You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.
Interesting poll. Very subjective based on location though in that if you lined up the various issues and gradiations and compared the answeres of folks say in the US and GB, I think you'd find that the choices above might mean rather different things depending on which side of the pond you are on.
Or maybe -as the list was made by a Brit- it would be a matter of shifting the list up one knotch for Americans.
Possibly, but I can't differentiate in this poll. For that I'd need a survey/questionnaire. So I have some methodological flaws.
For anyone not in the know, American Centrist is somewhere between British Centre Right and British Right. The British Conservative party is nominally Right Wing, but takes Libertarian policies and makes deals with our Left Wing parties, and looks solidly Left Wing in comparison to the American system.
Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.
But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.
Verviedi wrote: You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.
Its amazing how many axis you need to actually do something like this really, seems most labels are used to identify "them" and put "them" into a group to be vilified.
life complicated enough before you add people (and leopards) into the mix
Verviedi wrote: Please do. Otherwise, you'll get weirdness like myself, who leans left-libertarian, being functionally identical to a statist colleague.
*political Snap*
I'm a bit of an outlier, I'm a left-leaning libertarian, but I rank high in disagreeability. Long story short, that means I'll vote Right to remove the Hard Left, and vote Left to remove the Far Right.
Verviedi wrote: You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.
Unfortunately libertarian/authoritarian divide is as delusive "axis" as left/right, with just slightly better theoretical definitions of assumed extremes. Especially because one's place on this axis is usually self-assigned - I know both self described liberal-left people and "sworn philosophical libertarians" whose practical POV is authoritarhan as f%^&k.
But this poll is flawed for one far more important reason - this is multinational/multicultural forum, left/right political wings (including far ends of the spectrum) differ A LOT between countries. To give one (but of course not the only one) bizarre example from the left side of this spectrum: english speaking left fights for genderless language, slavic countries left fight for gender inclusive language... So if one does choose it's political orientation by specific goals to achieve in society and not by being "progressive" or "conservative" in relation to current state of things, one might land under different answers in this poll depending on country of origin...
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to my personal answer - "I don't fit". No political landscape description method I know of has a place for non-bundle POV.
Verviedi wrote: You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.
Unfortunately libertarian/authoritarian divide is as delusive "axis" as left/right, with just slightly better theoretical definitions of assumed extremes. Especially because one's place on this axis is usually self-assigned - I know both self described liberal-left people and "sworn philosophical libertarians" whose practical POV is authoritarhan as f%^&k.
But this poll is flawed for one far more important reason - this is multinational/multicultural forum, left/right political wings (including far ends of the spectrum) differ A LOT between countries. To give one (but of course not the only one) bizarre example from the left side of this spectrum: english speaking left fights for genderless language, slavic countries left fight for gender inclusive language... So if one does choose it's political orientation by specific goals to achieve in society and not by being "progressive" or "conservative" in relation to current state of things, one might land under different answers in this poll depending on country of origin...
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to my personal answer - "I don't fit". No political landscape description method I know of has a place for non-bundle POV.
I actually think this being a multi-national forum makes it a bit more interesting, and amusing, given this is all self certification its just interesting to see what drops out the bottom.
Think more options for extreme, ultra hard right & left are needed, possibly with something slightly more surreal at either end as well
Verviedi wrote: You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.
Unfortunately libertarian/authoritarian divide is as delusive "axis" as left/right, with just slightly better theoretical definitions of assumed extremes. Especially because one's place on this axis is usually self-assigned - I know both self described liberal-left people and "sworn philosophical libertarians" whose practical POV is authoritarhan as f%^&k.
But this poll is flawed for one far more important reason - this is multinational/multicultural forum, left/right political wings (including far ends of the spectrum) differ A LOT between countries. To give one (but of course not the only one) bizarre example from the left side of this spectrum: english speaking left fights for genderless language, slavic countries left fight for gender inclusive language... So if one does choose it's political orientation by specific goals to achieve in society and not by being "progressive" or "conservative" in relation to current state of things, one might land under different answers in this poll depending on country of origin...
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to my personal answer - "I don't fit". No political landscape description method I know of has a place for non-bundle POV.
I actually think this being a multi-national forum makes it a bit more interesting, and amusing, given this is all self certification its just interesting to see what drops out the bottom.
Think more options for extreme, ultra hard right & left are needed, possibly with something slightly more surreal at either end as well
But yes, it makes it much more interesting discussion, just drastically less usefull poll
Verviedi wrote: Please do. Otherwise, you'll get weirdness like myself, who leans left-libertarian, being functionally identical to a statist colleague.
*political Snap*
I'm a bit of an outlier, I'm a left-leaning libertarian, but I rank high in disagreeability. Long story short, that means I'll vote Right to remove the Hard Left, and vote Left to remove the Far Right.
I believe left unity is important, but too hard authoritarian in any direction is unacceptable. SOME short term mildly authoritarian methods are important, of course, such as federal education standards (for the purpose of combatting right wing disinformation). Best to overcome the right before the left infights to determine the course of the future. Right libertarians need a looking-at, though, they have some good ideas.
Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.
But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.
Loony!
Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
In Spain we have left and right parties from a social standpoint, but from a economical stanpoint they are all from the left. High taxes, a high centraliced goverment with many competences, a strong healthcare system, etc...
Personally, I find myself confortable in a Democratic Republic that puts equally value in the freedom of his civilians as their well-being, with a strong but fair tax system with strong public sanity and education of quality.
A free economic market, but with strong legislations to avoid the abuse of the people that can't defend themselves, with freedom to asociation to make labor unions.
Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.
But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.
Loony!
Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
Equality of opportunity. But when that equality of opportunity can be bipassed with money... many people mixs equality in the law to equality in society.
Thats why I don't believe in "meritocracy". A pure meritocratic system is a full autoritarian one like Plato's Republic. If not, fathers with money and good position will give advantages to their children. And thats goesn't awainst a pure Meritocracy.
Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.
Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.
Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?
For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.
This Poll is missing an Authoritarian/Libertarian axis.
With online Political Compass tests I come out half down the Libertarian scale, smack bang in the middle of the Left-Right axis. You could call me a Libertarian Centrist I guess.
Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.
Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.
Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?
For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.
Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.
That's an old one that's been bandied about but that is a too simplistic argument to make. At what point do you have to determine the equality of opportunity? When you arrive at your seats? When you enter the stand? When you buy a ticket? Why doesn't someone fetch the poor little fella a bigger box to stand on?
Of course, the same could be said about equality of outcome. In order to recognise that there may be Squats in the crowd, everyone is provided with a regulation mk.1 box - 10" high. One size fits all.
With online Political Compass tests I come out half down the Libertarian scale, smack bang in the middle of the Left-Right axis. You could call me a Libertarian Centrist I guess.
It has a liberal/authoritarian axis? Unless I'm missing your point?
With online Political Compass tests I come out half down the Libertarian scale, smack bang in the middle of the Left-Right axis. You could call me a Libertarian Centrist I guess.
It has a liberal/authoritarian axis? Unless I'm missing your point?
I ended up as neo-liberal on mine (a bottom righter going by the political compass)
There is Left - Right. And then there is Authoritarian-Libertarian.
Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.
But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.
Loony!
Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
Only ever equality of opportunity. You can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.
