Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some of these questions are hilarious... ''Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.''

Maybe you are missing the point of abstract art?

My views on abortion and gay marriage pull me way farther left than I really am. Im probably a couple ticks south and right of say Obama. I'm sure as gak not left of Ed Milibund.

 AustonT wrote:
Can someone fix this as a picture for me?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=2.38&soc=-1.69.

Ahh thank you.

Some of those questions are pretty bad though. I'm probably a quite a bit closer to the Authoritarian line.

I'm still very left though.

Doesn't surprise me.

 WarOne wrote:
And here is one of EU governments:

Seriously, when every government in Europe ends up in the authoritarian right box, odds are there's more than a little bias in your survey.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Doesn't live in my heart. Not a fan of passive resistance. Only works if there's someone nearby willing to use real resistance on your behalf.

I don't know much about Gandhi I was just joking.

I heard he used to give enema's to young women.

Sounds kinda... messy.

Sebster - to be fair, in the grand scheme of how some belief structures are so far spread. It would only appear that so many Governments are close on the board. It is not a chart of the societies of each country, but of the Government.

The far far left of the chart and the far far bottom of the chart are ideas of things, but impractical, and hardly what one could count as a Government at that point.

I have yet to see or hear of a Government that works with no restrictions on spending on things, or no people running it, aka making laws.

If you take the upper right corner box there, and enlarge it, and segment it into quarters again, then you see the distance you are looking for.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Sebster - to be fair, in the grand scheme of how some belief structures are so far spread. It would only appear that so many Governments are close on the board. It is not a chart of the societies of each country, but of the Government.

Governments, being democratically elected, tend to the centre of politics in their country. There is perhaps a small, broad trend to more right wing, more authoritive government than you see from the average person, but it is very minor, and very broad (left wing governments come to power all the time that are slightly to the left of centre). Having every government up there in the corner is a sign that your political centre is very screwy, or that things are being skewed to make a political point.

The far far left of the chart and the far far bottom of the chart are ideas of things, but impractical, and hardly what one could count as a Government at that point.

The extreme far left of the graph, sure. But there are all manner of centre left policies that you can value and not just be a viable government, but actually a viable mainstream party.

If you take the upper right corner box there, and enlarge it, and segment it into quarters again, then you see the distance you are looking for.

Sure, but the point is that group should be very close to the centre of the graph.

I'm a libertarian socialist by ideology. Charts are evil.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a libertarian socialist by ideology. Charts are evil.

How does that work?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a libertarian socialist by ideology. Charts are evil.

How does that work?

Well, first you have to differentiate between Libertarians and libertarians.

In a nutshell I am a libertarian that doesn't think that corporations and businesses are "people" and should have the same rights as people.

Wikipedia is probably a good place to explain it a bit better (even though it is Wikipedia). I don't agree 100% with everything here, but it is a good summary of most of what I believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Doesn't really mean much to me to be honest, I've long since given up hope that politics will achieve anything meaningful, and eventually will be subordinate to large powerful mega-corporations. Think all those movies from the 80s like The Running Man, Fortress, Total Recall, etc and that's how I see us ending up

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Pacifism is a luxury paid for by warriors

A sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse. Ghandi's peaceful revolution would have had a very, very different outcome had he been resisting, say, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia.

So... what, wait? You're discrediting peaceful revolution because it wouldn't have worked elsewhere? But it did work there, and a damn sight fewer people died. With peaceful revolution you get leaders like Ghandi, with violent revolution you often end up with leaders like Pol Pot. Sure, OK, you can't win through peaceful revolution in all circumstances, but where it is possible, it's absolutely the correct course of action.

Seriously, do you think India would have been better off throwing off the British Empire by force?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a libertarian socialist by ideology. Charts are evil.

How does that work?

The Israeli left in the Knesset.

htj wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Pacifism is a luxury paid for by warriors

A sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse. Ghandi's peaceful revolution would have had a very, very different outcome had he been resisting, say, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia.

So... what, wait? You're discrediting peaceful revolution because it wouldn't have worked elsewhere? But it did work there, and a damn sight fewer people died. With peaceful revolution you get leaders like Ghandi, with violent revolution you often end up with leaders like Pol Pot. Sure, OK, you can't win through peaceful revolution in all circumstances, but where it is possible, it's absolutely the correct course of action.

Seriously, do you think India would have been better off throwing off the British Empire by force?

Here's the thing: when the schoolyard bully wants to fight you, dropping to the ground and going limp will not solve your problem. If that bully wants to hurt you, he will still do so even if you act like a fainting goat. Ghandi's method only succeeded because the British were unwilling to murder millions of Indians in the streets; likely fearing a global reprisal for such an evil action.

 azazel the cat wrote:

htj wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Pacifism is a luxury paid for by warriors

A sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse. Ghandi's peaceful revolution would have had a very, very different outcome had he been resisting, say, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia.

So... what, wait? You're discrediting peaceful revolution because it wouldn't have worked elsewhere? But it did work there, and a damn sight fewer people died. With peaceful revolution you get leaders like Ghandi, with violent revolution you often end up with leaders like Pol Pot. Sure, OK, you can't win through peaceful revolution in all circumstances, but where it is possible, it's absolutely the correct course of action.

Seriously, do you think India would have been better off throwing off the British Empire by force?

Here's the thing: when the schoolyard bully wants to fight you, dropping to the ground and going limp will not solve your problem. If that bully wants to hurt you, he will still do so even if you act like a fainting goat. Ghandi's method only succeeded because the British were unwilling to murder millions of Indians in the streets; likely fearing a global reprisal for such an evil action.

