Where in the Political Spectrum do you stand ?

Please choose the one closest to your political ideology and stance....be interesting where GL as a whole stands. Also you can explain the choice, so we know who picked what

One dimensional categories are super lame. I suggest everyone take this test instead (takes about 5-10 mins):

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Last time I took it I got this (in the spanish version)

https://i.imgur.com/0Yaj8UC.jpg

I would say I am liberal. I strongly believe live and let live. No one has right to tell me what to wear what to eat and who to worship. Also I think all religions basically we're meant to make lives peaceful and happy instead they have  become leeches that that suck every possible drop of blood from man. Regarding politics I would say am more of Democrat. Am glad u discussed this because frome year or so in my country extreme rightists have came to power and following are the decisions they took ff
1. Porn ban
2. Beef ban
3. Ban on criticism of govt.
4. Control on social media
These are just few of them. Most of them were challenged and thnx to our Constitution they were reversed.  Let me give one example of these extent to which the religious bastards went. A Muslim man was killed by mob just because he was suspected of eating beef in front of his family which was not true and it was only the rumour. These is all getting very suffocating now.

I always try to abstain from politics. I don't know much about it, but I have my personal views which I rather strongly believe in. I've always believed I'm all for Individualism. But of course there's so many catch 22s and politics is just full of too many intricacies, I find it hard to pick a side.

But I did that test BC posted and this is my results:

That was my first time btw, some of the questions got me thinking long and hard lol

Hans were you trying to get that?

It's hard for me to identify myself from the choices, but i'd say i usually favor policies that are between Center-Left to Moderate-Left.

My result:

I'm Pjotr Kropotkin XD


(click to enlarge)

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Hans were you trying to get that?

Nope. That's me

Though as usual in a 'test' like that, many questions are ambivalent, so I have to answer towards a general feeling that might not necessarily be just as strict in a concrete scenario.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Prime Gandhi

I am a Marxist so I guess I fall into far left.

Did the political test anyways and got this.

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

Will do the test, but before I do it, here is how I perceive myself:

I'm neither left or right or center. While I do have opinions which people associate with "right" like banning hijabs or not letting in millions of refugees in uncontrolled manner, I'm actually in favour of multiculturalism. As long as it is done properly which it isn't in Europe.

Then there are topics which are associated as "left", if not "far left", which I'm absolutely in favour of. Banning guns, allowing embryonic stem cell experiments, very high taxations for super rich people (which must be done globally so it doesn't become pointless and people just move their official residence), anti-war, allowing prostitution, allowing cannabis, allowing gay marriage etc.

But then again there are topics where I am "traditional". Gay marriage: yes. But gays adopting children: no. No special treatment (quota) for women in jobs. Etc.

Really depends regarding the specific topic tbh.

gays adopting children: no.

any particular reason?

futbol wrote:Will do the test, but before I do it, here is how I perceive myself:

I'm neither left or right or center. While I do have opinions which people associate with "right" like banning hijabs or not letting in millions of refugees in uncontrolled manner, I'm actually in favour of multiculturalism. As long as it is done properly which it isn't in Europe.

Then there are topics which are associated as "left", if not "far left", which I'm absolutely in favour of. Banning guns, allowing embryonic stem cell experiments, very high taxations for super rich people (which must be done globally so it doesn't become pointless and people just move their official residence), anti-war, allowing prostitution, allowing cannabis, allowing gay marriage etc.

But then again there are topics where I am "traditional". Gay marriage: yes. But gays adopting children: no. No special treatment (quota) for women in jobs. Etc.

Really depends regarding the specific topic tbh.

Reasonable enough. Safe to say it's exactly issues like the head scarf ban in France that tend to erode the traditional left/right camps.

I'm not comfortable with clearly proclaiming myself as part of a camp either. I'm proud to say I'm far far far left but part of that actually means I usually detest people trying to 'lead' others, which of course is part of most organized politics also on the far left.
I made my experiences with political groups and I don't care for it. IMO vanity, overconfidence and careerism is found in all persuasions (even if I'd argue left politics should be directed against this kind of behaviour).
Isn't it curious that for example many of our today's most successful career politicians on the German center left (the Greens etc) started out as hardcore Maoists ? Suggests to me that they always just wanted to talk shit and build networks primarily.

Also, my problem is always when asked which answer I pick I usually feel the question is wrong already
For example, if you say you don't want 'special treatment' of women in the workplace in form of quotas, my position would be this:
I'm not comfortable with the notion of quotas either, but I think it would be important to understand and realize that the call for quota by feminists is not simply asking for special treatment, but a tool to curb the 'normality' and effortless omnipresence of special treatment for men.
We may think the effort of a push for quota is a violation of principles, but principles never apply to everyone unless efforts are made.
Or to put that in generally terms, I think libertarian instincts are good and I share them, but an actual look at history often makes libertarian proclamations naive and ignorant.

RealGunner wrote:

gays adopting children: no.

any particular reason?

Maybe not a scientifically logical one but I believe a child should have a mother figure as well as a father figure when growing up. I'm not sure about the psychological disadvantages for a child when everyone around him has a mom and a dad but he has two dads or moms. The child WILL at some point ask why he is "different" and doesn't have what basically everyone has and what seems normality. How that will affect a child is anyone's guess. Less than 5 % of human population is gay, says a quick Google research. This means homesexuality will never become the "acceptable norm" and children with gay parents will inevitably get mocked from other children.

Now you could argue that people also do divorce and that's also not good for children but you can't force people to stay together forever once they get children or prohibit them to make children to begin with. That's a risk that you can't prevent without enforcing totalitarian rules. On the other hand you don't have to actively promote gay couples raising children. If they are gay they must accept nature's laws that they can't make children.

What I'd find acceptable however is if gay couples can adopt, let's say 16+ year old children. At that age kids should be fully aware and be able to decide if they want to live in a gay household.

That's the point though, if a thing constitutes 5% of totality, it may never be the 'norm' but why can't it be 'acceptable'?
The principle of protection of minorities is not that they need to become majorities to be granted same rights.

Well, "protection of minorities" is a law that only applies to ethnical groups. It doesn't apply to homosexuals.

But let's pretend for a second that it actually does what you thought it does. What are you protecting exactly? Adopting children is not a human right. The well-being of the child is above your lifestyle wish ("wanting to have children", gay or not gay, if you are younger than 25 you can also not adopt). The principle is that the youth welfare office chooses the parents. Parents don't choose children.

I'm Ghandi confirmed:

Lots of libertarian left in the GL. probably because we're all young tho, i've heard people tends to become more conservative as they age.

Pedram wrote:Lots of libertarian left in the GL. probably because we're all young tho, i've heard people tends to become more conservative as they age.

I'd like to think that its the 'environment' that changes, while we're the ones stationary

@futbol - I know it was only a fly-by suggestion but you said it anyway so I'll speak on it.
Where's the fun in adopting a +16 person?
Isn't the trials and tribulations, birthdays, first day of school, etc etc (you get the drill), all a part of the emotional bond and experience of being parents?