• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:583] Political Compass Thread

Hey hey hey, don't lump left libertarians/socialists like me in with anarcho-capitalists and minarchists! I actually think we need a government to protect freedoms, as do most leftist anarchists.
You never seem undecided.
 
You never seem undecided.
I like to think I've thought out most of my political positions pretty well. Of course, there are still many issues that I don't take a strong position on because I'm not confident I'm correct.
 
I like to think I've thought out most of my political positions pretty well. Of course, there are still many issues that I don't take a strong position on because I'm not confident I'm correct.
Humility!?! Just where do you think you are? That simply will not do!
 
Post your test results here.

Anyway, here are mine:

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

pcgraphpng.php


My results a few months ago were around {-4,-4}, so you could say that my views have shifted significantly.

Moderator's Warning:
Stickied this, and note the second quiz mentioned here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...olitical-compass-thread-6.html#post1060382148

Quiz mentioned by link above can be found here: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Thank you mpg for the second quiz
Left moderate social libertarian: 6.51 left; 3.35 libertarian
 
I've been thinking about political compass and discussions across boundaries. I don't want to detract from the thread, but I do find that the ability to carry on genuine conversations seems to be limited to those that occupy at least adjacent quadrants.
 
I've been thinking about political compass and discussions across boundaries. I don't want to detract from the thread, but I do find that the ability to carry on genuine conversations seems to be limited to those that occupy at least adjacent quadrants.
I used to think this until very recently.

It was my observation that when talking with libertarians, we could always appeal to each other's shared belief in individual freedoms as a justification for one policy or another. When talking with Tankies or overbearing left leaning liberals we could appeal to a shared sense of goals but a difference of opinion on how best to achieve them.

But I realized this was just a comfortable way for my brain to understand things. There are too many exceptions in my opinion to make this a rule.

My new position is two fold:
1) This is the most important one in my opinion. They have to hold similar axiomatic moral beliefs as me. Things like "freedom is good" and "we should make the world better for the most people possible". I've seen and participated in discussions where that is not the case. For example, our resident homophobe aCultureWarrior does not value freedom. He sees it as a path to sin. I was arguing with @Alizia Tyler [banned lol] and I argued something along the lines of, "how does that help Black people?" and her response was essentially "why should I care about the well being of other races?". There is no common ground to be found there.

2) You must broadly agree about reality. Obviously there are many things that cannot be taken as absolute facts, but if we can't agree on basic pillars to build the discussion off of there can be no productive discussion.

For example, I have a childhood friend who I am still friends with who voted for Trump...twice. We discuss politics often. He isn't too sure about elections results and definitely believe some of the disinfo surrounding BLM, but he is certainly not so far gone as the QAnon types or some of the more fanatical Trump supporters like Conservative. If I share a study with him or some data, he doesn't immediately reject it as Soros MSM commie propaganda like others do, and I think that is foundational to a good discussion. He also believes in things like equality, freedom, and justice as axiomatically good ideals. So it is possible to justify the benefit of policy based on those ideals.
 
I used to think this until very recently.
I'm truncating your excellent post to make the 5000 character limit.
For example, I have a childhood friend who I am still friends with who voted for Trump...twice. We discuss politics often. He isn't too sure about elections results and definitely believe some of the disinfo surrounding BLM, but he is certainly not so far gone as the QAnon types or some of the more fanatical Trump supporters like Conservative. If I share a study with him or some data, he doesn't immediately reject it as Soros MSM commie propaganda like others do, and I think that is foundational to a good discussion. He also believes in things like equality, freedom, and justice as axiomatically good ideals. So it is possible to justify the benefit of policy based on those ideals.
I completely agree with the need for "shared reality", which is an obstacle to discussion with many ideologues. As the ideological world migrated around me, I've found less and less commonality. Disclosing my age, I first met a John Danforth when he was a freshman Senator (I was in high school).

Although, even then, I disagree with some of his positions, I was impressed by his integrity, compassion, logic and genuine patriotism. (His loyalty, however, has led him into some serious lapses of judgment, especially with regard to Clarence Thomas, John Ashcroft and Josh Hawley - the last of which he described as "the worst mistake of his career".)

If one wants a study in probity, one should look at his report on the Branch Davidian siege. Consider that his appointment was by a Democrat, and he appointed a Democrat as his deputy. Think that would happen today?

There are "axiomatically good ideals" that can be shared and allow for discussion and changes of mind. They are, alas, frequently absent in many posters' zeal. The point about adjacency, though, is still relevant, though, with your addendum. I still believe the bulk of the population shares many foundational principles regarding "equality, freedom, and justice", they are just obscured by zealotry and drowned out by punditry.
 
Disclosing my age, I first met a John Danforth when he was a freshman Senator (I was in high school).
I admit, I had to google his wikipedia page.

Consider that his appointment was by a Democrat, and he appointed a Democrat as his deputy. Think that would happen today?
I do not. There seems to be very good data that voting has become increasingly down party lines in the last ~50 years.

There are "axiomatically good ideals" that can be shared and allow for discussion and changes of mind. They are, alas, frequently absent in many posters' zeal. The point about adjacency, though, is still relevant, though, with your addendum. I still believe the bulk of the population shares many foundational principles regarding "equality, freedom, and justice", they are just obscured by zealotry and drowned out by punditry.
I developed this idea of what drives the foundation of good discussion based on an ongoing phenomenon I've been trying to rationalize. Why do people who believe X almost always also believe Y (i.e. people who support $15 minimum wage almost always support cannabis legalization)? I can stem virtually all my positions down to maximize positive liberty. I feel like most people (consciously or otherwise) have a value or a few values they care about maximizing.

