the dynamite politics thread
- Thread starter Malaclypse
- Start date
My result:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54
neo-liberal anarchist
I do have to say that I hate this 4 option crap, so since this
is my second time of doing this one, I only used strongly agree
or strongly disagree options.
I got pretty much the same result as before tho, so I guess
it's quite close.
@Villain
Somehow I am not surprised about that either.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54
neo-liberal anarchist
I do have to say that I hate this 4 option crap, so since this
is my second time of doing this one, I only used strongly agree
or strongly disagree options.
I got pretty much the same result as before tho, so I guess
it's quite close.
@Villain
Somehow I am not surprised about that either.
Caelestia
rawr
My light-minded participation:
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Nope, I didn't take that test, but I understand that they weren't perfect for sure (and no-one is). However, I meant that what I know of their political thoughts, I think I'm rather close to them on a general level - just like Hitler, Sharon and Bush are very close to each other in a general level - although there are some minor disagreements on individual issues. Of course it is just an abstraction, partially for the reason you mentioned (the politicians having not made the test by themselves), but as such I find it rather accurate.fireangel said:
Oh, and I must thank you for the pictures - they were great! Brought back a lot of wonderful memories.
I was supposed to write you an email a long time ago already, but well, you know how I am sometimes...-Villain
your results bring back to me the old-age question: why are most young people left-wing? i experience this every day in my country, and i normally would tend to ascribe the phenomenon to politicized high schools, universities, textbooks. still, you come from all over the world, being metalheads you're not even part of a social group that associates themselves with a specific leftist stance (like, say, hippies would do), and on average i also imagine that you're quite well-off economically... so really what is the appeal of socialist (i'm generalizing here) thoughts to you? i'm not trying to pick a fight, i'm just extremely curious from a sociological and political standpoint.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
@hyena: i think the test is quite drugged to produce leftist, libertarian results. the questions about international politics and economy are very mild, very specific, so that it's hard to feel strongly about most of them either way. result? both left- and right-wing people would pick a higher number of disagree/agree than their "stronger" versions just because it's not common to have passionate feelings about inflation. the social/religious questions, on the other hand, are expressed in rather dramatic wording, so that even the more moderate among us are bound to pick vibrant positions. so in the end the results reflect more how we are when it comes to moral and social standards. obviously, lots of people are becoming in favour of same sex relationships and same sex child adoption, even those who do not agree with leftist stances on a political level.
for instance, i got -0.62/-1.85 (still the closest results to yours), which might accurately reflect my social position but it's certainly wide off the mark when it comes to the rest.
for instance, i got -0.62/-1.85 (still the closest results to yours), which might accurately reflect my social position but it's certainly wide off the mark when it comes to the rest.
I for one don't think of politics as left or right or in any other way, I
go what some might call moral or maybe "live and let live", infact I
would be happy if there was no politics at all.
And um, I'm not that young either
go what some might call moral or maybe "live and let live", infact I
would be happy if there was no politics at all.
And um, I'm not that young either
Child of Time
Voice of reason
I think I brought up this test some time ago, but I don't remember where it's now and exactly what I got, but it was something like "total fukking anarcho-commie" with minus 8 (give or take 1) on both scales.
And as one of my teachers quoted the other day (translated by me, so it's not accurate): "If you aren't leftwing in your youth you don't have a heart, and if you aren't conservative when you get older you don't have a brain."
I don't know who said it, I think it was some political bigwig of the nineteeth century.
And as one of my teachers quoted the other day (translated by me, so it's not accurate): "If you aren't leftwing in your youth you don't have a heart, and if you aren't conservative when you get older you don't have a brain."
