Political Compass

I couldn't get the graph on here, so here's the numbers:
Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.05


That's right on the Libertarian/Authoritarian line, and slightly to the left.
Not really sure what that means.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Curious, what exactly does it mean to be "on the middle"? Like, what kind of person would be exactly on the mid point? The more I think about it, the less this cross-hair really means if you don't know what the "middle" stands for. Depending on where the cross hairs are and how you draw the graph, the political differences could be absolutely gigantic, or they could amount to basically nothing. Anyone wanna tell me without me having to actually go to the site and read? lol

perhaps:

"I want government to do stuff, except when they shouldn't." :D

"I think people should have to work for their own money and deserve to use/save what they have earned-- except I also think everyone should be forced to give money to engineer society towards ideals." ??
 

Rhys DeAnno

Slacking Off
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

I'm rather surprised to have ended up as close to Ghandi as I did, but apparently that isn't rare here.
 

Da Letter El

Officially internet famous
is a Community Leader Alumnus
Took it a couple times; felt this one was closest to my ideology after actually taking my time on the questions and not just blasting through them.

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51



 

Nix_Hex

Uangaana kasuttortunga!
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74



I was expecting a bit more Libertarian, but I feel I am slightly left, just as is reflected in this plot. Many of the questions were vague such as:
"Sex between two consenting adults outside of marriage is sometimes immoral"
I do have a strong opinion on this, but does voting Strongly Agree mean that I take "sometimes" more seriously than "immoral"? I believe it is always immoral outside of marriage, and I marked Strongly Agree, so I hope that what that meant.
 


Meh, the test is stupid. I also don't understand the whole political thing. Like, we learn in school that conservative means you believe the federal government should have limited power while liberal means you think the government should have lots of power yet it's "conservatives" that want to ban same-sex marriage. Makes no sense. Also, based on my limited high school government class understanding I'd think I'd be extremely conservative yet the test puts me slightly left because I'm not Christian and I don't feel the need to shove my antiquated xenophobic views down everyone's throats.

Also, what is the point of the first generation immigrant question? That situation is a pet peeve of mine because I work in retail and deal with people coming into my store and either not understanding our culture and thinking that I'm some kind of pariah who is supposed to walk around with my head down picking up after them or people who won't learn the common language and try and speak to me in their language. But more importantly it makes me angry because my grandmother is a first-generation immigrant and she speaks perfect (okay, she says shit like unjin for onion and she can't spell well) English and has assimilated completely while still keeping her heritage and culture and even teaching classes on her culture.
 
Meh, the test is stupid. I also don't understand the whole political thing. Like, we learn in school that conservative means you believe the federal government should have limited power while liberal means you think the government should have lots of power yet it's "conservatives" that want to ban same-sex marriage. Makes no sense. Also, based on my limited high school government class understanding I'd think I'd be extremely conservative yet the test puts me slightly left because I'm not Christian and I don't feel the need to shove my antiquated xenophobic views down everyone's throats.
That's why the test has 4 directions. Not all conservatives want to ban same-sex marriages, although the majority do. That's why the average person falls somewhere along the line from the bottom-left to the top-right of the political compass.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus


Meh, the test is stupid. I also don't understand the whole political thing. Like, we learn in school that conservative means you believe the federal government should have limited power while liberal means you think the government should have lots of power yet it's "conservatives" that want to ban same-sex marriage. Makes no sense. Also, based on my limited high school government class understanding I'd think I'd be extremely conservative yet the test puts me slightly left because I'm not Christian and I don't feel the need to shove my antiquated xenophobic views down everyone's throats.

The issue about little power = conservative is in regards to the economic aspect, which to my understanding should be the reflection of left/right as well.

If you are economically conservative, you believe that people should have as much right as possible to the earnings of their own labor, and despise government programs like social security or national health care that essential "steal from the rich to give to the poor." Since the natural state of capitalist economics is far more "right", that is, the result of competition-- "less economic intervention" (that is less government influence) = more conservative economic policy.

So in terms of economics, yes, more government intervention generally = more liberal. Odd, but there you go.

If you were to fall more to the right economically (like I do) than you would vote "strongly agree" to questions like "I believe charity is better than welfare" or strongly disagree against "International business should be for the sake of humanity and not international businesses."

I have little desire to push my own social/religious beliefs on others, but economically, I definitely fall extremely far to the right-- let me keep my own damn money. You go earn your own! Which is why I come in far to the right and libertarian.

The "authoritarian" conservatives are the ones who want to do the social-engineering, but if you believe in right-economics without a high degree of social intervention by the government, you'd probably fall right-libertarian like me.
 
So I took the test trying to get as conservative as possible, but as you can see I failed a bit :(



I could not figure out things like if luck is liberal or conservative...
 

Da Letter El

Officially internet famous
is a Community Leader Alumnus
Strongly disagreeing means you're more likely to be libertarian; Strongly agreeing means you're more authoritarian. It has no effect on the economic axis. It is akin to the astrology question trying to ferret out the superstitious in the testing pool.
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
The questions for "libertarian" or "authoritarian" often have nothing to do with actual government policy. If you don't think women are homemakers you could still be a 100% authoritarian, and if you think women ought to be but think the government shouldn't say so you can be a 100% libertarian.

Honestly this test is designed to make people think they are more liberal than they are...
 

McGrrr

Facetious
is a Contributor Alumnus
The questions for "libertarian" or "authoritarian" often have nothing to do with actual government policy. If you don't think women are homemakers you could still be a 100% authoritarian, and if you think women ought to be but think the government shouldn't say so you can be a 100% libertarian.
The question is less to do with whether women should be A or B and more to do with whether women have the right to choose to be A or B or C etc.

