The worst compared to what?
I mean, humans can be evil as fuck but also ‘good’ as fuck.
We don’t really have a baseline for intelligent species.
If you look at some of the smartest animals they too be can be pretty cruel.
Chimps are bloody brutal, you don’t want to be a chimp... they literally tear each other to pieces.
I think I recall hearing about a group of chimps who ganged up on another chimp and proceeded to rip his genitals and attack him with it, or so... they’re cruel as fuck lol.
Wolves kill even when they’re not hungry. Because they enjoy it.
Dolphins aeenvicious as hell, too. I’ve heard of dolphins killing fish to use them as masturbation aids.
Spoiler : Forum Mafia :
Would you rather we all died?
Anyways humans are just doing what all other predatory species would be doing. We’re btw the only species with Animal Cruelty movements and who care for other species.
We certainly don’t exterminate everything we get our hands on.
Unlike cats, say.
+0.i honestly think that morally, we're not better or worse than other predatory animal species.
ECK.
inthe end, i think this is a pretty stuwupid discussion. r humans shitty?yea. so what??uVu
RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Last edited by theoneceko; June 21st, 2020 at 11:56 AM.
https://i.imgur.com/0xCJ64X.png
First off, the wording is terrible for the federal vs unitary section. Federal should mean the union of regions (e.g., federal government) whereas local / regional should refer to subdivisions within a country (e.g., provinces, prefectures, states, metropolitans).
Nearly 50-50 on democracy vs authority because it's all on a case-by-case basis. For global threats like COVID-19, climate change, mineral exhaustion, warfare / mass destruction, agricultural crisis, give all the power to authority to ensure the issues are quickly resolved ASAP temporarily. Democracy otherwise is important for equality between people and gives people vested interest in their political system.
Peace mostly benefits all countries because usually diplomacy is based on economics where deals are both efficient and beneficial for both countries because of specialization in labour. During war efforts, the only countries benefiting are those tied to the production of arms and supplies who are sitting on the sidelines (e.g., US during WW2). However, you still need a military force for self-protection in case you have any unstable political neighbours who keep on eyeing your resources.
50-50 on securities vs freedoms. In general, I'd rather be safe than to keep certain freedoms I don't even use against threats. If there aren't any threats, I don't see why people can be free to do what they choose.
Socialism is OK depending on the policies instituted, but it's far better to have a mixed economy where national corporations are competing with private sectors to innovate. If that national corporation can't survive, it should be privatized to increase market efficiency.
Fuck religion - it shouldn't have any place in politics or society. Keep it as far away from the state as possible.
Technological progress is good. Even if automation displaces people's jobs, it was a dying industry anyway and only improves people's QOL generations down. No need for horse caretakers and horse carraige taxis if there's no economic demand for them, and they would go into other more in-demand sectors.
Living in Canada, there are good and bad sides to multiculturalism. People should be free to practice their own cultures so long as they don't harm the country's values. But too many immigrants is bad for a country's identity because besides the indigenous people's cultures, I can safely say that Canada itself has no culture. And I can proudly say this because it seems that modern Canadian culture is still based on the roaring 20th century of Canada of Tim's, Canadian beer, beavers, hockey, moose, toonies / loonies, and maple syrup and it hasn't changed at all. If you look at other countries' cultures, they're innovating and making breakthroughs in establishing their distinct identities (e.g., America's IT technology, French gourmet cuisine, Scandinavian industrial design, etc.). Really a problem of being a jack-of-all-trades but master of none.
Well, this test is kinda working (completed the long version)
canvas.png
I agree with plan C.
Even if game is already over, I am still agree, why not?
Lynch the Survivor claim!
-vote Rumox
I'm 14 questions into the long one, and I already think half the questions asked are really poorly/ambiguously phrased. Like "Local governments give each region good representation of their views." I'm not entirely sure what the fuck this question is even supposed to mean. Like... it depends? I'm sure a local government comprised of, say, KKK members in a mostly minority community would probably not give good representation. In an ideal world, under a democratic system? Sure, maybe - depends on voters, levels of voter engagement, and a bunch of other factors (like how gerrymandered / representative is the voting process to begin with).
No clue how to answer about half of these in just different strengths of "agree/disagree" because for many of the questions, I both agree AND disagree: e.g. "should anyone who wants to be free to enter the country?" I feel like I agree with the general sentiment of this (freedom of movement is important, as is the freedom to immigrate - it's one of the things that has historically made my country strong), but the way the question is phrased makes it seem like a trap - like "AHA! So you DO want Nazis to be able to enter the country freely!"
Curious to see what my results will be.
EDIT:
"Military spending is a waste of money."