I don't know who said it, I think it was some political bigwig of the nineteeth century.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
"i was young too. i felt just like you. hated authority. hated all my bosses, thought they were full of shit. but it's like they say 'if you're not a rebel by the age of twenty, you've got no heart. but if you haven't turned establishment by thirty, you've got no brains'. because there are no storybook romances. no fairytale endings. before you run out and change the world ask yourself: what do you really want?"Child of Time said:
this is from a movie called swimming with sharks, spoken by kevin spacey and sampled in a lagwagon song ("gun in your hand"). i'm sure the original line about being a rebel at twenty is also quoted from someone else in the movie, but i can't find whom this is attributed to.
i've heard the quote in many slightly different versions - aside from this, i have mixed feelings about it.
i wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the causal relationship between income inequality and economic growth, drawing on a large literature that reaches conflicting conclusions (some say inequality is bad because it curtails people's opportunities, some say it's good because it incites accumulation and therefore investment).
i wanted to understand what was the truth concerning inequality, whether there was a real reason to deem it bad or not. i kept on studying this matter during my ph. d. years and now i'm also turning to poverty analysis. and you know what? i still have no clue.
the ultra-conservative argument brought up by the likes of martin feldstein goes like this: people are born with different skills, and they subsequently decide with different measures of willpower what to do with these skills, so inequality is a fact of human nature, and of course it's reflected in income distributions. face it, embrace it, and forget about it. no matter how hard i honestly tried to see the other side in several years of research on the matter, i still can't deny that there is more than a grain of truth in points such as this. still, if i see homeless people on the street i feel sorry for them. so, as i said: mixed feelings.
moreover, even if i was totally convinced that inequality is bad and must be eradicated for the common good (a concept i'm very suspicious about all the time, but let's pretend i'm not), trying to do that would imply very high personal costs. i will just give you an example from a very realistic perspective: let's say that i keep on writing journal articles about inequality and poverty, and let's say that sooner or later i get to sit on a governmental commission for designing policies aimed at helping the unfortunate. this is not sci-fi, there's people at my workplace who are in the same line of research and eventually this is what they ended up doing. and guess what? in order to subsidize the poor, you need to take money from the rich and the middle class. this is all well and good if you assume that an equal society is desirable. but, on a personal level, i would not be able to sponsor massive redistribution: after all, after 20-odd years of schooling, leaving friends and family behind to get a good job, and jeopardizing serenity and health in order to have a career i am not inclined to fund some high-school dropout who thought life was a lot easier than it actually is. so, would i be effective as a social policymaker? not really, because i don't even believe in the concept of social assistance. those of you who have jobs, especially if you've worked very hard to get them, will find that after all i'm not rambling (be honest): redistribution is based on the idea that those who have more than others must be forced by the state to give something back to society. are you ready to do that? i don't really think so, and that's because the idea is basically unfair. i'm all in favor of private charities and benefiting the destitute because you want it, but i will never think that it's a responsibility of the state. take money away from the people who earn it, and you're just ending up with an unmotivated ruling class - not by a long shot a good idea.
i wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the causal relationship between income inequality and economic growth, drawing on a large literature that reaches conflicting conclusions (some say inequality is bad because it curtails people's opportunities, some say it's good because it incites accumulation and therefore investment).
i wanted to understand what was the truth concerning inequality, whether there was a real reason to deem it bad or not. i kept on studying this matter during my ph. d. years and now i'm also turning to poverty analysis. and you know what? i still have no clue.
the ultra-conservative argument brought up by the likes of martin feldstein goes like this: people are born with different skills, and they subsequently decide with different measures of willpower what to do with these skills, so inequality is a fact of human nature, and of course it's reflected in income distributions. face it, embrace it, and forget about it. no matter how hard i honestly tried to see the other side in several years of research on the matter, i still can't deny that there is more than a grain of truth in points such as this. still, if i see homeless people on the street i feel sorry for them. so, as i said: mixed feelings.
