Politics in AGS

[Calin Leafshade]

I assume Andail was joking?

or a nazi.

[Babar]

Well, according to that website, Hitler wasn't very left or right at all...

[Calin Leafshade]

economically, no.

Andail is like Ron Paul if Ron Paul wanted to kill all the gays and arrest dissenters.

[RickJ]

Well, I highly value freedom.  Eccoomic freedom is pretty much a prerequisite for political and other civil liberties.  

I noticed the bias and ignored it when  possible.   For example many of the questions about ecconomic freedom were posed as giant multi-national corporation scenarios in attempt to invoke negative knee jerk reactions rather than asking an honest question.  

One of the questions was posed as a "universal" through the use of the word "always".   So people who would generally agree with the statement but nwho read carefully would answer "disagree".  Not rerally honest in my humble opinion.

There were also some questions I  found to be too vague.   The "compulsory school attendance"  for example didn't say what level of school or who was paying the bills.   For me, If I'm paying then I ought to be able to decide to attend a particular session of instruction or not.  If someone else is paying then I ought to have an obligation to attend every second of instruction; especially if that someone else is being compelled to pay by force of law (i.e. taxes).

I answered almost all the questions either "agree" or "disagree"; only 2-3 were answered "strongly".

I thought the "naturally gay" question was also dishonest.   Presumably the test would score one less libertarian for thinking that it often a learned behavior and answering accordingly.    The test unfairly assumes that such an answer indicates that the answerer is also in favor of laws that strip freedoms from homosexuals that everyone else enjoys.  It seems to me a devious kind of bigotry underlies a question used in this manner.

I am surprised I didn't have a bigger libertarian score.   As I said I highly value my personal freedom.   I believe that one the criminal questions I answered "strongly" in support of punishment over rehabilitation.   Crimes are committed by the same people over and over.  It's not a question of punishment as it is a question of keeping them in custody as long as possible so that they are unable to commit more crime.   It's the reason "three Strikes" laws seem to be so effective.

===============

I find my self wondering if anyone scoring in the lower left corner are feeling any cognitive dissonance by being simultaneously for freedom, state power and against economic freedom?

[edit]sp

[GarageGothic]

I thought the "naturally gay" question was also dishonest.   Presumably the test would score one less libertarian for thinking that it often a learned behavior and answering accordingly.    The test unfairly assumes that such an answer indicates that the answerer is also in favor of laws that strip freedoms from homosexuals that everyone else enjoys.  It seems to me a devious kind of bigotry underlies a question used in this manner.

You're reading things into it that isn't there. The statement is "No one can feel naturally homosexual", and when you agree/disagree it's not with whether or not people are born gay, it's with whether someone can *feel* that's the case. Basically your answer reveals how open you are to the subjective experience of others, it doesn't relate to objective reality at all.

[straydogstrut]

EC=-5.38
SC=-5.59

I have to agree there are a lot of loaded questions in there.

[GarageGothic]

Neither of you guys read the Political Compass FAQ, did you?

Some of the questions are slanted

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

[straydogstrut]

Why of course not. That would be taking it seriously=P

[bicilotti]

Some of the questions are slanted

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

eheheeh, translated to simple english "we've been caught more than once, but we still try talking ourself out of this sticky situation".

Or if we are to belive them, I vote for renaming this the "feelings and or prejudices in AGS" thread

[GarageGothic]

Or if we are to belive them, I vote for renaming this the "feelings and or prejudices in AGS" thread

Aren't "feelings and prejudices" more or less what it comes down to every time voting season comes around?

[Calin Leafshade]

How could you agree or disagree with a neutral question?

on the cognitive dissonance question: I believe in *social* freedoms but I also believe that people need to be protected from complex issues (especially economic ones).

I have a theory that the fundamental difference between the left and right is one of trust.

The left tend to trust the establishment while the right trust the electorate.

Personally I think the electorate are stupid and/or misinformed on most issues (myself included).
Sure, the politically vocal may be more savvy but they arent the majority.

A prime example of this for me is the recent striking down of Prop 8
One of the main responses from the (social) right was that a single judge had overruled the Californian people.
But the fact of the matter is that I wouldnt want to trust the electorate at large with my rights.

Another example of this is climate change.
The left largely accepts the scientific consensus while the right question it as a means for the establishment to stealth-tax them.

I have seen so many right-wing propaganda machines with the tagline "What the experts arent telling you.".
It's becoming absurd.

[Ali]

This remind me a bit of the graph demonstrating the greatness of a poem from Dead Poets Society...

Nonetheless I'm quite pleased to have ended up way down in the green with all the other wet lefty AGSers who ought to get a haircut and start living in the real world.

[Kweepa]

Oh, self adding doesn't work?
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

[EDIT] Some of the questions seemed rather stark, to the point where only a pyschopath would agree with them. I would be perfectly happy to disagree with a more nuanced version. For example:
"The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
I'd happily disagree with a question more like
"The main responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
or even
"One of the main responsibilities of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
or even
"One of the responsibilities of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."

[LimpingFish]

Though everything isn't always so black and white...

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

[Calin Leafshade]

Some of the questions seemed rather stark, to the point where only a pyschopath would agree with them. I would be perfectly happy to disagree with a more nuanced version. For example:
"The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."

some free market capitalists believe that.

They argue that they will *naturally* cause other social goods as a consequence.

For example BP only offered to clear up the gulf of mexico because it would a PR disaster (and a heavily finable crime) not to.

had there been no negative consequences for the company they wouldnt have intervened.

[LRH]

Well that was interesting. 4th quadrant for me.

[Igor Hardy]

For example BP only offered to clear up the gulf of mexico because it would a PR disaster (and a heavily finable crime) not to.

had there been no negative consequences for the company they wouldnt have intervened.

I'm pretty sure BP isn't controlled by a single person, so it can't be compared to people to people taking the test (if that's what you meant).

If the actions of corporations were to be evaluated as those of real people, they'd mostly come off as psychopaths.

[Calin Leafshade]

No I mean that capitalists would argue that BPs only responsibility is to their shareholders.

They argue that if a company works in the interest of its shareholders then it will naturally avoid negatively affecting society because negatively affecting society would have an impact on their business which would in turn reduce shareholders' profits.

So they would argue that BP's *ONLY* responsibility is to their shareholders and all other things will follow naturally from that according to market forces.

[Igor Hardy]

Ah. Now I understand what you were getting at.

But I think it's a bit of a incoherent view for a rightwing person to have - agreeing with the aforementioned sentence in the test and pretending they only want a free market and nothing else. If that person actually cared about the fact that social goods will *naturally* follow from the responsibility to shareholders, then I'd say that person believes that "Corporations are responsible for MUCH MORE than only delivering a profit to their shareholders".

[Calin Leafshade]

Think of it this way:

- Nike employ people in the 3rd world to sew trainers
- they pay them *very* low wages

ok now someone on the left might argue that this is irresponsible and the company should pay decent wages to its employees even if it can legally pay them peanuts.

a capitalist however would argue like this:

- Nike employs people who otherwise would not have a job
- Having very low wages greatly increases the profits on the trainers and reduces the cost to the consumer (i.e Us)
- This means more people buy Nike trainers
- This means Nike can make more trainers
- Which means that more people in the third world have jobs and can feed their families
- and then the cycle repeats.

This is why businesses generally oppose the minimum wage, or rather how they justify opposing it.
They argue that it artificially sets the price of labour which is bad for society as a whole.