Politics

Are any of you interested in politics at all? Do your compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It has been proposed and discussed befire.

These charts are retarded and that particular test is so fuarrrking biased for left-libertarian that it's not even fuarrrking funny >If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. Geez I wonder

Here's mine.

Does anyone have a better test?

I think there's more than 2 spectrums to rate people based on. For instance >should the government have more or less control over society? >should society have more or less conservative values? >how should the government make economic regulations? (focus on business, consumer, or labor interests) >how should society organize itself structurally? what about the government? I think it's better to hear people's actual arguments than make some points on a graph. These can be a little useful for finding the big picture, however. >>9457 I won't make the claim that any are "better" but you can find several with a quick search for instance here's the same chart with more words and other charts attached to it http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html >>9454 we have some different users now

>lainchan is left-leaning and completely against government authority rule Shocker

IIRC my score is near Adolf Hitler Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>9461 But being on the leftist side on the economic line would mean stronger government control of the economy. Right?

hey thanks for the info, this is useful for my spambot

>>9464 sorta? while there is a tendency towards socialism it doesn't necessarily have to be state socialism. There could be a commons managed by the community or there could be an economy regulated by organized labor.

>>9464 Not really, it's more about your attitude towards private property (rent, wages, etc., not to be confused with personal property).

>>9464 Union control on the economy combined with governmental restrictions that prevent monopolies from forming.

So we're all left-wing libertarians here.

>>9479 we've had one or two ancaps and national socialists in the past maybe one of them will show up?

Pretty much sure I'm authoritarian, whether left or right—of course right, I cannot be wrong—I cannot be fuarrrked to care. As has been pointed out, the test sorta sucks.

looks like I'm a well-rounded guy. The questions were a bit simple and i wanted to write an explanation for each answer. We should probably post our actual answers and discuss those.

I didn't know I was that open minded.

>>9498 what do you guys think of the statement, >Immigration restrictions are economically protectionist. Non-citizens should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay. I saw it on one of the tests and it looks like 2 questions rolled into one.

Guess we all are kinda the same

>>9498 >kalyx doesn't use adblock, adblock+, adblock edge, or even ublock Breaking News: Cyberpunk Mogul in bed with Big Business Would you mind stating and explaining your answers to a few of these? Tread carefully, internet political threads are practically minefields. >Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. >There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. >It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. >Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. >The freer the market, the freer the people. >All authority should be questioned. >Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. >In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. >Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

I guess that my strong conservative leanings counteract with some of my thoughts on the military and surveillance.

Yet another left-leaning anti-authoritarian reporting in.

>>9518 >Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. I couldn´t really answer that question completely in the test and was torn between wether it´s right or wrong. I think if international laws would be treated lightly and cast aside every few month for "important military actions" they´d become obsolete, which is not right. On the other hand there are just sometimes conflicts that you cant contain by the use of arms and still stay inside international laws. I think it´s not right … Yes. Those laws tend to be for the protection of the civilians so every action took outside of the frame given by the laws endangers the lifes of innocent bystanders. >There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. I think it´s okay to "spice up" news a bit as long as it sticks to the truth. Right now that is given (at least where i live). Right now - no it´s not worrying. >It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. It is. We can´t feel the impact of that in the societys we live in but in countries like Africa it´s a mayor problem and a madness. >Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Yep. It´s hard to be informed about everything on a market thats as wide as it is today. Misleading businesses should get panalties for deceitment. Of course you need to be carefull that the the businesses doesn´t get sued after one Tv-Spot. The system should only give out penalties after close "researches". >The freer the market, the freer the people. The freer the market the higher the chance that people will get left behind. A market needs regulation for the sake of the people that don´t have the chance to participate at a normal scale in it. >All authority should be questioned. Of course - the authority can evolve and be controlled by that. Did anyone answer "no" to that question? >body to long.

>>9523 Here we go again: >Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. Well - they are. But still we benefit from it, which shouldn´t mean that the use of the data gathered by survailance shouldn´t be under 24/7 overwatch by [state bureau or social groups?] >In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. "Obeyed […] commanded" Thats question is already asked in a way that would lead many people to blindly click "no" huh? There must be a kind of structure of majors and minors for the society to work properly. Just because there are people that know more or got better abilities to do this or that job. I think it´s important that those with the better eligibility are set higher then those with the worst - it just keeps the structure stable and gives help for the minors. >Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. Not sure If I got the question correctly but I´ll try anyways: It´s okay to believe in a promotion into higher classes of society. I don´t think it´s quite mature to think, you´d have to stay at the same "social place" for your whole life. Did I get it right?

>>9498 um, Kalyx. why dont you have ublock installed? >>9524 >we benefit from it. Sadly their is absolutely no proof of this. Their has been no terrorist plot thwarted because of NSA data collection. The kind of things Stingrays and all this bs are used for have mainly been drug cases.

This test is complete bullsoykaf. Not only you can't stay neutral on some question, but also it calculated me out of chart and at the opposite of my political beliefs… >tfw now I'm certainly registered as communist by the NSA.

They should make a politics board here. All the /pol/s elsewhere are right-wing nazi-infested soykaf-holes. Well except /leftypol/

>>9534 Ours wouldn't be much better. It might start off with a few good-intentioned debate threads but it'd only be a matter of time for it to devolve into one extreme or the other, either militant SJWs or far-right nutjobs. I think it'll be fine as long as we can keep the pure politics discussion in one or two threads. I personally believe that Lainchan is better off being as secular and apolitical as humanly possible.

