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

[HentaiManOfPeace]

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.

[Zedus]

Well, this test is kinda working (completed the long version)
canvas.png

[Sylvanas]

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.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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.

[DJarJar]

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

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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

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.

[yzb25]

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.

[Frinckles]

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.

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:

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.

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.

[yzb25]

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.

Where would you put Jinping's China on the spectrum?

[Oberon]

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.

[BananaCucho]

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

[Firebringer]

You notice how the thread itself didn't post its politics? Thread has no balls.

[Frinckles]

You notice how the thread itself didn't post its politics? Thread has no balls.

weak bread

[Oberon]

Btw, fun fact. In Romania the communist party forbid abortion.

[Oberon]

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.

[BananaCucho]

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.

Nazis are far right. This is not disputable.

[oops_ur_dead]

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.

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

[BananaCucho]

[Oberon]

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

[BananaCucho]

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

More than one group of people can be right wing

Nazis are far right.

[Voss]

More than one group of people can be right wing

Nazis are far right.

Stand by proud boys, I'm making nazism great again.

To oberon's credit though, oberon does a better job of disavowing nazis than trump.

[Voss]

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".

[Frinckles]

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".

Can I get some context? I wasn't sure if you meant Trump or someone in 1940s European history.

[BananaCucho]

Can I get some context? I wasn't sure if you meant Trump or someone in 1940s European history.

Yeah he's referring to Trump, who said that there were good people on both sides of Charlottesville

I will concede that Trump didn't say specifically "nazis are good people", but considering that the "Unite the RIGHT" rally (emphasis added for those who are still confused as to which end of the political spectrum nazis fall) was organized by white supremacists and neo nazis, the President saying that there are good people mixed in there was bad optics

Which I argued already in a different thread, as to why people conflate the far right with nazis, given that nazis are far right... wheeee here we go in circles

[Frinckles]

Yeah he's referring to Trump, who said that there were good people on both sides of Charlottesville

I will concede that Trump didn't say specifically "nazis are good people", but considering that the "Unite the RIGHT" rally (emphasis added for those who are still confused as to which end of the political spectrum nazis fall) was organized by white supremacists and neo nazis, the President saying that there are good people mixed in it bad optics

Which I argued already in a different thread, as to why people conflate the far right with nazis, given that nazis are far right... wheeee here we go in circles

I see, thank you.

The extreme polarity of the political climate lately is ridiculous. I dislike when people conflate the most radical ends of the political spectrum with the other. Not all leftists are communist.

[BananaCucho]

I see, thank you.

The extreme polarity of the political climate lately is ridiculous. I dislike when people conflate the most radical ends of the political spectrum with the other. Not all leftists are communist.

What? But everyone I talk to has convinced me that right-of-center Biden is a hardcore socialist and that if elected we will become Venezuela

[Voss]

Can I get some context? I wasn't sure if you meant Trump or someone in 1940s European history.

Unite the Right rally. People waving nazi flags attended. Trump said that there were good people on both sides.

I can recommend an excellent podcast series on David Duke and his rise in the Louisiana Republican party.

[Frinckles]

Unite the Right rally. People waving nazi flags attended. Trump said that there were good people on both sides.

I can recommend an excellent podcast series on David Duke and his rise in the Louisiana Republican party.

Sure I'll take a watch.

[Voss]

Sure I'll take a watch.

The podcast is called "Slow Burn". Season 4 is about David Duke. I personally listen to podcasts on the "Stitcher" app.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I'll just forewarn because the last streak of replies in political threads was pretty heated: keep it reasonably nice or face deletions or infractions. Not aiming at anyone btw, just saying it

Unite the Right rally. People waving nazi flags attended. Trump said that there were good people on both sides.

I can recommend an excellent podcast series on David Duke and his rise in the Louisiana Republican party.

^
good people don't march with people waving nazi flags and do as if everything was alright
at best, Trump expressed himself terribly stupidly, and at worst, he supports or at least... strongly tolerate nazis
But that's past the point

~~

Didn't the NSDAP gain very considerable power over the "private companies", though? If I'm not mistaken, that made them de facto puppets of the State. Extreme authoritarianism makes "left" and "right" join up. So actually, I think neither Mag nor you all is right, because the Nazis were just extreme authoritarians.

[Oberon]

I'll just forewarn because the last streak of replies in political threads was pretty heated: keep it reasonably nice or face deletions or infractions. Not aiming at anyone btw, just saying it



^
good people don't march with people waving nazi flags and do as if everything was alright
at best, Trump expressed himself terribly stupidly, and at worst, he supports or at least... strongly tolerate nazis
But that's past the point

~~

Didn't the NSDAP gain very considerable power over the "private companies", though? If I'm not mistaken, that made them de facto puppets of the State. Extreme authoritarianism makes "left" and "right" join up. So actually, I think neither Mag nor you all is right, because the Nazis were just extreme authoritarians.

