Political Compass Test

[Tonkaden]

That is the main problem with this test. It is created this way to manipulate people. It is commonly known as "illusion of choice".

That kind of is the point of the test. If you respond honestly without trying to think about which side you would fall on if you answered one way or another, its going to show you your real feelings towards something.

Its based on honestly. How can it manipulate you? You are supposed to give an honest answer.

[Dug]

That kind of is the point of the test. If you respond honestly without trying to think about which side you would fall on if you answered one way or another, its going to show you your real feelings towards something.

Its based on honestly. How can it manipulate you? You are supposed to give an honest answer.

Because a lot of the topics covered in the test have more complex answers than just agree/disagree.

[Deleted]

I mean... I guess?

[Danuru]

Personally I would poke myself a bit further towards Libertarian. Unfortunately some of the questions lack a "I don't really give a damn" option.

[Deleted]

The extremes don't have to lead to a dictatorship, and on your other point libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. Not sure why you would argue that unless you don't grasp the meaning of those terms fully.

The best counter example to your missing knowledge is china. They are authoritarian, say to have communism, but in fact have a (comparably) libertarian market economy.

And lets see the definition of "libertarian":

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power.

My home country, germany, has no libertarianist economy. We are a social market economy, and still are a liberal country. Libertarian in core means to have as less state as possible, while autoritarianism could also mean less state and only one political leader (most dictators get rid of the large democratic state when they take power). Actually, china is a example where both ideas are mixed up.

Liberty is the opposite of Dictatorship. But Libertarianism is not the opposite of Autoritariaism. Both can coexst, while a lliberal society and a dictatorship cant.

Actually, the right wing likes to abuse that fallacy to declare they are anti authoritarian, while their politics always led and always will lead to dictatorship. The past actually showed that. Believe me, we germans know what we talk about.

And far left is the same. Far left includes Authoritarianism, as the far left, communist approach is the dictatorship of the working class. Read marx, if you are able to understand him.

[Bodakane]

That is what a lot of people say when listening to a smarter person, because they cannot keep up.

Sure, sure.

We'll start with you saying "good for you, then".

That response alone made no sense versus anything I said in my post.

Explain that first. Then you can start questioning my intelligence.

[Activi-T]

I hate these tests because they lack any sort of nuance as to why you agree or disagree. it has me at pretty deep green but I sure as hell don't feel that way.

Yeah. Four times I found myself changing answers between agree and disagree because they weren't topics that I hold a binary opinion on.

[Slybak]

I developed my own equally useful political compass and this is where I stand:

[Deleted]

Sure, sure.

We'll start with you saying "good for you, then".

That response alone made no sense versus anything I said in my post.

Explain that first. Then you can start questioning my intelligence.

It is too late for that now. Already happened

[Bodakane]

Saw this meme that just about summed up the Trump crowd.

It was a slightly overweight, plain looking white person lazing on a couch, a bowl of popcorn resting on their slightly enlarged man boobs. They are holding some of said popcorn, and their mouth is slightly open like they are about to say something, not like they are about to eat the popcorn. If anything they look a little bored.

"The Muslims are coming to get me? Immigrants are taking my jobs? Better elect someone who's gonna do something about that."

More than the appearance of the person, it was their face and environment that said it all. They're in their warm comfortable home, stuffing their face with good food, and they look almost bored, and yet at the same time they've been convinced that they should be terrified of things only Republicans can fix!

Then to top it off, this is the voting bloc that most vocally says they want to fix domestic issues before spending money on foreign affairs. And they elect the party the slashes domestic spending the most and inflates foreign budget the most. As I said before, I've found time and again that they pay attention to slogans, not actual policy.

Agreed. All of it.

[Puupi]

What a refreshing new topic. Never seen this before.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Good for you then.

Seems like most people in this thread actually see that the test is flawed, but I am not telling you what to do since I am not responsible for other peoples flaw in logic or intelligence.