>>9535 It's the only kind of philosophy people will actively engage in though. And even then, They usually assume a cookie-cutter or ad hoc stance.

>>9535 we had a politics and society board at some point (/so/) and only a few people liked it, though it did get lots of activity. The people who did like it saw it as not just another politics board but one for discussing society in general, like if you wanted to talk about architecture or cities you could go to /so/ and there was a thread about it. The people who didn't like it got put off by someone else's opinion (also known as the most common opinion demonstrated in this thread) or didn't think imageboards were a good place to talk about politics anyway. Some people think we should bring back /so/ but make it hidden. I'm curious as to how that would work out. I think the way we have it now is alright: keep that conversation contained to a few threads, so it doesn't matter who you are, you can still enjoy lainchan. That said I do enjoy the political discussions we have, and it's not like we should censor it when it appears, especially since cyberpunk is already very political.

>>9547 >try lainchan.org/so/ >404 Man, that 404 page is beautiful, congrats to whoever did it. This said, is there any hidden board except /l/ ?

>>9549 /cl/ and /test/. And some more . Can't remember.

>>9532 Hahaha! You are off the charts! GUYS, THIS DEFINITELY PORTRAYS A RADICAL IN Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA! —– Everyone should remain calm, and immediately call their local NSA agent to come calm them down.

>>In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be >commanded. >"Obeyed […] commanded" There are plenty of non-hierarchical organisations which show this isn't always needed; it can certainly be useful sometimes though. I think it's important that hierarchies only operate with the informed consent of those at the bottom, and that they can leave if they retract their consent. A hierarchy without consent (or any system you can't opt out of) is tyranny.

>>9532 so you're a nazi AND the test is broken? that's not really funny

>>9560 Well, to resume my beliefs, I think we should nationalize or strongly control the corporations providing existential services (electricity, communications etc…) while installing a basic income+TVA based state income to stop the unemployment issue. This to ensure equal liberties to every one (remember that equality brings liberty, not the opposite). I'm also for the diminution of the population, by stopping immigration and/or controlling births. I'm not against immigrants because muh race superiority bullsoykaf, I'm against immigrants because they keep us from being less numerous, which will be an issue in the long term. And to reach such goals I think we need a new, authoritarian system to reach such ideas, because the current democratic system are beyond the no return point. It's impossible to save it, the "tabula rasa" strategy is the only one who can probably work in a reasonable amount of time and energy. I'm curious to know why I'm out of the chart on the left/right axis since despite wanting to control closely the biggest corporation I'm still for private ownership (especially regarding your home, you should own it, not rent it) and the liberty of starting a business (no regulation if it's not essential to the community, if it's an essential service don't be disappointed to not be able to compete with state provided/controlled services), and so far from the authoritarian top end.

>>9561 well, owning your own home isn't technically a matter of private ownership, it's a matter of personal property - that might be why the test pushed you towards the lower left. I feel like the test is more likely measuring how you respond to the questions than what your actual political lean is - I do not recall any questions about what one can do with a business, so that might factor in as well. The test is probably not good for measuring extremes I think.

>>9561 What do you consider the problem with overpopulation? Couldn't you say that the bigger problems are with excess by the wealthiest nations in waste production than a matter of population density?

>>9566 overpopulation is a fictional problem.the real problem is wealth distribution. scientist estimate the earth could support up to 50 billion humans if we had optimal wealth distribution.

>>9560 …I guess you could say that you did nazi that coming in Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA! Sage for offtopic

>>9565 Indeed the fact that I'm not English native can be one reason of why my test failed so much. >>9566 Immagine that tomorrow there's only 1/10 of Earth population. Eventually we'll only consume 1/10 of the resources we're consuming nowadays. That's more than enough to let the Wild regenerate itself. I've noticed from my travellings that the places with few population density were always the places with the best quality of life. I'm not talking about high GDP or salaries, I'm talking about how friendly people were, how they enjoyed their life without stress etc… Europe is by far overpopulated regarding this. You can't do a few kilometers without meeting a dozen of houses, and this on the least populated zones… I strongly believe that to improve our quality of life we have to decrease our population. The last point is food production. If human continue to reproduce at actual rate we'll need more food, and because of the increasing urbanisation due to the newborn we'll have less place to produce food. This will eventually lead to a lack of food, which can only lead to some war (civil, religious, regular war, I don't know, but we'll kill each other until we have enough food for each). Sadly the only ethical way is birth control. If you offer me a kill switch to kill 9/10 people on this planet, even if it let me choose who'll survive I wouldn't do it. >>9581 The issue about money isn't that it's badly distributed, is that we based all our system on it. If we find a way to manage the basic needs without using money (universal food supply and universal housing mainly), well who care if you're rich or poor ? You can live with dignity in both case. The basic income concept can solve this equation, but it will take time to install it properly. Something to change is how money is perceived by the peoples. When it was created, money was just a tool to ease trade and accountability (that was a few millennium ago). Nowadays, thanks to capitalism, it became a goal. People want money because they want to have more than their neighbor, forgetting his prime function of helping exchanging your work time for food. In the end we'll all die, and we can't bring our cash with us wherever we're going after death. There's no point in accumulating wealth, and that mentality need to be changed. Once this change is done, wealth distribution will stop to matter.

soykaf I broke the scale… But unlike the other guy I think mine is correct. So apparently I am in anarchist nirvana…

Do you have a place where you like to discuss politics? I like /leftypol/!

