Political Compass Test - see where you stand

[Ostinato Rubato]

When you effectively co-opt the meaning of words then you can more easily corral confused people who most of the time are simply looking for a club to hang out with and a group to call their own.

I'm a liberal! Therefore I'm a democrat!

You are a conservative! Therefore you are a republican!

Now the world is binary and simple enough for me to understand, YAY!


And that's how they trick us at the polls.

[ajaxlepinski]

Even when we have a prominent, third party contender on the ballot, it's BS.
We really need a multiple-party-government, similar to the British Parliament... not that it would help IRL.

[draelyc]

The distinction between "liberalism" and so-called "classical liberalism" is an obsession of the modern Right.

A much more important distinction is that between "liberalism," which is a left-of-center POV that has essentially been the bedrock of Western democracy, and "neo-liberalism," which is a laissez-faire, de-regulated approach to economics that's basically conservatism repackaged in superficially centrist or liberal rhetoric.

You sir have traveled so far out to sea that you no longer see the classical liberal lighthouse.

If the left/liberals haven't drifted so far out leftward than why is there a new "party" called the Democratic Socialists of America, and why are so many of the status quo democrats willing to buddy up with the wave of millennial radical progressivism?

Mike, you're still playing a little too fast and loose with the facts for my comfort. Democratic socialists in America are not "new." FDR. 'Nuff said.


Second, the political left of this country hasn't "drifted"; the dominant political landscape has drifted right of center, starting back in the late seventies, continuing from the '80s through today. Presidents like Clinton and Obama, in any other time in our history, would have been correctly labeled as staunch centrists. The fact that people widely consider both of them to be "liberal extremists" indicates that you're wrong about the nature of the drift that's happened.

Keep telling yourself that liberalism has always been identical to progressivism and that there's never been a need to distinguish them.

Again, playing fast and loose with the facts. I can't "keep" telling myself something that I never said. That was a great attempt at (falsely) reframing what I *did* say, though. Not quite professional level, but ranking amateur, I'd say.

Okay, that's about all the interest I have in this exchange. I like you, Mike, I really do. Always have. But ever since you went in for your current set of influences a couple years ago, I've found it very difficult to relate much of what you say politically to anything I can recognize as the real world. It just gets wearying after a while ~ I am, after all, and old man, and I no longer have your youthful stamina.

[mj_sound_cubed]

Cool sharing, did any one end in the right side?

[draelyc]

Since you're both online.... Drae & Rubato...

Can Democrats and Republicans be Liberals, simultaneously? I'd like to hear both your opinions because, according to the vid, the answer is YES.

There was a time, not very long ago in this country, when the answer was a resounding YES on both counts. Look up Nixon's "Southern Strategy" (though I'm betting you're already familiar with it, my friend). When the national Democratic Party embraced Civil Rights, the old-school, very conservative Democrats in the former-Confederate states essentially seceded from the party and when over to the GOP. On the other side, check out old-school Republicans like Eisenhower ~ he'd be skewered by today's GOP for being way too "liberal."

[draelyc]

I think I'd be more interested in having a liberal and/or a leftist tell us what liberals and leftists believe, than hearing a conservative "explain" what liberals and leftists believe.

I'll remember that the next time you think you know what it is that conservatives and right wingers believe.

It's really cool how per usual you strawman the video and dismiss without objecting substantively to anything actually stated in the video.

Good job Rev.

Hey, it's a fair criticism going both ways, one I'm working to incorporate into my life and practice. I've got enormous personal bias against libertarianism as a philosophy. In no small part because of that bias, because I'm aware of it, I've begun an ongoing conversation with a friend here IRL who enthusiastically self-identifies as Libertarian ~ I figure that's the best way for me to get a closer idea of what Libertarianism actually *is*, as opposed to sitting back and reading internet "sources" filtered through my pre-existing bias.

I didn't respond to the video itself because it wasn't the interesting part of your post. The interesting part of your post is the way it's the latest example in a pattern of posts from you over the past year or two in which you puff yourself up as if you're presenting an intellectual perspective that is broad and balanced and that rests upon a foundation of solid academic research ... yet the only sources you ever post up just happen to be right wing media sensations. That's just ... really funny to me. So that's the part of your post I responded to.

Was there something in particular in the video that you found especially compelling that you'd like me to respond to specifically? If so, I'll force myself to sit through it. Or was your big point just that you want folks to believe that "liberal" and "leftist" are categorically different labels? If the latter is the case, okay, well, there's not much point in watching the vid just for that one "point," is there?

Good job, uh, what's your title?

P.S. I didn't "strawman" the video (interesting "verbing" of "strawman," btw), because I didn't respond to it at all. But nice job playing fast and loose with the facts.

You're insufferable dude. Just say "I didn't watch the video because I already know what I need to know."