But we as a society do need to better value 'low end' jobs. Yes, arguably anyone could do them - but that's a piss poor excuse for a subsistence of as it is now a below subsistence wage.
We need to move away, far away, from the notion that wealth can by success. Consider the Univeristy System. Two students can get identical grades, say a 1st. Yet Student A went to Eton then Oxbridge. Student B went to a local Comp, then Scumbag University. And to far too many prospective employers, especially those offering high end wages, it's the provenance not the ability that counts. And not every person with a natural talent is given the chance to explore and ultimately exploit that talent.
Nobody can help the family they're born into. Dirt poor or obscene wealth, it's all luck of the draw. But that should have precisely no bearing on where you end up. Consider the sentences meted out to poor criminals, and the lenient sentencing for those suffering from 'affluenza'
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a quote from Sir Terry Pratchett which more or less sums up my thoughts.
Moving Pictures wrote:Ginger: You know what the greatest tragedy is in the whole world?... It's all the people who never find out what it is they really want to do or what it is they're really good at. It's all the sons who become blacksmiths because their fathers were blacksmiths. It's all the people who could be really fantastic flute players who grow old and die without ever seeing a musical instrument, so they become bad plowmen instead. It's all the people with talents who never even find out. Maybe they are never even born in a time when it's even possible to find out. It's all the people who never get to know what it is that they can really be. It's all the wasted chances
Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
My ideal would be equality of opportunity with a baseline of acceptability for outcome. That is to say everyone has access to the same toolkit, but if you fail miserably there's still a baseline quality of life that society won't let you fall below. Even if it's a very low baseline that just covers your basic needs, maintains opportunity for your children and equips/insures/etc you just enough to keep you from becoming a major drain on social services.
However, it's kind of a false choice (at least here in the USA). Opportunity is so different depending on location, race, economics and social standing that equality of opportunity just doesn't exist.
I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.
There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?
Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."
When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)
So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.
Polonius wrote: I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.
There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?
Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."
When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)
So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.
Thats a false dichotomy. Theres more to politics than just Left vs Right. You can be an authoritarian Leftist, or a Libertarian Right winger. And vice versa. My political views are all over the place, I do not fit neatly onto an A vs B spectrum.
This isn't about being a special snowflake, its an acknowledgement that life and politics are more complicated than this crude and simplistic bs Left vs Right narrative that you believe in.
Polonius wrote: I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.
There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?
Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."
When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)
So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.
You misestimate the evaluation of the Left/Right spectrum, it is an economic axis. Whether that is a valid axis to make political judgements on is another discussion, but it argues either in the direction of economic conservativism, or in the direction of economic liberalism. The Right leans towards deregulation, a free market, and financial self-sustainment. The Left leans towards regulation, government intervention, and financial support.
The "who holds power" axis is better defined, but not wholly, by the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. Authoritarians lean towards tradition, rule of law, state-enforcement, mandatory culture, and strong heirarchical leadership. Libertarians lean towards the opposite of that (I ran out of words).
The two combined give you a look at which policies a person may prefer, but do not tell you who they think should hold power. Remember, extreme Libertarianism is Anarchism, the idea that each person should self-rule, while extreme Authoritarianism seems to split along the economic axis into Communism or Nazism. All three of these, I might add, are things I consider to bring us to mass violence.
Polonius wrote: I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.
There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?
Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."
When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)
So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.
Congratulations. You just defined the best fit line through an N-dimensional hypervolume.
In my experience from talking to Libertarians, they don't want power in the hands of the wealthy, they just fail to see how that is nearly instantly the guaranteed outcome if Libertarian values are put into law.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Thats a false dichotomy. Theres more to politics than just Left vs Right. You can be an authoritarian Leftist, or a Libertarian Right winger. And vice versa. My political views are all over the place, I do not fit neatly onto an A vs B spectrum.
This isn't about being a special snowflake, its an acknowledgement that life and politics are more complicated than this crude and simplistic bs Left vs Right narrative that you believe in.
Everything is more complicated than you think, that doesn't mean you can't assign a simple and crude label that still has meaning.
Each person has a wildly diverse and fascinating set of viewpoints, and in today's incredibly polarizing time, when it seems like everyone is a hyperpartisan, it makes a lot of people want to distance themselves from that divide. But having idiosyncratic beliefs doesn't mean you're on the spectrum somewhere.
Selym wrote: You misestimate the evaluation of the Left/Right spectrum, it is an economic axis. Whether that is a valid axis to make political judgements on is another discussion, but it argues either in the direction of economic conservativism, or in the direction of economic liberalism. The Right leans towards deregulation, a free market, and financial self-sustainment. The Left leans towards regulation, government intervention, and financial support.
The "who holds power" axis is better defined, but not wholly, by the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. Authoritarians lean towards tradition, rule of law, state-enforcement, mandatory culture, and strong heirarchical leadership.
Libertarians lean towards the opposite of that (I ran out of words).
The two combined give you a look at which policies a person may prefer, but do not tell you who they think should hold power. Remember, extreme Libertarianism is Anarchism, the idea that each person should self-rule, while extreme Authoritarianism seems to split along the economic axis into Communism or Nazism. All three of these, I might add, are things I consider to bring us to mass violence.
You can, if you want, define a right/left spectrum as purely economic, but that's not inherent to it. Conservatism, as a concept, or an ideology, is old. Very, very old. It's probably older than nation states, but it certainly goes back to the English Civil wars. Conservatism stems from monarchism, the idea of that a hereditary monarch should hold power because, well, they're the king. The idea that those in power should stay in power is a simple one, but it gets complicated by the way that savvy conservative leaders (often people with considerable power) use forces like traditionalism, religion, patriotism, etc. to win support for the idea that the mob should allow rich and powerful people to keep their wealth and power.
Authoritarianism is strongly coupled with conservatism, but there are plenty of counter-examples, going back to the harsh laws under Cromwell compared to more relaxed Stuarts. Communism is highly authoritarian, and at least in principle liberal.
And libertarians lean against authoritarianism, but most strongly when it's repression against themselves. I'm sure there are libertarians with genuinely complex political beliefs (for example, they want lower taxes, but actively support Black Lives Matter, a group that agitates for more power for black people). Usually, Libertarians point to their zest for personal freedom in the form of drug laws or gay marriage or whatever, but that doesn't actually change who has power.
the other problem is that Libertarianism is an extremely right wing ideology when it comes to economics. It's hard to hold such a strong position on one aspect of political thought, and not have it control.
feeder wrote: In my experience from talking to Libertarians, they don't want power in the hands of the wealthy, they just fail to see how that is nearly instantly the guaranteed outcome if Libertarian values are put into law.
It's one of those coincidences. Like how every libertarian I've met in my life has been a white guy from an upper middle class family.
Edit: in fairness, so has every socialist. So, there's that.
Polonius wrote: I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.
There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?
Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."
When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)
So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.