>>9582 That sounds like a pretty left-libertarian attitude to me…

ay

FUARRRKKK!!!! The test told me I have multi-personality disorder and should consult a medical professional. ;_;

soykaf, I don't even know if I'm on the surface of this thing

>>9523 > Did anyone answer "no" to that question? I did. I do some 'policing' (if it can be called that) work and I hate buggers poking me with questions. Mostly because they ask stupid questions, just for the sake of asking it. >>9524 Methinks the last one is about 'thinking against the Government is the thing teens do'. Sounds like bullsoykaf to me. >>9599 >>9600 kek

>>9645 you think everyone would say no to the last one, but I've met someone who told me their recent attention to politics was just a phase teens went through Can you think of anything more self defeating and submissive?

>>9645 Finally someone answered - been writing alot of stuff ;_; Yeah it may be annoying for you and seem stupid but since it's politics you have to answer those questions. Intergrating the people is important. Yeah that question seemed quite dumb - youre right.

>>9595 >>9599 >>9600 >>9653 Go on.

>>9654 If you wish

>>9653 i love you <3

Non-SJW lefty here (have to clarify that nowadays). Specifically anarcho-syndicalist, although as someone who likes cyberpunk anarcho-transhumanists are fine in my book too.

>>9464 No, not at all. Left is socially owned means of production. The government is up, while down the chart there's no government. So down left would be socially owned production without government. Basically, workers have control over the workplace, instead of a select few like a government (up) or the factory owner (right).

>>9666 >or the factory owner (right) If I have a factory and people voluntarily want to work for me (even though they will make less than I will), why can't they? The only way to prevent that would be to dissolve the factory altogether by force, which can only be done with a government. I never understood left liberals, doesn't seem to make sense to me.

>>9670 Why would they want to work for you and earn less than you, if there are soccially owned factories?

>>9671 Oh, I see. I don't know if that would work, but at least I get the idea.

>>9647 > you think everyone would say no to the last one I've never stated that. > Can you think of anything more self defeating and submissive? Aye: 'I have got nothing to hide, let them watch.' >>9649 It's not exactly politics—wouldn't even dare to step into that mire. But yes, I have to answer those questions. I tend to ask those half-seriously when the situation allows such a response. Smarter people usually get the message, dumber ones think I'm an idiot; in both cases the outcome is satisfying enough.

>>9674 > I tend to ask those half-seriously Answer, not ask.

>>9674 oh, it was just a figure of speech, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. if you ask me the political position that tries to be the most 'aware' is also the most disappointing and unproductive >I only dislike the government because it's a phase teens go through >I understand that <liberal value> is important but so is <conservative value> >I will continue supporting the status quo, even though it has problems, because I have taken into account all criticism and can only conclude we are living in the best of all possible worlds

>>9679 >>9498 >kalyx is close to being a normie, a teenager, or an autist. However, what category do you fall into, pray tell?

>>9679 Welp, I'm an autist

>>9679 >any political orientation occording to that graph is soykaf. Thanks.

>>9676 >we are living in the best of all possible worlds Sweet Candide.

>>9697 >2015 >politics Take the NEET pill.

>>9682 >However, what category do you fall into, pray tell? >>9709

>>9679 So does this make me a teenager or an autist?

>>9711 Teen autist

after looking at a bunch of tests, I've decided there's no effective way to neatly map everyone's political belief but they can be sometimes useful so what do you think is wrong with this particular test? if you ask me it doesn't accurately measure social values (such as what you think of minorities, etc) because it only measures role of business and government in your political ideology >>9550 there's also a secret board

>>9713 >it only measures role of business and government Because politics are made of economic and political systems. Social values only stem from these and basing your ideology on social values instead is harmful; just look at American "politics". >>9709 Politics affect all of us. If you intentionally don't care for politics you're being an useful idiot willfully and everyone's future is harmed. I'm not telling you to go join a movement right now or talk all day about it, but having a healthy interest is good for you and everyone.

>>9716 >model doesn't account for some behavior >w-well clearly people shouldn't have that behavior! I don't care what you think is harmful, political science is not a prescriptive discipline. also >>9709 was soykaf drinking

>>9709 You NEETs are just as affected by politics as everyone else.

>>9716 >If you intentionally don't care for politics you're being an useful idiot willfully If you care for politics you're just a useful idiot for your side. >>9721 Nothing but my doritos affect me in my basement.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/music >all that bias

>>9723 find for me a political metric that is presented without some kind of bias and we'll talk

>>9724 jus do ur own lol xd

Trying to get this thread back in its rails.

>all these far left anarchists This test is bullsoykaf to begin with.

>>9799 Are you new? Theres a lot of left anarchists in lainchan.

>>9799 i'm an european social democrat but that graph still places me on the bottom left anarchist corner the graph just sucks, don't interpret too much from it

I'd say that the main problem with it is the fact that there are multiple reasonings that could turn in the same answers for many of the questions. I am actually a somewhat far left, extremely liberal person. I do think that it is fine for someone to be an extreme ass and get a bunch of money by fuarrrking everyone else, but that's a complicated matter.

>>9809 >I do think that it is fine for someone to be an extreme ass and get a bunch of money by fuarrrking everyone else, but that's a complicated matter. that is actually an interesting opinion. would you care to elaborate on it, it might spawn a discussion?

