Political Compass?

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Trinoya » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:33 pm

whenever I do this I always get far left (communism) and either just above or below the line... today I scored Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15.. so odds are I'm in a less, "grr argh hulk smash" mood.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:22 am

Trinoya wrote:whenever I do this I always get far left (communism) and either just above or below the line... today I scored Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15.. so odds are I'm in a less, "grr argh hulk smash" mood.
Hulk isn't that red either...

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Trinoya » Sat Aug 21, 2010 3:53 am

I know! I just can't seem to win!


...

...

In Soviet Russia, Debate vs You!

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Political Compass?

Post by sonofccn » Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:32 am

Cocytus wrote:That's true to a point. The balancing act is tricky, but in my view subjecting minority rights to a majority vote undermines the promise of inalienability made by the Founders.
In principal I belive I agree unless the majority similarly forwent the inalienability, such as admending the second amendment. However I grow very weary and cautious towards anyone who refers to the will of the people as fickle or easily swayed. No more good comes from Tyrrany of the Minority than the Tyrrany of the Majority.
Now the reason I consider gay marriage a right is not only because statutes banning it violate the Establishment Clause, but because they also violate substantive Due Process under the 14th Amendment, as well as a man's inalienable right to pursuit of happiness. I offer this evidence: In the 1967 case Loving Vs. Virginia, which invalidated all miscegenation statutes, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his majority opinion that:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
I will accept you believe it is a right as long as you accept that I don't. I have no desire or will to argue the point nor do I intend to. My argument, such as it is, was to being up that even should two people fully agree to the underlaying point they could both argue each other until the cows come home.
This is fascinating, because we're both formulating questions in a way we think supports our position.
Depends on what you are calling my position. Nanny-busy bodies cross political spectrums after all.
For example, even if the government's or majority's intentions are noble, such as arresting moral decay or preventing outright human extinction (a long shot argument, but it's made nonetheless) such nobility cannot justify their intrusion into the private lives of citizens wishing to marry those of the same sex.
Yes you could make that argument which I believe the standard counter argument is that freedom doesn't entitle you to do everything your heart desires, murder for instance, and that it is ultimatly up to the comunity, ie the majority, to regulate.

Speaking for myself I don't have an issue if a comunity votes to banish fast food or whatnot. I may dislike it and decry it as I'm picking up my stake and moving on to greener pastures but that is the way the game is played. My beef is with small cabals "helping" me by trying to dictate what I should do as if I'm some child and can't make up my mind or be trusted.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Political Compass?

Post by sonofccn » Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:57 am

Praeothmin wrote:
sonofccn wrote: Me? I'd add this:

You are justified in meddling in other people's lives and buisness as long as your means are noble. Agree/Disagree

Me? I want to live my life as I see fit. If that means chain smoking while devouring platefull after platefull of scrambled eggs and bacon lathered in grease so be it. If it means making the concious decision that I'd rather not wear my seatbelt so be it. If that means I invest my money and time into fast food resturants which serve fattening foods so be it. Frankly I think the world would be a better place if all the dogooder nanny busybody types were all shot out into the deepest reaches of space where they can preen over themselves and insiste that they all eat a healthy balanced meal while putting foam rubber on all the sharp corners so they don't hurt themselves.
Problem is, your bad choices cost ME a lot of money because Health care costs more, insurances are higher, and dumb people are allowed to WASTE MY TAXES using the judicial system to sue McDonalds who they blame for their FAT LARD ASS because they're just too fucking lazy to move a bit, and are just too dumb to eat right and they want to blame someone else for their stupidity...
1. Please elaborate. How precisly am I raising your health care costs and how does this differ from anyone elses use of medical facilities.

2.Don't insurance companies typically give healthy blokes a "better deal"? After all you are much more likely to be alive in say ten or twenty years compared to gluttonious me.

3. That fat idiots can sue McDonalds has less to do with them being fat and more to do with us producing laws and a culture of the big, fat cash settlement for trumped up greviences. Reform is needed not treating full grown citizens they are children.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:42 pm

Now the reason I consider gay marriage a right is not only because statutes banning it violate the Establishment Clause, but because they also violate substantive Due Process under the 14th Amendment, as well as a man's inalienable right to pursuit of happiness.
Exactly. Why so serious?

User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Tyralak » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:17 am

I've changed a little bit, but not much. Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by 2046 » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:14 am

I fully support JMS's challenge to Serafina. There's a thread around here somewhere where I expressed the view that most of the hardcore Warsies are further left than the average dirty Trekkie. While Serafina's challenge will probably have little to do with that (given that the community-at-large will have input), it's nonetheless something I'll look for in the results.

