Political Litmus Test
-
I managed to rig it as hitler.
-
You have the political ideologies of an ill-informed 13 year old emo girl.
-
Depends entirely on how you construe the meaning of "work". I disagreed with that one because I took it to be referring to paid work, and there are vast numbers of people who have a completely legitimate claim to societal support who choose not to engage in paid work that they would undoubtedly be completely capable of, for completely sound reasons.
I am going to regret this...but what justification could there be for refusing to work and then expecting societal support?
-
Funny that you say that...
There have been two people above the line, slightly, but neither of them have been foxes. Ironically, most everyone who consistently calls me a fascist is significantly higher on the chart tham I am. And so are two of the site's supposedly laid-back and/or lazy moderators.
-
-
-
There have been two people above the line, slightly, but neither of them have been foxes. Ironically, most everyone who consistently calls me a fascist is significantly higher on the chart tham I am. And so are two of the site's supposedly laid-back and/or lazy moderators.
IOW, you're a moron who thinks that a list of multiple-choice-questions without a neutral option and which is full of stupid questions gives you useful results you can judge people by.
-
Volunteering at charitable organizations instead pf taking paying jobs, perhaps. Though that seems a tad silly. Unless your charity serves people ineligible for welfare - poor people in other countries, for example.
-
I think it's not entirely worthless for judging people by just because of those flaws. Many of the poorly worded questions are not actually all that bad when you keep in mind that this is a quiz about what you think the government should do, and usually people have some small amount of agreement or disagreement with a statement even if they don't attach much significance to the question itself. I think it would be better if they had a scale on each question for "how important is this to you?" Like the quiz for which political candidate you support (the name escapes me at the moment)
-
Volunteering at charitable organizations instead pf taking paying jobs, perhaps.
No. Charity is great, and everyone should do charity and volunteer work who is able, but you should take care of yourself first. You have to satisfy your own basic needs before you do charity work.
Though that seems a tad silly.
No. It would be utter lunacy to spend all of your time doing charity work while refusing all paying work and then drawing welfare.
Unless your charity serves people ineligible for welfare - poor people in other countries, for example.
Take care of your own basic needs first and foremost, if you are able to. The statement was explicitly:
people who have a completely legitimate claim to societal support who choose not to engage in paid work that they would undoubtedly be completely capable of, for completely sound reasons.
There are no sound reasons to take charity and volunteer work to that extreme.
-
I love how you continually create fantastical explanations for any given bit of information which a sane person would see as contradictory to your opinions such that this information somehow is twisted into supporting your opinions instead.
-
I am going to regret this...but what justification could there be for refusing to work and then expecting societal support?
Mental health issues.
-
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
More clearly worded, the question is "Does being an enemy of your enemy make someone your friend", not "Are there enemies of your enemies that are your friends". The first shows your position, the second is just circumstances and would be irrelevant information for this test.
Well, I also understood it that way, but it might not be how it was meant, because I don't see how that should rate anybody on either the socialist–capitalist or the libertarian–authoritarian scale. The only scale that rates one on is the naïvety one.
Seems to me that even a cursory reading of history would be enough to demonstrate clearly that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a terrible principle on which to base foreign policy and an even worse one on which to base personal friendship - precisely because it lacks so much nuance.
Yes. But, is that a left (socialist), right (capitalist), authoritarian or libertarian view of the world?
I am neither British nor American, so I don't know whether it would be placed there because specific party abides by it. But even then, it still wouldn't have anything to do with whether the party is left or right.
How the hell does "do you think abstract art is art" reflect on one's political compass?
Yep, that was another one.
Actually, I think it makes more sense than the enemy one, but I see two reasons to agree to it that seem to belong to opposite ends of the scale: either you think others have a right to call art whatever they want, or you don't, but you happen to like it.
-
Ironically, most everyone who consistently calls me a fascist is significantly higher on the chart tham I am. And so are two of the site's supposedly laid-back and/or lazy moderators.
