By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Political Spectrum quiz

OTBWY said:
vivster said:

Yes, but a corporation is not a government and has exactly zero authority. Not over politics or over people. Authority is given, not implied. No one has given authority to corporations and a singular corporation is not needed to govern and can be easily replaced. A governing body is different.

Please don't try to take this further. This is simply about the definition of authoritarianism. I'm not really in the mood to philosophize what authority is.

No explanation needed. We only need this high level quote from a man with high level ideas.

My brain is spinning right now with all these high IQ ideas

Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
Flilix said:
Eagle367 said:

Free speech is most definitely a left wing value. Ask Noam Chomsky or Prof Richard Wolff. I'm a true blue lefty and I'm very much pro free speech.

Oh I know that it is (traditionally), but I feel like that is starting to shift. I don't believe that the intollerance towards free speech on 'the left' is already too problematic, but I do feel like it's gradually getting worse and it could get pretty bad in the future.

Parler getting booted off the internet entirely recently certainly got my attention. You could use the same rationales companies put out behind that collective decision to also justify kicking everything from Twitter to YouTube and Facebook and beyond off the internet too. Parler isn't the kind of place where I'd hang out and it was used to organize a riot where five people died. Facebook has been used, among other things, to help facilitate a full-scale genocide by the government of Myanmar but it wasn't expelled from the internet as a result.

about what I expected.

Apparently Im a "pacifists and anti-war", and very liberal when it comes to culture wars.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 17 January 2021

Found it pretty accurate tbh

Was bored this morning, so decided to take a couple of the other quizzes people here have been posting results from.


Between the two, I found the 9 Axes quiz the most plausible representation of where I stand overall, in no small part because it's more detailed on certain subjects like immigration where I give strictly permissive-sounding answers on most quizzes only because they never bother to ask me my stance on border enforcement itself, just like whether I'm for restricting legal immigration and mass deportations and English as the only language and stupid stuff like that that IMO only reactionary xenophobes support. Drug trafficking is an EPIC problem where I live and yeah illegal border crossings are definitely a significant source of that problem, for example. And also of sex trafficking. There is indeed such a thing as an open borders position and I'm NOT in favor of it like many of these political quizzes make me seem, so kudos to the 9 Axes one for going into more specifics on the issue. Same principle on foreign policy in general. Breaking that down into more categories I think clarifies that I'm not strictly a pacifist just because I believe we should generally try to work with other countries. I also liked the detail the 9 Axes quiz went into on localism versus unitary government because you don't see that too often in these quizzes, or at least not in this array of specifics.

Bottom line, I feel more accurately portrayed by the 9 Axes quiz than others we've done here and note that it's also shorter than some of the others (like the 8 Values quiz), so just all-around more efficient, I think. More categories helps, I think, as does avoiding needless repetition of the same propositions in different words! Some of my results are consistent across all the quizzes though: I'm always a socialist in all of them, so you can bet that that's the real me alright.

I still can't help feeling that a serious, modern quiz on one's political stances should include some questions on topics like gun policy, gender identity, and maybe even COVID-19 as of this year though and those have been IMO shortcomings in all of these quizzes so far.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 23 January 2021

Around the Network
Agente42 said:
sc94597 said:

Historically, "libertarian" was a synonym for anarchism or the libertarian branch of socialism. In most places it is still used that way, and even in the United States where right-wing liberalism has appropriated the "libertarian" label to an extent that older sense is also still used. 

The first "libertarian" was Joseph Dejacque an early communist anarchist who used the word to circumvent anti-sedition laws in France which prohibited the use of "anarchist." 

The right-wing libertarian is new term to Neo-feudalism

• Completely localized economy bounded by the borders of the estate which they are tied to?

• Vassal of a liege? Who is in turn vassal to another liege?

• Generalized skill sets rather than specialization since no full time jobs can exist due to the economic limitations, but with plenty of small/micro jobs because so many unserved tasks require completion?

• The lack of a middle class?

• Tied to the land?