And what facts am I playing loosely with exactly?

Why do you insist on outright lying about what I said in a post that's right there on the screen for all to see?

You know good and well that's not what I said about the video, and so does everyone else who can read.

But you know, please continue to excoriate me for creating fictitious narratives to fit my predetermined views, lol.

[ajaxlepinski]

Cool sharing, did any one end in the right side?

Looks like 5 guys wound up in the lower right... purple area.

...and welcome to the fold brother! This is the best guitar/amp forum on the interwebznet!

[draelyc]

I find it perplexing that Republicans and pro-Republican media like, Fox, repeatedly bash Liberals while embracing many Liberal concepts.
This is very intriguing to me.... I have to do some research or, I will lose sleep tonight!

Yawp. The national discourse has been reduced to "If you're Republican, the word 'liberal' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that" and "If you're Democrat, the word 'conservative' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that."

If you really want to bake your noodle, read this essay by George Orwell (and note the date of publicantion):


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

[draelyc]

When you effectively co-opt the meaning of words then you can more easily corral confused people who most of the time are simply looking for a club to hang out with and a group to call their own.

I'm a liberal! Therefore I'm a democrat!

You are a conservative! Therefore you are a republican!

Now the world is binary and simple enough for me to understand, YAY!


And that's how they trick us at the polls.

Now that is spot on. Funny, but spot on.

[ajaxlepinski]

I find it perplexing that Republicans and pro-Republican media like, Fox, repeatedly bash Liberals while embracing many Liberal concepts.
This is very intriguing to me.... I have to do some research or, I will lose sleep tonight!

Yawp. The national discourse has been reduced to "If you're Republican, the word 'liberal' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that" and "If you're Democrat, the word 'conservative' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that."

If you really want to bake your noodle, read this essay by George Orwell (and note the date of publicantion):


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Cheers! Will read that later this evening.

[Ostinato Rubato]

The distinction between "liberalism" and so-called "classical liberalism" is an obsession of the modern Right.

A much more important distinction is that between "liberalism," which is a left-of-center POV that has essentially been the bedrock of Western democracy, and "neo-liberalism," which is a laissez-faire, de-regulated approach to economics that's basically conservatism repackaged in superficially centrist or liberal rhetoric.

You sir have traveled so far out to sea that you no longer see the classical liberal lighthouse.

If the left/liberals haven't drifted so far out leftward than why is there a new "party" called the Democratic Socialists of America, and why are so many of the status quo democrats willing to buddy up with the wave of millennial radical progressivism?

Mike, you're still playing a little too fast and loose with the facts for my comfort. Democratic socialists in America are not "new." FDR. 'Nuff said.


Second, the political left of this country hasn't "drifted"; the dominant political landscape has drifted right of center, starting back in the late seventies, continuing from the '80s through today. Presidents like Clinton and Obama, in any other time in our history, would have been correctly labeled as staunch centrists. The fact that people widely consider both of them to be "liberal extremists" indicates that you're wrong about the nature of the drift that's happened.

Keep telling yourself that liberalism has always been identical to progressivism and that there's never been a need to distinguish them.

Again, playing fast and loose with the facts. I can't "keep" telling myself something that I never said. That was a great attempt at (falsely) reframing what I *did* say, though. Not quite professional level, but ranking amateur, I'd say.

Okay, that's about all the interest I have in this exchange. I like you, Mike, I really do. Always have. But ever since you went in for your current set of influences a couple years ago, I've found it very difficult to relate much of what you say politically to anything I can recognize as the real world. It just gets wearying after a while ~ I am, after all, and old man, and I no longer have your youthful stamina.

As a party the Democratic Socialists of America were founded in the 1980’s.

Tell me more about loose facts.

[Ostinato Rubato]

I think I'd be more interested in having a liberal and/or a leftist tell us what liberals and leftists believe, than hearing a conservative "explain" what liberals and leftists believe.

I'll remember that the next time you think you know what it is that conservatives and right wingers believe.

It's really cool how per usual you strawman the video and dismiss without objecting substantively to anything actually stated in the video.

Good job Rev.

Hey, it's a fair criticism going both ways, one I'm working to incorporate into my life and practice. I've got enormous personal bias against libertarianism as a philosophy. In no small part because of that bias, because I'm aware of it, I've begun an ongoing conversation with a friend here IRL who enthusiastically self-identifies as Libertarian ~ I figure that's the best way for me to get a closer idea of what Libertarianism actually *is*, as opposed to sitting back and reading internet "sources" filtered through my pre-existing bias.

I didn't respond to the video itself because it wasn't the interesting part of your post. The interesting part of your post is the way it's the latest example in a pattern of posts from you over the past year or two in which you puff yourself up as if you're presenting an intellectual perspective that is broad and balanced and that rests upon a foundation of solid academic research ... yet the only sources you ever post up just happen to be right wing media sensations. That's just ... really funny to me. So that's the part of your post I responded to.