Silly online quiz is silly?
-
There are no sound reasons to take charity and volunteer work to that extreme.
Sure there is. If your productivity at a charity does enough good for the recipients of that charity's aid to make up for and exceed the cost of welfare to keep you going, it is totally reasonable to do that if you so wish. A logistics manager who's really good at their job, for example, could potentially help keep food and water supplied to hundreds of poor families with the same amount of money a significantly less efficient system might use to help a few dozen. The expense of keeping one person alive and healthy is outweighed by their work doing the same for many others.
-
Mental health issues.
Well, yeah...but that would not fit with:
people who have a completely legitimate claim to societal support who choose not to engage in paid work that they would undoubtedly be completely capable of, for completely sound reasons.
-
What happens if your productivity at a charity is good enough to justify a $700k salary?
-
Isn't that why not-for-profits have employees? Person X's monetary contribution is used to pay person Y to do something that the charity needs done professionally.
-
It really is.
According to the site, Ron Paul is far right, but very close to the middle on the vertical axis: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
At the same time, it lists UK Greens moderately left, while at the same strongly libertarian: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
So yeah, either Greens are waaaayyyy more libertarian than Ron Fucking Paul, or the test makes no goddamned sense.
-
I love how you continually create fantastical explanations for any given bit of information which a sane person would see as contradictory to your opinions such that this information somehow is twisted into supporting your opinions instead.
You have gone on and fucking on with your authoritarian bullshit.
-
@Polygeekery said:
I am going to regret this...but what justification could there be for refusing to work and then expecting societal support?
Mental health issues.
No, one of the conditions was that they were capable of working but chose not to.
-
No I haven't. I've gone on and on with my justice "bullshit".
-
Yes. But, is that a left (socialist), right (capitalist), authoritarian or libertarian view of the world?
Also, libertarian seems opposite of socialist to me, so the whole thing is a bit confusing.
-
You said you wanted to punish 30% of all Americans because they expressed support for a political candidate who expressed support for some ideas you don't like.
-
So yeah, either Greens are waaaayyyy more libertarian than Ron Fucking Paul
I'm unfamiliar with Greens, but Ron Fucking Paul lost his libertarian card when he advocated for denying civil liberties to citizens in the name of "states' rights"
-
Sure there is. If your productivity at a charity does enough good for the recipients of that charity's aid to make up for and exceed the cost of welfare to keep you going, it is totally reasonable to do that if you so wish.
No. If the charity employs you and pays your salary I would not classify that as the same type of societal support that Australian Lenin was referring to. But, you retards are either really poor at expressing yourselves clearly or constantly
. Probably the latter, I would assume.If you choose not to do paying work, so that you can instead do nothing but charity work, and then draw welfare...that is lunacy and should not be something that is supported by society. You should get a job.
If the charity gives you that job and income, that is an entirely different situation than what we are discussing.
-
No I haven't. I've gone on and on with my justice "bullshit".
Exactly. It's like the Patrician's One Man One Vote system: He's the man and he's got the vote.
-
-
-
@blek said:
So yeah, either Greens are waaaayyyy more libertarian than Ron Fucking Paul
I'm unfamiliar with Greens, but Ron Fucking Paul lost his libertarian card when he advocated for denying civil liberties to citizens in the name of "states' rights"
Yes, because you can't see beyond Who, Whom or differentiate between ends and means.
-
Yeah, I didn't want to shit up the thread by bringing that up here but it's already a shitstorm anyway.
I really don't understand what a leftist libertarian is. I mean, "the left" means "we'll take your stuff and redistribute it as we see fit while wrapping it in pretty words about justice and equality". That seems like the polar opposite to freedom to me even in theory, and in reality it always turns out even worse in practice with corporations receiving welfare. Either I'm missing something, or there are a lot of people who understand the word "freedom" in a very strange way.
