PM |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Personally I think they left out a few critical areas that might move several of our little compass thingies around the field a bit...
For instance, what about the right to keep and bear arms / gun control?
I also found many of the questions stated much too simplisticly; I might have answered with very divergent responses depending on more detail in the question.
Okay, dargon, redhawk, Consis, Celfious, and the rest of you debaters -- you guys need to come see if your presence at HC balances out this Ghandi-esque group of anarchists all huddled together down in the lower left corner at all -- ?????
<EDIT. BTW: while (as Wolf and I were discussing just the other night) the two-dimentional aspect of this compass is much more telling and necessary than the traditional one-dimentional sliding scale, I notied right off that the "left-wing" aspects of both scales are indicated by negative numbers, and the "right-wing" aspects by positive ones....
Does this suggest anything to anybody about the bias of the test makers, or am I just reading too much into that?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 03, 2004 12:32 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 3 Mar 2004
|
bias?
I assumed the bias was tipped more towards the left than the right. Questions like the one about exploitation of genetic resources -- essentially a factual question -- were interpreted ideologically.
I didn't even know what "plant genetic resources" were until learning about them in a conservation biology course. It turns out to mean having a lot of different genes available in a species' pool. Some of them will be bad, but some can be extremely helpful. To teach us the value of genetically heterogenous crops, the professor described a barley crisis in the non-genetically diverse US fields that was stopped by importing a new disease-resistent barley strain from the professor's native Ethiopia. Now, the definition of "exploit" is subjective, obviously -- but the Ethiopian farmers were not paid for the contribution that saved the US barley farmers.
The question boils down to "Plant genetic resources: don't they represent a hole in the theory of unregulated markets (i.e. the economic right)?"
Edit: information added.
Edit 2: More information...Question on p. 4:
Quote:
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Strongly Agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
posted March 03, 2004 04:29 PM |
|
|
Yeah I think that this was test was definately liberal-biased. Cause I'm a hardcore rightest when it comes to economics and I was more moderate in this test.
Basically to sum up the thread.
Authoritarians will sacrifice human rights to maintain order. On the other end people will sacrifice order to maintain human rights.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 03, 2004 10:20 PM |
|
|
Questions like the one about exploitation of genetic resources????
Which question was THAT??? Man, maybe I better take this test again -- I must not have been paying very careful attention.....
SAY -- whoever is in charge of the graph -- Nidhgrin???? You gonna add the new testees' scores?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