This is so oversimplified, that your view of "baseline dichotomy" is unaplicable to half of European countries... It might be partially true in US and UK because of historical continuity of those two particular countries, but go as close as France and this falls apart because of French Revolution and then a nation wide historical trauma of bleeding out during WWI... Go a bit further east and you'll find a mild-clusterf#$%k of '89 reunited Germany and then a totally messed up history of Poland... Our currently ruling party is considered to be right wing, yet it is the most pro-social government in two decades; has fair amount of deregulatory actions and lowers taxes; it actively seeks to reduce overgrown government yet is accused of gathering all three pilars of democratic power under a single rule just because one of those pillars is completely non-democratic post-communist leftover and they try to fix that; it lowered retirement age, seeks to improve health care, actively works toward improvement of law clarity and economic freedom; gave long demanded medical information acces for homosexual couples (which our "liberal" party couldn't get to vote for 8 years) yet they are totally catholic party and they prove it on a weekly basis.
And you are completely off on libertarians, at least here in Poland - most of those I know are almost indistinguishably close to radical lefts in many, many aspects. But funnily enough, polish Libertarians openly label themselves as far-right, at the same time having esentially the most egalitarian approach (to an extent of total practical failure of society if they ever made it real).
You simply cannot make any meaningfull dichotomic divide in post-soviet central european countries. None whatsoever. You'll struggle with two axis approach, will do a bit better with three axis model, but even then there will be outliers which wil not fit anyhow.
feeder wrote: In my experience from talking to Libertarians, they don't want power in the hands of the wealthy, they just fail to see how that is nearly instantly the guaranteed outcome if Libertarian values are put into law.
And are usually blind to historical evidence, that this in fact occured every time someone tried to make an actual Libertarian state.
You can be trans whatever, doctors can help you kill yourself, everyone should be treated equally under the law, let women get abortions if they want. Basic Health and Dental should be state funded, including life saving surgeries and the like. Bring in the refugees, too, as far as im concerned.
The reason why im centre is because I dont think the state should have to pay for someone to change from a guy to a lady or vice versa, a doctor should be allowed to refuse to assist in suicide, and unless it's life threatening abortions shouldnt be paid for by the state.
Also, i am generally fine with pipelines over protecting the forest, since the oil is coming anyways, and might as well try to finagle a deal out of it.
As for the refugees, they should be on Army bases or in sponsored homes, rather then stuck in downtown Vancouver hotels like they are right now, and there should be a limit to how long and how much government aid they get.
I dont mind bigger government, since that usually means more well paying jobs... but I dont want them to be wasteful make work jobs.
Polonius wrote: I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.
There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?
Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."
When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)
So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.
You misestimate the evaluation of the Left/Right spectrum, it is an economic axis. Whether that is a valid axis to make political judgements on is another discussion, but it argues either in the direction of economic conservativism, or in the direction of economic liberalism. The Right leans towards deregulation, a free market, and financial self-sustainment. The Left leans towards regulation, government intervention, and financial support.
The "who holds power" axis is better defined, but not wholly, by the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. Authoritarians lean towards tradition, rule of law, state-enforcement, mandatory culture, and strong heirarchical leadership.
Libertarians lean towards the opposite of that (I ran out of words).
The two combined give you a look at which policies a person may prefer, but do not tell you who they think should hold power. Remember, extreme Libertarianism is Anarchism, the idea that each person should self-rule, while extreme Authoritarianism seems to split along the economic axis into Communism or Nazism. All three of these, I might add, are things I consider to bring us to mass violence.
If we look at the origin of the left/right dichotomy it first came into use in the national assembly during the French revolution, where those on the right side supported the king and the church and those on the left supported the revolution. Thats how I would define the left/right divide, the right wants to keep the current status quo(or return to a recent status quo) while the left wants to revolutionize things. This has been muddled though over the last 30 years where all political parties rushed to the centre.
That poll is pretty pointless. What's considered left/right in country A doesn't necessarily mean that it's left/right in country B.
For instance, the democrats in the US are considered "left", but by swedish (nordic even) standards, they are very much right-wing, with the republicans being even more so.
That 8values thing was quite interesting though;
Seems about right.
One issue I had with that 8values-poll though is that they seem to think that religion = tradition, which I disagree with. Tradition doesn't automatically have to have religious tendencies.
Religion is usually, however, traditional. What that religious tradition does is another matter though...
I find it rather interesting that nobody has had any objection to their 8values result, despite our assumption that the American system is far more to the right than European countries. If the 8values is agreeing with everyone's self-label, surely that indicates the self-labeling method used in this poll is not as significantly affected by cultural differences ass we thought?
Seems about right. I am fairly left, moderately so by swedish standards but by the standards of the States I am probably the kind of 'communist extremist' you shoot in Call of Duty.
It's very contextual, though. I am liberal in many things, but on the other hand I imagine many of you are familiar with my stance on gun control by now, and I am still not sure of what I actually think about legal drugs.
Polls are only as useful as the questions they ask and the samples they utilize. This is a nonscientific poll which simply measures self identification. Nothing to get worked up over.
Left and Right are extremely broad labels that have tremendous differences in meaning by nation and region, regardless of the history of the terms. It gets even more complex when you start talking about personal identity as it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accepted terminology and more to do with self justification.
How did Capitalism Fascism works? You have a very strong state with hard control about everything but not economy? (And this is a Honest question. I tought that normally Fascism states use a more state-controled economy type)
Selym wrote: Religion is usually, however, traditional. What that religious tradition does is another matter though...
I find it rather interesting that nobody has had any objection to their 8values result, despite our assumption that the American system is far more to the right than European countries. If the 8values is agreeing with everyone's self-label, surely that indicates the self-labeling method used in this poll is not as significantly affected by cultural differences ass we thought?
8values does not use any left/right distinction. It uses four axis "absolute" system of reference, but is relative (it has moveable '0' point based on self-perception).
But for me it still doesn't give true answer, because of assumed partial dichotomies...
Verviedi wrote: IIRC state uses its hard control to assist businesses/push "business friendly" policy.
It's really funny you say that because it's the opposite for me. Heavy-handed government doesn't touch the economy unless something is seriously wrong or a direct threat to the government
But how can the goverment work with so strong supervision of all minus economy without a strong tax system? Like, controlled borders for inmigration but not importations and exportations?
(Again, honest questions)
That is a legitimate issue I overlooked... I'd probably work out regulations for imports/exports and give incentives to selling/buying from within the country itself. Keep the money local and don't rely on the outsiders.
In all seriousness, I'm aware this wouldn't work in a large country like the US. Too much area to cover on the funds available.
As all tests like these, there's a bunch of questions that you really can't answer without further information. Take the statement "Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy" for instance. It's a factual statement with an objective answer: excessive intervention is, by definition, excessive. The real question is what counts as excessive. Similarly, what counts as "religious values" is a can of worms of its own. If I answer that I want my religious values to spread as much as possible and my religious values are "to each his own, as long as it doesn't harm someone" I count as more conservative/traditional, which is bonkers.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As all tests like these, there's a bunch of questions that you really can't answer without further information. Take the statement "Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy" for instance. It's a factual statement with an objective answer: excessive intervention is, by definition, excessive. The real question is what counts as excessive. Similarly, what counts as "religious values" is a can of worms of its own. If I answer that I want my religious values to spread as much as possible and my religious values are "to each his own, as long as it doesn't harm someone" I count as more conservative/traditional, which is bonkers.
