Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49
Well, its where I kinda guessed I'd appear if not a little bit nearer the centre.
The Political Compass test!
- Thread starter Pinkamena
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, its where I kinda guessed I'd appear if not a little bit nearer the centre.
I got the same result like everybody here, left wing-ish libertarian-ish. It cos most of us are probably from the same-ish demographic of the young internet using generation... like minded in the whole share and everyone has their rights and so on.
Also, check out the music ideology page, it's quite interesting to see what songs represent which quarter.
Also, check out the music ideology page, it's quite interesting to see what songs represent which quarter.
Okay, apparently I am Ghandi.
Despite being in favour of all kinds of military actions.
This test is simply nonsense.
The Dali Lama is against authority?
He's a theocratic monarch, an authority by declaration and definition.
Mugabe is a collectivist, really?
In any case you can't expect much from such a simplification, but this one seems way off, trust me, I am not Ghandi, I am of the belief that failure to act with violence against evil is itself an act of evil, something Ghandi wouldn't support.
Despite being in favour of all kinds of military actions.
This test is simply nonsense.
The Dali Lama is against authority?
He's a theocratic monarch, an authority by declaration and definition.
Mugabe is a collectivist, really?
In any case you can't expect much from such a simplification, but this one seems way off, trust me, I am not Ghandi, I am of the belief that failure to act with violence against evil is itself an act of evil, something Ghandi wouldn't support.
"That which is different from me is evil" never rings more true than in political discussions. That, and I doubt the accuracy of that chart. There are extremely, openly liberal congressmen, who only occasionally vote across the line because they want to win re-election.Vuliev said:
Huh, farther left economically than I thought.
Want something even more depressing? Here's the map of our senators by state:Eclipse Dragon said:
Really drives home the whole "in America, there's the right, and then the extreme right" point.
This is a map of senators, not congressmen. And a handful of outliers in a body of 435 representatives isn't going to do anything besides throw leaves at a wall.Nieroshai said:
So the fact that the political center of American politics is in the blue quadrant isn't a bad thing? There needs to be discussion, yes, but it needs to be in the actual center, not far to the right of it.Nieroshai said:
![[REDACTED]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/129/129871.jpg?1621054700){kind=avatar}
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
What am I?
I think, I screwed up on the "morals without religion" question, too many negatives.
Edit:
Right Wing, libertarians! Go team!TKretts3 said:
I actually took this exact test for a politics class a few months ago and it was somewhat different. It was still in the purple but my dot was only a tad below the X-Axis. Although I did predict that it would go down more towards Libertarian.
Also shouldn't this topic be in the Religion and Politics section?
EDIT: Am I the only one on the right...?
I can't remember what the political "left" and "right" represents, though I did cover it in History back in school, but here's where I'm at:
I'd vote for lib dems, but in this country they don't know their arse from their heads when it comes to defence or the EU, and they're pushovers too. Nick Clegg and his party's a joke.
I'd vote for lib dems, but in this country they don't know their arse from their heads when it comes to defence or the EU, and they're pushovers too. Nick Clegg and his party's a joke.
I accidentally closed the link, so I can't coppy my chart, but I was roughly centre of the green. Seems about right.
I am economically left leaning, believe in a certain amount of market control, taxation especially of the rich and big business, although right leaning on other issues, such as benefits for those who cant work but don't.
I'm also libertarian, but probably less than indicated by the chart. I do believe in gay rights, marriage, drug legalisation, etc. but I still believe in a good dose of authority.
I am economically left leaning, believe in a certain amount of market control, taxation especially of the rich and big business, although right leaning on other issues, such as benefits for those who cant work but don't.
I'm also libertarian, but probably less than indicated by the chart. I do believe in gay rights, marriage, drug legalisation, etc. but I still believe in a good dose of authority.
After reading the first page of this my fiscal conservative but socially liberal british heart feels lonley.
I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE!*Insert tears of joy*TheScientificIssole said:
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
What am I?
I think, I screwed up on the "morals without religion" question, too many negatives.
Edit:Right Wing, libertarians! Go team!TKretts3 said:
I actually took this exact test for a politics class a few months ago and it was somewhat different. It was still in the purple but my dot was only a tad below the X-Axis. Although I did predict that it would go down more towards Libertarian.
Also shouldn't this topic be in the Religion and Politics section?
EDIT: Am I the only one on the right...?
Step 1: Misread question as accusatory statement.Zen Toombs said:
Step 2: Post "I am disappoint" jpg. Tell the other guy he's unworthy.
Step 3: Win debate!
Sorry, no.