Was there something in particular in the video that you found especially compelling that you'd like me to respond to specifically? If so, I'll force myself to sit through it. Or was your big point just that you want folks to believe that "liberal" and "leftist" are categorically different labels? If the latter is the case, okay, well, there's not much point in watching the vid just for that one "point," is there?

Good job, uh, what's your title?

P.S. I didn't "strawman" the video (interesting "verbing" of "strawman," btw), because I didn't respond to it at all. But nice job playing fast and loose with the facts.

You're insufferable dude. Just say "I didn't watch the video because I already know what I need to know."

And what facts am I playing loosely with exactly?

Why do you insist on outright lying about what I said in a post that's right there on the screen for all to see?

You know good and well that's not what I said about the video, and so does everyone else who can read.

But you know, please continue to excoriate me for creating fictitious narratives to fit my predetermined views, lol.

Did you even watch the video?

[draelyc]

The distinction between "liberalism" and so-called "classical liberalism" is an obsession of the modern Right.

A much more important distinction is that between "liberalism," which is a left-of-center POV that has essentially been the bedrock of Western democracy, and "neo-liberalism," which is a laissez-faire, de-regulated approach to economics that's basically conservatism repackaged in superficially centrist or liberal rhetoric.

You sir have traveled so far out to sea that you no longer see the classical liberal lighthouse.

If the left/liberals haven't drifted so far out leftward than why is there a new "party" called the Democratic Socialists of America, and why are so many of the status quo democrats willing to buddy up with the wave of millennial radical progressivism?

Mike, you're still playing a little too fast and loose with the facts for my comfort. Democratic socialists in America are not "new." FDR. 'Nuff said.


Second, the political left of this country hasn't "drifted"; the dominant political landscape has drifted right of center, starting back in the late seventies, continuing from the '80s through today. Presidents like Clinton and Obama, in any other time in our history, would have been correctly labeled as staunch centrists. The fact that people widely consider both of them to be "liberal extremists" indicates that you're wrong about the nature of the drift that's happened.

Keep telling yourself that liberalism has always been identical to progressivism and that there's never been a need to distinguish them.

Again, playing fast and loose with the facts. I can't "keep" telling myself something that I never said. That was a great attempt at (falsely) reframing what I *did* say, though. Not quite professional level, but ranking amateur, I'd say.

Okay, that's about all the interest I have in this exchange. I like you, Mike, I really do. Always have. But ever since you went in for your current set of influences a couple years ago, I've found it very difficult to relate much of what you say politically to anything I can recognize as the real world. It just gets wearying after a while ~ I am, after all, and old man, and I no longer have your youthful stamina.

As a party the Democratic Socialists of America were founded in the 1980’s.

Tell me more about loose facts.

You're very … let's call it "selective" about when you want to be specific and when you don't bother to.

[draelyc]

I think I'd be more interested in having a liberal and/or a leftist tell us what liberals and leftists believe, than hearing a conservative "explain" what liberals and leftists believe.

I'll remember that the next time you think you know what it is that conservatives and right wingers believe.

It's really cool how per usual you strawman the video and dismiss without objecting substantively to anything actually stated in the video.

Good job Rev.

Hey, it's a fair criticism going both ways, one I'm working to incorporate into my life and practice. I've got enormous personal bias against libertarianism as a philosophy. In no small part because of that bias, because I'm aware of it, I've begun an ongoing conversation with a friend here IRL who enthusiastically self-identifies as Libertarian ~ I figure that's the best way for me to get a closer idea of what Libertarianism actually *is*, as opposed to sitting back and reading internet "sources" filtered through my pre-existing bias.

I didn't respond to the video itself because it wasn't the interesting part of your post. The interesting part of your post is the way it's the latest example in a pattern of posts from you over the past year or two in which you puff yourself up as if you're presenting an intellectual perspective that is broad and balanced and that rests upon a foundation of solid academic research ... yet the only sources you ever post up just happen to be right wing media sensations. That's just ... really funny to me. So that's the part of your post I responded to.

Was there something in particular in the video that you found especially compelling that you'd like me to respond to specifically? If so, I'll force myself to sit through it. Or was your big point just that you want folks to believe that "liberal" and "leftist" are categorically different labels? If the latter is the case, okay, well, there's not much point in watching the vid just for that one "point," is there?

Good job, uh, what's your title?

P.S. I didn't "strawman" the video (interesting "verbing" of "strawman," btw), because I didn't respond to it at all. But nice job playing fast and loose with the facts.

You're insufferable dude. Just say "I didn't watch the video because I already know what I need to know."

And what facts am I playing loosely with exactly?

Why do you insist on outright lying about what I said in a post that's right there on the screen for all to see?

