Political Compass Thread

The political compass - a more accurate representation of the political spectrum than the annoying polarisation of left-right being thrown at our heads in 2k17. You can use this to compare yourself to cool dudes because politics are fun.



https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'm personally on the libertarian right, further right than Machiavelli.

Do the test and show us where you stand. :-----)

 

I agree with Savage, some questions I didn't have an opinion on/know what it was talking about. Cool website though

 

haha cucks btfo amirite

build a wall

 

Sorry to hear this, I'm sure there are pills for your condition my friend

 

I agree with savage some dumb questions in there

 

The agreement in that question is not factual but ethical. It's two-pronged: is it 'exploitation', and is it therefore 'unethical'?

You can argue 'agree' from a standpoint of nature, as in "I completely agree nature is being unethically exploited". You can also agree from a standpoint of population, as in 'the government in place does not have the best interests of the population at heart, therefore the resources that should belong to the population are unethically exploited through agreements the government made with multinationals'.

I disagree due to the technical ownership of said plant genetic resources lying with the party doing the exploitation, based on a contract between two mutually individual instances, therefore regarding the contract as ethical and within freedoms.

 

I thought I might appear more right wing tbh.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

Surely this means it's not a genuine free market???

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."

What a weird question.

 

The entire political compass is wholly nonsensical, so eh.

 

Tends to fluctuate a bit more right or left depending on how i'm feeling about politics. 8values is a much better site if you want to compare people's political views imo.

 

free was too scared to show but he was in top right

 

Yeah I'd definitely say I'm a libertarian, would put myself more centrist but nevermind. Didn't have a good definitive answer for 4 or so questions because I hadn't really ever thought about them prior.

 

I do not feel this is accurate. I know I am far more right then this suggests.

Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS

 

What makes you say that?

 

so I'm left leaning? Hmmmmmm.......

 

For many reasons, primarily that the categories make no sense and that the resulting questions make no sense (also, the 'chart famous people into the graph'-image is completely nonsensical as well).

Politics exist within a culture. One's perception of 'left' and 'right' exist within a culture. In the USA, it is a far more social dimension, whereas in the Netherlands, it is a far more economical dimension. Gay rights are not left-wing here. Employee rights as they are - up to the point that they are decried as impossible communism in the USA - are not left-wing here. Healthcare for all is not left-wing here. Pro-environmental laws and regulations are not left-wing here. And ever so on. Most are simply baseline positions, the default, not politicised. Others can even switch; conservatism in Europe is by and large, in broad strokes, about 'stewardship' of the Earth, about family and community, and so on - but in the USA, conservatism rejects climate change and is increasingly reactionary and anti-social (as in, widening an equality gap, so to say). On the other hand, in the USA, the right-wing is associated with nationalism, religion, conservatism, and so on. None of that is right-wing here (after all, the ChristenUnie is a left-wing Christian party, the PVV is probably the party that comes closest to being nationalistic, and of conservatism there exist a right-wing, left-wing, and centre variant). Further, abortions, gun control, and many more very relevant themes in the USA, are completely irrelevant here.

Even if we assume that 'left' and 'right' are economical positions here, and that 'authoritarian' and 'libertarian' are social positions, then it still makes no sense (and that isn't even getting into the argument that libertarianism doesn't really exist outside of the USA). For not only specific policy points have different degrees of relevance, different associations and connotations, and sometimes entirely different places on this graph, but the very concepts they are part of are different. 'Liberal' is right-wing here (indeed, it is the position of the main right-wing party here), while it is left-wing in the USA. 'Socialist' is more of an insult than a political stance in the USA, and many things seen to be socialist there are normal positions supported by more or less everyone here, both economically and socially speaking. The graph fails to accurately identify even the most basic of political positions; liberal democratic, social democratic, democratic socialism...

Further, even if you could codify the exact meanings for all countries, it would still be wrong. Left-wing used to mean pro-working class, and a bit pro-rural, I suppose. Yet the largest left-wing party here now is one that focuses mainly on green politics, and there is no real pro-working class party anymore in many countries (this, by the way, is probably tied to the whole alt-right phenomenon, which is a terrible name, but one that has stuck, alas). For that matter, where would you put a party such as the PVV, which has copied its entire economic policy from the Socialist Party, yet is part of the alt-right phenomenon? The top left quadrant is Stalinist-esque communism, and the bottom left is something like anarchism - and purely from this sentence you can already see how little sense the graph makes. But even if you could somehow codify it all, perhaps by agreeing to exclude anything that lies outside of mainstream politics (such as anarchism, communism, and so on - including libertarianism for most of the world), then the question arises what mainstream politics even is? Liberal democratic, social democratic, and democratic socialism? That already excludes plenty of political parties that get a lot of votes - this graph is designed for a USAn audience that by and large only knows of two parties (yes, I know that there are more), and can't take into account the extreme diversity that exists.

Even if it could, societies, cultures, definitions, connotations, all those exist in flux, and thus change. So you can't codify it at all for any useful period of time. But crucially - note how my post applies to the USA and to the Netherlands. And, as a British person, you can find yourself in many of these things, probably. Sure, the LibDems are a non-entity, while their Dutch equivalent - the VVD - is the largest party, but that doesn't matter; parallels exist. Labour? Well, there's the Party for the Labour, in the Netherlands, which used to be the main left-wing party. And that is true for most of Europe (the German CDU can find itself int he Dutch CDA, and ever so on). What about, say, east-Asia?

There's also no unit of measurement, no scientific structure, nothing... Just a graph, and a bunch of questions. It's full of faulty assumptions - I remember Googling about this graph once, and finding out that, for instance, saying that all races are equal moves you towards libertarianism. But why? Isn't communism the very ideology of equality? And was communism not mainly implemented in authoritarian ways? Are there not entire schools of communism advocating for a (violent) revolution and all that? But then, what is 'equality' anyway? Almost everyone believes in equality, but is that equality of starting positions, or equality of outcomes? Should the state seize any newborn baby to ensure they get equal opportunities (talk about authoritarianism...)? Should we impose gender quotas, to create a more equal culture? And is that reducing freedom, by preventing (usually) men from gaining positions that must now go to women? Or is that increasing freedom, by allowing women equal opportunities vis-a-vis men? What is freedom anyway? And what is liberty? What about positive versus negative rights? All these things are completely glossed over and reduced to the highly subjective viewpoints of the authors, not even fit for one culture - not even the Constitution of the USA, a document with almost mythic powers in the eyes of some, has a shared interpretation amongst the majority of the USA's populace - let alone the whole world. We're just supposed to guess how to interpret the viewpoints of the author and hope that it aligns with how we think it would move us on this chart.

Finally, I am willing to bet that the test is designed for any person serious answering this test to appear near (or in) the green quadrant (and yes, I am further willing to bet that the authors belong to or are associated with the Libertarian Party of the USA). Which isn't to say that you can't appear out of it, but there are questions that have obvious answers. Which is so very wrong! None of these questions should have obvious answers - that is the entire idea behind politics, not? Debating over what the right answer is to questions. Not to ask 'well, should all humans be given a billion Euros each, or only the villainous CEOs of the evil multi-nationals that exploit the poor oppressed masses?'. An exaggeration, but I am pretty sure a question contrasting humanity with corporations in included in the test (everyone would choose for 'humanity', unless one believes that corporations help humanity, in which case one would throw a dice to either choose 'humanity' or 'corporations' - so what is being asked here?). Or one about whether astrology is reliable (how is this even related to politics?). Or one about whether people can be lucky - whether random chance plays a role in the lives of people. Well, duh?