Exactly why I score dead center on such tests, because the only available answer I can give within assumed context of such questions is "neutral/unsure", because there is no option "that depends/non-binary/that-is-a-dumb-way-to-ask-such-question". And I'm by no means centrist...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As all tests like these, there's a bunch of questions that you really can't answer without further information. Take the statement "Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy" for instance. It's a factual statement with an objective answer: excessive intervention is, by definition, excessive. The real question is what counts as excessive. Similarly, what counts as "religious values" is a can of worms of its own. If I answer that I want my religious values to spread as much as possible and my religious values are "to each his own, as long as it doesn't harm someone" I count as more conservative/traditional, which is bonkers.
Tests like these are only slightly more sophisticated versions of those "which Marvel character are you?" tests that plague social media.
Edit: I just checked the OP's poll. Given that this is a gaming site, and should attract people from across the political spectrum, it does seem to prove the "Reality has a liberal bias" trope
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As all tests like these, there's a bunch of questions that you really can't answer without further information. Take the statement "Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy" for instance. It's a factual statement with an objective answer: excessive intervention is, by definition, excessive. The real question is what counts as excessive. Similarly, what counts as "religious values" is a can of worms of its own. If I answer that I want my religious values to spread as much as possible and my religious values are "to each his own, as long as it doesn't harm someone" I count as more conservative/traditional, which is bonkers.
Key word to consider is "spread." If you want to spread your ideas, you'll come across as more conservative. Its less to do with the religious value itself and more with how you want them to continue, if you do.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As all tests like these, there's a bunch of questions that you really can't answer without further information. Take the statement "Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy" for instance. It's a factual statement with an objective answer: excessive intervention is, by definition, excessive. The real question is what counts as excessive. Similarly, what counts as "religious values" is a can of worms of its own. If I answer that I want my religious values to spread as much as possible and my religious values are "to each his own, as long as it doesn't harm someone" I count as more conservative/traditional, which is bonkers.
Key word to consider is "spread." If you want to spread your ideas, you'll come across as more conservative. Its less to do with the religious value itself and more with how you want them to continue, if you do.
Then if you gather all kinds of "aggressive vegan, feminist, cross-fit, eco, social etc warriors" under "religious beliefs" then they all end up being far right... And you'll have to make further labels such as "progressive left" and "regressive left" we had a thread about a while ago to deal with such conundrums.
As Crazy_Carnifex wrote earlier, the only way to adequately analyse politics is to treat it as n-dimensional phase space, without simplified labeling.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As all tests like these, there's a bunch of questions that you really can't answer without further information. Take the statement "Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy" for instance. It's a factual statement with an objective answer: excessive intervention is, by definition, excessive. The real question is what counts as excessive. Similarly, what counts as "religious values" is a can of worms of its own. If I answer that I want my religious values to spread as much as possible and my religious values are "to each his own, as long as it doesn't harm someone" I count as more conservative/traditional, which is bonkers.
Key word to consider is "spread." If you want to spread your ideas, you'll come across as more conservative. Its less to do with the religious value itself and more with how you want them to continue, if you do.
Then if you gather all kinds of "aggressive vegan, feminist, cross-fit, eco, social etc warriors" under "religious beliefs" then they all end up being far right... And you'll have to make further labels such as "progressive left" and "regressive left" we had a thread about a while ago to deal with such conundrums.
Galas wrote:How did Capitalism Fascism works? You have a very strong state with hard control about everything but not economy? (And this is a Honest question. I tought that normally Fascism states use a more state-controled economy type)
An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment while often subsidizing favorable companies, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of many industries, fascist economies were based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.
Simplified: You are free to do as you like as long as it's allowed, a bit like Ford's quote about the Model-T: “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”
Galas wrote:But how can the goverment work with so strong supervision of all minus economy without a strong tax system? Like, controlled borders for inmigration but not importations and exportations?
(Again, honest questions)
That's why you accidentally stumble into Poland, and then in the next country, and so on. Fascism doesn't work in isolation and would just collapse. You need someone to exploit for it to "work".
well I am horrified, I generally consider myself center right, generally dislike Europe, prefer Asia, and somehow I ended up on that link as a neo-liberal. Just the word liberal makes me sick to the stomach. By dakka and European standards, I figured I would be somewhere between far right and really far right.
thekingofkings wrote: well I am horrified, I generally consider myself center right, generally dislike Europe, prefer Asia, and somehow I ended up on that link as a neo-liberal. Just the word liberal makes me sick to the stomach. By dakka and European standards, I figured I would be somewhere between far right and really far right.
thekingofkings wrote: well I am horrified, I generally consider myself center right, generally dislike Europe, prefer Asia, and somehow I ended up on that link as a neo-liberal. Just the word liberal makes me sick to the stomach. By dakka and European standards, I figured I would be somewhere between far right and really far right.
thekingofkings wrote: well I am horrified, I generally consider myself center right, generally dislike Europe, prefer Asia, and somehow I ended up on that link as a neo-liberal. Just the word liberal makes me sick to the stomach. By dakka and European standards, I figured I would be somewhere between far right and really far right.
That's because you don't understand what "neo-liberal" means and are doing the common reflexive "RAR LIBERALS BAD" reaction that many US conservatives are guilty of. I mean, you're talking about how it makes you "sick to the stomach", but did you first look up what the term actually refers to? It's a reference to laissez-faire economic policies of the sort that Reagan (beloved saint of US conservatives) loved, and based on your survey results it sure seems appropriate for you. Your strongest stated value percentage-wise is favoring the market over equality, so it's reasonable that the label you're assigned would be the one representing that position.
There is no good or bad in this survey, only a statement of what political labels have a matching definition. Patriotism is not bad, but fascism is defined as right-wing nationalism and authoritarianism. And yep, look at that result. Overwhelming nationalism, overwhelming authoritarianism, and very strong social conservative beliefs. If you take away feelings like "I can't be a fascist, fascism is bad and I"m not a bad person" then the label seems to be a pretty good fit.
thekingofkings wrote: well I am horrified, I generally consider myself center right, generally dislike Europe, prefer Asia, and somehow I ended up on that link as a neo-liberal. Just the word liberal makes me sick to the stomach. By dakka and European standards, I figured I would be somewhere between far right and really far right.
Liberal carries very different meanings on both sides of the pond. In the US it's shorthand for leftist or wannabe-commie so it's liberal in the original fight the establishment sense. Over here in Europe liberal refers to economic liberalism, basically non-intervention of the state.
Reagan, Thatcher are all famous neo-liberals (both very far from common US usage of the word)
I myself got, like several other posters on this side of the pond, Social Liberalism which is closer to the US definition.
The one thing that's been bugging me about the graphs is that the far left economic image is labeled "Equality"'. Now, I'm biased because from my results I'm a Centrist (only one I've seen posted on here yet lol) who sees benefit on both sides, but all the other axes are labeled more neutrally.
If you were to go to the far edge of any axis, the label is appropriate, Except for that one. Far, far left policy (i.e. beyond anyone posting on this board) really cannot be described as Equality at the extreme edge. At least, that's my view as a Centrist
So for myself, I'd rather see that top economic axis labeled something like "Government Balancing" vs "Market Balancing", but I'm not sure that encompasses everything they're going for, either. Without getting too heated about which side you prefer on that axis, what do people think regarding the labeling of it? Any other suggestions for it?
