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)

Jaicee said:

Hm. Well I just went back through the quiz and answered a couple questions differently that I'd been on the fence about before and got a different result that makes even more sense still. I'm now classified as a "stressed sideliner", which basically means that you're a low-income person with nothing more than a high school diploma who nobody cares about, or at least not enough to bother engaging; an alienated, fairly non-partisan, probably female person with left-leaning economic views (e.g. more than 70% of this group supports a $15/hour minimum wage, tuition-free college, universal health care, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc.) and mixed but slightly conservative-leaning social and/or foreign policy views overall, which feels like more of a match for where I am right now than my former result's suggestion that I'm a "strong Democrat". You can see my answers to each query here.

As explained in the OP, I felt that my previous result overall made sense in that it correctly identified most of the specific areas where I disagree with the prevailing views of my party and with liberals and progressives. However, I had to qualify my previous result by pointing out that I'm not so doggedly partisan as it suggested. No such qualification is needed in this case.

This new result is mainly the result of cutting my previous scores for both parties in half. This time I gave the Democrats a 30% instead of a 60% and the Republicans a 10% instead of a 20%. I was kinda generous the first time, but on reflecting more and coming to the realization that there's no longer anyone I can picture myself voting for in 2024 and the fact that I'm now planning to change my party registration from Democrat to independent in the near future and own a "Let's Go Brandon!" T-shirt...the fact that I'm losing interest in politics and see myself becoming less engaged in the future...I decided to be harsher, feeling that that was a more honest reading of my current feelings. I agree more often with the Democrats than the Republicans, but the truth is that I feel politically homeless right now and that I expected more from my party than this now that they have the House, the Senate, and the presidency. I can't think of anything (...or at least not anything good...) Joe Biden has done for me so far that Trump didn't. I mean there was the Covid relief bill and the stimulus check with that and all, but Trump also signed two of those into law that together supplied me a similar sum of money, for instance. I think I agree with that recent New York Times opinion video arguing that liberals are hypocrites who simply don't live a lot of their purported values. The main differences between the parties seem to be cultural issues and I don't feel like my opinions are even close to where either party currently stands on those overall.

I also read through the typology group comparisons gauging the stances of each on an expanded range of issues in charts, as well as their demography, and my views definitely line-up most closely with the "stressed sideliners" people. Overwhelmingly I found myself in agreement with either the majority or plurality opinion of this group on like everything there practically, and also, appropriately, demographically aligned. I think that's me. At this point anyway.

Anyway, I also changed my answer to the immigration question to "America’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation" because the question asks whether that's closest to your opinion or not and I think it is, really. My actual stance on immigration policy is that I support what's traditionally been known as "comprehensive immigration reform", as in generally tougher border policies combined with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already here, and I also just really don't care whether everyone speaks English or not. It turns out that aligns me with the "stressed sideliners" crowd too.

In many societies alignment with a social conservative ideology tends to be linked to religiosity or to typically patriarchal traditional values. So I am curious to know, but what motivates you to describe yourself as leaning towards social conservative viewpoints? 



Around the Network
Farmageddon said:
JackHandy said:

Ah, but if you have a third of the pie instead of the whole, is middle still the middle? And what pie was I even talking about, anyway? Oh, and I also quoted Yoda one line down. So according to that logic, I'm as much a Jedi as I am a centrist lol.

Yeah, centrism is sort of like the jedi helping the rise of darth vader or something, I guess : p

I'm sorry if this is off-topic and also if self-quoting is frowned upon, but I think you could make the argument that the Jedi position on the light and dark sides could be likened to a "enlightened centrist" view on "moderation" and "dogmatic radicalism".

Does that make sense to anyone else?



Stressed Sideliner. Seems about right



Stressed Sideliners for me. Some questions are very bad though.



Leadified said:

In many societies alignment with a social conservative ideology tends to be linked to religiosity or to typically patriarchal traditional values. So I am curious to know, but what motivates you to describe yourself as leaning towards social conservative viewpoints? 

That's true in this country as well overall. Generally speaking, you can rate someone as a mono-culturalist to the extent that they're super-religious and multi-culturalist, conversely, relative to how many college degrees they have. The more college degrees, the less religious someone will tend to be and also the more socially liberal. There's a relationship between those two things. There's also a question though of whether and to what extent a society run by the latter group actually understands the needs and interests of other, less privileged people than themselves on the ground.

Well anyway, I'm not religious at all myself. In fact I tend to fear the idea of religion becoming too influential in society for a thousand obvious reasons concerning who I am. I would not exactly benefit from that. And I consider myself a feminist for sure. Like to be clear, I'm pro-choice, I support marriage equality, I'm against the death penalty, I don't believe anyone should be in prison for smoking pot, I'm in favor of doing more to protect the environment, I'm for comprehensive immigration reform, support reasonable gun control policies, and favor of criminal justice reform that includes an end to qualified immunity for cops and for an idea of racial justice that includes reparations payments for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Just to be clear about all that.