This is true.

Man, I was hoping to be more Authoritarian, but it just wasn't in me.

Sounds about right. I'm for gay rights and a woman's right to choose, but pretty conservative on other issues.

 azazel the cat wrote:

htj wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Pacifism is a luxury paid for by warriors

A sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse. Ghandi's peaceful revolution would have had a very, very different outcome had he been resisting, say, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia.

So... what, wait? You're discrediting peaceful revolution because it wouldn't have worked elsewhere? But it did work there, and a damn sight fewer people died. With peaceful revolution you get leaders like Ghandi, with violent revolution you often end up with leaders like Pol Pot. Sure, OK, you can't win through peaceful revolution in all circumstances, but where it is possible, it's absolutely the correct course of action.

Seriously, do you think India would have been better off throwing off the British Empire by force?

Here's the thing: when the schoolyard bully wants to fight you, dropping to the ground and going limp will not solve your problem. If that bully wants to hurt you, he will still do so even if you act like a fainting goat.

That's why Ender>Ghandi. When the schoolyard bully wants to fight you beat him to death.

Also, I hear they ration healthcare in Canada.

On topic, I wonder where Ender and Peter Wiggins land on the compass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:


Man, I was hoping to be more Authoritarian, but it just wasn't in me.

Don't worry bro; I got your back.

I wish I was a fascist... or interesting.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I wish I was a fascist... or interesting.

If it's any consolation to you, you have so far come the closest in the thread to aligning with Stalin...

(still a ways off, though)

 azazel the cat wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I wish I was a fascist... or interesting.

If it's any consolation to you, you have so far come the closest in the thread to aligning with Stalin...

(still a ways off, though)

You literally made me laugh out loud.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Here's the thing: when the schoolyard bully wants to fight you, dropping to the ground and going limp will not solve your problem. If that bully wants to hurt you, he will still do so even if you act like a fainting goat. Ghandi's method only succeeded because the British were unwilling to murder millions of Indians in the streets; likely fearing a global reprisal for such an evil action.

But that's the point... it did work because the British weren't willing to murder millions of Indians in the street. And it wasn't because they feared global reprisal, but because the British Empire was led by functioning human beings who justified their control of India as being good for India as well as for Britain, and would no longer be able to think that if the only way they kept control was by murdering millions of Indians.

Now, that doesn't mean pacificism is the right choice for every problem. Passive resistance against Hitler would get you worked to death in a concentration camp, but Hitler remains the absolute outlier. In almost every case, where you have a government dependant on legitimacy for its power, and headed by people with basic moral standards, then pacifist response is a great way to make your protest.


And just one thing on Ghandi - people have this idea that he was a pacificist because he thought it was the best way to achieve change, and therefore if they can prove it was wrong, then Ghandi must be wrong. But Ghandi was first and foremost a spiritual man, and was committed to pacificism as a spiritual, personal idea. If it didn't deliver the goals he wanted, and no-one followed him, and India remained firmly under British rule when he died, well then so be it, but he wouldn't corrupt himself with the impurity of violence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
That's why Ender>Ghandi. When the schoolyard bully wants to fight you beat him to death.

Well, Ghandi was the primary figure in the peaceful independance of India and the creation of the world's biggest democracy, while Ender is a fictional in a novel loved by disaffected nerdy tweens... so I think we're gonna have to give it to Ghandi there.

I'm pretty sure passive resistance would have been rather useless against Stalin, Pol Pot or even Saddam Hussein.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm pretty sure passive resistance would have been rather useless against Stalin, Pol Pot or even Saddam Hussein.

Or the Revolutionary government in Tehran, or the current Chinese gov't (just ask the Tibetans), Chairman Mao himself, the Syrians would have been shot before they even sat down for a hunger strike. To jump back in time for a slightly less tryannical example, King George the III didn't give a gak till the Colonists started sinking British warships and burning forts. The list goes on through out human history, the type of people who by and large need to be resisted really don't care if you're resisting or not. They'll be putting a jack boot heel in your face regardless if you're not willing to fight.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm pretty sure passive resistance would have been rather useless against Stalin, Pol Pot or even Saddam Hussein.

Congratulations on agreeing with me. The point is that noting that paintbrushes are pretty useless at wood carving doesn't mean paintbrushes are useless.

That some governments have existed against whom pacificism wouldn't have worked does not mean it is to be disregarded.

You jumped the gun a bit, seb.

"Hitler is an extreme outlier" or something. That's what I was disagreeing with. Passive resistance has its place, sure, but it is not as widely as you stated earlier.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Or the Revolutionary government in Tehran,

Reads... thinks about Iranian election protests... thinks about the illegitimacy the Iranian government is still struggling to overcome in Tehran...

What are you talking about?

The list goes on through out human history, the type of people who by and large need to be resisted really don't care if you're resisting or not.

Except of course that isn't true. The Velvet Revolution. The world's largest democracy came about because of a peaceful resistance. The collapse of East Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You jumped the gun a bit, seb.

"Hitler is an extreme outlier" or something. That's what I was disagreeing with. Passive resistance has its place, sure, but it is not as widely as you stated earlier.

But you listed the other extreme outliers. Which doesn't mean anything.

Point is that most governments are not actually willing to kill or even arrest people to supress political speach, and the governments of Hitler and Stalin are not famous because they are ordinary, but because they were outliers.