Pretty much what I expected. >>9808 I feel you. What's considered to be the rightmost party in my country's parliament is actually far more left than anything Obama has to offer. Republicans would be in the graph close to Nazis.

>>9811 forgot pic, ofc

>>9713 I laffed.

>>9810 >would you care to elaborate on it, it might spawn a discussion? It's actually somewhat simple if we get down to the basics of it. I am fine with doing whatever is necessary to achieve whatever goals I might have. However, I do recognize the fact that the things I do can be morally questionable at best and downright detestable at worst. I do not promote behaviour like that, though, and I would prefer a world in which I could achieve my goals in a fair manner. When we're being honest, most people follow to fiarly similar philosophies, it's somewhat close to being neutral in the way that the "bad" things cancel the "good" things out.

Huh, I was tested as a lot more centrist last time I checked. Maybe it's because then I was taking the test at OkCupid/HelloQuizzy. I'm fine with a lot of different governments existing but prefer allowing a degree of spontaneity. On property rights, in many industries I see it as more of a cultural issue than a legal one: People don't share ownership because they don't like shared responsibility, as it's more complex than having one person to assign blame and credit. "You're either in charge or not." is very simple, representations of collective decisions are more involving.

Here you go NSA. << Seems about right. There should have been more explanation for some questions. >>9599 Kek

>>9807 >yet people defend politics Disgusting.How can you say "muh politics nygga" when you're all "dude just smoke weed lol 420 xd"?(BEHAVE)

>>9882 Please go soykafpost elsewhere.

Pretty sure a better compass would look something like this After all, if you're super anti-authority, you become more and more individualistic, until you hit anarchy, at which point left and right become meaningless distinctions.

>>9799 cant barrage the farage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZQ7hFbi234

>>9679 >tfw autist

>>9970 did you jsut throw me in the same bin as people who think they should be able to do anything but hate foreigners, AKA rednecks? fuarrrk you man anarchy is off the fuarrrking chart just as communists and nazis so no, abnsolutely fuarrrking not YES, if you're so extreme that you WOULD leave the chart in the hypothetical case that the test WOULD still work for that, which it DOESNT, THEN it sort of stops to matter WHERE you leave it

>>9977 it's a spectrum anon, it's supposed to represent the whole thing. commies, nazis, they're all on there. the difference between you and the rednecks is just smaller than the difference between commies and nazis in terms of economic policy.

>>9970 Well, they become meaningless in the sense that there's no distinction to the system, since there's actually no system. But there's still a difference in ideology, which is the way a person thinks, and that difference affects the way he thinks people should act under an anarchist society, and that difference will affect the kind of community he'll most likely belong to.

>>9888 no

>>9679 fug

>>9970 >>9980 Anarchists still have systems, just not hierarchical but down-up and fully democratic instead, there are several, for example federations + syndicates. As far as I know they don't distinguish between collectivism and individualism, but they still disagree between left or right economically.

>>9799 Hi friend.

Oh wow, I knew I was conservative but that much to lft was surprise.

(I'm actually reactionary because there is nothing more idiotic than conservative which basically means resisting all change and then when changes do pass (they always do at some point) grit teeth for a year or so and then end up defending those changes you resisted after they become perceived tradition ten years later (still find it hard to write "reactionary" and default to "conservative") (but that is what I am))

>>10209 I don't think thats really conservative. It seems more like extreme.

>>10211 That's what I wrote, it's not conservatism and conservtism is stupid. Besides, it's no more extremist than anarchism. Just politically opposite.

>>10213 No i don't think you should try to change the meaning of conservative to fit that extreme behavior.

>>10214 That's what I'm saying you illiterate moron. REACTIONARY != CONSERVATIVE I'm not changing any meanings here.

>>10215 ok wow sorry i get it now.

In my experience with this test it seems impossible for actual "authoritarian" leftists to score in the top left hand area, probably because most Leninist and derivatives aren't actually authoritarian at all.

>>10274 And the first pic comes from...?

I'm an anarchist with a few anti-civilization tendencies. Don't really care to retake that quiz.

>>10276 Thats an old pic from another test that doesn't work anylonger. It used to be one of the better tests on this stuff imo. A shame its not up any more. http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php This was what it used to be on, but its just a 'Not Found' page now.

I can't for the life of me get into the red where I should be, this test is a bit soykaf. edgy teenager (leninist)

>>10291 if you cant force your political views to change to what they really are maybe you should change your political views?

>>10284 Not sure why anyone would believe anarchy would make anything better.

>>10301 Are you actually familiar with anarchism as a political philosophy or are you just soykaf drinking?

>>10302 Enlighten me.

>>10304 It's actually pretty nuanced. I'm a bit short on time so I'll give you a couple of good resources. They can be a bit dense so I'd recommend checking the index for the parts you are most curious about. It's nothing like people usually think. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works.pdf

>>10301 Weeb response for your weeb image. Anyway as >>10307 said it's a huge set of well thought out theories and philosophies, very different from what the mainstream wants to make you think. In times of monarchy, people had the same misconceptions about democracy that people have today about anarchism. It's basically denying a centralized power and pushing for a more democratic and decentralized economic system and societal structure. There are several ramifications as to how to achieve this.

>>10301 GDYNIA ANTINATALISM ANARCHOCAPITALISM this is the only way for country

Ok. this is what i think./ Freshly designed. Enjoy.

>>10858 (i forgot to mention: click it its animated gif custom)

>>10859 kek'd. it sums up this thread more or less nicely. does anyone have any other, less soykaf tests we can give a go maybe?

