if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

[oops_ur_dead]

https://9axes.github.io

[oops_ur_dead]

clearly, I am a radical communist

[theoneceko]

clearly, I am a radical communist

BOOTLICKER!!!!

uWunoU OwO

[oops_ur_dead]

I promise I will not call anybody in this thread a bootlicker

[Ganelon]

06EAC79B-68DE-42C0-91B4-3CDC773409AA.jpeg

[theoneceko]

06EAC79B-68DE-42C0-91B4-3CDC773409AA.jpeg

BOOTLICKER!!!!noU UwU. NO U OWO!!!!

[Marshmallow Marshall]

000011111.PNG

Full version. Quite accurate, tbh. I think the least accurate parts are globalism-isolationism and assimilation-multiculturalism, since they don't really allow for deep views: it's either "ban 'em all, they're monsters" or "everyone is welcome, flowers, rainbows and unicorns everywhere". And saying alliances are good = globalism lololol.

[Ganelon]

000011111.PNG

Full version. Quite accurate, tbh. I think the least accurate parts are globalism-isolationism and assimilation-multiculturalism, since they don't really allow for deep views: it's either "ban 'em all, they're monsters" or "everyone is welcome, flowers, rainbows and unicorns everywhere". And saying alliances are good = globalism lololol.

I think the federalism - unitary axis is inaccurate as well cuz it says I’m more unitary even though I am definitely in favour of a federation.... just not a confederation. Those suck.

[Ganelon]

Apparently I’m unitary. Dunno, definitely in favour of a federation.

[oops_ur_dead]

Apparently I’m unitary. Dunno, definitely in favour of a federation.

Ya I think some of the questions miss context. I think I got so high in multiculturalism because I answered positively to all the immigration questions, but primarily due to positive economic impact of immigrants rather than pursuing multiculturalism (not that the latter is bad, just not the goal).

[Lysergic]

Neutrals are not town, so they have to die.

-vote Rumox

Lynch the Survivor claim!

-vote Rumox

Ya I think some of the questions miss context.

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.

[DJarJar]

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.

That is how all these kind of quizzes go. (I only read your first paragraph)

As I recall doing this months ago, there were some questions that I would strongly agree or disagree just based on interpretation

[yzb25]

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.

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.

[Lysergic]

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.

I guess that's one way to do it; I just ended up answering like 100+ questions as neutral/unsure because they were too vague for me to boil down my feelings to "strongly/weakly agree/disagree." I feel like I ended up way more moderate in several areas than I actually am.

[Ganelon]

Yah and the questions about government were I think asking about the USA. I thought they were talking about the general case

[naz]

Yah and the questions about government were I think asking about the USA. I thought they were talking about the general case

yea like some American traditions I think are dumb but like I think its important to preserve cultural traditions

[naz]

HmmMMM.mmMmmMmmm. .. some of the questions were too specific lol

[naz]

Also fuck ai

[oops_ur_dead]

Also fuck ai

fuck you ai is dope

[naz]

fuck you ai is dope

we are we wasting resources on ai when we can figure out TELEPORTATION!!!!!!!!!

[BananaCucho]

download.png

No surprises here

[yzb25]

political spectrum.png

The phrasing of a lot of the questions is very hardline. I guess they do that to minimize "neutrals"?

[oops_ur_dead]

political spectrum.png

The phrasing of a lot of the questions is very hardline. I guess they do that to minimize "neutrals"?

damn dude are you a fan of Bread Santa?

[Renegade]

download.png

Fanatic secularist - I like that!!

[yzb25]

download.png

Fanatic secularist - I like that!!

Holy shit 100. You must have said strongly agree to the ban religion one you crazy man XDDD

[BananaCucho]

download.png

Fanatic secularist - I like that!!

Fuck religion

People should still be allowed to worship their magic sky daddy though if they want to. As long as it doesn't infringe on my non belief

[Renegade]

Full disclosure I did the short version of the test - no time for 200 questions.

[yzb25]

Full disclosure I did the short version of the test - no time for 200 questions.

Ah, so the test missed your nuanced take on fanatic secularism. A pitfall of the 280 character age.

[Ganelon]

https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/po...m-results.html
8CA102CC-F4CA-4CA5-A151-5B70250B4922.jpeg

[BananaCucho]

https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/po...m-results.html
8CA102CC-F4CA-4CA5-A151-5B70250B4922.jpeg

No way man I already did a quiz this morning

[oops_ur_dead]

https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/po...m-results.html
8CA102CC-F4CA-4CA5-A151-5B70250B4922.jpeg

I don't particularly like these types of tests since they're pretty one-dimensional. Nonetheless:

[yzb25]

damn dude are you a fan of Bread Santa?

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread

Maybe... :3

[secondpassing]

Suprising that I'm not also an extreme globalist, and possibly the only religious person on this site. Heh.

[theoneceko]

Suprising that I'm not also an extreme globalist, and possibly the only religious person on this site. Heh.

ur religious? wtf dude. which religion?!?!? UwU!!!

[secondpassing]

ur religious? wtf dude. which religion?!?!? UwU!!!

:]

[theoneceko]

:]

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
WHYDDON'T U TELL ME WTF OMG UWU OWO *NUZZZLESX3*

LIKEKEIE I WON'T BASH U FOR UR RELGION, IMJUST VEREYY CUUWURIOUS!!!!
UvU

[BananaCucho]

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
WHYDDON'T U TELL ME WTF OMG UWU OWO *NUZZZLESX3*

LIKEKEIE I WON'T BASH U FOR UR RELGION, IMJUST VEREYY CUUWURIOUS!!!!
UvU

Its probably Jehovahs Witness or Scientology

[secondpassing]

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
WHYDDON'T U TELL ME WTF OMG UWU OWO *NUZZZLESX3*

LIKEKEIE I WON'T BASH U FOR UR RELGION, IMJUST VEREYY CUUWURIOUS!!!!
UvU

It's like wearing a t-shirt with the Target logo into an active warzone.

[yzb25]

:]

intrigue intensifies

[secondpassing]

Oh right there's Ash

[Ash]

Oh right there's Ash

No I'm not religious. Being a theist is not being religious.

[secondpassing]

No I'm not religious. Being a theist is not being religious.

Alright nevermind. Too quick to that assumption.

[DJarJar]

5DE1631E-2E76-4A70-8279-80059F431EE4.png

Did short version

[Renegade]

5DE1631E-2E76-4A70-8279-80059F431EE4.png

Did short version

Fanatic secularists RISE UP!

[Sylvanas]

I like how I'm authoritarian because I think popular opinion is usually retarded and politicians are soulless creatures who only believe in whatever will get them (re)elected.

index.png

[secondpassing]

Interesting to see how people can be isolationist and multiculturalists at the same time. Same goes for globalists and being for assimilation.

I thought they'd be connected.

[yzb25]

Interesting to see how people can be isolationist and multiculturalists at the same time. Same goes for globalists and being for assimilation.

I thought they'd be connected.

Immigrants are awesome but trade should be heavily regulated.

[oops_ur_dead]

Interesting to see how people can be isolationist and multiculturalists at the same time. Same goes for globalists and being for assimilation.

I thought they'd be connected.

Globalist/isolationist deals with foreign policy, multicultural/assimilationist deals with internal policy.

You can also be pro-immigration but anti-multiculturalist if you think that people should immigrate but abandon the values and culture of their home countries.

[SuperJack]

x

download.png

[yzb25]

I don't know how I feel about the specific labels but it's drawing out a lot of distinctions in people's worldviews tbf