The areas where I think of myself as maybe subjectively right-leaning are mainly public security issues. I'm in favor of increasing funding for both the military and police departments, for example, in addition to expanding the social safety net. I'm afraid I'm cynical enough to believe in the peace-through-strength argument, for example. In foreign policy, a strong deterrent works better than the alternatives, I think. I mean I know you hear differently often from ostensibly more pacifistic people in western Europe where they may spend less per capita on their own armed forces and whatnot, but in reality they're just lazily depending on our military to prevent Russia from just invading and overrunning them. Without our armed forces there to keep them democracies, they'd likely be toast. I feel similarly about policing. Like clearly there needs to be more accountability for cops, but at the same time, when I hear about ideas like ending cash-bail and scaling back funding for police departments and stuff like this...you know, I've just gotta point out that exhausted, overworked officers without back-up are probably going to make worse and more rash decisions, NOT better ones, and it's very clear to me moreover that some (often poorer and less white) parts of the country could also use faster response times, not the absence of a department in their area. As to that question of whether our sentencing for crimes is generally too long or too short, my opinion is mixed. I think rapists, for example, should serve longer sentences than they typically do and that, conversely, nobody should be in the prison system just for smoking weed.

Other "conservative" opinions I have are related to concerns for the safety, the mental and physical health and well-being, of girls and women in particular. Like you absolutely cannot call yourself a progressive today unless you support legalizing prostitution and maintaining the relatively unregulated status of online pornography, for example. To object to these things is considered a form of hate (you hate "sex workers") because the progressive left views these things as labor issues rather than as women's issues; issues that affect all women, not just those in the trade. I just completely disagree with that logic, as frankly so do most people in general I think you'll find. I have similar opinions about stuff like commercial surrogacy that liberals and progressives invariably support and demand the legality of today. My negative opinion of transgenderism is guided by similar concerns about the real-world harm to women and girls in particular that can be done if public policy reaches a place of ignoring people's biological sex. (Illustration of what I mean.) Speaking of that, I'm also concerned about the politicization of what speech is permitted and not. (Example.) So I mean a lot of my so-called "right wing" opinions are in fact motivated precisely by an aversion to tolerating male violence and sexual exploitation as a price for some warped idea of social inclusion.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 29 November 2021

Around the Network
Jaicee said:

Like clearly there needs to be more accountability for cops, but at the same time, when I hear about ideas like ending cash-bail and scaling back funding for police departments and stuff like this...you know, I've just gotta point out that exhausted, overworked officers without back-up are probably going to make worse and more rash decisions, NOT better ones, and it's very clear to me moreover that some (often poorer and less white) parts of the country could also use faster response times, not the absence of a department in their area.

I somewhat understand the fear regarding the end to cash bail, but do you at least acknowledge how horrible of a system it is? Like, I feel there is a huge difference between being reluctant to support its end and just straight up being pro-cash bail. 



Stressed Sideliner! good to know, considering people in here see me as far-right 😂



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

Jaicee said:

Other "conservative" opinions I have are related to concerns for the safety, the mental and physical health and well-being, of girls and women in particular. Like you absolutely cannot call yourself a progressive today unless you support legalizing prostitution and maintaining the relatively unregulated status of online pornography, for example. To object to these things is considered a form of hate (you hate "sex workers") because the progressive left views these things as labor issues rather than as women's issues; issues that affect all women, not just those in the trade. I just completely disagree with that logic, as frankly so do most people in general I think you'll find. I have similar opinions about stuff like commercial surrogacy that liberals and progressives invariably support and demand the legality of today. My negative opinion of transgenderism is guided by similar concerns about the real-world harm to women and girls in particular that can be done if public policy reaches a place of ignoring people's biological sex. (Illustration of what I mean.) Speaking of that, I'm also concerned about the politicization of what speech is permitted and not. (Example.) So I mean a lot of my so-called "right wing" opinions are in fact motivated precisely by an aversion to tolerating male violence and sexual exploitation as a price for some warped idea of social inclusion.

I am not quite sure if I understand the connection of the politicization of permitted speech and a Barnes and Nobles book display... Barnes and Nobles is a private corporation and it is in their right to choose want they want to and not want to display. Demanding the opposite would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Besides, they still sell Rowling's books, so I am not sure what the problem is. On the other hand, conservatives have stated their intention to burn library books because it contains speech they do not like. Is that not a more serious and existential issue? There's been numerous cases of butch lesbians being harassed by men and gender critical activists because of the campaign by both to reinforce traditional gender norms which causes real world harm to women everywhere. The reason I point this out is because your arguments about free speech and security, while not invalid by any means, can easily be flipped the other way around to make the same point from the other perspective...



