How does the political scale actually work?

[Slant]

Speaking as a political scientist, it's pretty accurate. Yes, it covers a lot of obscure socio-political-economic that most people don't talk about much less understand but reductivism is the bane of political discourse.

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether. People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient. Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way. No offense, just my personal pet peeve. Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand. The culmination is people who might support an idea rejecting it because it doesn't "fit" into what they think they ought to support, because they want to fit a certain box.

[Trifle]

This is on it's face, wrong, for obvious reasons.

Those reasons being ?

[JohnBrown1917]

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether. People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient. Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way. No offense, just my personal pet peeve. Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand. The culmination is people who might support an idea rejecting it because it doesn't "fit" into what they think they ought to support, because they want to fit a certain box.

Does not change the fact that people identify with a certain idealogy. If you want to ignore political leanings, you're free too, but that won't stop a lot of people from doing it.


And yeah, social democracy and democratic socialism are rather close to each other on the scale.

[Endus]

This is on it's face, wrong, for obvious reasons.

Nah.

Seriously, you didn't present anything like an argument. So I can debunk it that easily.

There's nothing "radical" about Democratic policies.

It's probably easy to find a few examples - I'd expect some in Africa in particular. Anti-Chinese (or anti-western) sentiment for example can be semantically tied with nativist/workers empowerment.

You've managed to not provide even one single example, while claiming there's a wealth of them.

Random example from Denmark said by Mette Frederiksen:

Doesn't line up with what you were suggesting, at all. He is, in fact, pointing to how class inequalities have led to harm; that's a left-wing viewpoint, inherently. He's not arguing that "immigration is bad", he's arguing that the economic system has led to a failure to support the lower classes.

Also, she's not a socialist. You were explicitly talking about socialist nations.

[Sunseeker]

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether.

I don't care what you accept or reject, your acceptance of reality is not relevant. Plus we're not talking about people, we're talking about ideologies and the political spectrum. Not where one or more individuals may actually find themselves on it at any given time.

People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient.

Good thing we're talking about political ideologies and not people then!

Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way.

Some of those ideologies don't even allow voting. Some of them don't give two shits what an individual's motivation is. And we're not discussing an individuals motivation to vote, we're discussing political ideologies. Most individuals are single-issue or party voters. It doesn't matter where a candidate stands on 9 issues if they agree with them on abortion, gay marriage, or the environment. Further, most voters don't understand the issues they're voting on anyway. Even worse, many voters simply vote for whomever has a (R) or (D) next to their name.

So please don't try to pretend to the political scientist that voters are these deep individuals with complex voting calculations going on in their head. I'm a political scientist, I know full well they're not. Heck I freely admit that I'm not a complex voter either. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

No offense, just my personal pet peeve.

If you have personal issues to sort out don't drag them into political discussions and try tell me the entire political spectrum is incorrect because your panties are in twist.

Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand.

We are not talking about specific issues and how people feel about them. We're talking about the "political spectrum". It's in the title of the thread even.

The culmination is people who might support an idea rejecting it because it doesn't "fit" into what they think they ought to support, because they want to fit a certain box.

None of that has anything to do with the infographic I posted, which is merely a visualization of where specific political ideologies lie on a 2-dimensional political alignment chart.

[PC2]

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether.

The scales aren't arbitrary though because they refer to principles and aren't random. 'Left' means more taxes for redistribution(equality), 'right' means more security by conserving existing hierarchies. Liberty means more freedom and less government. Authoritarian means more regulation, regardless if it's about a green party restriction or if it's about some kind of religious restriction.

People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient. Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way. No offense, just my personal pet peeve. Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand.

That's very true but unfortunately we don't have a choice in the matter. Either we use some generalizations, which are always highly flawed, or every person and politician would have to talk about every single policy individually. Listing every policy individually works for a website but they could never fit into the time-frame of a single speech or debate.

The culmination is people who might support an idea rejecting it because it doesn't "fit" into what they think they ought to support, because they want to fit a certain box.

Almost every policy can be fit into one of the two halves or four political quadrants. Occasionally one of them can't which means we just talk about that policy by itself. How you sum up all the policies depends on your personal weighting system. Of course you should never force your policy positions into a box.

[NED funded]

Yet you're one of the more right-wing posters here, funny how that works.