It's flawed in many ways.

But what you're declaring is that it's biased and pushing people to answer more like a liberal.

The reality is that the questions aren't too specific, in some cases they're too vague, like Nixx said. Would anyone actually answer that they're FOR exploitation? No, not when it's just worded so openly like that.

The reality is that the Republican party does some pretty shitty stuff when it comes to actual policy and actions. If you were given the specific examples of what the Republican party is doing, someone might say "Oh well Keystone XL pipeline is not morally unethical in any way, so of course I'm for it."

Meanwhile if the question had been worded "Are you for the exploitation of a native population by a foreign population, for polluting water and land, and doing it all for personal gain?" the person who is absolutely for the keystone XL pipeline would answer that "HOLY SHIT NO"

Many political tests are called biased for this very reason. Because the actual results of generic questions reflect the reality of modern political parties. The right is far more often for exploitation if it means monetary gains, while the left is generally opposed and often tries to figure out the greatest good of a situation, even at a monetary loss. So yes, answering moral questions that have generic tones to them will put you on the left side of the compass.

As for your question about a Muslim murdering someone, you'll only find that the nuttiest of nuts would even be remotely for that. This perception that liberals want foreigners to rape and pillage our lands is hilariously out of touch, and based purely on this cartoon caricature created by right wing pundits, not real liberals.

[Bodakane]

It is too late for that now. Already happened

Thought so. You can't explain your own stupidity, so you insult me.

Infracted

[Dr Assbandit]

I developed my own equally useful political compass and this is where I stand:

You are a paragon of goodness and we're not worthy of being in the same thread as you.

[Deleted]

It's flawed in many ways.

But what you're declaring is that it's biased and pushing people to answer more like a liberal.

The reality is that the questions aren't too specific, in some cases they're too vague, like Nixx said. Would anyone actually answer that they're FOR exploitation? No, not when it's just worded so openly like that.

The reality is that the Republican party does some pretty shitty stuff when it comes to actual policy and actions. If you were given the specific examples of what the Republican party is doing, someone might say "Oh well Keystone XL pipeline is not morally unethical in any way, so of course I'm for it."

Meanwhile if the question had been worded "Are you for the exploitation of a native population by a foreign population, for polluting water and land, and doing it all for personal gain?" the person who is absolutely for the keystone XL pipeline would answer that "HOLY SHIT NO"

Many political tests are called biased for this very reason. Because the actual results of generic questions reflect the reality of modern political parties. The right is far more often for exploitation if it means monetary gains, while the left is generally opposed and often tries to figure out the greatest good of a situation, even at a monetary loss. So yes, answering moral questions that have generic tones to them will put you on the left side of the compass.

As for your question about a Muslim murdering someone, you'll only find that the nuttiest of nuts would even be remotely for that. This perception that liberals want foreigners to rape and pillage our lands is hilariously out of touch, and based purely on this cartoon caricature created by right wing pundits, not real liberals.

I said refugee. Not muslim. Two different things my friend. You have to differentiate there.

- - - Updated - - -

Thought so. You can't explain your own stupidity, so you insult me.

I don't need to do that. Your words are enough to do that for you.

[Deleted]

I developed my own equally useful political compass and this is where I stand:

Your compass is way more reasonable than the OPs loaded version.

[Eggroll]

Pretty much where I always end up, hugging Ghandi on the forehead of Noam Chomsky

[Machismo]

It showed me to be a conservative libertarian, not a big surprise. It seems to change with my mood, and my blood alcohol level. Sometimes I'm a liberal libertarian.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/you...5.88&soc=-5.95

[Slybak]

You are a paragon of goodness and we're not worthy of being in the same thread as you.

At least you acknowledge it, Hitler.

[Deleted]

looks about right, some of the question i felt would have been good with a few more answers, or a neutral option, Im usually slightly more to the right on these thing, maybe im getting nicer :P