Agreement with "mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers" implies that an external influence ("duty") is an overriding factor to a decision by the individual. Obviously this position is incompatible with the concept of liberty, and agreement would therefore be authoritarian in nature. Of course, the question could afford to be worded better.

The political compass was created by libertarians to promote their ideas so don't be surprised by bias. However, do not confuse liberal (economic left) with libertarian (social south).
 

Jackal

I'm not retarded I'm Canadian it's different
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

i expected to be more right, but the 0.00 is probably right on.
 
So I took the test trying to get as conservative as possible, but as you can see I failed a bit :(



I could not figure out things like if luck is liberal or conservative...
Kind of depends on your definition of "luck."

From the view points of Liberals like (Malcolm Gladwell for instance) it is the idea of a "roulette" of sorts , that you are born into the right family in the right place than you are entitled a "better system."

In the idea of free market conservatives it is the idea of being the right person in the right place at the right time.

I know, somewhat superfluous; but is it being the "right person in the right place" your own doing or your parents (or even others) that put you in that position.
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
From the view points of Liberals like (Malcolm Gladwell for instance) it is the idea of a "roulette" of sorts , that you are born into the right family in the right place than you are entitled a "better system."
I'm pretty sure Liberalism is designed around a level playing field economoically, not inheritance.

Consider Conservative policy would do more to protect inheritance than liberals and the analogy quickly doesn't make any sense.
 
I'm pretty sure Liberalism is designed around a level playing field economoically, not inheritance.

Consider Conservative policy would do more to protect inheritance than liberals and the analogy quickly doesn't make any sense.
I'm sorry I am no good with words, but that is what I meant by the term roulette (i.e. that it isn't fair). Gladwell wrote Outliers with exactly this point in mind. That those who succeed in life fall into two categories; rich or right person in right place. The rich automatically get better schools, more attentive parents, better health care (et. al.) than the poor. The "right people" tend to come from middle class families and devote themselves to something at a young age (Gladwell's example is a host a NY business Lawyers and Bill Gates).

Not that they are born "better," just they have a better environment to be born into than say a poor black man in an American ghetto.

Liberals (as per myself) view the world more in this paradigm, and want to create a system of economics that gives everybody the same opportunities.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Where as conservatives understand that it is only natural that people should be strongly interested in looking after their own kin, and that they have every right to try and procure every possible advantage within their power for their childrens' futures.

If you take away the right of people to strive for their own sakes and their children's sakes-- you take away people's will to do anything productive.

This is how say, an entire generation of Japanese/Chinese Americans whose grandparents/great grandparents were from dirt-poor plantation/railroad families who left their countries with nothing (and in the Japanese case, would be held in intern camps!), 2 generations later, can be born into very well off families able to grant them the best educations and opportunities. Because they had the hunger, protection and the right to "The pursuit of happiness" things could change over just a couple generations.

. . . as per myself. Based on the history of "my own people," I have hard time listening to the bitching of others that "they've got it bad." At least when it comes to my fellow Americans. I'd be more abliged to lend a sympathetic ear to a child in Africa for instance . . .
 
That's a nice story, but everything I have seen on the subject indicates that the United States performs significantly lower on metrics of intergenerational social mobility than other industrialized nations (e.g. Canada, Australia, Germany, France, the Nordic countries; the U.K. is an exception, usually faring slightly worse than the U.S.). I find no credible reason to believe that such rags-to-riches outcomes are likely to occur outside of anecdotal evidence, and I would hope we can agree that such "arguments from one's own privileged experience are bad and reactionary arguments" (Deleuze).
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Notice I spoke not of a personal case, but of an entire generation. It is simple fact that almost all 4th generation chinese/japanese born in Hawaii are born into middle-to-upper class homes, and that all of these kids had grandparents/great-grandparents who came with nothing to work on the plantation. The elite schools like Punahou (where our president graduated from) were once majority white schools, but now are majority asian.

I could probably dig out some statistics if I wanted to (but I'm lazy), but do I really need to? How about the simple fact that affirmative action no longer works for asians (which is bull-crap imo)?

From other minorities and poor Americans there was nothing different in terms of initial wealth or social boundaries (if anything, Asians had MORE boundaries). The only difference is a culture of people that's hungry to work and hungry to climb. They worked, they climbed, and there's the result.

In Japanese, we have a saying: 働かざるものは食うべからず。(Hatarakazaru mono wa kuubekarazu) "Those who don't work, shan't eat."
 
I could probably dig out some statistics if I wanted to (but I'm lazy), but do I really need to? How about the simple fact that affirmative action no longer works for asians (which is bull-crap imo)?
I completely agree with this. I am not Asian and am very against affirmative action in the first place, but not including Asians makes it even worse.

In regards to the rest of your post, it is not a comfortable subject to talk about, but I think when the stereotypical "insults" directed at a culture are that they are "too smart" or "work too hard," it may be time for other cultures to start taking a leaf out of that culture's book. It is amazing to me at my university how many people complain about the Asians getting such high grades when these Asians are working twice as hard as the ones complaining.
 

FlareBlitz

Relaxed nature. Loves to eat.
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97



Note: I'm not a big fan of this test at all. The questions are simplistic and a lot of them are kinda skewed. I like this test a whole lot though, at least for the economic part, even though it's really long (there's a link to a much shorter one, but...honestly, the long test has a lot of interesting questions). If anyone is interested in this sort of thing, they should take the test I just linked, I feel that it's more accurate.

Edit: Just to clarify, the quiz suggests that you "win" if you're an Austrian/Libertarian (lol), but it also tells you what it categorizes you as, with respect to your views on economics.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top