Im center left according to the political compass

- - - Updated - - -

The left-right axis is an objective scale, not a subjective one.

You're making an argument akin to "you can't use an English ruler in America!"

Its not.

Even political compass freely admits that there are cultural differences

Some of the propositions are culturally biased

Right. That’s why the Compass is being promoted in western democracies. We don’t pretend that, for example, the responses of a citizen of a rural region of China can undergo the same evaluation process

[Endus]

Its not.

Even political compass freely admits that there are cultural differences

They're referring to their specific test questions, not the left-right axis itself.

All you're doing, here, is describing how personal bias affects people's perceptions. They see themselves as "center", and evaluate positions on the axis relative to themselves.

That's bias. Not an argument that the axis is subjective. If you're a far-right extremist and see the Democrats as radical leftists, that's because of your bias, not that the USA somehow has a "different measure".

[Kellhound]

Far left is anarchism. Not that anybody would expect you to know that. No dem is anything close to far left lol

The US political spectrum is shifted to the right. So by stating "far left Democrats in the US", he is correct using the US spectrum.

- - - Updated - - -

There isn't a Democratic candidate who's "radical". You prefer Biden because he's the most right-wing of a fairly centrist group of candidates, and you yourself are right-wing.

All things are relative. The international academic political definitions have no practical bearing in the US, so those on the far left of the US political spectrum ARE radical in comparison.

- - - Updated - - -

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether. People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient. Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way. No offense, just my personal pet peeve. Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand. The culmination is people who might support an idea rejecting it because it doesn't "fit" into what they think they ought to support, because they want to fit a certain box.

The academic classification of one's personal beliefs are based on the overall general views of said person. Thus, if you hold 5 far left ideas and 5 equally weighed far right ideas, politically you would score as a centralist.

[Endus]

All things are relative. The international academic political definitions have no practical bearing in the US, so those on the far left of the US political spectrum ARE radical in comparison.

Seriously, that isn't how this works.

If it were, the terms would be completely meaningless.

[PC2]

The left-right axis is an objective scale, not a subjective one.

You're making an argument akin to "you can't use an English ruler in America!"

It's objective in comparison to a known benchmark. But politics has never been objective in an absolute sense because every generation creates new types of criteria in response to entirely new types of problems. So people in 500 years probably won't care much about our current political criteria because it won't map on to the issues of their era.

[Kellhound]

Seriously, that isn't how this works.

If it were, the terms would be completely meaningless.

Out of context, the words ARE meaningless. For instance, I am sure you would say a 52 deg C day is hot, but scientifically it is actually very cold. That is because absolute zero is only -273.15 deg C while the surface of Venus averages 467 deg C and the suns photosphere is about 5,500 deg C.

[Sunseeker]

The US political spectrum is shifted to the right.

WRONG. The spectrum is not shifted. The parties are right-shifted. The spectrum remains the same, but the major American parties all fall to the right. American bias that "center" is more to the right is American bias. Americans do not exist on some special political spectrum of their own.

All things are relative. The international academic political definitions have no practical bearing in the US, so those on the far left of the US political spectrum ARE radical in comparison.

WRONG. The comparison is American political bias in action. The standard political spectrum is accurate, Americans simply think they're special.

The academic classification of one's personal beliefs are based on the overall general views of said person. Thus, if you hold 5 far left ideas and 5 equally weighed far right ideas, politically you would score as a centralist.

WRONG. That's not how it works at all. As the only political academic in the room, I get to say that, you don't.

A person who believes gays should be put to death but all women are equal is not a centrist. A person who believes the government should be run by religion, but doesn't care which one is not a centrist. A person who believes in unlimited capitalism but anyone who does harm to others via their capitalism should be put to death is not a centrist.

Any "academic" who scores a person as a centrist because that person believes in saving the rainforest but unlimited whaling is not an academic, they're an idiot.

[Endus]

Out of context, the words ARE meaningless. For instance, I am sure you would say a 52 deg C day is hot, but scientifically it is actually very cold. That is because absolute zero is only -273.15 deg C while the surface of Venus averages 467 deg C and the suns photosphere is about 5,500 deg C.

Except that "hot" and "cold" when talking about temperature is subjective by definition. 500C is "hot" for a summer day in New York, but "cold" for the surface of a star. You need a reference point.