I love you

[Oberon]

I'll just forewarn because the last streak of replies in political threads was pretty heated: keep it reasonably nice or face deletions or infractions. Not aiming at anyone btw, just saying it



^
good people don't march with people waving nazi flags and do as if everything was alright
at best, Trump expressed himself terribly stupidly, and at worst, he supports or at least... strongly tolerate nazis
But that's past the point

~~

Didn't the NSDAP gain very considerable power over the "private companies", though? If I'm not mistaken, that made them de facto puppets of the State. Extreme authoritarianism makes "left" and "right" join up. So actually, I think neither Mag nor you all is right, because the Nazis were just extreme authoritarians.

I said the Nazis are hard to classify, you then state they are extreme authoritarians. Where is the disagreement?

[Frinckles]

and honestly this should be a new thread

[Frinckles]

Kind of like what the horseshoe theory suggests (that I talked with yzb about), they can share similar qualities. Shutting down conversation (media) and propaganda seem to be recurring themes.

Edit: free speech is probably the word to use here.

[yzb25]

Kind of like what the horseshoe theory suggests (that I talked with yzb about), they can share similar qualities. Shutting down conversation (media) and propaganda seem to be recurring themes.

Edit: free speech is probably the word to use here.

I kinda didn't wanna argue the point too hard because the whole left-right spectrum is kinda crap anyway, so arguing whether it's better or worse with horseshoe theory seems kind of like missing the forest for the trees.

But I'll point out you can be radical and centrist (Ataturk) and you can be far-left without being authoritarian. For example, coops are not inherently authoritarian but you also really can't get more leftist than coops lol.

[Oberon]

I kinda didn't wanna argue the point too hard because the whole left-right spectrum is kinda crap anyway, so arguing whether it's better or worse with horseshoe theory seems kind of like missing the forest for the trees.

But I'll point out you can be radical and centrist (Ataturk) and you can be far-left without being authoritarian. For example, coops are not inherently authoritarian but you also really can't get more leftist than coops lol.

I agree with you. I actually distinguish between far (right or left) and radical/extreme (right or left). For instance I am far right economically because I’m staunchly against interventionism, but I am not radical right because I don’t think the State should cease to exist.

One other example is George Orwell. He was far left but not radical left (I actually like Orwell)

[yzb25]

I agree with you. I actually distinguish between far (right or left) and radical/extreme (right or left). For instance I am far right economically because I’m staunchly against interventionism, but I am not radical right because I don’t think the State should cease to exist.

One other example is George Orwell. He was far left but not radical left (I actually like Orwell)

You reminded me of the super libertarian Ayn Rand types on the far right, which are quite the opposite of authoritarian. When people talk about horseshoe theory they always go straight to Hitler and Stalin as if they're the only far left and far right and yes, I suppose morally they appear quite indistinguishable, but even they have massive political disagreements. Outside of the Hitler-Stalin thing which itself is quite short-sighted the far left and far right are really not comparable.

[yzb25]

You reminded me of the super libertarian Ayn Rand types on the far right, which are quite the opposite of authoritarian. When people talk about horseshoe theory they always go straight to Hitler and Stalin as if they're the only far left and far right and yes, I suppose morally they appear quite indistinguishable, but even they have massive political disagreements. Outside of the Hitler-Stalin thing which itself is quite short-sighted the far left and far right are really not comparable.

Fuck I forgot to say, it's a very good point to make a distinction between "far" and "extreme". The two are conflated far too much.

[Exeter350]

I kinda didn't wanna argue the point too hard because the whole left-right spectrum is kinda crap anyway, so arguing whether it's better or worse with horseshoe theory seems kind of like missing the forest for the trees.

But I'll point out you can be radical and centrist (Ataturk) and you can be far-left without being authoritarian. For example, coops are not inherently authoritarian but you also really can't get more leftist than coops lol.

I completely agree that the political spectrum is crap.

There are too many factors at play to easily map out each political party / government’s position on a simple spectrum.

It has always seemed to me that the political spectrum is a tool for the lazy masses, who want to simplify & generalise matters.

The political issues within one political party are intricate enough, let alone an entire country, or multiple countries (e.g. US vs China vs Russia).

But keyboard warriors on Reddit think they are experts who can tell you the political stance of each country. *facepalm*

I think people should focus more on their local affairs and what they can actually change with their votes.

For all the self-proclaimed experts of global politics, I wonder how much they understand their local / domestic issues when they place their votes lol.

People who vote based on “political identity” instead of doing their in-depth research of each political party’s issue-by-issue stance are lazy and bad and should not be qualified to talk about politics, ever.

[Oberon]

Lmao

[Oberon]

Try me

[Oberon]

Anyways. The system isn’t necessarily exploitative, and if people disagree with it, there’s nothing stopping them from confederating into a socialist collective that operates as one unit within the free market. Jewish kibbutzim are practically just that.