False dichotomy? False in what way? You can either execute a murderer or not. That is an either/or choice. There is a whole spectrum of options that comes with leaving him alive but you cannot half kill him. If you have found a way to create zombie murderers, please, for the good of the world, bury the knowledge where no one will ever find it.
The policies you favor have repercussions, as do the ones I would choose. Everything has a price.
The first consequence of your chosen policy that comes to my mind is the possibility of repeat offense.
When a criminal's sentence is up, he is released. Yes, murderers often get life sentences, sometimes multiple consecutive life sentences. However, the sentence for murder isn't always life in prison. Even if it is, there's often parole. Therefore, killers are freed. They are put in a position to kill again. It could be argued that every moment they remain alive is a chance to kill again. Indeed, a fair number of them http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html seem to have killed guards and/or fellow inmates. They don't even need to be released to do that!
The only hypothetical element in the scenario from my previous post was that I put the killer next to you. Murderers have to go somewhere upon release, which means innocent people have killers living next door. You might have a released murderer -- not one who simply was never caught, but one who was caught, convicted, and then released -- within 100 feet of you right now. You may never get to read this post because your next door neighbor might decide it's been WAY too long since he last tasted raw human kidney.
Unlikely? Extremely. Possible? Certainly. Has it happened to others? Without doubt.
The question was: How would you feel if you got to see it up close and personal? If you knew your next door neighbor had done murder and been released, would you be comfortable living near him? Would you feel like letting him go was the right idea? If a friend of yours were to be murdered by that man after his release, would you still feel you had the right idea? Would you be able to look your friend's family in the eye and tell them it was right for this dangerous criminal to be released?
Forget release, forget up close and personal, if you found out a convicted murderer had killed two guards and a fellow inmate while still in jail -- three more lives that could have been saved -- would you still feel you had the right idea?
It was a question, not a statement. You ask me to think of the 141 death row inmates who had their convictions overturned due to innocence. Have you thought of the inevitable casualties involved in allowing convicted killers who definitely did it to stay alive in prison, or even walk among us?
I did not say you wanted it to happen. At worst, I implied it happens as an unfortunate consequence of what you do want, namely, to keep killers alive. Read the post again and tell me where I said you wanted it to happen.
I couldn't get reliable figures for exactly how many murderers get out of jail, or how many die there, or how many of those released kill again. I count about 120 victims for recidivist killers on the list above. Not total victims, mind you, but only victims killed after previous conviction and jail time. Another page I found suggests convicted murderers have a 90% probability of committing violent crime again in the future, which would make the chance they will kill again fairly significant. I admit 90% sounds high, even to me. I expect with minimal effort you can produce a link to say the chance of repeat offense is minuscule. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
To me it doesn't matter whether that repeat offender list is complete or not, or what the rate of recidivism is. Any number of repeat victims is too many. It has come to pass more often than it should have, at least partly because the death penalty is so difficult to obtain, and tougher still to follow through on.
A quick Google search tells me there are about 17,000 murders per year in America, 6000 of which go unsolved. If those numbers are solid, 35% of murderers are getting away with it right now.
You have expressed great concern over 3-4 people per year being wrongly sentenced to death. Forgive me if I sound callous, but that's a drop in the bucket next to the guilty who escape punishment entirely. Going from 35.29% failure to 35.31% failure doesn't seem all that horrible, especially if the overall murder rate, or the rate of recidivism, could be reduced to the point where we'd have a net gain of human life. I believe this would happen if there were more executions.
There's a difference between jailing a killer and killing a killer. If left alive in jail, they can kill guards, and other inmates -- plus, as long as they're alive, they drain resources, and can get out to kill again. This is not to mention the likelihood of other violent crime.
When we simply execute them....waste eliminated, risk eliminated.
If red tape could be cleared away, execution would become less of a drain on the public coffers. Furthermore, If potential killers knew the swift retribution of the needle awaited them should they be caught, it might cause them to think twice. Some folks will do what they want no matter what. We can't do anything about them. Others just need to see there is a line they can't cross. We can keep a larger portion of this group out of trouble by drawing that line and making it clear we're serious.
Here's to another one bucking the trend I guess
I tend to dislike things like this, because the questions are always annoyingly rigid and often worded in a way that I answer one way despite actually feeling different about the general topic of the question.
I tend to dislike things like this, because the questions are always annoyingly rigid and often worded in a way that I answer one way despite actually feeling different about the general topic of the question.
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
Not surprising. I wouldn't consider myself quite as left-leaning economically though (more centre-left). I've taken the test before and I've always gotten the same result. Not particularly a fan of the Political Compass though. Some of the questions seem a bit irrelevant or poorly worded.