Whereas when talking about water taps, which one's "hot" and which one's "cold" is objective, not subjective. Because there is a specific context being referenced. "Water tap labels" is that reference point, here.

It's the same with politics; "left" and "right" might be subjective when talking about direction, in general, but in terms of politics, they're objectively defined.

If they weren't, then you could not ever call any political ideology "left-wing" or "right-wing". Because they would always be "centrist" by their own biases. That's clearly not how it works.

The attempt to shift the American Overton window such that left-wing views are out of scope, and centrist views are called "left-wing", that's bias. It's a refusal to be objective and informed, to place your own gut feelings over definitive facts.

[Grimbold21]

There's a lot of "we" and "the government" in your proposals.

You want the government to drown under the weight of the enormous bureaucracy some of these measures would demand?

[Kellhound]

WRONG. The spectrum is not shifted. The parties are right-shifted. The spectrum remains the same, but the major American parties all fall to the right. American bias that "center" is more to the right is American bias. Americans do not exist on some special political spectrum of their own.


WRONG. The comparison is American political bias in action. The standard political spectrum is accurate, Americans simply think they're special.


WRONG. That's not how it works at all. As the only political academic in the room, I get to say that, you don't.

A person who believes gays should be put to death but all women are equal is not a centrist. A person who believes the government should be run by religion, but doesn't care which one is not a centrist. A person who believes in unlimited capitalism but anyone who does harm to others via their capitalism should be put to death is not a centrist.

Any "academic" who scores a person as a centrist because that person believes in saving the rainforest but unlimited whaling is not an academic, they're an idiot.

Every country exists in a special internal political spectrum for themselves, which does not mean they are also not simultaneously on the universal academic spectrum.

You are NOT the only political academic in the room. Political maps are based on weighted points for numerous various views in aggregate. It is taking a subjective belief and converting it to an "objective" number

- - - Updated - - -

Except that "hot" and "cold" when talking about temperature is subjective by definition. 500C is "hot" for a summer day in New York, but "cold" for the surface of a star. You need a reference point.

Whereas when talking about water taps, which one's "hot" and which one's "cold" is objective, not subjective. Because there is a specific context being referenced. "Water tap labels" is that reference point, here.

It's the same with politics; "left" and "right" might be subjective when talking about direction, in general, but in terms of politics, they're objectively defined.

If they weren't, then you could not ever call any political ideology "left-wing" or "right-wing". Because they would always be "centrist" by their own biases. That's clearly not how it works.

The attempt to shift the American Overton window such that left-wing views are out of scope, and centrist views are called "left-wing", that's bias. It's a refusal to be objective and informed, to place your own gut feelings over definitive facts.

Hot and cold water taps are objective only when the two are compared to themselves. If sink A has a "cold" tap at 10C and a "hot" tap at 40C and sink B has a "cold" tap at 40C and a "hot" tap at 60C, than what is 40C? Hot or cold, or neither or both?

[PC2]

It is taking a subjective belief and converting it to an "objective" number

Also for something to be truly objective it has to come from some kind of timeless criteria that won't change. Any formula that takes your political positions and then puts the result on a line or a graph won't remain relevant in a hundred years. Politics should be seen as a "moving target" that changes as people gain new ideas.

[Slant]

I don't care what you accept or reject, your acceptance of reality is not relevant. Plus we're not talking about people, we're talking about ideologies and the political spectrum. Not where one or more individuals may actually find themselves on it at any given time.

And you probably think socialism is a political ideology, too. lol

[Forogil]

Where's that graphic from? Because as far as I can tell, some forum goer went wild with photoshop and tried to win the "use as many buzzphrases as possible in one picture" challenge.

Social Democratism and Democratic Socialism next to each other? That doesn't even make sense outside of madly pedantic forum discussions.

Why doesn't it make sense? What ideology do you think should be between them? (Or is the complaint that someone wrote "Social Democratism" and likely meant "Social Democracy").

If you want to complain about placement in the graph complain about the placement of "National Socialism" (should be somewhere close to "Totalitarianism" and "Nationalism" and those two and "Activism" and some others might be removed).

- - - Updated - - -

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether. People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient. Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way. No offense, just my personal pet peeve. Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand.

It's convenient to put ideologies in boxes for comparison, but I agree that it doesn't represent how voters think.

