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

Forums - Politics Discussion - What's your political typology? (Quiz)

It’s funny the way this pole (and the American political system/parties) limit what we can care about.

Size of Federal Gov (Grows regardless)
Religion in politics
Racial tolerance & White supremacy
Trade vs “Made in America”
Military Supremacy?
Are you amicable with our two parties
Technocrats?
Tax the rich?
Political correctness /SJW
LGBTQ+
Prison term length

I’m called an outsider left here, but I’d never vote for dems or reps again. Its like religion, racial and transgender equality is the only difference I’m allowed to make a stance on.



Around the Network
JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:

No one views the concept of justice as being inherently wrong, but there are certainly political positions which maintain systemic injustices. In order to compromise between fixes to such injustices, you must accept some degree of injustice. Far too often, the moderate position is simply the acceptance of smaller injustices and quieter suffering instead of actually finding the best options in a situation.

Again, the problem isn't justice. The problem is agreeing on when to seek it. And that had been perverted and distorted by political leaders on both sides of the isle to fit their means in the moment. And then you have Fox News telling its devotees that the left are evil-doers and out to destroy the country. And on the other side, you have MSNBC telling their devotees that the right are the evil-doers and out to destroy the country. But the truth of the matter this is: they are the evil-doers themselves. The media and the politicians who are masquerading behind one extreme or the other and using it to further their own agendas, which is mostly (surprise!) power and greed. And it's both sides doing it. The right, and the left. Both of them, equally. And that's why I said a moderate position is what's needed. Very rarely do you hear people these days talk about context, and yet context is the key to just about everything. It's the missing ingredient here; the door to people getting along again and justice truly being served; our salvation, if you want to get super dramatic about it. 

But unfortunately, the media on the right and left are losing the battle to the internet for revenue, so they're forced to drum up this ridiculous extremism where you're either a foe, or an enemy. So there's very little hope for our society finding context and subtlety in anything right now.

And that's just a shame.

The media is unethical therefore moderate policies are best (to paraphrase) is a pretty terrible argument. 

Last edited by sundin13 - on 22 November 2021

As a Belgian, I tried to imagine being an American citizen while filling in the topology.
I would be a "stressed sideliner". Guess I'm not a good fit for US politics.
In my country I'd be a Christian Democrat.



sc94597 said:
Pemalite said:

"Ambivalent Right"

I think that mostly stems from my capitalist ideologies, borders and small Government.. And means I am pretty near the center which is the ideal place to be.

In Australia that would mean I am Center-left as American Politics are a step over to the right from us.

I am a bit confused about your conclusion.

This test is pretty well calibrated to American voters (being based on voter ideology data), and you still get Ambivalent Right.

Since American politics are to the right of Australian politics, wouldn't that mean you are even more likely to be on the right in Australia since on the American-calibrated test you still get "Ambivalent Right" and not something on the American center-left/left?

No.
I will be in the center/center left.

Besides, those who are right-wing don't tend to support Climate Change, LGBTQI rights, Womens rights, Freedom from religion, Socialist ideas (Universal Health) to support capitalism (Private Health), Multi-Culturalism, Gender Equality which is what I do support.

sundin13 said:

I believe "Moderation Bias" is a very real thing first of all, and I think you are describing it pretty well. A lot of people see being a moderate or a centrist as a virtue, so they will either over-estimate how well they fit into that category, or assign some non-inherent value to middle of the road positions. As such, I would disagree that you remove biases when you stand in the middle. You just hold onto a different bias than those who stand on either side of you.

Further, I think we've seen in American politics lately that your second point isn't really as true in practice as it may seem in theory. Progressives and people on the left such as Bernie Sanders may not like to compromise, but they have accepted a lot of compromise within the Build Back Better bills (both the infrastructure bill that has passed both chambers and the social infrastructure bill which has only passed the House). On the other hand, those who seem least willing to compromise are those who stand in the middle. They are pretty clearly stating "Do it my way or you get nothing" (assuming "their way" isn't just doing nothing in the first place).