It seems to illustrate the divergent views and goals of market equality and market freedom. So it seems fine. I mean, you could just as easily point out that market freedom is unattainable without government intervention to prevent monopolies and whatnot (Adam Smith wrote a lot on this that is commonly overlooked), so government v. market isn't any better.
As to the kneejerk reaction to political labels and modern Americans not understanding what liberal means, that is intentional. In the 90s, the Republicans made a concerted effort to take control of the language and demonize terms like liberal. Newt Gingrich laid out a training plan in 1990 to portray Democrats and liberals as political extremists and tie them to corruption and value decay while using positive terms with Republican positions and heavily invoking patriotism and traditional values. This was built on the aggressive language he had used since his election in 78 and refined under a series of polls and impact group studies. By adhering to a common language, and supported by new media tools, the Republicans saw a big shift in perception and political success. Several campaign workers have since expressed regret at the longer term costs of greater political balkanization and hyperbole replacing facts, but the pattern shows no sign of slowing.
ing Gingrich. That bastard is singlehandedly responsible for the degeneration of political discourse in the USA.
RiTides wrote: The one thing that's been bugging me about the graphs is that the far left economic image is labeled "Equality"'. Now, I'm biased because from my results I'm a Centrist (only one I've seen posted on here yet lol) who sees benefit on both sides, but all the other axes are labeled more neutrally.
If you were to go to the far edge of any axis, the label is appropriate, Except for that one. Far, far left policy (i.e. beyond anyone posting on this board) really cannot be described as Equality at the extreme edge. At least, that's my view as a Centrist
So for myself, I'd rather see that top economic axis labeled something like "Government Balancing" vs "Market Balancing", but I'm not sure that encompasses everything they're going for, either. Without getting too heated about which side you prefer on that axis, what do people think regarding the labeling of it? Any other suggestions for it?
"State", "Central", or "Planned" vs. "Market", perhaps? "Equality" does work, but it seems a bit biased indeed.
My wife was very similar. 3 were within 2 points and one was 7 points different. Just enough to push her to Social Liberalism
Like most of personality and value tests the value seems to be more in understanding how you compare to others but it has some value in self reflection too.
thekingofkings wrote: well I am horrified, I generally consider myself center right, generally dislike Europe, prefer Asia, and somehow I ended up on that link as a neo-liberal. Just the word liberal makes me sick to the stomach. By dakka and European standards, I figured I would be somewhere between far right and really far right.
"neo-liberal
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism.
noun
1.
a person with neo-liberal views."
Ah, yes, I love telling people that hate those "damn dirty libruls" that they ARE liberals. Liberalism, after all, is just the belief in private property ownership and an economy that is seperate from the government.
Yeah, "Liberals" in Europe is used with people of right wint economical views (So, free market before everything, from clasical Liberals to Anarco-capitalists). Neo-Liberalism doesn't exist. Is just classical liberalism, like Neo-nazism is just clasical nazism(Sorry for the comparison, I don't remember any other neo-X now ). It has no real differentiation with the "old" Liberalism.
I always find funny how in USA you use it to describe the social left.
Libertarian Socialist. I think I respect authority and the government more than the survey shows, but everything else is pretty close to the mark. I generally find myself pretty left, even by Canadian standards.
If only US politics wasn't verbotten this is a wonderful arc of discussion. Suffice to say that the USA is a beacon that many other countries could follow (individual rights and freedoms, power of the people over government, a functioning judiciary ostensibly free of corruption - all Liberal ideals).
And the First Amendment is one of the crowning glories of all Liberalism - I truly am envious of the US for this.
Neo-Liberalism is slightly different, but that shouldn't dissuade you from embracing your inner liberal.
Yeah, me too.
I don't understand liberals. Don't they love their country, their family ? Aren't they happy of being born in such great countries as the Western Countries ?
Why are they so hateful ( especially of all things from the West .) ?
Yeah, me too.
I don't understand liberals. Don't they love their country, their family ? Aren't they happy of being born in such great countries as the Western Countries ?
Why are they so hateful ( especially of all things from the West .) ?
I'd advise all my fellow Dakkanaughts to stay well away from this obvious troll post. This thread is the closest thing to a political discussion we've been allowed to have in here in weeks, and it's nice to have grown-up things.
So, I've taken the test on a couple of days, and tend too range between Social Liberal and Centrist. This variation is probably because there are a lot of questions which can be interpreted multiple ways, and tend to run into issues with relativist positions. I think that this test is more about our philosophical political positions than where we would actually sit, since it doesn't ask anything specific. It would be interesting to see a test with a similar approach that asks actual political questions.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: So, I've taken the test on a couple of days, and tend too range between Social Liberal and Centrist. This variation is probably because there are a lot of questions which can be interpreted multiple ways, and tend to run into issues with relativist positions. I think that this test is more about our philosophical political positions than where we would actually sit, since it doesn't ask anything specific. It would be interesting to see a test with a similar approach that asks actual political questions.
I always take these sorts of tests with the assumption that it is, 1) referring to my country specifically, and not countries in general (UK) and, 2) that where it is being non-specific it is not to be taken in its literal or extreme forms.
One example being the case of regional unions. It asks whether they are a good thing, and my response is no, but because the one example I'm familiar has an ideological and autocratic nature with complete disregard for national sovereignty and has little accountability when representatives damage the interests of countries that are not their own. If such problems were eradicated, regional co-operation is something I would support.
Classical liberal. I fall on the left on most issues, with the exceptions that I believe in free speech, I don't like identity politics, and I'm against abortion except for rape and to protect the life of the mother.
jasper76 wrote: Classical liberal. I fall on the left on most issues, with the exceptions that I believe in free speech, I don't like identity politics, and I'm against abortion except for rape and to protect the life of the mother.
I guess that makes me center left.
Very similar to me. I am a bit more loose on the topic of abortion, but I do readily agree there are better methods of birth control than waiting until something starts growing inside you and then killing it. Best to avoid the whole situation if possible.
In the UK, at least, we have clinics that hand out condoms and morning-after pills like they're smarties. At some point, culturally, we came to the conclusion that there was no way in hell we'd be able to stop teens from having sex, so we just gave in and provided free anonymous advice and protection.
Well put. That's also my attitude to drugs. You can't stop people taking them, so let them be. And tax the gak out of them. Well ok, the harder drugs are more complicated but weed is ok. I don't touch the stuff but it's everywhere anyway so why bother.
You're not alone, we're all surprised by that too! .
I was also surprised by this. Similarly, anyone else surprised at how many times they clicked on neutral/unsure? Possibly because of the lack of a "agree slightly" and "disagree slightly" choices I found quite a fair number of statements that I was unwilling to Agree/Disagree with and a fair number that I was neutral on.
I wonder if this kind of exercise could actually bring people closer together. Almost everyone (especially those in the same country or region) would probably be able to find at least one or two (or more) axis on which they are close. That could well be the common ground that allows them to start a conversation from a place of agreement and respect rather than stigmatization.
I someitmes (well lots of times if I'm honest) feel like I have little in common with those on the right wing and something like this could be great for finding commonalities.
That 8values thing seemed pretty off to me. It pegged me as subscribing to social liberalism.
