To be a centrist master you must have all scores between 40-60 anyone else is a disruption in the Tao

Only your perfect balance on diplomacy prevents me from calling you a communist

Warrior wrote:To be a centrist master you must have all scores between 40-60 anyone else is a disruption in the Tao

Only your perfect balance on diplomacy prevents me from calling you a communist

I was misunderstood in the economy part. I want as little as necessary market regulation all around the world instead of the fractured heavens and hells which benefit huge multinational corporations only. Modern USA as a country is an oligarchy disguised as democracy to me which forces its views on other countries. In turn, more oligarchies are produced. We're going nowhere. The Chinese model disguised as communism is capitalism at its finest with heavy market regulation.
You're objectivly the CENTRIST though

Babun wrote:
I am a centrist.

Babun wrote:
I am a centrist.

To be a centriest your views have to align with the majority. Not some stupid test or queetionaire.
Ultimately the majority determines the center, from there you can determine who is on the right or left.

Why do some of you think you guys are some kind a lone hero vs angry army. The truth is you are nothing special, if you focus on the nauence many may agree with you on some capacity.

I have noticed from many online discussions is many like to overestimate their viewpoints from their opposition.

I mean since i am i'd vote conservative because they are only ones to adress problems i care for. Not gonna lie they have poor views on certain topics but i have huge doubts that they actually care enough to reform backwards. Other parties are socialists (if i'm polite) who exaggerate the social injustice and none of them care for the only remaining form of systemic racism in Canada which is against natives. So they need to wake up and see reality before i start considering them.

In USA basic social issues such as systemic racism, abortion, gun control are still debate material would you believe. So if i was i'd be more a liberal, democrat or whatever else of this sort. USA economic/foreign policy is fine if not a bit unfair, no need to add wood in the fire of savage capitalism/imperialism like Trump does.

So yes this is true balance, having ideals from both left and right is normal but what should be prioritized always depend on the context

Blue wrote:Ultimately the majority determines the center

False

Lol

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Maybe we should give this test a shot:

https://8values.github.io

My results:



Roughly where I expected to be placed, I'd say this is fairly accurate for me (although perhaps a bit too extreme in some placements)

There's also this one, which is like the traditional PoliticalCompass but adds a variable for conservative-progressive:

https://sapplyvalues.github.io

Where I scored



This one made me a more centrist than I usually score, especially on the authority scale, but maybe it just reflects my getting older.

In the OG PoliticalCompass I typically score somewhere around 0, -5

Interesting, thought i would get libertarian socialism but apparently i'm a filthy ancom.

How would anyone try to argue that the majority and popular views is not the center? It is by definition impossible to argue otherwise. Wtf is like arguing 2+2 equals anything but 4

Are you joking can you even read ?

On this forum the majority is socialism/libertarianism

I think this forum leans left because it's full of millennials, i suppose we'd be more politically balanced if we were more diverse age-wise, we need more @sportsczy and @futbol_bill imo.

Robespierre wrote:I feel it's correct.

this is the last book I've read, everything comes back tbf

Blue wrote:How would anyone try to argue that the majority and popular views is not the center? It is by definition impossible to argue otherwise. Wtf is like arguing 2+2 equals anything but 4

when talking "left vs right" center does mean where most people lie, but that just means left and right mean nothing, and depend entirely on the context of the country you are speaking of

These tests try to fit your profiles within certain ideologies, so a centrist is understood to be someone that places equal emphasis on free markets and social welfare, for instance. But if you live in a country where most people believe in the supremacy of the free market over the welfare state (such as the US), then holding this 'centrist' view might make you a 'left leaning' person.

Warrior wrote:On the GL scale i am a fucking nazi

a 100% dude, even i am shocked by your result

Probably it has something to do with the option of "strongly agree/disagree" in answers, i didn't use it much

About societal axis sincerely i don't believe i am that much less progressist than you, as example. However the rest represents well.

The major factor when you consider or talk about GL users is that most of us (still remaining here) are immigrants or 2nd generation immigrants, we've mostly not been in or constrained to one country all our lives and seen a perspective from a considerably wide angle (Especially what you define as "left" here).

More so the immense majority are below 40 years old

In this kind of test you must really come from another generation and/or be a moral disaster to be tagged as right leaning. Some could say center is the new right. Even "conservative" millenials grew up in the same multicultural progressive world.