Come the fuck on. Yes, when you are at peace (IF you are spending disproportionately high on military compared to things like social safety nets or basic infrastructure, etc; though obviously not for just maintaining basic defense). Obviously not when you are being like... Red Dawn'd by hostile paratroopers. How do I add context to "agree/disagree/unsure"?
EDIT:
"Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation"
Seriously? Why isn't there a "depends on the damn law" option? A total campfire ban / stringent fire regulations makes sense in California; less so on the Gulf Coast. But there's a good case to be made for things like, say, murder being fairly universally standardized.
I don't think I'm going to make it to 216 because every fucking question makes me want to type up a new rant on how bad the questions are.
EDIT:
"The national government needs more power"
Fuck the people who wrote these questions.
Am I an authoritarian fascist if I strongly agree that the national government needs more power to enforce climate regulations without thinking that they just need a blanket "more power" in every category? I feel like I am answering "neutral/unsure" to every question except the obvious gimmes like "should we wipe out countries that don't serve us" or shit like that.
EDIT:
Please define "more power" you quiz writing hacks. That's like the vaguest thing ever, and it's been in like five questions now. "More power" can mean anything from extra taxation powers for infrastructure maintenance to fucking death camps.
EDIT:
"When people have already suffered for technology to be developed, we should use that technology"
Is the technology in question like... new, better solar panels, or Skynet? FFS
"Nations should cooperate whenever it benefits them both"
There are more than two nations. "Sure, but not if it comes at the cost of a third nation, unless the third nation is doing some fucked up shit" doesn't seem to be an option, so I guess neutral/unsure it is.
EDIT:
"The United Nations should have a military to enforce its resolutions"
It kind of does?
https://peacekeeping.un.org/en
EDIT:
So near the end finally got a bunch of questions where I could solidly answer how I felt one way or the other. But those early categories were hard to get through without a little more nuance.
Last edited by Lysergic; September 13th, 2020 at 10:03 PM.
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
In defense of the questionnaire, I think the questions are intentionally phrased divisively / ambiguously to draw out people's ideology. You're not supposed to ask "what is the context" or "what are the facts". You're supposed to give your gut "feeling" responses, and assume the context is "your" context and the facts are "your" facts. If you have no gut "feeling" response, then perhaps you just aren't ideologically inclined. If you boil every question of policy down to its specifics, providing people with a specific context and set of facts, then people will more or less agree unless they have some fundamentally philosophically different view of morality.
Whenever I started thinking "well it depends on..." I just picked the middle answer and didn't even get angry. Maybe you should have tried that.
I'll stop the "quote the post" trend and just say I'm addressing Lysergic lol.
The test isn't perfect, obviously, but I think we're meant to assume the questions are not traps and use common sense considered from the point of view of a democratic country's citizen. For example, "more power" in the situational meaning of "more autonomy" is to be assumed if we're talking about local vs federal/unitary governments, and not "freedom to establish gulags in a specific area".
Your answer to "Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation" is simply "disagree". The question clearly states "completely consistent", which means you're being asked if you think ALL laws should be the same everywhere in a nation. I have the same stance, by the way (maybe not on guns (people can still be shot on the Gulf Coast), but that's another story), so I just "disagreed".
Skynet is obviously not a good technology... people having suffered for a technology that would benefit the country may be a better wording though, so I'll give you that.
The UN has a military (more or less), yes, and you're free to agree or disagree with that reality :P
In the end, I agree with yzb's conclusion: putting every single question in a purely absolute context to give a purely absolute answer will make you "neutral" on many topics on paper while you could be not neutral at all in reality; that seems to be what happened to you here.
You’re giving the test WAY too much credit. It’s clickbait crap...
In mafia terms, y’all are assuming some intended WIFOM here and you’re right. But the WIFOM is there to get clicks, not to actually analyze jack shit
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
Nah, it's still has more thought put into it than the crappy "left-right" axis, even if you stick the "authoritarian-liberal" axis to it. At least, none of the presented axises "joins up" at its extremities (like far left and far right "joining up" in the traditional "compass"). The questions may not be perfect, but reducing all of this to clickbait is wrong imo.
Horseshoe theory always seemed dumb to me tbh. Marxism-Leninism and fascism may both suck, but you can't just conflate them because they both happen to be authoritarian and bad.
I think the questions are honestly idiotic... the issues they’re trying to present are highly complex and it’s impossible to classify someone one way or the other based off of a simple answer to a complex question. If anything, the only thing that kind of test might be able is determine which political belief makes it more likely to answer in a certain way to a question.
If I'm understanding it correctly, it's not to really throw ambiguity to either of those things. Just that they hold closer similarities than more moderate-left/right wing positions.