In any case, since this is also serving as an excuse for everyone to update their results:
2046 wrote: Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.51
{...}
(Should I use this thread as proof I'm centrist next time SDNers claim I'm a neo-con?) ;)
Still almost dead center, but drifting slightly leftward and slightly upward . . . though I'd wager I'm probably within the test's margin of error for being exactly the same.

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.05

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:08 am

I have my problems with that test.

Not only are some of these questions not unambiguous enough, but the possible answers (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) are weird.

What is the difference between strongly disagree and disagree or agree and strongly agree?

I always though that either I agree or I disagree and that there is no possible way to increase my agreement or disagreement.

I mean, isn't it ike pregnant or dead: Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Either you are dead or you are not dead. More pregnant or more dead is not possible.

And either you agree or you disagree. But how can you strongly agree or disagree?

And again: What is the difference between strongly disagree and disagree or agree and strongly agree?

Why would you choose to strongly agree with a statement instead of simply agreeing with it or vice versa?

How can you be sure, that you do not choose a strongly agree or a strongly disagree instead of the simple agree or disagree because you feel that the topic of that statement is more important than the topic of other statements?



But for statistical use only, here are my results:
        • Image

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:57 pm

sonofccn wrote:1. Please elaborate. How precisly am I raising your health care costs and how does this differ from anyone elses use of medical facilities.

2.Don't insurance companies typically give healthy blokes a "better deal"? After all you are much more likely to be alive in say ten or twenty years compared to gluttonious me.

3. That fat idiots can sue McDonalds has less to do with them being fat and more to do with us producing laws and a culture of the big, fat cash settlement for trumped up greviences. Reform is needed not treating full grown citizens they are children.
1-I live in Canada, where we have universal health care. When people don't take care of their healths, the have more health issues we (as in, ALL Canadians) have to pay.
So by eating like a slob, smoking and not exercising, you (just an example, not YOU you, but you as "someone") are costing me a shitload of money I'd rather have spend "normal" medical bills, like car accidents, basic injuries, cancer from people who really just weren't lucky health-wise.
It's a fact that healthy people have much less chances of becoming ill or develloping diseases then people who aren't health conscious.

2-Didn't know that, I only heard insurances were high. But still, imagine if everyone was healthy, how much more cheaper insurances costs could be...

3-Agreed, but where did these laws come from? The "right" for people to do as they please, damn be the consequences.
By taking away responsability for yourself, you get these silly laws that allow these silly lawsuits...

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:33 am

2046 wrote:I fully support JMS's challenge to Serafina. There's a thread around here somewhere where I expressed the view that most of the hardcore Warsies are further left than the average dirty Trekkie. While Serafina's challenge will probably have little to do with that (given that the community-at-large will have input), it's nonetheless something I'll look for in the results.
Might that have been this thread?

I still disagree with you on the whole. My contention is, and has been for quite some time, that there's no intrinsic relationship between the traditional left-right political spectrum and the positions people take in the VS debate. Any apparent relationship is going to be due to the relative political uniformity of SDN, specifically, as a community, and I think that's going to show a difference in variance rather than a difference in typical position, when compared with boards of similar size and age.

The traditional SDN chatter that Trek debaters are conservative, I put no more stock in than the traditional SDN chatter that Trek debaters are uneducated. The latter claim has been thoroughly disproven; the former claim is likely to be even less tenable.

A couple notes specifically about the Political Compass:
WILGA wrote:What is the difference between strongly disagree and disagree or agree and strongly agree?
The difference is taken to be certainty and emotion. We could actually separate opinions more finely - sometimes people have no opinion. (I think you might be supposed to leave the question blank if you have no opinion.)

For example:
Political Compass wrote:Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
You might click "Strongly disagree" if you take race to be a social illusion.
You might click "Disagree" if you experience periodic doubts of your views, or think that perhaps your race has a few superior qualities, though not many more than other races, or if you aren't racist but don't know about the topic, or don't care about the topic.
You might click "Agree" if you were a racist, but one who thinks that all races have some superior qualities making it a harder call, or if you are racist but don't know about the topic, or don't care about the topic.
You might click "Strongly Agree" if it was very important to you that your race be considered superior, or if you took it as an article of faith that your race was superior.

Many questions are the sort which much could be said about it. If you find yourself responding "Well, of course!" or "Well, of course not!" that is a strong agreement or disagreement; if you find yourself wanting to hedge your answer with caveats and addenda, you agree or disagree less strongly.