You know good and well that's not what I said about the video, and so does everyone else who can read.

But you know, please continue to excoriate me for creating fictitious narratives to fit my predetermined views, lol.

Did you even watch the video?

Did you even read my post?

[draelyc]

I find it perplexing that Republicans and pro-Republican media like, Fox, repeatedly bash Liberals while embracing many Liberal concepts.
This is very intriguing to me.... I have to do some research or, I will lose sleep tonight!

Yawp. The national discourse has been reduced to "If you're Republican, the word 'liberal' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that" and "If you're Democrat, the word 'conservative' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that."

If you really want to bake your noodle, read this essay by George Orwell (and note the date of publicantion):


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Cheers! Will read that later this evening.

No probs. I'd actually really like to hear your thoughts about Orwell's argument.

[ajaxlepinski]

I find it perplexing that Republicans and pro-Republican media like, Fox, repeatedly bash Liberals while embracing many Liberal concepts.
This is very intriguing to me.... I have to do some research or, I will lose sleep tonight!

Yawp. The national discourse has been reduced to "If you're Republican, the word 'liberal' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that" and "If you're Democrat, the word 'conservative' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that."

If you really want to bake your noodle, read this essay by George Orwell (and note the date of publicantion):


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Cheers! Will read that later this evening.

No probs. I'd actually really like to hear your thoughts about Orwell's argument.

The last time I read anything written in the 'old-school-intellectual' style was; S. Morris Engel's book, "The Language Trap: Or How to Defend Yourself Against the Tyranny of Words" and "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk Jr.
Both books are chock full of geeky fun... just like the Orwell essay.

After reading the Orwell's piece, concerning the state of language, all I can say is: "Covfefe".

[draelyc]

I find it perplexing that Republicans and pro-Republican media like, Fox, repeatedly bash Liberals while embracing many Liberal concepts.
This is very intriguing to me.... I have to do some research or, I will lose sleep tonight!

Yawp. The national discourse has been reduced to "If you're Republican, the word 'liberal' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that" and "If you're Democrat, the word 'conservative' means 'bad'; nothing more specific than that."

If you really want to bake your noodle, read this essay by George Orwell (and note the date of publicantion):


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Cheers! Will read that later this evening.

No probs. I'd actually really like to hear your thoughts about Orwell's argument.

The last time I read anything written in the 'old-school-intellectual' style was; S. Morris Engel's book, "The Language Trap: Or How to Defend Yourself Against the Tyranny of Words" and "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk Jr.
Both books are chock full of geeky fun... just like the Orwell essay.

I don't know the Engel book, but it sounds like I should. And who doesn't love some Strunk?

After reading the Orwell's piece, concerning the state of language, all I can say is: "Covfefe".

That makes me both and at once... But where is the lie?

[ajaxlepinski]

The Engel book is interesting. It describes how to deal with the tricks, used during a debate; red herrings, begging the question, etc.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Search ... ords&sts=t

Looks like he has an updated version:
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Search ... Trap&sts=t

[Kardula]

I'd say this is fairly accurate. I guess, I'm a Centered Liberal?

Almost exactly what I got. Not surprised by this, most quizzes and tests I've taken give me the same results.

[draelyc]

The Engel book is interesting. It describes how to deal with the tricks, used during a debate; red herrings, begging the question, etc.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Search ... ords&sts=t

Looks like he has an updated version:
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Search ... Trap&sts=t

Cool man ~ thanks for the links!

[The Hiryuu]

I'm not sure that I buy completely the idea that the opposite of Authoritarian is Libertarian, but I think that's just because "Libertarianism" as a position carries more connotations and associations with it than merely being non-authoritarian.

But here's my graph, which will shock very few people:

"Libertarianism" in America borders on anarcho-capitalism half of the time. The rest of the time they're just Republicans who like weed.

Also, I'm apparently the absolute goddamn leftest leftist here. I'm not exactly surprised.

[ajaxlepinski]

Absolute goddamn leftist leftist!

So, do you like abstract art?

[The Hiryuu]

Absolute goddamn leftist leftist!

So, do you like abstract art?

I don't necessarily like it, but I accept its validity.

[draelyc]

Absolute goddamn leftist leftist!

So, do you like abstract art?

I don't necessarily like it, but I accept its validity.

[Ostinato Rubato]

I'm not sure that I buy completely the idea that the opposite of Authoritarian is Libertarian, but I think that's just because "Libertarianism" as a position carries more connotations and associations with it than merely being non-authoritarian.

But here's my graph, which will shock very few people:

"Libertarianism" in America borders on anarcho-capitalism half of the time. The rest of the time they're just Republicans who like weed.

Also, I'm apparently the absolute goddamn leftest leftist here. I'm not exactly surprised.

Welp, we know how you answered the "There are as many genders as there are species of fish" question...



fuckin' lefty