My understanding by early libertarian writers was that the lingering elements of the feudal system was what they were rebelling against. While the economy had drifted from Manorialism to globalism the class hierarchies persisted. Caleb Williams is a good example of an early/proto libertarian work that really targeted this. Basically, the purpose of libertarianism was originally to dismantle hierarchy, which makes it very strange that it has somehow become the code of the right wing of the US. At the same time, Liberalism is generally not defined correctly in the US (either by big or small l definitions) so it just might be one of these hijacked terms. At the same time, I think the US definition probably dominates its meaning today - and it’s basically neoliberalism intended as a garden bed to grow hierarchical corporate structures, which in ways are kind of like mini-dictatorships: and I’ve known people who work in the US corporate system; and the idea of “if you don’t like employer A then go to employer B” doesn’t really work in a system of specialized skill sets, maybe if we did still have a general skill set economy it would be better - but far more automation and AI would be required to even consider a general skillset worker as a mainstream employee again - as in a world where the production of necessities is automated and people actually decide they want to spend money on generalized services again.

Feudalism wasn’t actually as bad as many think, but it had some severe holes in it, such as medical skill set availability (it’s unlikely you’d have a dermatologist, psychiatrist, or oncologist, for example; but a part time general practitioner and nurses may exist), luxuries would be rare - you’d probably have paintings, maybe some writings, but not likely to have things such as electronics as these sorts of things require globalism.

If the idea of technofeudalism interests you, read the Robot Trilogy by Isaac Asimov. The second book, The Naked Sun, focuses on just that thing. Although the plot follows a murder. Basically everyone on the planet (Solaria) lives in giant estates with robot peasants doing all the labour.

You can probably read The Robot Trilogy without worrying about iRobot, but if you are interested in the Asimov universe as a whole I’d read iRobot and Foundation first.

If you’re doing the whole series, this is the best order, IMO:

1. iRobot & Foundation

2. Book 2 and 3 in the Foundation trilogy.

3. The Galactic Empire trilogy (book 1 and 2 optional, they’re standalones, but I’d read Pebble in the Sky, which is book 3)

3. The Robot trilogy

4. Foundation sequels

5. Robots and Empire

6. Foundation prequels (even though they’re chronologically before Foundation, from a conceptual standpoint these are the end of the story. Reading them earlier would spoil almost every surprise/twist in the rest of the Foundation series).

Last edited by Jumpin - on 03 February 2021

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Just did this quiz here. 

Holy shit this is such a poorly worded and grossly biased quiz.

"If an unwed teen becomes pregnant, abortion may be a responsible choice."

If anyone becomes pregnant, abortion may be a responsible choice. why should it be specified only teens and/or unwed people? The fuck sort of test is this shit?

"International trade agreements should require environmental protections and workers' rights. (meaning: no free trade with countries that lack pollution controls or labor protections)"

First part makes sense. Second part is an addendum that may or may not completely change the meaning/significance of the question (A lot of questions are phrased like this, where they start with a reasonable premise then go off the rails with the qualifier)

"Economic competition results in inumerable innovations that improve all of our lives."

What a leading question. Like, In theory, sure. In reality, hell to the fuck no. If I wasn't going into this with a skeptical, critical eye I'd be like 'hells yes!' but actually understanding everything that's happened in the last...all my years on this earth, it's clear that the answer to this - not an opinion - is an absolutely irrefutable no. Strongly disagree. 

"It is not our place to condemn other cultures as backwards or barbaric."

It's really circumstantial. For the most part, naw. Stay out of that shit. but sometimes...yeah, shit's barbaric. There is no one size fits all answer. It just sounds like a c atch-all for all circumstances. 

"Unrestrained capitalism cannot last, as wealth and power will concentrate to a small elite."

Again, this isn't an opinion, we've seen it happen literally throughout history, in every country, through every time period. This is an irrefutable fact. So I guess your political alignment is based on your willingness to accept facts? 

"It is a problem when young people display a lack of respect for authority."

Again, why do you need a qualifier for it to be young people? Why is there no further context to the situation? Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes a person's age should have no bearing on whether or not their fight is justified or their rebellion violent.

"A person's morality is of the most personal nature; therefore government should have no involvement in moral questions or promote moral behaviors."

Like, Moral opinions, sure. Moral behaviours? Dude, there's so much that NEEDS to be done about shit in general. This is such a poorly worded and biased quiz.

Last edited by Runa216 - on 14 March 2021

My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

"Offensive or blasphemous art should be suppressed."

Does this quiz maker not understand the core concept of art? Or are they just looking for excuses to justify hatred and intolerance for atheism?

My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

As expected I got a pretty far-left leaning ideal, but mostly just because I 'strongly disagreed' with a bunch of stuff as a way to counterbalance how clearly biased they were. In most situations, almost every one of my answers is/should have been neutral or 'it really depends on the situation', which puts me right near the center and very slightly left of most issues.

My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android