Seems like every day I see a YouTube video about whether or not Nazism (or whatever the fuck else bad ideology is out there) is left or right wing.
I can certainly see your issues with it because it can muddy the waters. Maybe we're just re-writing history again.
Edit: I wanted to add a quote I thought was interesting:
I think Ideological purity is definitely something becoming glamorized these days; But with a focus on the individual and it's kind of fascinating and horrifying. Far left and far right culture has gotten to the point of doxxing, cancel culture and threats targeted at the individual, not the policies they support. Media has become polarizing as hell.As the political horseshoe theory attributed to Jean-Pierre Faye highlights, if we travel far-left enough, we find the very same sneering, nasty and reckless bully-boy tactics used by the far-right. The two extremes of the political spectrum end up meeting like a horseshoe, at the top, which to my mind symbolizes totalitarian control from above. In their quest for ideological purity, Stalin and Hitler had more in common than modern neo-Nazis and far-left agitators would care to admit.
Last edited by Frinckles; September 23rd, 2020 at 10:42 AM.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
Now you can see the importance of time
It helps us make pizza
It keeps things in line
But when did it start?
And when will it stop?
Time is important, and I am a clock
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
You notice how the thread itself didn't post its politics? Thread has no balls.
Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.
What's that? A tasty snack
You don't want to go around and eat a snack like that
Greedy, to eat all that
You'll end up with your teeth all grey
You see, the body is like a special house
With blood, hair and organs in the different rooms
Oh look, there's Mr. Bladder there in the basement, ha, ha
Now food comes in through the chimney, mouth
And goes from room to room greeting the different organs
Now, the good healthy food is very nice and polite to the organs
And so, is invited to stay
For the party
Yaaay
But the bad, not healthy food
Are very rude and must leave through the cat flap
What's that? a tasty snack
You don't want to go around and eat a snack like that
Greedy to eat all of that
You'll end up with your gums all grey
The food groups can easily be sorted using the simple health shape
Choosing normal plain looking foods
Such as bread, cream, white sause and aspic
Keep the body ticking over just nicely
Isn't that right?
But wait!
What's this?
Fancy, show offy foods like
Cooked meats, fruit salad, soil food, and yolk
These foods will clog up the body
With unnecessary detail
Oh no! Look, It's all broken and on the floor
Everything tastes great
Maybe we should wait
Before we put it on the plate
Or it could be too late
What's that? A pizza slice
But you're better off with plain white sause
What's that? Plain white sause
Plain white sauce makes your teeth go grey
Doesn't matter, just throw it away
Why not try something else on your tray
Oh what's that? A lovely pie
But you're going to end up sad inside
But everyone has their teeth go grey
Just eat yeast and it'll go away
But how much have you had today?
Too much yeast makes your teeth go grey
How about some onion paste?
Looks like fun have a taste
That wasn't onion paste
You shouldn't eat food a strangers plate
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Btw, fun fact. In Romania the communist party forbid abortion.
I think the Nazis aren’t necessarily far right, and I think they are hard to classify as one or the other. Hitler himself stated national socialism was Marxism married to bourgeois ideology (so a weird mixture). I treat fascism as a separate entity because Mussolini’s Italy seems to have been less authoritarian than Nazism, which makes me wonder if Italian fascism was totalitarian at all or just a classical autocracy. There were no death camps, to my knowledge, in Italy, like in Germany or the Soviet Union.
In my opinion, if anyone is far right, it’s the libertarian party in America. The nutcases in that party want to abolish the government
Have you heard of the Night of the Long Knives, where the Nazis purged and murdered the entire socialist wind of their party that they were supposedly allied with?
Did you know that the term "privatization" came from the German term that was used during the Nazi era to describe their economic policy?
The Nazis aggressively privatized the public sector during their reign, while most other western nations were doing the opposite. You can (but let's be real, you won't) read about more it here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...9.2009.00473.x
Last edited by oops_ur_dead; September 24th, 2020 at 02:33 PM.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I was waiting for this thread to actually become political.
Nazis are definitely far right in American politics. The easiest and most indefensible reasons being that the head of right wing politics, the president called Nazis "good people".
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I wasn't trying to make a point or pull some kinda gotcha. I was literally curious because to me China is a country that really doesn't fit onto the political spectrum in a clear way. They identify as a Leninist state and all the land is technically state-owned plus the CPC has at least 20% ownership of every company but they employ heavy free market mechanics and are deeply classist. I think countries like China demonstrate the shortcomings of the left-right political spectrum as a classification system, as well as the limitations of trying to class every economic system as simply capitalist or communist.
and honestly this should be a new thread
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