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)

JackHandy said:
Eagle367 said:

You are making a lot of assumptions. First of all, how do you know where the good ideas are? Pretending they are always in the middle is stupid. They can be slightly right or more right or they can even be extreme left. And your example ignores that there can be extremist centrist positions as well. Being militantly centrist is only stoking your own ego. It also assumes you are smarter than the right and left wing person and can be the judge on what is right or wrong. And if someone has the best position which is on the left or the right, all you end up doing is diluting things and making them worse by trying to meet in the middle. Centrism would only truly work in a world where the system was mostly perfect but rough around the edges. That is not our world. We need fundamental changes to how things are run today. 

You don't dilute anything. You just look at what makes sense, regardless of its right or left position, and apply it. That's it. Which, oddly enough, would be exactly what you're calling for: fundamental change. Because when was the last time we had a leader who didn't adhere to his/her party's policies? It's always one or the other. One or the other. You may get the occasional leader or politician who is slightly more moderate, but you never get one who is completely outside the reach of the two, overreaching, fundamental power structures. So if you cherry picked from both, took what worked and threw out the BS, you'd have your change. Hell, you'd have a revolution, actually.

Sorry but that is nonsense. First of all, people take positions either because there believe they are the right thing to do or they do it because there is some personal benefit to be had, like money making. People who believe in their values are already taking what they think makes the most sense. You think people on the left and right deliberately take bad positions? And if you say they do it because their team leader supports it, that's a bias that all people can fall prey to, even centrists. The enlightened centrist position still doesn't work. Being "moderate" doesn't mean you are out of reach from either side either. You are again assuming the centrist is above it all and smarter and better than other people, which is just not a good look. Your assumption ignores that the right positions could all be on the same side as well and it ignores all the bias the centrist has.

It also ignored the fact that people on the left and right take positions that work for them according to what their aim is. I am not American and I grew up in a very conservative place. A place where essentially no prominent left wing party exists. I also for a while bought into the bs of Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder. I cringe at that now. But my point is I got to hold my left wing positions because of believe they are the best for humanity. You wouldn't bet someone like me would end up where I am, but gérée we are.  You are pretending like left and right wing people are born with a bias and don't go through any  journey to improve their positions. People are also paid off to change their positions. So either you are calling me and others like me stupider than centrists or a grifter. I know you didn't say that but those are the only logical conclusions you come to when you run this through to the end. 

You also ignore paid "moderates: like Joe Manchin and Sinema. What you are describing is a child;a understanding of things. And by that I mean I literally used to think as a child why can't you just take the best positions from everyone and create a hybrid system.



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

Around the Network

Centrism is just another political position you have. It's not different from righties or leftists. It has it's own biases and it's own set of rules and prescriptions for the world. It's not an above it all super intelligent position that only the most neutral and smartest individuals would take.



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

Eagle367 said:

Centrism is just another political position you have. It's not different from righties or leftists. It has it's own biases and it's own set of rules and prescriptions for the world. It's not an above it all super intelligent position that only the most neutral and smartest individuals would take.

I'm not a centrist, nor do I think I'm super intelligent. Where are you getting this from?



JackHandy said:
Eagle367 said:

Centrism is just another political position you have. It's not different from righties or leftists. It has it's own biases and it's own set of rules and prescriptions for the world. It's not an above it all super intelligent position that only the most neutral and smartest individuals would take.

I'm not a centrist, nor do I think I'm super intelligent. Where are you getting this from?

While you are making a simple statement that you can see good and bad things on the left and the right they are just trying to put you in another box and label.

"This is what a centrist is".

Guess what, we are individuals and our beliefs should be a spectrum. Not "left", "right" or "centrist". We don't have to follow any "rules".

Stop trying to force someone into a box and projecting what their ideologies are.



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

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

Trumpstyle said:

I believe in social liberalism but the quiz says I'm a committed conservative.

What's going on?

Conservatism means trying to preserve things as they have been. Nowadays, extreme leftism has gone so far out, that things like freedom of speech and opinion, belief in science, merit based advancement and such have become old things to preserve.



Around the Network

As a non-American, I got “Outside Left”, whatever that means. I thought the result would be more like “oh you’re a liberal or social democrat” instead of putting you into a vague category.

Some questions were kind of weird too. “Big government” only seems to be used by conservatives in a negative sense as an excuse why social services shouldn’t be expanded upon. I do not think I’ve heard anyone say that “oh yes I want a bigger government!” when they want to expand social security.