I'm not sure how that happens when you strongly disagree with the "violence is always an option", "open borders are good", and "my group is better than everyone else's" statements. Far as I can tell those are the core tenets of social liberalism.
daedalus wrote: That 8values thing seemed pretty off to me. It pegged me as subscribing to social liberalism.
I'm not sure how that happens when you strongly disagree with the "violence is always an option", "open borders are good", and "my group is better than everyone else's" statements. Far as I can tell those are the core tenets of social liberalism.
I would put it down to 8values being a calculator, where each agree/disagree is weighted the same. It takes a quantitative, rather than qualitative, approach to political assessment.
daedalus wrote: That 8values thing seemed pretty off to me. It pegged me as subscribing to social liberalism.
I'm not sure how that happens when you strongly disagree with the "violence is always an option", "open borders are good", and "my group is better than everyone else's" statements. Far as I can tell those are the core tenets of social liberalism.
I would put it down to 8values being a calculator, where each agree/disagree is weighted the same. It takes a quantitative, rather than qualitative, approach to political assessment.
You can't really get all that nuance of your political identity in 40ish questions. Probably more accurate to just look at your values and do some research on political alignments.
daedalus wrote: That 8values thing seemed pretty off to me. It pegged me as subscribing to social liberalism.
I'm not sure how that happens when you strongly disagree with the "violence is always an option", "open borders are good", and "my group is better than everyone else's" statements. Far as I can tell those are the core tenets of social liberalism.
False by all measures.
Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.
American liberals are anti-war. Conservatives are generally pro-war.
Yes, liberals are pro immigration reform. So what? Nations as a concept are going to be phased out, eventually, what reason do we have to have "illegals" exist? (Other than blatant racism, of course)
American liberals are, in general, pro-equality. Remember. To a privileged person, equality often feels like oppression.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I'm sad we haven't encounter any old classical Communist yet
By this, do you mean Marxist anarcho-communism, or Mao/Lenin/Stalinist authoritarian communism?
I picked Centrist and did the test and ended up as social liberal... Was close to the center on all categories except for the tradition/progress axis where I was 70% progress. Seemed pretty accurate to me.
I generally dislike people on the far right and people on far left with equal disdain.
So... I took the 8values test as I would imagine an Imperial citizen from 40k would answer it...
TL;DR any reference to regional unions and the UN is to be seen as the Imperium, foreign countries are Xeno empires (Orks, Eldar, Necrons, Tau), and immigrants are Xenos, Mutants and Heretics (and some, I'm sure, are nice people).
Galas wrote: I'm sad we haven't encounter any old classical Communist yet
I don't think you'd really ever get any for several reasons.
First, communism is so poorly understood that most people really can't define it. In part that's also because an absurd number of wildly different governments and movements have been labelled as such that they're impossible to actually reconcile.
Second, even going back to the basic Marxist concept, it's a dead movement. Utopian communism, much like unrestricted Randian/unbridled laissez-faire capitalism, just doesn't work on large scales, and has been abandoned by all but the tiniest irrelevant lunatic fringes in most nations.
Third, the questions really are very modern US centric, and aren't really the kind of questions that would identify such. Hell, for the same reasons I don't think they'd even really give you an accurate view of what an actual "socialist" is, it's conflating government regulation with "socialism", as opposed to collective/state ownership and management of economic sectors. Essentially the questions are going to tell people where they are along a "centrist US" range.
Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.
That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism wrote: Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.
Galas wrote: I'm sad we haven't encounter any old classical Communist yet
By this, do you mean Marxist anarcho-communism, or Mao/Lenin/Stalinist authoritarian communism?
Not anarcho, but the original Marxist Communism, yeah. But it was a pseudo joke, not need to do of it more that my original intention Has Vaktathi said, Communism is DOA, even if I believe the critizism of Marx to the Capitalist system was very correct. (Basically, he was good analizing it, but not so good at offering a viable alternative)
Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.
That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism wrote: Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.
Social liberalism, at its core, is renamed libertarianism. Essentially, do what you will, as long as it doesn't harm others.
That's... not what the wikipedia article suggests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism wrote: Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.
In one way or another basically "all" Western countrys fuction in some degrees of Social Liberalism. Ones are more of the social part, others are more in the economical liberal part.
Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.
Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.
Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?
For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.
For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.
Well, this isn't like a black or white situations. Hyperbole is a little useless here. For example:
Why put cement ramps for disabled people? What are they, some kind of speciall snowflakes? Are they entitled to have those kind of privileges?
In fact, why should we give them whellchairs? Use those arms that evolution provided you with!
Other option is to broken the legs of everyone else so we can emphatize better with them.
EDIT: But this is offtopic, I'll drop the argument here!
When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.
I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.
I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.
Even on certain issues I am torn between extremes. I'm an totally in support of trans persons and their rights to access the facilities of their choice, with the sole exception of pre-op people using communal showers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Well, this isn't like a black or white situations. Hyperbole is a little useless here. For example:
Why put cement ramps for disabled people? What are they, some kind of speciall snowflakes? Are they entitled to have those kind of privileges?
In fact, why should we give them whellchairs? Use those arms that evolution provided you with!
Other option is to broken the legs of everyone else so we can emphatize better with them.
EDIT: But this is offtopic, I'll drop the argument here!
As a side note, is the cartoon itself racist? It appears to assume that Brown people are too poor for an actual seat and will resort to looking through a fence.
The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)
Galas wrote: The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)
My brother is Colombian and he's fairly pale. Gotta break those stereotypes, man.
cuda1179 wrote: When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.
I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.
I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.
If I'm reading you right, you are writing that free speech is more conservative than liberal. I thought it was entirely within liberal values to support free speech.
Galas wrote: The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)
My brother is Colombian and he's fairly pale. Gotta break those stereotypes, man.
cuda1179 wrote: When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.
I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.
I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.
If I'm reading you right, you are writing that free speech is more conservative than liberal.
I thought it was entirely within liberal values to support free speech.
Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.
Galas wrote: The sportsmans are too black people so probably the guy that draw that cartoon was just black. (Or from a Southamerican country, I have seen people from Venezuela and Colombia with a skin with that colour)
My brother is Colombian and he's fairly pale. Gotta break those stereotypes, man.
Yeah, theres many variety n those countries, I wasn't saying that EVERYBODY was of that skin colour
cuda1179 wrote: When it comes to certain topics, I'm middle ground. Other topics, I'm pretty liberal. Other topics, I'm pretty conservative.
I supported Gay marriage, support anti-discrimination laws, pro animal-rights, support legalizing polygamy and prostitution.
I'm also pro-gun, anti-abortion, against affirmative action, pro-hunting, and pro-free speech.
If I'm reading you right, you are writing that free speech is more conservative than liberal.
I thought it was entirely within liberal values to support free speech.
This is because in USA they have Liberal=Progressive=Social Left, when in Europe we call Liberals to the Economical Liberals, that where the left in the French Revolution(Because in that age they goed against the old regime) but now are considered from the economical right. USA was founded by liberals afterall. True Liberals believe in totally free market without intervention of the state, open borders for goods and people, etc (Basically a mix of Social Left with Economical Right)... the extreme of Liberalism is Anarco-Capitalism.
But free-speech is not a conservative value.