[Voss]

I'm not saying that nazis are necessarily clear cut on right winged on a universal/global definition.

I'm saying that, in american politics, nazis are in the republican right wing bc leaders like trump (but not limited to him) have not disavowed these groups.

I believe it was bernie sanders that got donations from white supremacists at one point last year. He did what every republican should do and donated that money/did not accept it.

You would NEVER even EXPECT for trump do this sort of thing. He would never risk offending his coalition. The one that includes nazis and white supremacists.

Anything contrary to the notion that nazis are not in the far right of american politics either doesn't follow american politics closely enough, or watches faux news

[oops_ur_dead]

I definitely agree that the political spectrum is kinda dumb and very over-simplified. If you look at left vs right in terms of economics, I absolutely agree that the Nazis were certainly more centrist when you compare them to certain other brutally repressive authoritarian, yet capitalistic, regimes. Such as Pinochet's Chile or medieval feudalism.

However, it gives me pause when someone puts so much effort into making the argument that the Nazis were actually leftists or whatever. Like the idiotic Glenn Beck-tier talking point of "hurrrr durrrrrrrrr nazi stands for national socialism which means they are socliasts xDDDD". Or pointing to a single progressive economic idea they had, like welfare or something, as an example of them being leftist.

The reason is simple: the only purpose of those types of arguments is so that they can tie leftism with Nazism and repressive authoritarian regimes. You only ever see right-wingers trying to push this Nazi = left narrative, and it's always with the goal of trying to make it seem as though leftist economics or ideas are necessarily authoritarian. This isn't an idea mirrored by the left; nobody on the left as far as I know is going around saying that capitalism or right-wing economics were the cause of the oppressive brutality of the Nazis.

It's a very disingenuous thing to argue and deflects from the real cause of the atrocities during the Nazis' rule, which was rampant authoritarianism and racism. The sole reason anyone would bring in economics into such an argument is to a) try to falsely pin the blame on an opposing economic system, or b) try to diminish the role that authoritarianism and racism played in the Nazi regime. Or because they're gullible rubes parroting those same ideas.

[Voss]

It's unclear to me whether or not the argument stated by oberon is if nazis are left/right on the american spectrum, or a more abstract global/philosophical spectrum.

If he's saying it's the latter, then I'll fuck off from this thread. If he's saying it's the former? I'll keep saying that he's spouting bulllshit Faux "News" drivel.

However, historically speaking, it's also very clear that Oberon will never commit himself to a position and this thread will be closed in approximately 5.24 pages. And then in 0.89 months later, we'll have some related discussion again where rinse and repeat ourselves.

[Plotato]

ofc nazis are on the left side cuz no way in hell is their ideology right KEKW

[yzb25]

It's unclear to me whether or not the argument stated by oberon is if nazis are left/right on the american spectrum, or a more abstract global/philosophical spectrum.

If he's saying it's the latter, then I'll fuck off from this thread. If he's saying it's the former? I'll keep saying that he's spouting bulllshit Faux "News" drivel.

However, historically speaking, it's also very clear that Oberon will never commit himself to a position and this thread will be closed in approximately 5.24 pages. And then in 0.89 months later, we'll have some related discussion again where rinse and repeat ourselves.

I get that we end up arguing about American politics a lot, but you can't just assume every conversation is happening in a strictly American context. That's rather silly lol

Also, though I get annoyed when he seems to concede a point as wrong then repeats it in a later convo, I don't think you should get annoyed when there's no serious movement in his opinion, generally speaking. With all due respect, we're probably like one one-hundredth of his information sources, with most of the rest giving a very different set of facts in a very different manner. "Winning" an argument with someone will just convince them they haven't read enough rather than all their prior information being wrong. If someone's mind is genuinely changed that's great, but I think realistically the most valuable thing we can get out of this is hearing from the other side.

Lastly, let's not lose perspective and bear in mind he's not even voting in the US election, so getting worked up about his American opinions is particularly meaningless.

[Voss]

I get that we end up arguing about American politics a lot, but you can't just assume every conversation is happening in a strictly American context. That's rather silly lol

Also, though I get annoyed when he seems to concede a point as wrong then repeats it in a later convo, I don't think you should get annoyed when there's no serious movement in his opinion, generally speaking. With all due respect, we're probably like one one-hundredth of his information sources, with most of the rest giving a very different set of facts in a very different manner. "Winning" an argument with someone will just convince them they haven't read enough rather than all their prior information being wrong. If someone's mind is genuinely changed that's great, but I think realistically the most valuable thing we can get out of this is hearing from the other side.

Lastly, let's not lose perspective and bear in mind he's not even voting in the US election, so getting worked up about his American opinions is particularly meaningless.

I'm literally clarifying so I don't assume!!!!!

[yzb25]

I'm literally clarifying so I don't assume!!!!!

Ok fair xD

[Voss]

I'm literally clarifying so I don't assume!!!!!

The world may never know