A small point for Serafina, who PMed me saying that the Political Compass website is conservatively biased because it's based on US politics: See here. The Political Compass website considers US politicians to generally be right-authoritarian, and also charts EU governments. The questions may be often related to active US policy questions, but it's not actually globally biased left-to-right.

2046: Did you notice that your score puts you left-libertarian from Obama's listed score?

Another point for everyone: You can build charts here. You might find it easier to just type in "&NAME=X,Y at the end of the URL if you're making a large list. Below is a link to a chart showing all the scores that have been given thus far in this thread:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdch ... 7.62,-6.56

As we can see, we're not all in exactly the same place on the political spectrum, although we are so far heavily clumped in left-libertarian land - and with the older scores included, you can see that either there's a lot of random error, or we aren't drifting in the same directions at all. My expectation is that you would get a similar sort of spread on most internet forums. My expectation also is that SDN will have less variation in scores than comparable boards of similar size (e.g., SB.com) - and anybody with an active account on SDN is welcome to test that hypothesis for me.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Re:

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:38 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
WILGA wrote:What is the difference between strongly disagree and disagree or agree and strongly agree?
The difference is taken to be certainty and emotion. We could actually separate opinions more finely - sometimes people have no opinion. (I think you might be supposed to leave the question blank if you have no opinion.)

For example:
Political Compass wrote:Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
You might click "Strongly disagree" if you take race to be a social illusion.
You might click "Disagree" if you experience periodic doubts of your views, or think that perhaps your race has a few superior qualities, though not many more than other races, or if you aren't racist but don't know about the topic, or don't care about the topic.
You might click "Agree" if you were a racist, but one who thinks that all races have some superior qualities making it a harder call, or if you are racist but don't know about the topic, or don't care about the topic.
You might click "Strongly Agree" if it was very important to you that your race be considered superior, or if you took it as an article of faith that your race was superior.

Many questions are the sort which much could be said about it. If you find yourself responding "Well, of course!" or "Well, of course not!" that is a strong agreement or disagreement; if you find yourself wanting to hedge your answer with caveats and addenda, you agree or disagree less strongly.
That's not my way of thinking.

I agree when the statement is true and disagree when the statement is wrong - or I think that it is true or wrong.

My emotions have nothing to do that.

Sometimes I outright hate it to have to agree with something or someone. But nevertheless, I agree if what was stated it right.

And sometimes it hurts to disagree with something or someone. But if what was statet is wrong, I disagree.

Let's look at your example:
        • Political Compass wrote:Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
If I thought that our race has a few superior qualities, compared with other races, I would disagree with that statement because it is stating that our race has many superior qualities and I would merely think that our race has a few superior qualities, but not many.



Other examples:
        • Political Compass wrote:The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
Even if I thought that it is a very important thing for children to learn to accept discipline, I would disagree with that statement because it is stating that it is the most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline and I would merely think that it is very important but that another thing is more important.

        • Political Compass wrote:First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
Even If I thought that it is very difficult to integrate first-generation immigrants within their new country, I would disagree with that statement because it is stating that first-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country and I would merely think that it is very difficult but can sometimes, if very seldom, happen.

        • Political Compass wrote:Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Even if I thought that it is very important, that mothers are homemakers, I would disagree with that statement because it is stating that it is the first duty of mothers to be homemakers and I would merely think that it is important but that there are more important duties for mothers.

(P.S.: That's not what I really think. These are only examples.)

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Political Compass?

Post by sonofccn » Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:18 pm

Praeothmin wrote:I live in Canada, where we have universal health care. When people don't take care of their healths, the have more health issues we (as in, ALL Canadians) have to pay.
So by eating like a slob, smoking and not exercising, you (just an example, not YOU you, but you as "someone") are costing me a shitload of money I'd rather have spend "normal" medical bills, like car accidents, basic injuries, cancer from people who really just weren't lucky health-wise.
It's a fact that healthy people have much less chances of becoming ill or develloping diseases then people who aren't health conscious.
Oh, sorry if I sounded demanding but I was unsure if you meant this or someother less direct route of costing you money. I can understand your point but my fear in such a scenario is where is the line drawn? Fixing people up after car wrecks is expensive why not make everyone ride public transportation? Drinking not only ruins your liver it increases the odds of you doing something stupid and requiring costly medical bills to patch up so why not make everyone tee-totalers?
Praeothmin wrote:Didn't know that, I only heard insurances were high. But still, imagine if everyone was healthy, how much more cheaper insurances costs could be...
Oh insurance is high but there are a myraid of reasons such as an ever expanding list of things your insurance covers,its what the market will bear, limited competetion and of course a little price gouging but hey that shoe polish and the orphans to shine your footwear with it aren't free you now. :)
Praeothmin wrote:3-Agreed, but where did these laws come from? The "right" for people to do as they please, damn be the consequences.
By taking away responsability for yourself, you get these silly laws that allow these silly lawsuits...
I would argue it was the victim mentality and the refusal to accept responsibility for ones action. So your not dying in a hospital bed with lungs riddled with cancer because you were a chain smoker since you were a wee lad its because the Tobacco Company "forced" you to take their product. Your not fat because you gobble down fast food without exercise but because Ronald Mcdonald refused to offer you a salad.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:36 pm