>>10860 Why don't we invent our own? It's just a projection based on a multi-parameter input, a kind of dimensionality reduction.

>>10861 because i assume there is difficulties due to the nature of human psyche and society. i could come up with an equally soykaf test, yes, but that's not quite it, right? it's an interesting idea though. maybe someone could try it nonetheless

What if I told you you didn't have to have political beliefs at all?

>>10891 Sure, but why wouldn't you want to? It's just a category of certain ideas. People tend to have opinions regarding ideas.

We are all pretty much the same here.

I hit the Lainchan standard target apparently. Some of the questions were totally loaded though. There are some questions I would disagree with because I could think of a third solution when the question presents it as having only 2 solutions.

>>10910 >Some of the questions were totally loaded though. Completely agreed, but I guess this is the best way of measuring it for masses. I am >>9809 and it wasn't exactly accurate for me. Does anyone know a better political compass or other tests we could compare?

The test is soykaf.

Huh, interesting.

>>10911 >Does anyone know a better political compass or other tests we could compare? I don't know if it's better but it is more detailed http://www.politicaltest.net/

>>10928 It is actually a bigot detesting test. Or a Voight-Kampff, not sure.

Meh. Im not that interesting.

desu

All the left libertarians is this thread makes me cozy. >>10857 Gambate ayncap-kun! You've realized that the state is an oppressive construct - now you just need to stop putting so much fate into a economic system designed to favour a wealthy elite through authoritarian control over land and indenture (state or no state).

This test is fuarrrking bullshit.

>>9484 Ancap reporting in. Just so everyone is aware, this test is almost guaranteed to come out on the Libertarian side of the spectrum, and the left-right questions tend to require a statist paradigm to even make sense. To contrast my score on this test, I tend to test out at max on Bryan Caplan's Libertarian "Purity" test. http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

This is a little unexpected, I never used to get this when I took this test a couple years ago, I guess I've changed.

Now what?

>>12863 You could be a computer that I'm replying to that is learning and wants to know to know what to deal with.

>>12863 you are me, wanna fuarrrk just kidding

>>12863 now you weighed in on the green square. green square for president!

Seems about correct.

Post yfw lainchan is full of pretentious leftists who think they're never wrong and are only on lainchan because they were triggered by the politically incorrect views of the major chans

>>13113 Lefties aren't necessarily any more offended by 'politically incorrect' views than right wingers. I know the stereotype of a neo-leftist is the pot smoking community college-goer, but the majority of people (leftists included) here are extremely averse to identity politics as a whole.

I guess it's correct, but it's too obvious whoever made this leans to the left.

>>12816 Interesting test, I got 93.

I'm different! I think it should be lower, but I agree with the left/right position >>9970 Actually, it would be better to be a placement on the outside of a circle, where authoritarian is on one end, and anarchy is on the other end, where complete one side is not distinguishable left/right, but going to the left/right does little change to up/down position. But ultimately, you can't put it on a chart. Since there are so many issues that are unique to each political stance, you'd need at least a 3 dimensional graph, probably more than that. Even then, I wouldn't know what the labels of the axis would be.

>>13115 I'm sure you wish that was true, anon. **The only way you can NOT be offended by it is if it's in a joking way, which is how all leftists say they support free speech and "politiical incorrectness" because it's LOL so funnay xddd #cards against humanity**

Lefties are weird.

>>13147 Are you the other ancap on this site, or is that a fluke?

>>12816 Another ancap here. Interesting times. Yes, a lot of left-libertarians here. I also found this quiz annoying because of the statist lens--a premise slipped in many of the questions.

>>13256 >which is how all leftists say they support free speech and "politiical incorrectness" No its because they believe in freedom of speech. They are trying to make the point that even though they believe in freedom of speech it is not a infringement on your freedom of speech to say your view points are retarded and laughable. Which is what some idiots seem to think freedom of speech is now, freedom from social judgement on the stupid soykaf they say, that is not freedom of speech, that is basically a tumblrette that instead of listing their genders and crying when someone calls them whatever, they say some retard soykaf and cry when someone says their soykaf is retarded and screams "FREEDOM OF SPEECH".

>>13256 no, it is true but it seems your view on leftist people has already been formed by the bullsoykaf from right wingers. also >>13611 this

>>13259 hella saved >>13604 lower left here interesting you saw a statist bias to the questions, most seem to think there's a left-libertarian bias >>13611 I totally get the freedom of speech stance but aren't you being a bit reductionist?

>>13627 Considering what I responded to no.

It put me all the way to the right but almost in the middle of the authoritarian/libertarian line. Funny, since I'm an ancap with just pretty conservative social views.

>>9679 Certified Autist here. I request a strong justification for your divisions though admit that since my last time taking this test, I have moved slightly towards your autism region, and reentered the chart. . .)

>>13604 A lot of ancaps might consider me pretty left, because of feminism and a predicted failure of large, heavily hierarchical corporations in the absence of a state. I see a lot of value in developing communities that can leverage trade with nearby partners, and the idea of a city all owned by one corporation always left a bad taste in my mouth. Seemed far more likely for such an organization to develop co-op style, or maybe with multiple co-op partnerships, with high-density apartments being held by resident-shareholders. Something like that seems like a more resilient and fair system, and probably more flexible than any owned-city, which I think would suffer from the same problems that central-planning already does with a state. This apparently makes me really left-wing, as far as some of the ancaps on reddit are concerned. >>13638 Did you try the Libertarian Purity Test I posted? >>12816

>>12816 I got 24, mostly thanks to the military questions.