I also disagree with your final point that being a centrist is about merit based policy making. Much of the time, a centrist is just someone who fears change, even if that change would be beneficial. "Radical Moderates/Centrists" really aren't much of a thing, which is what you seem to be implying. Centrists largely favor either keeping things the way they are rather than making large or sudden changes, regardless of whether evidence indicates that those large changes would be beneficial. Like I said before, the centrist position holds no inherent value, the same as any other position. 

You read far to much into that and construed it into something it's not.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Zippy6 said:

Just did the quiz. "Ambivalent Right" No idea what that means. I find reasons to strongly dislike both right and left. I go on Neogaf and I hate the right, I go on Resetera and I hate the left. That's why I go on neither.

Ok, that's funny. I thought Neo was a "leftist" paradise before the scandal. Did it really change that much? 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Around the Network

Says i'm a "stressed sideliner", with "mixed political views, low interest in politics".

As someone from the UK I'd say it's a damn good sign that I don't line up with American politics. I seem to have really confused the quiz if it thinks I'm not a 'zoon politikon' though.

I'm conservative towards political activity in general, preferring less of it and generally finding it distasteful when people take harder stances than they can justify. I tend to roll my eyes at the left wing much more often than at the right, just because of the naivety and faux-rationalism which breeds there in a righteous soup.



Metallox said:
Zippy6 said:

Just did the quiz. "Ambivalent Right" No idea what that means. I find reasons to strongly dislike both right and left. I go on Neogaf and I hate the right, I go on Resetera and I hate the left. That's why I go on neither.

Ok, that's funny. I thought Neo was a "leftist" paradise before the scandal. Did it really change that much? 

No idea, never went on neogaf before that thing happened but that's definitely what it seems like to me now.



Gamerscore:20,000  -  Trophies:3,800 -  Nintendo Awards: -1

My Xbox Series S is my baby. It grew up into an X.

JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:

Why?

Because in life, the truth is always in the middle. 

Oh, and because only Siths deal in absolutes.

Do you have to be "Siths" to be able to do basic math? Or make logical deductions of any sort? Or support a conclusion of the evidence? Or is it :

vs ?

"Because in life, the truth is always in the middle. 

Oh, and because only Siths deal in absolutes." So therefore the truth is probably:



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

sundin13 said:
JackHandy said:

Again, the problem isn't justice. The problem is agreeing on when to seek it. And that had been perverted and distorted by political leaders on both sides of the isle to fit their means in the moment. And then you have Fox News telling its devotees that the left are evil-doers and out to destroy the country. And on the other side, you have MSNBC telling their devotees that the right are the evil-doers and out to destroy the country. But the truth of the matter this is: they are the evil-doers themselves. The media and the politicians who are masquerading behind one extreme or the other and using it to further their own agendas, which is mostly (surprise!) power and greed. And it's both sides doing it. The right, and the left. Both of them, equally. And that's why I said a moderate position is what's needed. Very rarely do you hear people these days talk about context, and yet context is the key to just about everything. It's the missing ingredient here; the door to people getting along again and justice truly being served; our salvation, if you want to get super dramatic about it. 

But unfortunately, the media on the right and left are losing the battle to the internet for revenue, so they're forced to drum up this ridiculous extremism where you're either a foe, or an enemy. So there's very little hope for our society finding context and subtlety in anything right now.

And that's just a shame.

The media is unethical therefore moderate policies are best (to paraphrase) is a pretty terrible argument. 

Look at it this way.

Suppose you have three people in a room. One is hard right, one is hard left, and the other is an a-political moderate. The hard right is going to stick to their party's talking points, and believe everything they say is utterly infallible. The hard left is going to do the same. But the moderate, on the other hand, he or she will be able to see the validity (and fallacy) of both their positions, equally. So instead of getting nothing done, they can take what works on the right, what works on the left, and disregard what doesn't work and make real, positive, pragmatic decisions based on facts and not dogmatic propaganda.

That is why I believe the in the moderate position.



Jumpin said:
JackHandy said:

Because in life, the truth is always in the middle. 

Oh, and because only Siths deal in absolutes.

Do you have to be "Siths" to be able to do basic math? Or make logical deductions of any sort? Or support a conclusion of the evidence? Or is it :

vs ?

"Because in life, the truth is always in the middle. 

Oh, and because only Siths deal in absolutes." So therefore the truth is probably:

God I so wish someone would argue that the world is cubed lol