Political Compass

Post by **Frelga** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:49 pm

I doubt it, on this board.

And yes, the bias is only too visible. It is the same site I've seen a while ago, and we had the same discussion about biases then.

Post by **nerdanel** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:23 pm

Alatar wrote:Has anyone managed to make it onto the right half at all, never mind upper right?

I think the fact that no one has done so illustrates the biases and deficiencies of the questions - as others have pointed out - rather than the conclusion that everyone who has reported their test results here is consistently left-leaning. I know that my answers reflected a mix of very liberal responses and deeply conservative responses, which somewhat arbitrarily placed me in the moderate left-leaning category. I wished there had been the opportunity to add "signing statements" to most of the answers, though. E.g., I also took issue with the globalization question that L_M points out and the "supporting your country" question that Frelga highlights.

Post by **Alatar** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:14 pm

Well, I guess it behooves us to come up with a better set of questions! This is a pretty simple excel graph after all!

Post by **Dave_LF** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:42 pm

I could do it in two:

1) On a scale of -10 to +10, how socially conservative/liberal are you?
2) On a scale of -10 to +10, how economically conservative/liberal are you?

I guarantee the result would always be a perfect fit for the responses.

Post by **Maria** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:49 pm

Wouldn't you have to provide examples of the extremes at both ends on both questions? Just so a person could judge where they stand?

Post by **Teremia** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:44 pm

My problem is that my extreme distrust of free market capitalism (designed for the rich to become richer) is made really complicated by my first-hand experience of the defects of planned economies (having lived in Soviet Russia and East Germany), and then further complicated by my hunch that just letting people do whatever they want doesn't usually lead to a clean kitchen (thus I'm not a great anarchist), and then still further complicated by my conviction that there will always be people who need lots and lots of help just to muddle through life (thus I'm not a libertarian).

And that's why I'm a citizen of fiction, first, and everywhere else a distant second.

Post by **River** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:50 pm

I'm in your boat Teremia, though I haven't had any firsthand experience with communism. There's the world I'd love, and then there's the way humans actually work, and the two don't mesh very well.

Post by **narya** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:20 pm

***wanders through the forum humming "Imagine"***

Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:22 pm

That's my ringtone.

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:32 am

John Lennon was filthy rich.

Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:44 am

And yet that never defined who he was.

Post by **Impenitent** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:07 am

Teremia wrote:My problem is that my extreme distrust of free market capitalism (designed for the rich to become richer) is made really complicated by my first-hand experience of the defects of planned economies (having lived in Soviet Russia and East Germany), and then further complicated by my hunch that just letting people do whatever they want doesn't usually lead to a clean kitchen (thus I'm not a great anarchist), and then still further complicated by my conviction that there will always be people who need lots and lots of help just to muddle through life (thus I'm not a libertarian).

And that's why I'm a citizen of fiction, first, and everywhere else a distant second.

Vinnie, as one of my friends once quipped when it was pointed out that the then-Labor Prime Minister lived in a VERY large house with a pool..."Socialism doesn't mean you have to be poor".

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:41 am

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:And yet that never defined who he was.

Oy.

Don't get me started.

I like John. A lot. He is a favorite of mine and has been for decades.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything he has ever said or done. Regardless of what lyrics he wrote.

Sure wealth didn't define him, neither did addictions or binges or fights or handgun issues or affairs or ego trips....etc.
They were all part of his makeup. Including the posh apartment in the Dakota and the limos and the mansions etc.

To say that his wealth wasn't a part of his definition is an outright--

the following portion of this post has been edited to remove the word "lie" and insert the term---

bunny slipper.

Post by **Impenitent** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:50 am

This is true.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:58 am

Holby, you might consider editing that; I doubt that you really meant to call Voronwë a liar. . . .

Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:02 am

Holbytla wrote:To say that his wealth wasn't a part of his definition is an outright lie.

Certainly his wealth had some effect on who he was, but it did not define him.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:23 am

Thanks, Holby.

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:24 am

Primula Baggins wrote:Holby, you might consider editing that; I doubt that you really meant to call Voronwë a liar. . . .

Duly noted and duly edited.

Post by **Impenitent** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:25 am

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:40 am

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Holbytla wrote:To say that his wealth wasn't a part of his definition is an outright lie.
Certainly his wealth had some effect on who he was, but it did not define him.

Neither did the heroin flowing through his veins, but it was part of who he was.

You can no sooner separate the wealth of John Lennon than you could suck the chemicals from him, or remove the trauma of Julia or May Fung Yee Pang.

To say his wealth "did not define him" is really inaccurate, if not false.
His "Working Class Hero" days were as much a distant memory for him as was Phil Collins as a screaming fanboy.

There is no way shape or form you can remove wealth from John Lennon and get an accurate representation of who he was.