Hey guise I reckon there's no benefit to this ideological dick measuring and there are problems with it. Please be a bro, don't fuarrrk yourself and the lainchanners, if you wish to discuss politics talk action, talk reason. There's no point in talking ideologies, that leads nowhere. =========== COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum.. ============ Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION' https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

>>13755 here you go its a bit more modern and relevant. Article: http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/censorship-shadowy-forces-controlling-online-conversations Actual paper http://thinkst.com/stuff/hitb2014/Thinkst_2014_SockPuppets.pdf

>>13755 fucking hell thanks for this it's like I've forgotten what politics is even about

Older one, I'm closer to the center than I might actually be. Basically consider myself a Libertarian Socialist.

This is a goofy quiz. It mostly asks about your stance on specific issues rather than the big picture.

normalfag here

Another green checks out.

>>9561 Immigration is not keeping the world from being less numerous. As soon as an imigrant meets a developed country, the cost of life increases tenfold. Even if they have more children than people in this country, they certainly have less children than they would have in their native country. My only argument agains authoritarian systems is that they never worked, and that the figure of a complete dictator is really difficult, as it always have some kind of party behind it that it has to please.

Feels good

I don't like political labels but I'd say I tend to agree more with conservative views.

I consider myself to be economically communist but socially a conservative. I usually just call myself a communist but people irl call me a Nazi. If I new more about there ideology I'd say I'm either a Strasserist or a National Bolshevik, but I've never read into them. And yeah, there was a clear bias in the questions. I'll make a follow-up post to make it clearer who we're dealing with here, but in general I see a liberal bias (liberal in the modern sense, i.e. leftist libertarian types).

so notice that there are no desirables in this picture here except Ghandi, who they lable leftist and libertarian. Hitler, Thatcher, Friedman, Stalin and Ghandi. Who's the odd one out here? They're essentially painting a worldview where only leftist libertarians can be good guys admired worldwide. The reality is that plenty of admirable historical figures have been from all corners of this chart. Another follow-up one sec

This picture here is just horse soykaf .

>>16321 The Greens as right wing lol, they're the most left wing Canadian party. NDP as centerists,kek.

Honestly I expected to be even further down and closer to the middle.

>>17581 Well, you expectations were wrong, lain. Get over it.

I am surprised I didn't get further into the neoliberal sector... anyway, here is mine!

I feel like I should be further to the right here. >>9479 Behold! >>9523 I did. Legitimate authority shouldn't be questioned, but of course there can be exceptions (like if that authority suddenly flipped their opinion, or something incriminating about that authority came about which calls its legitimacy into question, etc).

I'm interested, but I know any opinion I share with friends will be immediately shot down. They are blinded by the media they consume

My compass points true.

used to like this test and was right authoritarian, i hate this test now and am over here. some of these questions dont even imply anything about me. >If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. trans-national corporations are part of humanity so dont even know how to answer >A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. answering this doesnt even imply anything about myself. yes thats a good idea but i put disagree because no thats not what a genuine free market requires. >A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. yes thats a fact, the advantage of a one part system is that there would naturally be less arguments. that doesnt mean i want a one party system that just means im acknowledging the truth. it also has lots of negatives. as for the rest some are questions that are so close to being facts practically that i can only imagine they are being used to skew my results. others are too focused on "good and bad" or "importance". the worker and business person are more important than the writer and artist in regards to what? society? wealth? production? culture?

>>17672 I've taken a million iterations of these tests and gotten everything from liberal with a few marks towards libertarian to authoritarian left and centrist libertarian, as well as "pragmatic" whatever tf that means from some british test these things are all bull soykaf and you can either take as many as possible to get an understanding of how categorization works, or you can say fuarrrk the tests entirely and read some actual political theory / philosophy. I'm just waiting for someone to make a meta-compass with each political alignment actually being their preference in biased political tests.

>>17695 oh yeah on the one you posted I'm nearly an anarchist

adding to the chart pile.

I guess I'm more extreme than I thought?

Anti-utopian socialist checking in.

meaningless test since two people can be in roughly on the same spot but hold strong and contradictory positions on many things

>>17842 >anti-utopian What does that mean?

>>9532 >so conservative you triggered a buffer overflow

>>13756 Interesting. How can we turn that against them?

>all these left-leaning people

It seems I stick out a bit here.

>>17884 >>17885 All these edges

>>17879 By bringing attention to it

Taking this test mildly inebriated so probably more honest than most of you 8) Jesus Christ I'm so close to the centre it almost makes me sick

>>17903 I find your lack of edge disturbing.

hmm...

since this is an imageboard with a strong stance on individual freedom, it's pretty normal to have these many results like mine here.

>>18199 I have never seen any collection of these graphs show anything but majority greensquares. One could argue that internet users are generally more pro-liberty but I think it's more likely the test is soykaf .

>>18201 it would be really interesting to see test results for this by old people from texas or something. internet users being pro-liberty could be true but i don't think sites like facebook would have the same results.

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." This question annoys me. It IS an advantage of a one party system, but not necessarily a good thing. So I agree that it's an advantage, but I disagree that it's an inherently good thing.

>>18205 Man, it's almost like this test is biased garbage, and people need to stop using it. But that can't be possible, even though people have been saying so for years.