But at the same time free spech goes more in the "Autoritarism-Personal Freedom" axis than in Progression-Tradition one. Theres have been Autoritarian states that supressed free spech both from the social and economical left and right. So Free Speech is not inherently a Left/Right social/economical value.
cuda1179 wrote: For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.
That's not what it shows, at all. The tallest person is not being brought down to the level of the shortest person so that nobody can see the game, the shortest person is being brought up to the level of the tallest person so that everyone can see the game. Nobody is endorsing the absurd Harrison Bergeron-style idea of crippling everyone who might succeed so that everyone is equally awful.
cuda1179 wrote: Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.
As opposed to the many conservative groups who want to censor "obscenity", ban flag burning, demand that anyone who says anything unpatriotic should be fired, etc? Aside from Nazi-punching (which should be considered your patriotic duty regardless of your political alignment) the things you're complaining about are essentially people using their free speech to say "I don't like this, and you shouldn't either".
Don't you know Pereigrine, free speech means that people must politely and quietly listen to people talking about racial cleansing, not complain and give them a place to do it. Otherwise it's *censorship*
cuda1179 wrote: For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.
That's not what it shows, at all. The tallest person is not being brought down to the level of the shortest person so that nobody can see the game, the shortest person is being brought up to the level of the tallest person so that everyone can see the game. Nobody is endorsing the absurd Harrison Bergeron-style idea of crippling everyone who might succeed so that everyone is equally awful.
cuda1179 wrote: Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.
As opposed to the many conservative groups who want to censor "obscenity", ban flag burning, demand that anyone who says anything unpatriotic should be fired, etc? Aside from Nazi-punching (which should be considered your patriotic duty regardless of your political alignment) the things you're complaining about are essentially people using their free speech to say "I don't like this, and you shouldn't either".
Who do you think had to stack those boxes, the little person? LOL
People can protest anything they want. That's more than fine by me, and that goes both ways. I'm fine with picketing Anarchists or Westboro Baptist Church. When access to others wanting to express themselves is blocked, fights are instigated, fire alarms are pulled illegally, stages are overtaken, assaults with deadly weapons happen, or looting happens.... well I draw the line there.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Don't you know Pereigrine, free speech means that people must politely and quietly listen to people talking about racial cleansing, not complain and give them a place to do it. Otherwise it's *censorship*
Co'tor Shas wrote: Don't you know Pereigrine, free speech means that people must politely and quietly listen to people talking about racial cleansing, not complain and give them a place to do it. Otherwise it's *censorship*
Racial cleansing? Bit and an exaggeration? How about men's groups that can't meet to talk about men-centric diseases, our substandard treatment in family courts, or workplace regulations to harm us? It's hard to talk about even the possibility that "privilege" is overstated hyperbole.
Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.
Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.
Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?
For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.
For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.
Think of it more as "let those of means that can contribute without significant detriment (in this case, not losing their ability to view the ballgame) do so in a manner that allows those who are not of means to have at least some minimum similar quality of life level" (in this case, being able to see over the fence)
If you have one dude with $100,000/yr income and some other dude only has $2 but needs $5 for rent and only makes $4 a month, well, the $100k dude isn't meaningfully affected by the loss of $3, while the two dollar dude gains substantially (and his money fuels immediate economic activity with a higher velocity, as opposed to sitting in savings doing very little as far as the greater economy is concerned, while also reducing incentive to resort to crime on the two dollar dude's part). You generate a vast amount of social good for a relatively irrelevant cost. Now, this has limits, obviously you can't take from the $100k dude until he's dry, and at some point you reach the acceptable minimum quality of life for the recipients, but the basic concept works.
With respect to your ballerina example, nobody is saying that you are entitled to wild success and acclaim as a ballerina, that's not realistic and different people are fit for different things. Nobody is going to ask that other people wear heavy weights (as then, in the above fence example, they would lose the ability to see over the fence), in a case like that, the cost imposed on others doesn't actually improve anything, so nobody would do that. However, if the 6'5" ogre wants to make a go of it, at least let him attend class and put on a tutu
Yeah, my example was extreme. My personal plan for society (expressed in a parallel to this cartoon) would be to let the short person have the box near the giant gaping whole in the fence. That way one meets the minimum standard to see the game without adding any major cost to anyone else.
Actually, I take that back. To make things totally equitable I think all three should be escorted off stadium property for not paying for a seat and "stealing" a view. LOL
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think you'd really ever get any for several reasons.
First, communism is so poorly understood that most people really can't define it. In part that's also because an absurd number of wildly different governments and movements have been labelled as such that they're impossible to actually reconcile.
Second, even going back to the basic Marxist concept, it's a dead movement. Utopian communism, much like unrestricted Randian/unbridled laissez-faire capitalism, just doesn't work on large scales, and has been abandoned by all but the tiniest irrelevant lunatic fringes in most nations.
Utopian socialism is a label used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen.[1] Utopian socialism is often described as the presentation of visions and outlines for imaginary or futuristic ideal societies, with positive ideals being the main reason for moving society in such a direction. Later socialists and critics of utopian socialism viewed "utopian socialism" as not being grounded in actual material conditions of existing society, and in some cases, as reactionary. These visions of ideal societies competed with Marxist-inspired revolutionary social democratic movements.
cuda1179 wrote: My personal plan for society (expressed in a parallel to this cartoon) would be to let the short person have the box near the giant gaping whole in the fence. That way one meets the minimum standard to see the game without adding any major cost to anyone else.
In that case why not just knock the fence down altogether?
I can't see how in the example of the simple cartoon having the tallest person give their box to the shortest person counts as a major cost? Is it because they no longer have something that somebody else does? Is that a cost?
Now if the tallest fellow gave up their box and then had to spend the rest of the game standing on tip toes to see it - yes there would be a cost, and that's a nuance that should be appropriately discussed, but that's not this scenario.
The simplicity of the cartoon also doesn't allow for the added benefits of equity to the person giving up their box - without context it could be seen as one person having something that belongs to them taken away and given to someone else without receiving anything in return. But what if this is a father and his two sons. By giving up his box the father teaches his sons multiple lessons in cooperation, tightens the strength of the family unit and gets some peace and respite from nagging kids (happy kids = happy wife). Or he'd have to pick the shortest kid up and have him on his shoulders all game. There are advantages to equity that go beyond the simplistic view of having to give free stuff to other people.
And someone mentioned affirmative action before and being against it. Imagine this scenario with people of all the same height with everyone needing a box to see the game, except one of the people is pushed into a hole by the other people and even with a box can't see the game.
I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.
I believe that open markets and trade have been essential to creating the prosperity and trade we take for granted. So I believe very strongly in economic policies that encourage private sector investment and competition. However, new wealth is pointless it all filters to the richest few who are already extremely comfortable. So I believe progressive taxes and transfer payments are an effective means of ensuring growth benefits everyone.
I hold opinions on a hold bunch of other stuff and my opinions there are definitely more aligned with the left than the right, but honestly non-economic issues have probably never determined my vote so I'm not sure how much any of that matters.
So where does all that put me on any right left scale? I don't think the scale really works in that sense. And I don't think it's because I'm a special snowflake, I think most people who lack a clear ideological commitment to one faction or another would have similar problems putting themselves on the scale.
cuda1179 wrote: Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.