The question about if people are too easily offended now a days seems like it is just asking if people are too PC nowadays, and if I agreed with it then it would influence my score towards conservatism. If I didn’t think this question was biased, then I would agree. Other than people being PC in general, you have conservatives and other groups that base their entire careers about being constantly outraged about something.

I think it would be better if they asked questions with a more neutral stance and included a question asking how you perceive your own beliefs, and then create the groups based around that.

And no questions about climate change, healthcare, housing, education? Are those topics just not important enough? 😀 I think the only reason the question about trans people was there is because it’s a culture war topic.

Last edited by Leadified - on 26 November 2021

Eagle367 said:
Farmageddon said:

How did you answer the first question? Also, the last one? : p

I ended up as a stressed sideliner lol

All in all, besides being obviously american-centric, I'm always a little letdown by how little room there usually is to any radical position in these tests.

They went more the pop quiz route rather than the actual nitty and gritty. I am for "big" government as long as the government is serving the people and not causing wars. The "big" government argument is stupid to begin with because it matters what the government does, not how "big" or "small" it is. 

Yeah, besides the fact that a lot of public services are not exactly run by the government  - take universities here in brazil for example (even though bolsonaro has been meddling with them), they have much more worker autonomy than any private university, it's not even close.

So is that "big government", when really it's just "big" (I wish) public funding for work done with relative autonomy? In a sense I'd like more public services with less government.

sundin13 said:
JackHandy said:

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.

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

In Brazil there's the term "centrão" (a colloquial version of "the big center"), which refers to parties and politicians who don't really have much of an agenda. Besides cling to power by negotiating their support to whomever is in charge, their biggest concern seems to be corruption - but they are rarely singled out.

Last edited by Farmageddon - on 26 November 2021

accidental double, can't find the delete : p



JackHandy said:
Eagle367 said:

Centrism is just another political position you have. It's not different from righties or leftists. It has it's own biases and it's own set of rules and prescriptions for the world. It's not an above it all super intelligent position that only the most neutral and smartest individuals would take.

I'm not a centrist, nor do I think I'm super intelligent. Where are you getting this from?

From your statements in this thread. That's all I have to access you.

Zippy6 said:
JackHandy said:

I'm not a centrist, nor do I think I'm super intelligent. Where are you getting this from?

While you are making a simple statement that you can see good and bad things on the left and the right they are just trying to put you in another box and label.

"This is what a centrist is".

Guess what, we are individuals and our beliefs should be a spectrum. Not "left", "right" or "centrist". We don't have to follow any "rules".

Stop trying to force someone into a box and projecting what their ideologies are.

How do you judge people then? Of course everyone has their own views but we as humans are very good at seeing and recognizing patterns. And that's a not a bad thing. We can be more specific but classifying beliefs is not a bad exercise, especially since it helps us identify potential allies and also identify potential extremist or troublesome behaviour. If someone is supporting fascism, you wouldn't say "stop trying to force someone into a box and projecting what their ideologies are." It would be stupid to say that because that gives an out to every dangerous belief in the world. And I am not "projecting" what their ideology is, I'm literally inferring it from their statements on this thread. Him saying a "neutral" person with no bias can come in and take ideas that are good from the left and the right meanwhile the left and right just play sides leads me to believe they don't particularly believe in the left or the right. It's a reasonable inference from where I stand. 

These "boxes" you mention are a means of characterization that were put in place to distinguish people from each other. We don't put people into the"boxes" for the fun of it, we do it based on their beliefs. And I wasn't even trying to talk about them. I was just talking about the enlightened centrist they mentioned that would come in and magically be able to take all the good things from everywhere and solve the system. That's the caricature they created, not me and I am arguing against that caricature.



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

Eagle367 said:
JackHandy said:

I'm not a centrist, nor do I think I'm super intelligent. Where are you getting this from?

From your statements in this thread. That's all I have to access you.

But I never said I thought I was super intelligent, or thought my belief system was super intelligent, or anything else for that matter. I also never claimed to belong to any group-think, political party or official affiliation either (because I don't; what I think is a vast hodgepodge too convoluted to fit into any one defined space). You said all those things. Not me. And while I don't really mind--because I don't argue with people on the internet--there are probably better ways of approaching people that you don't know online than labeling them as you see fit. For one thing, you don't know them, so it's at best a crap shoot and at worst a complete falsehood. And for another, it's just not polite.