>>17897 What exactly makes it edgy? Im from germany and leftists are literally ruining this country, especially over the last few months. Im not against left ideology as a whole though and actually I would consider myself more in the middle, which is why my result came a bit as a suprise.

>>18233 To some people, anything authoritarian and right wing (reactionaries in general) as complete bigots. I mean, it doesn't help that you can't see the answers they put down, but they could've had plenty of reasons for answering them. I think it's lame to say that they are just being edge lords.

It makes me really happy to see a lot of other left libertarians on this board but I feel like I see a lot of reactionary views here sometimes. That thread about refugees on /cyb/ made me kinda disappointed. Whatever. Maybe I'm just a crazy SJW. Shit, I even identify as a feminist (I see the concept of privilege as a large critique of the capitalist system). But am I alone on this? How can there be so many so called anarchists on this board but still a lot of reactionary discussions?

>>18307 I'm an authoritarian. >(I see the concept of privilege as a large critique of the capitalist system) This sounds neurotic.

>>18307 Although Lainchan is dominantly leftist, it is not 100% as such. What happened in Paris was a major shock to all of western civilisation and it is the current event about what people want to talk about. p.s. leftie here.

>>18307 >Shit, I even identify as a feminist you most likely are crazy SJW if you believe in the feminist definition that is used by feminists. i am a left libertarian and i identify as an egalitarian.

>>18307 unfortunately common among left libertarians is the "egalitarian" sentiment you see here - >>18318 what it means is they'll agree with you so long as you don't use certain key phrases (feminism, oppression, systematic racism, privilege) but fight you as soon as your words offend them and look the other way when actual racists join the conversation

>>18325 I think that's true. I see a lot of that sentiment around these kinds of boards and some circles have come to use the term "manarchist" or "brocialist". Either way I think a lot of the dissent stems from seeing shitty memes of troll accounts on tumblr and equating that with the movement.

>"I'm X but i identify as Y" jesus, this pol crap is getting out of hand.

>>18307 The population of Lainchan comes from other chans. Most chans are filled with reactionaries. Hence, some Lainchan users are also reactionary. Many of us are anarchists, but we are clearly not the only ones here.

>>18334 >Either way I think a lot of the dissent stems from seeing shitty memes of troll accounts on tumblr and equating that with the movement. Yeah. I'm sure all feminists are actually completely normal and beautiful womyn and all of the stuff we see afk and on tumblr is just the patriarchy false flagging everyone. Give me a break.

>>18388 Not all trolls are false flaggers, a troll can have preference for any ideaological system.

I think identifying with a certain group or movement is terrible. It's better to look at things case by case than say "I'm a X!". This isn't always true, but the majority of people who say they are part of a certain group slowly start to become like an embodiment of said group. They still have original thoughts on matters, but chose to ignore them in favor of whats popular among the group. doesn't even have to be parties. Many first time /pol/ users just share sentiments maybe about a few things, but slowly just become /pol/ and spout utter garbage and can't defend their beliefs because they aren't their beliefs in the first place. I would say this is true for all extremists, but really it's people who care too much about politics and see it as the end all be all rather than a means to an end. Someone can have extreme views but realize the world doesn't revolve around said views.

>>18307 If you're not a feminist you're not an anarchist. I don't see how this is hard to understand at all. Anarchism is the general movement against all aspects of hierarchical society, so just like we have to abolish class and destroy capitalism, we also have to abolish gender and destroy patriarchy, abolish race and destroy white supremacy, etc.. If you don't get this you're not an anarchist. Simple as that.

>>18406 I've been thinking about this more recently. The obsession over group identity seems to have a lot of negative and sometimes just strange consequences. The big 2 that are bugging me at the moment... 1. Infighting and purges over ideological purity. The craziest example to me is the GOP's obsession with purity pledges, but it can be anything. Everybody wants to be the most X. The most conservative. The most fit. The most frugal. Maybe some of this is just competitive drive that's been amped up with modern social networks. Instead of comparing themselves to only their friends or people in their city, everybody compares themselves to everybody else on the planet. 2. Rampant marketing of products to various group identities. Maybe this was actually where it all started, as "lifestyle" marketing has been around for a while. Capitalism is very efficient at taking a certain aesthetic of a movement and packaging it into a lifestyle that you can buy off the shelf. The funniest/saddest thing I've seen recently was a box of San Pellegrino that said "ARE YOU A FOODIE?" on the side. Apparently the price of admission to foodie-land is just a bottle of fizzy water. Anyways, rant mode off for now...

>>18440 I've always seen group identities as a kind of laziness - like forming/expressing/defending your own opinions for approval is too difficult compared to taking some prepackaged opinions and using those for approval after someone is familiar with that particular reward system they decide its easier to spread that system to other environments than develop new reactions to those environments. so for example >>18388 is trying to drive out elements of what they percieve as a competing reward system because it would make their existence more difficult another thought I had was that there's an interaction between language and custom that's going on. like the "language" we've learned or "manners" begs a specific kind of reaction to certain occurences, kind of like saying bless you after somebody sneezes.

>>18414 >If you're not a feminist you're not an anarchist Proudhon was certainly not a feminist

>>18501 Emma Goldman most certainly was

>>18504 Proudhon literally said that women were either housewives or harlots and called emancipating them stupid You can't just say "feminism is anarchism" because anarchism is opposed to "hierarchy" because some anarchists might have felt that women were naturally inferior to men and that nature would keep them in a place subservience to men with or without a state telling them to serve men. Anarchists generally didn't oppose hierarchies they saw as the product of nature or natural law. So there's no contradiction in principle to seeing women as naturally or spiritually inferior to men and being an anarchist opposed to any and all form of state power and authority, especially if you hold the belief that without state power, women without the state the artificially uplift them will mostly just move more into a position of servitude to individual men. simply put, it's more nuanced than you think.

