131 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The compass is Euro-centric, but it's a pretty good site. Back when I was engaged in political discussion on other forums, it was a great tool to find out where I actually could be shoehorned into.

[RedArmyShogun]

Not so, most of the founders place in the moderate Right Authoritarian or libertarian range. Minus Franklin, who was an odditiy on the Libertarian Moderate Left. Very few of the others were leftist, which leads to what I call the funny chart in a way.

US Left s Europes right, US Right is the Mid Easts Left. lol

@crusty, and a better choice really. I like keeping my views as my own, not adopting them to one of two narrow parties. I place on the Authoritarian Left unsurprisingly.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 12 juin 2012 - 03:18 .

[Blacklash93]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Not so, you have groups like Social Conservitives, to the far left on economics, and the far right on social issues.

Then you're socially right and economically left. The two stances do not somehow average out themselves.

[RedArmyShogun]

Once more looking at the wrong list. Ignore the US list, its stupid.

Lets take Facisim and Communisim.

Far left, Far Right.

Yet both censor, both pretty much kill every gay and criminal they ever catch. One would burn you for being rich, the other would burn you for wanting a handout. One is for common ownership, the other wants mega corps.

Right there you have two far, and violent oppositions of the other, yet short of small examples on the Authoritarian grounds they get along.

In Fact Hitler and Stalin would have been best friends if you kept economics out of it. Meanwhile while Mao and Gandhi are of the left, both and the ideals/movements they led because of that factor have nothing in common. In fact Mao would have shot Ghandi, and Ghandi would have spoken against Mao.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 12 juin 2012 - 03:26 .

[DarkDragon777]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Not so, you have groups like Social Conservitives, to the far left on economics, and the far right on social issues.

Then you're socially right and economically left. The two stances do not somehow average out themselves.

Proof?

[DarkDragon777]

Blacklash93 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Yes, it is possible to be in a more extreme side of the center.

Taking a "middle ground" or "center" stance is inherently not extreme. It compromises two extremes.

Theoretically a moderate can be ruthless is pushing ideals, though I've never seen it. But that is pushing for implementation of the stance and not the stance itself.

Since we're considering "Center" a section spearate from left and right on the linear political spectrum, we can assume that the center also has more extreme sides (that tip more left or right) unless you're claiming everyone who is central is purely centrist, which isn't true.

[chunkyman]

Odd that this thread devolved into a political discussion. Oh well, it's quite entertaining.

[DarkDragon777]

android654 wrote...

and you can not argue that a monarchy is anything but "right."

That could be argued. I assumed such an educated person like you would understand this.

[android654]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

and you can not argue that a monarchy is anything but "right."

That could be argued. I assumed such an educated person like you would understand this.

A Monarchy is power either taken from toppling an existing power or power given by tradition (ie. religion, cultural superstitions, etc). Both are politically "right" actions.

[Blacklash93]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Once more looking at the wrong list. Ignore the US list, its stupid.

Lets take Facisim and Communisim.

Far left, Far Right.

Yet both censor, both pretty much kill every gay and criminal they ever catch. One would burn you for being rich, the other would burn you for wanting a handout. One is for common ownership, the other wants mega corps.

Right there you have two far, and violent oppositions of the other, yet short of small examples on the Authoritarian grounds they get along.

In Fact Hitler and Stalin would have been best friends if you kept economics out of it. Meanwhile while Mao and Gandhi are of the left, both and they ideals/movements they led because of that factor have nothing in common.

I thought we were talking about moderate "center" stances here. Nothing about those examples is moderate. They are extremes on a number of issues and being extreme in one way here and another way there doesn't average out to make your view on life moderate.

Since we're considering "Center" a section spearate from left and right on the linear political spectrum, we can assume that the center also has more extreme sides (that tip more left or right) unless you're claiming everyone who is central is purely centrist, which isn't true.

I only stated the fact that moderates compromise the stances of the right and left. I never said they always did so evenly, in fact they usually don't. But using the word "extreme" is not appropriate here if you look at it relative to the extremes of the far leaning of the political spectrum.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 12 juin 2012 - 03:42 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

****

[RedArmyShogun]

I would agree with that minus you've had cases of statist monarchs, which would place them on the far left. While the traditions keep them in power, the economic power of the state places them on the moderate or slightly left. Monarchs can be found all around the center range really.

I do know of an extended US political compass with five factors, wish I remember where it was.

@Black

I was speaking of generalities, and it is possible for a centerists stance.

Either they don't care, as the bulk does. Or they have moderate feelings. For example take the State of NC. Its seen as moderate, often votes center left center right. Yet when a ban on homosexual marragie and civil unions came it passed with an almost 70% of the vote, while at the same time welfair programs have gained money.

In effect most people want stability and being greedy they want hand outs. They won't go far right as that means no hand outs. they won't go Far left as that means instability. The US left right concept is flawed.