Warrior wrote:More so the immense majority are below 40 years old

In this kind of test you must really come from another generation and/or be a moral disaster to be tagged as right leaning. Some could say center is the new right. Even "conservative" millenials grew up in the same multicultural progressive world.

I did not answer with the respect to the test, regardless, I come from a culture where your age makes you superior to others and you automatically have more wisdom being older even if it is by 1 year. Age is extremely subjective and does not define any kind of opinion whether its political or emotional.

Warrior wrote:Probably it has something to do with the option of "strongly agree/disagree" in answers, i didn't use it much

I thought several of the questions on PoliticalCompass were rather poor. Too broad. On many of the questions about society, I could think of an example that fit that question that I agreed with and an example I disagreed with.

Also disliked some of the economical questions. There was one that iirc was something like "should large multinational corporations profit their shareholders or should their success be used to help humanity?". That's a total bait question, imo. So very easy to think that helping humanity is nice, let's choose that one. Whereas in reality if corporations are over-regulated to "help humanity" first and make profit second, it would lead to two things: Competition that uses the same tech and methods, but is only better at circumventing regulation or operates in regions with less regulation would gain an advantage and the "humanity helping" corporation becomes only a shadow of itself or goes out of business. Great, they helped humanity for a while and then failed due to over-regulation. Or if everyone in the world is regulated the same and cannot circumvent it, then that would throttle innovation and progress, since no one would be motivated to invest in and develop in that area of business, because there's no profit to be made, because everyone's just helping humanity. The market would be full of sub-standard products, kinda like in communism. So, pitting capitalism and humanity against each other and you have to choose one or the other is stupid, imo, because they can and should co-exist.

Blue wrote:

Babun wrote:
I am a centrist.

To be a centriest your views have to align with the majority. Not some stupid test or queetionaire.
Ultimately the majority determines the center, from there you can determine who is on the right or left.

Why do some of you think you guys are some kind a lone hero vs angry army. The truth is you are nothing special, if you focus on the nauence many may agree with you on some capacity.

I have noticed from many online discussions is many like to overestimate their viewpoints from their opposition.

Dude, I don't know what your problem is. I elaborated the difference between the US and the EU version of left or socialist. In the US, any type of market regulation is called socialist, even the minimal version. Being a bit to the left in an US pol makes me more of the right wing in the economics deparment in the EU version.

Art Morte wrote:

Warrior wrote:Probably it has something to do with the option of "strongly agree/disagree" in answers, i didn't use it much

I thought several of the questions on PoliticalCompass were rather poor. Too broad. On many of the questions about society, I could think of an example that fit that question that I agreed with and an example I disagreed with.

Also disliked some of the economical questions. There was one that iirc was something like "should large multinational corporations profit their shareholders or should their success be used to help humanity?". That's a total bait question, imo. So very easy to think that helping humanity is nice, let's choose that one. Whereas in reality if corporations are over-regulated to "help humanity" first and make profit second, it would lead to two things: Competition that uses the same tech and methods, but is only better at circumventing regulation or operates in regions with less regulation would gain an advantage and the "humanity helping" corporation becomes only a shadow of itself or goes out of business. Great, they helped humanity for a while and then failed due to over-regulation. Or if everyone in the world is regulated the same and cannot circumvent it, then that would throttle innovation and progress, since no one would be motivated to invest in and develop in that area of business, because there's no profit to be made, because everyone's just helping humanity. The market would be full of sub-standard products, kinda like in communism. So, pitting capitalism and humanity against each other and you have to choose one or the other is stupid, imo, because they can and should co-exist.

Not every question makes sense there but it is a good starting point. The other ones were worse.

Yes Art each question could be a matter of debate. I answer instantly to most questions, had i took time to weight all pros and cons i'd still not finished the test

Example "Land is not a commodity to be bought and sold"
In principle i disagree and that was my answer. No land is sacred i don't believe it's immoral to acquire/develop a piece of land. But if you expand the question further asking about exploitation of protected territories, or house expropriation... that's a big no for me

While I am at it, I also disliked the last page being about religious questions. To me, religion and politics are not connected and I answered "strongly disagree with religion" to most question - the left/liberal answer - but would actually have preferred to see my results without those religious questions included.