>>18497 Not sure if it's what you were getting that, but language is a strong component of identity politics The rhetoric relies heavily on buzzwords - again, it delivers a prepackaged opinion instead of presenting a fleshed out argument The result has been a gongshow of new terminology Personally, I've taken this test (long ago) and don't remember what I got I don't identify with any ideology or party because I don't like being bound to a code of thought when my own opinions change over time or concerning certain issues I can look at any party platform and find both things I agree with and things I don't

>>18509 > Anarchists generally didn't oppose hierarchies they saw as the product of nature or natural law Genuinely curious here, why do some anarchists oppose private and corporate property then? Wouldn't they say those hierarchies are natural as the most ambitious, cunning, or strong are usually the most successful actors in the market. Isn't ensuring the success of your offspring also part of natural hierarchies? I know that I justify market based societies as I see them as entirely natural. >>18414 You're with us or you're with the terrorists amright. fuarrrk off. I think I identify most as a neoliberal/liberal in the classic sense. U kno small govt, personal freedom, fuarrrk taxes right.

>>18730 >I know that I justify market based societies as I see them as entirely natural. No, because that's an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. It implies there's such a thing as human nature, and you'd hard-pressed to find an anarchist who thinks there's such a thing.

>>18732 I was referring to this. >Anarchists generally didn't oppose hierarchies they saw as the product of nature or natural law. You don't believe that hierarchies are a product of nature?

>>18733 >You don't believe that hierarchies are a product of nature? No. I also don't really agree with the original statement, and I'm an anarchist.

>>18730 I'm curious why do you think market based societies are more natural than anarchist ones. Other than being dominant at the moment, of course.

- Pro-Freedom of Speech - fuarrrk political correctness, you have the freedom to say whatever you want and I have the freedom to point out why you're wrong or that you're full of soykaf . No one has a right to not be offended. If you want a safe space go home. - Pro Gun-Rights - Free Market with some socialism, no government backed monopolies - Strict on environmental protection - Limited consumerism - Anti-survellience, pro freedom - Pro people growing their own food, forming autonomous, self-reliant communities - Non-aggression principle. People can form communities with similar individuals if they want. Christans can form their own communities with their own rules, hackers, punks, druggies and so on can form their own with their own rules, rednecks can form their own community, anti-gun pro-nanny state people can form their. People agree to disagree and leave each other alone. Each city or state can be it's own thing. - Athiest - Pro-Abortion - Religion doesn't define morality - Pro-Drug - Pro Universal Healthcare - Limited welfare outside of healthcare and education (Gov helps people when they're disabled or lose their job but if people can't find work after a few months they're on their own. I don't believe people are entitled to the fruits of others' labor if they're capable but unwilling to work for themselves.) - Live and let live - I'm basically a left libertarian

>>18745 Basically pro freedom. We're never going to create a utopia. Christans, Muslims, Cyberpunks, Scientists, Atheists, Socialists, Capitalists, Environmentalists, SJWs, etc. are never going to get along. Forcing people with vastly different cultures and beliefs to live together doesn't work. Rarely is there compromise, one side usually dominates and when there is there are still a lot of unhappy people. Let people form their own communities and do what works best for them and don't be a dick if the community next door doesn't want to live or think the same way you do. I just think we need to come to an agreement about things like the environment. We all live here and environmental damage effects us all. But if you want to make your women wear burqas or worship the sky god or live in as a wage-slave or live in a society where drugs aren't allowed that's fine, just don't force it on me and if someone doesn't want to live in your society anymore allow them to leave and go somewhere that suits them better.

>>18746 And if one community doesn't want people from certain other communities to immigrate to theirs that's fine. Sometimes it only leads to problems and makes things worse for everyone already there. There will still be plenty of other communities that will accept you. Your anarchy-socalist state probably doesn't want mega-corps and capatilism and someone else's Muslim state probably doesn't want Christans or Jews both for obvious reasons.

>>18737 Probably because human beings have been bartering and trading stuff for as long as they've been around.

>>9500 >>9519 >>9679 >>18300 I think I was just one or two questions away from perfect center

>>18748 Yeah besides that, I saw something a while ago about chimps bartering food for sex (I'll try to find the source).

rip britbongs holy shit

>>16320 What's wrong with Friedman?

>>18307 Literally cancer. >>18414 This is precisely why anarchism is soykaf . Males and females are BY NATURE fundamentally different and thus they occupy different social spheres that coincide with nature. Feminism and leftism and general are denying basic biology and human nature.

>>18556 language is a strong component of all politics, and politics are a strong component of language. You can't escape either. I agree about the prepackaged buzzwords but I feel like it's something said, to use some prepackaged buzzwords, about "both sides" - meaning that if we abstract away enough we can handwave the entire conversation without respecting people's voices or getting a better understanding of anything ultimately, it's all talk and no action. it comes down to choosing sides (not choosing sides is a side) and then arguing why your respective politics are better than everyone else's. I'm not saying this is every single political interaction on the internet and there have definitely been real social movements organized online that are making waves lately, but it's still something really common.