This is the problem with crudely lumping so many individual issues in to 'left' or 'right'. Both sides value free speech, but both sides also believe there are certain limits. Many on the right support tighter obscenity restrictions, and also support non-disclosure deals in contracts. The left is more likely to support limits to freedom of speech that protect minority interests. So free speech as a whole isn't a leftwing or a rightwing thing.
Smacks wrote: I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.
The further left you go, the closer to folding back around to the right you seem to get. Truly far left ideologies have some... wonky ideas about progress, imo.
cuda1179 wrote: Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.
This is the problem with crudely lumping so many individual issues in to 'left' or 'right'. Both sides value free speech, but both sides also believe there are certain limits. Many on the right support tighter obscenity restrictions, and also support non-disclosure deals in contracts. The left is more likely to support limits to freedom of speech that protect minority interests. So free speech as a whole isn't a leftwing or a rightwing thing.
Maybe we should add a "Free Speech" axis to the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes?
Perhaps:
1 - I hate free speech
2 - I want great restrictions on free speech
3 - I want some restrictions on free speech
4 - I want minor restrictions on free speech
5 - I want no restrictions on free speech
Selym wrote: Maybe we should add a "Free Speech" axis to the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes?
That wouldn't really tell us very much, because it's a single narrow issue where most people agree on the general principle and only argue about the details. The whole point of summary things like this is to avoid having an axis for every single issue and generalize into a handful of broad terms. But if you insist, we could have a poll:
* I want moderate restrictions on speech, only excluding harmful acts of speech.
* I want strict censorship of anything I don't approve of.
* I don't understand what "freedom of speech" means.
Most people would pick the first option, a smaller number would be honest enough to admit to favoring the second, and a tiny minority of FREEZE PEACH crusaders would proudly declare the third.
Smacks wrote: I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.
The further left you go, the closer to folding back around to the right you seem to get. Truly far left ideologies have some... wonky ideas about progress, imo.
There is certainly some ideological wrap around (for example, with things like state ownership). Perhaps I'm reading into what you said wrongly, but I get I feeling that you're alluding to so called "communist" states, such as the former USSR and NK?
I think they're obviously difficult examples, because you have these states that emerged from civil war very unstable, and then they quickly devolved into police states with genocidal dictators. They used a lot of communist rhetoric to control people, but they ended up being more fascist in terms of the power structure. I don't think that's the result of left wing ideologies, a similar thing happened following the French revolution. I think it has more to do with civil wars and people trying to grab power.
Smacks wrote: I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.
The further left you go, the closer to folding back around to the right you seem to get. Truly far left ideologies have some... wonky ideas about progress, imo.
There is certainly some ideological wrap around (for example, with things like state ownership). Perhaps I'm reading into what you said wrongly, but I get I feeling that you're alluding to so called "communist" states, such as the former USSR and NK?
I think they're obviously difficult examples, because you have these states that emerged from civil war very unstable, and then they quickly devolved into police states with genocidal dictators. They used a lot of communist rhetoric to control people, but they ended up being more fascist in terms of the power structure. I don't think that's the result of left wing ideologies, a similar thing happened following the French revolution. I think it has more to do with civil wars and people trying to grab power.
I actually came to the conclusion after watching a documentary on Amazon Prime, wherein a German journalist managed to get a guarantee of safe passage in Islamic State territory, and set about interviewing IS members. The things they said were almost word-for-word the kind of things some people on the extreme left, (such as die-hard SJW's, those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen, etc), have said on various topics.
Selym wrote: those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen
If we're talking about that kind of extremely tiny and irrelevant fringe group then we've long since departed the realm of useful conversation. They have nothing to do with any kind of mainstream political group, and if opponents of the left didn't keep using them as straw men hardly anyone would even be aware that they exist.
Selym wrote: those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen
If we're talking about that kind of extremely tiny and irrelevant fringe group then we've long since departed the realm of useful conversation. They have nothing to do with any kind of mainstream political group, and if opponents of the left didn't keep using them as straw men hardly anyone would even be aware that they exist.
It is not necessary to identify an influential political party to investigate ideological wraparound. They are humans, probably, after all.
Selym wrote: I actually came to the conclusion after watching a documentary on Amazon Prime, wherein a German journalist managed to get a guarantee of safe passage in Islamic State territory, and set about interviewing IS members. The things they said were almost word-for-word the kind of things some people on the extreme left, (such as die-hard SJW's, those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen, etc), have said on various topics.
Although I personally wouldn't call those groups good examples of extreme left, I'm curios what the similarities were.
Hmmm, yeah, I suppose those people are associated with the left, purely because feminism (generally) sits near equality (on the left), but opposition to the death penalty also tends to be on the left. I don't want to get into "no true scotsman" but if someone is an extreme misandrist promoting genocide then I'm not sure that has anything to do with the left-wing.
Selym wrote: Maybe we should add a "Free Speech" axis to the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes?
Perhaps:
1 - I hate free speech
2 - I want great restrictions on free speech
3 - I want some restrictions on free speech
4 - I want minor restrictions on free speech
5 - I want no restrictions on free speech
The problem is that similar issues exist for just about every single issue. And there's also a problem with seperating a person's values from their perceptions. For instance, a person who works in porn might oppose any restriction to free speech, but he'd be more acutely aware of conservative efforts to ban or restrict his work, than he'd be aware of left wing groups efforts to ban racial hate.
Selym wrote: It is not necessary to identify an influential political party to investigate ideological wraparound. They are humans, probably, after all.
But the point is that you don't have that wraparound. There isn't a continuous scale from the moderate left to the "kill all men" lunatics, there's a continuous scale up to a point well short of that and then a handful of fringe nutcases screaming stupid stuff to an empty room (except when the right gives them an audience to "prove" how bad the left is). There's no equivalent to ISIS where you have a continuous scale from mainstream Muslims to oppressive Islamic theocracies to terrorist groups like ISIS, and the violent extremists are a relevant faction on the international scale.
cuda1179 wrote: For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.
You missed the point of either the cartoon or the Harrison Bergeron story. Vonnegut was playing, very whimsically, on the idea of equality that gave up on building up people to be equal, and instead had resorted to an idea of just dragging gifted people down until everyone was equal.
If the cartoon was to be at all similar to Vonnegut's story, instead of boxes it would show ditches that made sure everyone was equally unable to see the game.
Meh, I'm center right. I believe in maximizing personal liberties as much as possible while providing common sense social safety nets that are designed to get people on their feet, not create a dependency.
With increasing numbers of people being economically replaced with machines, I see no way forwards other than democratic fully automated luxury queer space communism. Private ownership of the means of production was progressive... back when the alternative was serfs and landlords. But our literacy level, and telecommunications infrastructure, and productive forces... they're such that the notion of moving on from capitalism will necessarily replicate the outcome of the Russian Civil War is simply laughable.
If someone's a workaholic genius enterpriser, fine, let them stand for election as administrator and project leader of the publicly owned factory and studio. But making those workplaces into their personal private property, that their children will inherit regardless of merit, and rewarding them with unimaginable riches when they figure out how to make destitute all the employees who created their wealth? You what? The 17th century called, it wants its institutions back.
ing Gingrich. That bastard is singlehandedly responsible for the degeneration of political discourse in the USA.
*censorship* 