I do think that many Americans simply have very different moral axioms that drive the rest of their opinions. For example, I've noticed many conservatives operate under the assumption that struggle is inherently a good thing; a goal for it's own sake. Basically the common "strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men" meme. Many conservatives are simply not concerned at all with positive liberty, only negative liberty.

My point, is that people that can believe exactly the same thing as me for totally insane reasons and I can't have a discussion with them, despite sharing views. I good example of the is would be spiritual crystal hippie types that are into deep ecology and protecting the Earth because they see it as the spirit mother or something. Whereas I approach it more from a humanist perspective while recognizing there is some inherent value to protecting other life as well. What this means in practice (in my experience) is that we actually don't agree on much else besides environmentalism and often when trying to discuss issues were them they defer back to their spiritualism to justify their positions. Another example was a debate I was watching between two leftist Youtubers. One of them asked the other why they thought the Holocaust was bad as a sort of Socratic Method type question. They said it was bad because the Jews didn't actually control the banks. Which begs the question...would they have thought it was justified if the Jews had controlled the banks? Was it only their perception of reality that led them to lucking into having leftist political beliefs and their moral beliefs could lead them just as easily to conservative positions? I agreed with a lot of their positions but when they justified why they had them I was totally lost.

On the other hand, there are right leaning Christian conservatives who've managed to not fall down the Fox news bubble and mostly accept the reality I live in and can defend their beliefs without resorting to "it's bad because the bible said it". For example, Felis Leo is probably the best example I've ever seen of this offline or online.

That was a little long and rambely. This is still an idea I'm developing, but I hope that at least somewhat made sense. I recognize your point of course that ideology can warp people to the point that arguing with them feels like arguing with a Evangelical citing scripture at you, but at that point I think my point #2 usually applies.
 
Post your test results here.

Anyway, here are mine:

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

pcgraphpng.php


My results a few months ago were around {-4,-4}, so you could say that my views have shifted significantly.

Moderator's Warning:
Stickied this, and note the second quiz mentioned here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...olitical-compass-thread-6.html#post1060382148

Quiz mentioned by link above can be found here: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Thank you mpg for the second quiz

About 8 years ago I was helping refugees and trying to educate people and right wing filth started harassing me and threatening to kill my children. I became aware of the political compass around the same time. I do the test regularly and have drifted left and down over that time until I am now hard left/hard down
 
I find it interesting that Socialist people in this country are very against authority yet, they are socialist. Tell me that makes sense.....

You almost made it too that left bottom corner. Keep trying!

Tell me you don't know what socialism is without saying you don't know what socialism is
 
Political Compas
Economic Left/Right: 3.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

Political Spectrum
You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 3.95, Libertarian: 1.31

Around the same position in both of them, but they both have what I consider the same flaw of mixing social attitudes and beliefs with what you think the law should be. Personally, I prefer the World's Smallest Political Quiz. There, I got:

Personal: 70 ("Maybe" on the draft and "Disagree" that governments shouldn't detain/deport illegal migrants)
Economic: 80 ("Maybe" on replacing welfare with charity, and on slashing taxes & government spending by 50%)

Still, even with those results I have to describe myself as a Conservative now.
 
Political Compas
Economic Left/Right: 3.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

Political Spectrum
You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 3.95, Libertarian: 1.31

Around the same position in both of them, but they both have what I consider the same flaw of mixing social attitudes and beliefs with what you think the law should be. Personally, I prefer the World's Smallest Political Quiz. There, I got:

Personal: 70 ("Maybe" on the draft and "Disagree" that governments shouldn't detain/deport illegal migrants)
Economic: 80 ("Maybe" on replacing welfare with charity, and on slashing taxes & government spending by 50%)

Still, even with those results I have to describe myself as a Conservative now.

personal 100, economic 0. Progressive.
 
Post your test results here.

Anyway, here are mine:

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

pcgraphpng.php


My results a few months ago were around {-4,-4}, so you could say that my views have shifted significantly.

Moderator's Warning:
Stickied this, and note the second quiz mentioned here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...olitical-compass-thread-6.html#post1060382148

Quiz mentioned by link above can be found here: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Thank you mpg for the second quiz
You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 4.45, Libertarian: 1.97
 

Economic Left/Right: -6.88​

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59​

chart.png
 

Foreign Policy:​

On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world.
You scored: 1.41
You are a right social moderate.


1660300635581.jpeg





Culture:​

Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries.
You scored: 4.63

1660300667664.jpeg




1660300594069.png
 
Been awhile since I took one of these, probably shifted because of changes in my views and changes in the world.

image_2022-08-18_074130946.png

Economic Left/Right: 1.5​

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13​


Seems to stick:

image_2022-08-18_075232525.png

image_2022-08-18_075302055.png
 
Last edited:

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.31​


1662473272593.png


1662473293694.jpeg


political_axes.png
 
I rather like this one, even if it makes me seem more moderate than I really am. (Edit: or on reflection, maybe not.)

9Axis.png
 
An open question to everyone:

Would you rather join with someone who is on the same left/right axis as you?

OR

Would you rather join with someone who is on the same libertarian/authoritarian axis as you?


In other words, if you are left libertarian, would you rather join the right libertarians or the left authoritarians.

And so on and so forth.
For me, libertarian/authoritarian axis is most important. I can jive with conservatives, but live free or die. Be well.
 
Post your test results here.

Anyway, here are mine:

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

pcgraphpng.php


My results a few months ago were around {-4,-4}, so you could say that my views have shifted significantly.

Moderator's Warning:
Stickied this, and note the second quiz mentioned here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...olitical-compass-thread-6.html#post1060382148

Quiz mentioned by link above can be found here: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Thank you mpg for the second quiz

Mine:
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-10-18 at 7.28.38 a.m..png
    Screen Shot 2022-10-18 at 7.28.38 a.m..png
    23.2 KB · Views: 1
Back
Top Bottom