sonofccn wrote:I can understand your point but my fear in such a scenario is where is the line drawn? Fixing people up after car wrecks is expensive why not make everyone ride public transportation? Drinking not only ruins your liver it increases the odds of you doing something stupid and requiring costly medical bills to patch up so why not make everyone tee-totalers?
Car wrecks are an accident, not a choice like eating junk food and living like a slob.
Drinking responsably will not increase anything, just like eating the occasional Big Mac in a healthy diet won't kill you.
Just a question of: I'm willing to pay for medical bills for accidental or unavoidable health issues, but not for idiots who willingly don't take care of their health.

And I agree there are many factors that influence insurance prices, but I still believe (perhaps erroneously) that healthier people would yield lower insurance costs, just like better drivers yield lower car insurance in general...
I would argue it was the victim mentality and the refusal to accept responsibility for ones action.
That too, although these people are sometimes the ones who influence the lawmakers, themsleves often fat/unhealthy/irresponsible... :)

Anyway, enough derailing of the thread... :)
I believe we now both see what the other thinks clearly, and thanks for an interesting conversation (writtent though it may be)...

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by 2046 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:53 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
2046 wrote:I fully support JMS's challenge to Serafina. There's a thread around here somewhere where I expressed the view that most of the hardcore Warsies are further left than the average dirty Trekkie. While Serafina's challenge will probably have little to do with that (given that the community-at-large will have input), it's nonetheless something I'll look for in the results.
Might that have been this thread?
Yes, that's the one.
I still disagree with you on the whole.
Not a problem. That's one of those things where even if I'm right it's marginal, and I presented the claim as such.
My contention is, and has been for quite some time, that there's no intrinsic relationship between the traditional left-right political spectrum and the positions people take in the VS debate.
Well, if you do believe in political uniformity at SDN, then I'm not sure you can say there's no relationship whatsoever.

We might imagine a newcomer to SDN, a normal and moderate person in every way (save for the fact that they went to SDN in the first place). This person might be confronted with three things (oversimplifying, I'm sure, but in general):

1. A strong pro-Wars, anti-Trek bent.
2. Uniformity of political opinion.
3. An internet subculture with somewhat different ethics and customs than one might find in everyday interpersonal dealings.*

(* As one person suggests, SDN is "smashmouth" compared to some. I've been to forums that were artsy-hippie, forums that were insufferably dull, forums that were professional, et cetera . . . they each have their own culture and customs.

But in any case, #3 covers a good bit of ground, potentially, but if we define it somewhat narrowly in regards to the cultish and hostile demeanor then we've got a decent thought going.)

If we take those three items and paste them onto the newcomer, we might find a few points of commonality in his or her response.

For instance, a newcomer who agreed with their politics might be drawn to them and trust them in other matters (however foolishly), even adopting some of their subculture customs, and likewise those who would disagree with their politics might be more disposed to assume they're wrong about the Vs. Debate and seek contrary opinions.

Alternately, if the newcomer is only interested in the Vs. Debate and never sees their politics, the behavior of the subculture might or might not interest them, leading to a similar situation.

To my mind, I think if we polled a bunch of newcomers who disagreed with any two of the three, then it's more likely they might disagree with the third. Not because they're stupid and just being contrary, but because they are given more cause to distrust.

That is to say, if you think SDN is full of leftist asshats, then there is a better chance are you are not as rabidly pro-Wars as they uniformly are. If you are a dirty Trekkie who thinks they are leftists, then chances are better that you don't like their subculture. If you think SDN is full of rabid Warsie asshats, then chances are greater that you view their political opinions with distrust.

These chances may not be great. But I think they exist.

The cause, I would argue, is one of worldview. The sort of worldview that underlies all three parts of SDN is somewhat unique, and I think to get there and join with them fully you have to share that worldview where the Empire is good and Socialism is good (provided it's not the Federation doing it, then it's bad) and up yours you ignorant dirty-word for not agreeing with me and blah blah blah.
2046: Did you notice that your score puts you left-libertarian from Obama's listed score?
Obama's listed score must therefore be wrong on the site.

Post Reply