moreover, even if i was totally convinced that inequality is bad and must be eradicated for the common good (a concept i'm very suspicious about all the time, but let's pretend i'm not), trying to do that would imply very high personal costs. i will just give you an example from a very realistic perspective: let's say that i keep on writing journal articles about inequality and poverty, and let's say that sooner or later i get to sit on a governmental commission for designing policies aimed at helping the unfortunate. this is not sci-fi, there's people at my workplace who are in the same line of research and eventually this is what they ended up doing. and guess what? in order to subsidize the poor, you need to take money from the rich and the middle class. this is all well and good if you assume that an equal society is desirable. but, on a personal level, i would not be able to sponsor massive redistribution: after all, after 20-odd years of schooling, leaving friends and family behind to get a good job, and jeopardizing serenity and health in order to have a career i am not inclined to fund some high-school dropout who thought life was a lot easier than it actually is. so, would i be effective as a social policymaker? not really, because i don't even believe in the concept of social assistance. those of you who have jobs, especially if you've worked very hard to get them, will find that after all i'm not rambling (be honest): redistribution is based on the idea that those who have more than others must be forced by the state to give something back to society. are you ready to do that? i don't really think so, and that's because the idea is basically unfair. i'm all in favor of private charities and benefiting the destitute because you want it, but i will never think that it's a responsibility of the state. take money away from the people who earn it, and you're just ending up with an unmotivated ruling class - not by a long shot a good idea.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
i'd venture that, in the same way that a measure of inequality is unavoidable, a measure of empathy/compassion likewise is. there are, after all, explicitly conflicting passions elsewhere in (human) nature. on a wider scale i "embrace" the necessity of people being worse off than me, while when faced with the singular case i'm inclined to try and help, donate, or whatever. there's a lot of misguided sappy propaganda about it, in the shape of literature and art that aims to tell me how i only hoard my treasures because i'm not exposed to all the injustice and the suffering in the world. well, duh. i don't think we'd be much better off if we were constantly witnessing the unfairness of evil.hyena said:
oh, i know. you'd just share your wealth with me, thus reuniting with friends and serenity.
@rahve: btw, i've just uncovered a vast international conspiracy (it didn't work, but that's not the point). we can blackmail the people involved and live large now.
For those who are interested in the inequality argument expounded upon by the aforementioned martin feldstein (who is infinitely more understandable than i am), take a look here, it's fun.
btw, i've just uncovered a vast international conspiracy (it didn't work, but that's not the point). we can blackmail the people involved and live large now. For those who are interested in the inequality argument expounded upon by the aforementioned martin feldstein (who is infinitely more understandable than i am), take a look here, it's fun.
ouagadougou
average stalker
Ethereal Sage
Mind Of Out Sight Of Out
I got bored, so here's some numbers to play with
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31
Looks like USA is getting another Florida in 2004, check this page out:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/2004_elections/306938.html#cutid1
That is so fucked up it's beyond insane, I wonder who the fuck payed the
printers to make them so
http://www.livejournal.com/community/2004_elections/306938.html#cutid1
That is so fucked up it's beyond insane, I wonder who the fuck payed the
printers to make them so
i'm totally sick and tired of being surrounded by italian left-wing people in a work context. most of them are intolerant, aggressive, and they try to pass their opinion as uncontaminated truth. at least i have the decency to say that my opinion on perceived income inequality and poverty is directly related to my political stance. but no, apparently there's undisputable fact (their side) and flimsy opinion (my side). fuck.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
@hyena: left-wing people in italy will always accuse anyone to bend facts to match their political stance, because as you well know, left-wing in italy means adhering unconditionately to the metaphysics of facts. "tangible data" in this country means any figure as long as it's detached from and bared of its cultural context and willing choices about its meaning, or the intentions behind its meaning. "2% more workers" is an absolute for all the leftists, which only goes to show that people who violently sever themselves off from absolutes of a religious nature end up choosing them from disciplines of less cosmic ambitions.
obviously, you're right. still, i might believe that something is correct, and do so with a passion, and even based on what looks like numerical fact, but i don't hate people for having a different view. i don't dispute statements like "income inequality has gone up": if it has, it has, and i'm not going to say otherwise. but if someone comes to me and says "this is bad and evil per se" i tend to reply "i disagree" instead of "you're stupid". of course, if they keep on labeling me stupid i'll start labeling them arrogant, and everyone will go home angrier and without any added value. i'm really siding with propagandhi there (you see? i'm tolerant) on the "i'd rather know my enemy and let you know the same, whose windows to smash and whose tires to slash" (no, ben, not that slash, again). i wish people could understand that you can disagree with them and STILL not be an idiot.
Similar threads