-
@Fox said:
when he advocated for denying civil liberties to citizens
#:citation_needed:
I don't know what, exactly he's referring to, but I assume it's his hatred of the rule of law and federalism that's driving this bus.
-
Remember, this is fox we're dealing with. He probably uses n
@Fox said:
when he advocated for denying civil liberties to citizens
#:citation_needed:
d definitions for "advocate", "deny", "liberties", and "citizens" onstandar
-
Discourse??Try #2:
Remember, this is fox we're dealing with. He probably uses nonstandard definitions for "advocate", "deny", "liberties", and "citizens".
-
- I don't want to punish support of political candidates. I want to punish support of criminal activities. Just because the criminals in question happen to be of a specific political party does not make it a valid political philosophy to commit crime.
- They are not "some ideas you don't like". They are ideas which are only slightly less abhorrent and unacceptable in a civilized society than that fucking California lawyer's "kill the gays" proposal. Furthermore, they are authoritarian ideas, which I strongly oppose, because authoritarian governments are horrible for the people, particularly any people whom the government uses as scapegoats. Eighty years ago it was Jews. Today it is all minorities, and yet a significant subset of the US populace can't get enough of it. That is a problem which needs to be fixed before it gets out of hand. Each Trump rally gets worse, and I would not be surprised if someone ends up dead because of the vitriol spewed forth from him and his supporters towards anyone who dares call them on their massive bullshit.
-
Gay rights.
-
I don't want to punish support of political candidates. I want to punish support of criminal activities. Just because the criminals in question happen to be of a specific political party does not make it a valid political philosophy to commit crime.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: A libertarian according to politicalcompass dot org!
-
Also, libertarian seems opposite of socialist to me, so the whole thing is a bit confusing.
Hm, neither term is very good here, but I am not sure what the proper one would be.
The governments that call themselves socialist are generally on the authoritarian side indeed, but I don't think the original term was supposed to imply that.
But the left/right does not match well either, because the actual political parties are usually distributed diagonally on the graph. And differently in different places, making the left/right terminology somewhat confusing.
-
Each Trump rally gets worse
Yeah, the stuff the anti-Trump people are doing is horribly fascist and anti-American.
-
When you say "work" do you mean "work" or "work at a paid job"?
-
making the left/right terminology somewhat confusing.
It is indeed confusing, especially since Left / Right is very context dependent. And I simply cannot take anyone serious who puts Bernie Bloody Sanders on the libertarian side of anything.
-
You forgot your
-
When you say "work" do you mean "work" or "work at a paid job"?
Look at the quote I was replying to.
-
I don't want to punish support of political candidates. I want to punish support of criminal activities.
Okay, let's start by punishing support of illegal immigration.
Today it is all minorities
No it's not, it's only minorities which break the law to get here. That is a subset of "all minorities".
and yet a significant subset of the US populace can't get enough of it.
This significant subset of the US populace just wants to punish criminal activities.
Each Trump rally gets worse, and I would not be surprised if someone ends up dead because of the vitriol spewed forth from
him and his supportersviolent BLM and Bernie Sanders supporters trying to cause troubleFTFY.
-
No because since I typed that Fox I saw that Fox got involved and now I'm muting this.
-
Rejecting authoritarianism is apparently fascist.
-
No because since I typed that Fox I saw that Fox got involved and now I'm muting this.
Ignore him then, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say on the subject. It was referring to paid work. People refusing to do paid work that is offered to them in order to do charity work and draw welfare.
At least that is the way that I took it.
-
FTFY
No you didn't. Trump's supporters are the ones beating up black people and shouting things like "Set him on fire!" As they are "escorting" them out of Trump's rallies at his orders.No it's not, it's only minorities which break the law to get here. That is a subset of "all minorities".
No, it's pretty much all minorities. Women, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, GLBTQ people, Muslims, and Jews have all been targeted, at some point or another, by Trump and his supporters.
-
Man, you are one fucked up individual.
-
I have nothing else to say other than you're an idiot if you actually believe that crap.