If voters use the graph to say "Hmm... I like communism, but it doesn't work and we need a bit more capitalism and so let's choose Nazism..." they are morons.

[Felya]

Every country exists in a special internal political spectrum for themselves, which does not mean they are also not simultaneously on the universal academic spectrum.

No, they don’t. The scale shifts for those that can’t handle not being the center.

You are NOT the only political academic in the room. Political maps are based on weighted points for numerous various views in aggregate. It is taking a subjective belief and converting it to an "objective" number

That implies that political scale is completely subjective, thus having no meaning at all. What you are describing is how people feel they belong on the scale. It doesn’t actually change it...

Hot and cold water taps are objective only when the two are compared to themselves. If sink A has a "cold" tap at 10C and a "hot" tap at 40C and sink B has a "cold" tap at 40C and a "hot" tap at 60C, than what is 40C? Hot or cold, or neither or both?

Cold and hot are subjective terms, but the water will boil at the same temperature. The scale you are using doesn’t change. A temperature scale has numbers on it, not ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. In fact, it being hot or cold, isn’t only on one scale. The humidity and air pressure impacts the feeling of hot or cold. Meaning, that unlike a temperature scale telling you it’s 90 outside, the windchill factor or the humidity, have a separate ‘feels like’ section.

It’s better shown through weight and distance... imagine a carpenter ignoring dimensions, to work off of ‘you wanted a small cabinet’... like handing my gf a ‘light’ bag with glass bottles in it, to have it break instantly because it’s too heavy for her. The whole point of scales is explicitly to avoid the opinion you are expressing. If people operated on concepts of small, hot and heavy, instead of actual units of measurements... everything would be broken. Not just US politics...

- - - Updated - - -

Also for something to be truly objective it has to come from some kind of timeless criteria that won't change. Any formula that takes your political positions and then puts the result on a line or a graph won't remain relevant in a hundred years. Politics should be seen as a "moving target" that changes as people gain new ideas.

It does... that’s like saying that people getting taller, means inches is no longer an adequate unit of measurement. What you two are describing, is like a fat person getting on a scale, to react with... ‘that scale is broken, I’m not that fat’... just because you don’t agree where you are on the scale, doesn’t mean the scale is broken.

Edit: Think about the extremes. If Germany had its own political scale, where fascism was the center. What the fuck do you put on the right? You end up with a scale, that has a center on the edge of the plain. The further in any direction you move the center, the more off center you are making it.

Edit 2: What do you think the idea of America having its own political scale, is expressing? Is it American exceptionalism or the ‘snowflake’ flake concept? I think it’s exceptionalism... similarly to why our units of measurement are imperial.

- - - Updated - - -

I reject the whole idea of sorting people in arbitrary scales altogether. People cannot put into simplistic models like this, even if it's convenient. Your picture is already reductivism and hardly reflects a normal person's motivations to vote this way or that way. No offense, just my personal pet peeve. Graphics like these tend to dumb down discussion and people discuss political streams rather than the issues at hand. The culmination is people who might support an idea rejecting it because it doesn't "fit" into what they think they ought to support, because they want to fit a certain box.

That’s started with a problem. A political scale does not sort people. It sorts ideological principles, so that they are not as arbitrary. I’m neither right or left as a whole, because it depends on what issue we are talking about. That’s the problem with the current politics of US. There are a lot more than two sides. The fact that DNC is more liberal on some issues than RNC, does not mean they are liberal as a whole. In the same sense that being a democrat, doesn’t mean you are liberal. It means you abide by the democrat ideology, not the liberal one.

The conflict is people trying to fit them selfs into jeans they want to be the average, when the fitting pair is very obviously in the plus size section. A scale where you get to write units of measurements, is meaningless.

But... I don’t like those graphics either. That took several scales, redefined them as political and economic amalgams, then presented them within the same size graphics. Even though some of them are so specific in name, they occupy a tiny spec on the scale. It’s more than one scale and most attempts to combine them into a grand theory, are wholly subjective. Corporatist socialism in it self would create a mutant of a scale, if you tried to put socialism and corporatism on the same side... it’s simply a liberal application of a conservative principle. It doesn’t have to be on the same side of two different scales...

Edit: Trump is applying conservative (protect individual worth) values, through authoritarian (unilateral executive order or emergency declaration) means, with a very liberal (the deficit is on the populace as a whole) application.