First of all, I second everything that Leadified said. A lot of these aren't conservative opinions, they are just opinions that conservatives like to tell people are their values even when much of the time that simply isn't the case in reality. 

dark_gh0st_b0y said:

Stressed Sideliner! good to know, considering people in here see me as far-right

Just want to say (not specifically in relation to you because I don't know anything about your politics but maybe this accounts for the difference), but one of my issues with quizzes like this is that they do little to highlight how people engage politically. If someone believes in marriage equality and big government but they only really engage politically with their no-exceptions pro-life stances, they are going to be seen as more right wing than a quiz would show, and I think that engagement does a lot more to demonstrate who they are politically than this type of quiz. 



Leadified said:

I am not quite sure if I understand the connection of the politicization of permitted speech and a Barnes and Nobles book display... Barnes and Nobles is a private corporation and it is in their right to choose want they want to and not want to display. Demanding the opposite would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Besides, they still sell Rowling's books, so I am not sure what the problem is. On the other hand, conservatives have stated their intention to burn library books because it contains speech they do not like. Is that not a more serious and existential issue? There's been numerous cases of butch lesbians being harassed by men and gender critical activists because of the campaign by both to reinforce traditional gender norms which causes real world harm to women everywhere. The reason I point this out is because your arguments about free speech and security, while not invalid by any means, can easily be flipped the other way around to make the same point from the other perspective...

I agree, but only to a point. Namely, I don't buy into the corporate personhood argument. For-profit business corporations have no legitimate claim to human status as far as I'm concerned and therefore no valid claim to human rights. Authors on the other hand...

Seriously, you know exactly what I'm getting at. Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. are all private companies, sure, but they collectively form and control today's public square. If this idea is okayed and that one is not by all them in uniform in response to angry mobs demanding as much, that has a similar practical effect to legal censorship. You know this. I know this. Let us not disingenuously pretend it is otherwise. Maybe it's my scary socialist instincts to think of the means of communication as public utilities that should operate in the interests of the public as a whole and as such facilitate the widest possible range of conversation, and not as things that should be owned and run privately and funded by advertising for the purposes of separating the public from their money, but point is.

And look look, I can cite threats by gender identity believers to burn books they don't like as well! Progressives are, in reality, not particularly more mature that way than the people they criticize. The difference is that most of the business community takes up their position on matters like this and we both know it, which is why you're now utilizing the banal corporate personhood argument here that ten years ago leftists were roundly, and rightly in my opinion, condemning. Corporate personhood is the same argument Chick Fil-A used to use to defend their ostensible right not to hire any gay people (as a for-profit business company can have a religion that merits constitutional recognition, you see), the argument that Hobby Lobby has used to deny their female workers access to health care plans covering birth control despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act obliged them to (once again, having a company religion makes them above the law, it turns out), and so on and so on.

I guess my instinct to view the free speech cause as a "right wing" cause and argument today has to do with the fact that it's simply not one you see progressives attempting to make anymore save for in a defensive context like you are here in this one, whereas conservatives, by contrast, lament "cancel culture" all the time. Does that actually mean that rightists are consistent in their support for the free speech of artists and individuals, including ones they don't agree with? Nope! Not even close. But it does mean that opinions progressives consider right wing are more likely to actually be censored, officially discouraged, etc. today. And we both know that.

Now as to this especially ridiculous insinuation that maybe I hate lesbians and want the butch ones harassed out of the women's room...*sighs* come on now. I am a lesbian and by now everyone here knows that, as are many gender critical women. Indeed I'd go as far as to say that lesbians are disproportionately represented as a share of the gender critical community, including our fair share of the butch ones. Please don't insult my intelligence that way. I know butch women are often harassed out of the women's room and that's wrong. It's been that way my whole life. I've seen it. It's wrong. But it's not the issue here. My objection is to men declaring all public spaces theirs, affording girls and women no place of privacy or refuge. Concerning unisex facilities, the facts remain that, as discussed at great length in the article I cited earlier, "90% of cases of sexual assaults, voyeurism, and harassment take place in unisex facilities". Therefore, I contend that rendering all facilities unisex is objectively harmful to girls and women, as in more harmful than the alternative.

I'll also add in response to your claim that gender critical feminism is about "reinforc[ing] traditional gender norms" that you clearly don't understand what the movement is about very well. The prevailing view among gender critical feminists is that gender (unlike biological sex) is fiction; that it is a fundamentally conservative concept that exists to reinforce patriarchal sex roles and which, as such, can have no positive appropriation by the left. If the goal of masculinism is to compel everyone to behave according to crude stereotypes about their sex so that men command and women obey, transgenderism has as its goal that instead gender-nonconforming people should change their public identity to match the sex they supposedly behave like. GC feminists view those as two sides of the same coin, not as some kind of rupture with patriarchal norms. In reality, the gender-nonconforming woman should be accepted as such. She should not feel social pressure to change her legal identity because she isn't a stereotype or absurdly told she is not a lesbian because she isn't interested in penile penetration.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 02 December 2021