Part of me is annoyed that I always get centrist, but then that centrist part of me wants to look at everything and make a judgement based on data and cause/effect.
Is centrist the best or worst alignment?
8values thread. Link here: 8values.github.io
Other urls found in this thread:
Worst. You have no meaningful convictions.
If you look at things objectively and try to pass judgement based on data, and you get centrist, you're biased.
Except his disgusting nationalism
embrace the dicktrism
Well, there are things I'd die for. Such as the right to free speech, family traditions, family. Things I think are so deeply woven into a successful society we cannot let them slide, but I will not impose my beliefs on others, which, by this test, seems to 'nulify' the conviction as I don't think my personal beliefs or the values of my country should be imposed on anyone. I think that ultimately, to be free we need the freedom, on an individual basis, to make choices as individuals. So while I'd like to see everyone fight for free speech, freedom, family values and traditions, I don't expect them too, and I wouldn't force them too. It's their choice.
the test questions suck so if you get 100% on anything or close to it you might be retarded like this guy
Stalin is confirmed a Nazbol
hello, based department?
I see this and I think you have no loyalty to that which created you and is your foundation.
To be fair, I fucked with that test just to make the joke "The only things free in my nation is the market", I'm a lot less authoritarian
When I do the compass test I get centre right, but like 3 squares to the right, and 1 down into purple. Every test I do places me near the centre.
you'd be right, because I see a better future for the human species
That test does pull you to the left a little, but most people on Yas Forums are borderline commies and just substitute "class" with racial dynamics and act surprised they're so red.
When you try to measure an issue, do you feel like you're guarded or trying to be safe? Do you feel bound to what you've experienced vs pushing further out?
I try to remove my own experience as much as possible and look at it objectively. I might have had a terrible or terrific experience that does not accurately represent the issue, so my experience while important to me is not important to the issue.
Retook the compass test, to get this. Jesus Christ, lads.
I see. Do you think you're successful in doing so, and do you extend it beyond just yourself, suspending certain criticisms and certain praises others have? Do you ever "Reach" in an attempt to find a counter point whenever you find a point for something?
is this the same test? if so based and redpilled imo
Apparently I'm a right wing populist when in reality I'm more of a center-right voter. What a shit test
Well, my assumption is that being aware of it and making the effort I'd like to think there is at least a degree of success in being objective, but how could I ever be sure? I often play Devil's Advocate with myself, trying to argue that which I don't inherently / already believe to be true. I have the habit of doing this in political discussions with friends and family too. I'll take the opposing stance to someone, even if it isn't one I personally believe and try to see if I can make a case for it because it forces me to question my assumptions and I can't see why that's a bad thing.
TL:DR - How could I ever be sure my assumptions don't colour my response?
Oh, I should mention, this test's definition of globalisation is awful. You buy some timber from your neighbor and it adds 15 points to the scale.
Disgusting/10
Also impossible
Step aside kiddies, right-wing extremist comin' thru :)
not even your market is free lol
There's no issue with trying to be objective, it's a good thing to attempt, but if you become fixated on it, you often start to influence yourself subconsciously to try and dissuade your initial reporting, over analysis that breaks an honest answer and creates a synthetic abberation that tries too hard to be safe in it's conclusion.
You'll have to accept you'll always have a bias, but you can work towards identifying it. It's not always bad, sometimes a bias can save you some effort by allowing you to trust something with less investment, or avoid something with less proof. It's a natural development of a human to form biases, though if you can pinpoint an odd reason for a bias (A personally awful experience, such as getting raped the 3 times in your life you had ice cream) you can attempt to be more open minded and challenge your notion. If you're slipping into contrarian territory for the sake of a "Counter argument", you're going to convince yourself out of a situation and walk in the middle of the road, and get knocked down by both sides. That's the problem with arguing with yourself, and why it's healthier to discuss with others, you will form feelings around your ideas, while someone else will just challenge you and make you build upon a position on your own, making you treat it as something you should be "Right" on rather than just talk yourself out of getting too warm to either side of the argument.
Econolet here, what is the case for a flat tax over a progressive one? Is it on average higher or lower? Will it tuck me in at night?
the election season must be making me soft, no more ancom just a plain old communist now lads
I'm a centrist. To some extent I think it has some merit in Europe if you look at all the coalition governments. Although that doesn't really lead to change if you ed up with a hug parliament and you will be accused of sitting on the fence.
On the other hand, if you look at the result of the GE and all the seats that flipped. After 100 years of rotten councils these people will finally see change. Its centrists in the UK that win the elections. People misinterpret it as the "undecideds" when in reality we can see through all the bullshit of party politics
So, not as centrist as other tests asserted?
Oh well
My politiscales.
I got it because of the formatting of the test, I'm mostly against taxation, but the way the questions were worded made moralistic arguments rather than objective arguments for varied taxation.
Though,in the context of accepting taxation, a flat tax is still healthier in most circumstances because 10% of a person's wealth gained scales up on it's own as the person makes more money, meaning the rich still pay the most, and the poor still pay the least. If the government doesn't have a negative tax rate (Like America does) which allows for people and businesses to be given tax dollars (Like Blizzard and many, many companies) and you can avoid that mess with a flat rate, rather than a scaling progressive tax with a complex code that lets you go negative. Really, that's my biggest issue, is when the government siphons tax money towards businesses and manipulates the market by keeping "Losers" alive and punishing "winners" that would otherwise compete with them but can't because of regulation and restriction, keeping an elite entrenched class alive and safe, and preventing economic mobility.