You can run on a platfom for more welfair, more unionization, other leftist goals, but then push social conservitive issues, strong support for the military, and that would be seen as a centerists view in the US. You can support both ends as frankly as I've said a many a time.

Beating someone down in the street for a political view is not a Rightwing ideal. Its Everyones. At the same time being helpful to the poor isn't just a left wing view.

Would you say the Catholic Church is a left wing group? Yet it has thousands of aid programs.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 12 juin 2012 - 03:51 .

[DarkDragon777]

android654 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

and you can not argue that a monarchy is anything but "right."

That could be argued. I assumed such an educated person like you would understand this.

A Monarchy is power either taken from toppling an existing power or power given by tradition (ie. religion, cultural superstitions, etc). Both are politically "right" actions.

Really? Because last time I checked,  a monarchy was a " a form of government in which sovereignty is given to a single individual". Nothing you described above was mentioned in the definition. It more than likely came from your imagination.
Unless you're looking at history when coming to this conclusion, but hey, you were the one who was intent on discussing the ideological aspects of this, not the ones based on fact.

[DarkDragon777]

Blacklash93 wrote...

But using the word "extreme" is not appropriate here if you look at it relative to the extremes of the far leaning of the political spectrum.

Yes, it is.

[android654]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

and you can not argue that a monarchy is anything but "right."

That could be argued. I assumed such an educated person like you would understand this.

A Monarchy is power either taken from toppling an existing power or power given by tradition (ie. religion, cultural superstitions, etc). Both are politically "right" actions.

Really? Because last time I checked,  a monarchy was a " a form of government in which sovereignty is given to a single individual". Nothing you described above was mentioned in the definition. It more than likely came from your imagination.
Unless you're looking at history when coming to this conclusion, but hey, you were the one who was intent on discussing the ideological aspects of this, not the ones based on fact.

Are you honestly implying that a position of sole governance over people with no electoral procedures and practically zero accountability can either be left or right? Don't be a silly c*nt.

[chunkyman]

I'm going to test if **** is censored. 

Yep, it is.

Modifié par chunkyman, 12 juin 2012 - 03:51 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

android654 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

and you can not argue that a monarchy is anything but "right."

That could be argued. I assumed such an educated person like you would understand this.

A Monarchy is power either taken from toppling an existing power or power given by tradition (ie. religion, cultural superstitions, etc). Both are politically "right" actions.

Really? Because last time I checked,  a monarchy was a " a form of government in which sovereignty is given to a single individual". Nothing you described above was mentioned in the definition. It more than likely came from your imagination.
Unless you're looking at history when coming to this conclusion, but hey, you were the one who was intent on discussing the ideological aspects of this, not the ones based on fact.

Are you honestly implying that a position of sole governance over people with no electoral procedures and practically zero accountability can either be left or right? Don't be a silly c*nt.

Of course, it's simply authoritarian not "left or right". Franco and Stalin say hi.

[RedArmyShogun]

Oh I tested out like 30 some swear words, surpising how many of them are.

[DarkDragon777]

android654 wrote...



Are you honestly implying that a position of sole governance over people with no electoral procedures and practically zero accountability can either be left or right? Don't be a silly c*nt.

Yes.

And inevitably, the person who is opposed to hate speech one minute makes slanderous and derogatory remarks the next minute as they're losing the argument.

[android654]

CrustyBot wrote...

android654 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

android654 wrote...

and you can not argue that a monarchy is anything but "right."

That could be argued. I assumed such an educated person like you would understand this.

A Monarchy is power either taken from toppling an existing power or power given by tradition (ie. religion, cultural superstitions, etc). Both are politically "right" actions.

Really? Because last time I checked,  a monarchy was a " a form of government in which sovereignty is given to a single individual". Nothing you described above was mentioned in the definition. It more than likely came from your imagination.
Unless you're looking at history when coming to this conclusion, but hey, you were the one who was intent on discussing the ideological aspects of this, not the ones based on fact.

Are you honestly implying that a position of sole governance over people with no electoral procedures and practically zero accountability can either be left or right? Don't be a silly c*nt.

Of course, it's simply authoritarian not "left or right". Franco and Stalin say hi.

Execpt both of those men were elected and reassigned power to their offices to be dictators. That's what all dictators do. Monarchs are handed all the power with none of the work. That's the difference, the process to which they came to power.

[Blacklash93]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

But using the word "extreme" is not appropriate here if you look at it relative to the extremes of the far leaning of the political spectrum.

Yes, it is.

Would you really call someone an "extreme moderate"? That's an oxymoron.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

My result:
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.33

I'm disappointed and feel like a softy for low score of Authoritarianism.
Still I'm a Central-left without being much liberal!

Modifié par Imperial Sentinel Arian, 12 juin 2012 - 04:01 .