Is it true that 98 percent of the leaf posters on this site like dildos up the ass?
It's because all the tests are lazily designed to give a false dichotomy between two extremes.
I think it is closer to 99.9%
The whole Left/Right paradigm in politics pisses me off. Why must a side be picked? What if I'm Left on one issue but Right on another? That means there is no party for people like me to vote for, a party that looks at issues as they are, instead of through a lens that must adhere to a political agenda / side. All it does is angers me that it's down to tribalism and teams over trying to fix issues accordingly regardless of how one feels about it.
What is this test called? Could you send a link?
Oh and for God's sake, don't watch PragerU for their argument for a flat tax. Don't watch them for anything. They're trash in their argumentation and reasoning, and miss vital parts of the argument by trying to be "conservative" of the current system, pretending themselves to be pure.
Politiscales.net
Yeah, dichotomytests.com
PSA: These threads are data gathering honeypots by glowies, used to poll the political ideologies of posters here. Either falsify/fudge the results or don't answer.
Am I retarded?
Most issues aren't truly left/right, it's just that democracy always yields a two party system (Either literally or figuratively, with you lamenting about left/right it shows the basic effect of this despite the UK having multiple parties) and each side tries to dig their feet into an issue to claim for themselves, making left/right of an issue that should be pragmatically approached. A good example is the left trying to hijack any conversation about the environment, despite there being a strong argument "on the right" for ecology, as Ted K. put it. How one tackles an issue can vary left/right, but most issues in themselves aren't left/right, it's just politicized to be that way.
I mean you say that, but I'm a stay at home dad because my wife owns a business, I got time.
Yes, pure autism.
Oh, that's interesting, you actually deviated from centrism quite a bit more on the topic of economics alone. Though those two 50%'s are impressive.
I'm finding comparing my results to be rather interesting in its own right, given the slight then stark disparities with them. I never really considered myself a centrist, but, as some of these tests show, I might just be one.
That test is bogus. Personally i hate the state, yet i categorised as nationalist.
Always remember, fuck the state, fuck taxes, all hail Max Stirner!
forgot to post my result
Being a nationalist isn't the same as loving your government. Don't conflate the two.
If you were given power to carve a path for your realm, and you knew the weight of your actions, and you went with what you felt right, you'd find it to take a direction rather than simply stick to the middle. The problem with arguing on your own is that you often have little investment (It's just your thoughts) and so you feel more free to be unsure with what you're thinking upon.
Here you mentioned that your wife owns a business, and looking at your results, you're a much freer market with a lot more libertarian mindset when it comes to economics, with some disdain for bureaucracy. Would you think that may be a result of your wife's business, which you directly get invested in and benefit in, even if only proxy your wife? Perhaps the issue is that you're looking too broad and don't have any particular investments, since it's a thinking exercise rather than a decision that can affect your family or their well being, and voting turns it into black and white instead of a dynamic thing to think about and make judgement upon.
You should take the philosophy test on that site you took the economics one, let's see if you argue both sides with yourself the whole time, if you have more firm beliefs, outside the physical realm.
My leanings to freer markets has always been my mindset. I grew up dirt poor and my father would on occasion talk with me about political issues, and the only thing we really agreed on was economics. We don't trust the government to deal with anything. They should maintain basic infrastructure , armed forces, and roads. Otherwise Governments can get themselves to fuck.
I got Revolutionary Socialism....yeahh,this test is pretty bad.
>you have to have meaningful convictions so you'll have biased opinions thus trying too hard to fit everything into your narrative
I see. That'd explain why you scored Austrian School on your economic test. I'm honestly the same way.
How large do you believe a realm (As defined as a group of people with similar culture, language, economics, laws and morals, which is often defined as a nation) can be before it starts to suffer from misrepresentation, apathy, coercion, and corruption?
What's your opinion on city states, historically and now?
What's your opinion on democracy and kings, and how large/small does a realm have to be for either to work?
I would say I identify more with Franco than any other political leader.
>How large do you believe a realm (As defined as a group of people with similar culture, language, economics, laws and morals, which is often defined as a nation) can be before it starts to suffer from misrepresentation, apathy, coercion, and corruption?
It would depends on many things, mostly the style of governance. For example a monarchy or dictatorship would fall apart faster as you cannot vote out a person/party in those systems if they do a terrible job. I think it would be less the size of the populace and more the system in place and the struggles it faces. If we look at stronger communities within nations we see smaller communities, such as villages, tend to suffer less from these issues, but present their own challenges, such as less privacy.
>What's your opinion on city states, historically and now?
The pro of a city state is it is relatively small and everyone can easily be involved in all processes rather easily as a result. It creates a strong bond between the populace and a sense of loyalty.
The con would be it's small in size, thus influence, and the same strong bond that would make them strong would also make them pigheaded in the sense of how people eventually fall into "My team is better than your team". Competition is ok, but if avoidable, violence should be used only to defend the weak, or defend your state.
>What's your opinion on democracy and kings, and how large/small does a realm have to be for either to work?
Which kind of democracy? The UK and the USA are both republics and maybe because I've grown up in such systems I find it to be the best version of democracy. In the USA for example, I don't think the heavily populated coasts with little to no farmland should dictate how the 'fly over states' should run, when a huge chunk of their economy is farms and their produce. I am, 100% against monarchies. The only argument for a monarchy I can find is that someone raised, from birth to lead would by the time they claim the throne be more ready to lead than a person chasing votes and swaying to political winds could ever be.
Am i retarded?