Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Let's take a look at where we are, ideologically speaking.

Let's take a look at where we are, ideologically speaking.
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 04:40 AM
 
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Here's mine, which I think is pretty damned liberal (in the classical sense of the word):

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:15 AM
 
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:27 AM
 
WOW! Center, with the spot just 1 square into the libertarian side.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:36 AM
 


I usually rate higher on civil liberties, but dead center (perhaps surprisingly to some) on economic issues is where I usually end up. I can't say I liked their questions, and am positive I'd disagree with how they weigh them.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:42 AM
 
I also prefer the compass I posted way back, which had better names for the ends of the axes.

Like "**** you with a plunger", and "big, white trash hair".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
WOW! Center, with the spot just 1 square into the libertarian side.
Is that where you expected/normally show up?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:16 AM
 
Surprise, surprise

     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:21 AM
 
This is the part where I bring up Doofy's point which states you can't get that restrictive on economics without moving a lot closer to authoritarian than you've placed.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is the part where I bring up Doofy's point which states you can't get that restrictive on economics without moving a lot closer to authoritarian than you've placed.
But its not that I'm restrictive, it's that I find companies untrustworthy. I didn't say I'd actually do anything about it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:33 AM
 
Hmm... I felt like I was giving answers which clearly forced companies to behave in certain ways due to their untrustworthiness, but ended up significantly right of you.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hmm... I felt like I was giving answers which clearly forced companies to behave in certain ways due to their untrustworthiness, but ended up significantly right of you.
That makes sense. If it was philosophical and not legislative you'd answer what you believe, not what you think is best. Which might go left.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:38 AM
 
Where was the ****ing gun question?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:38 AM
 
I mean, we can post questions and see where we differ.

Ex 1: It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

I agree. Municipalities decided to degrade the quality of their tap water to save a few dollars (presumably for the taxpayer) and now we pay $1 for a glass of water. Who won here?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:40 AM
 
It's also possible I used the "strongly" option more often. Or not.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That makes sense. If it was philosophical and not legislative you'd answer what you believe, not what you think is best. Which might go left.
I'm not sure I follow, but want to add you're three points from being pinned... you had to have answered something which was restrictive, no?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not sure I follow
I'd go further right out of practicality. Ex 2: The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
I believe companies have a greater responsibility than shareholders. But I would not legislate such a thing. Hence I seem more liberal in the answer than in reality.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
but want to add you're three points from being pinned...
wat

Originally Posted by subego View Post
you had to have answered something which was restrictive, no?
Sure. Ex 3: Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
****in' A, yeah. Some companies still dump chemicals into local water sources.

Ex 4: Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Well, yes. The free-market doesn't work here, except in the extremes. That said, do I want to impose a monetary penalty because Apple's commercials can be misleading? No, pulling it is enough.
Do I want impose a monetary penalty because a company that sells a product free of 'x' has been lying for years? Yes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I mean, we can post questions and see where we differ.

Ex 1: It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

I agree. Municipalities decided to degrade the quality of their tap water to save a few dollars (presumably for the taxpayer) and now we pay $1 for a glass of water. Who won here?
A: this is an example of why I disliked this test. WTF kind of question is this?

B: we can agree to disagree, but I don't think you replied to the statement which was posed. You rephrased the statement as "It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product which is so popular".

I would say this rephrased question is a sad state of affairs, but the fact it exists, which is all the question asks you consider... no, not a sad state of affairs.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd go further right out of practicality. Ex 2: The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
I believe companies have a greater responsibility than shareholders. But I would not legislate such a thing. Hence I seem more liberal in the answer than in reality.

wat

Sure. Ex 3: Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
****in' A, yeah. Some companies still dump chemicals into local water sources.

Ex 4: Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Well, yes. The free-market doesn't work here, except in the extremes. That said, do I want to impose a monetary penalty because Apple's commercials can be misleading? No, pulling it is enough.
Do I want impose a monetary penalty because a company that sells a product free of 'x' has been lying for years? Yes.
I answered companies have a bigger social responsibility than just delivering profits to their shareholders.

I answered companies should be regulated to protect the environment.

I answered companies which mislead the public should be penalized.

FWIW. Maybe it was lacking the "strong".
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A: this is an example of why I disliked this test. WTF kind of question is this?
Well that's a completely different problem.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
B: we can agree to disagree, but I don't think you replied to the statement which was posed. You rephrased the statement as "It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product which is so popular".
Good lord, no wonder we miscommunicate so often. I don't see how you get that out f my answer. I did not rephrase the statement; I gave the answer: Agree because: municipalities let tap water quality degrade to an undrinkable state to save money (for themselves and presumably in the name of the taxpayer) but taxpayers end up paying more on the free market than they would if the government had just continued doing so. That is a sad state of affairs.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I would say this rephrased question is a sad state of affairs, but the fact it exists, which is all the question asks you consider... no, not a sad state of affairs.
See above.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I answered companies have a bigger social responsibility than just delivering profits to their shareholders.

I answered companies should be regulated to protect the environment.

I answered companies which mislead the public should be penalized.

FWIW. Maybe it was lacking the "strong".
Well, we can take it again where I avoid 'strong' and see where it ends up, though I think I tried that before and barely improves things.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:10 AM
 
The existence of bottled water doesn't bother me, some people like posh bottles and frou-frou BS like that, more power to them. As long as there are free (or comparatively very cheap) potable alternatives, why should anyone care? How is its availability a "sad" thing?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Good lord, no wonder we miscommunicate so often. I don't see how you get that out f my answer. I did not rephrase the statement; I gave the answer: Agree because: municipalities let tap water quality degrade to an undrinkable state to save money (for themselves and presumably in the name of the taxpayer) but taxpayers end up paying more on the free market than they would if the government had just continued doing so. That is a sad state of affairs.
Where is the state of the municipal water system referred to in the question?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where is the state of the municipal water system referred to in the question?
The issue is that (IMO) Progressives think that it's somehow implied in the comment.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where is the state of the municipal water system referred to in the question?
Now I see your point. However, the genesis of the bottled water coming to market was what I referred to above. So is this a case of understanding history leaving me reading too deeply into the question, or merely understanding what many people don't?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is that where you expected/normally show up?
NO! I expected to show as more conservative.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The existence of bottled water doesn't bother me, some people like posh bottles and frou-frou BS like that, more power to them. As long as there are free (or comparatively very cheap) potable alternatives, why should anyone care? How is its availability a "sad" thing?
I agree – I wouldn't legislate that bottled water can't be sold – and philosophically I'm not opposed to it as an alternative to viable tap water.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The issue is that (IMO) Progressives think that it's somehow implied in the comment.
To be fair, we don't know the intent of the author.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:24 AM
 
I'm trying to take this but I'm stuck on a question.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Is this asking if I like monopolies, dislike monopolies or don't understand that "free market" and "restrictions" are incompatible?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:26 AM
 
The entire test seems to have been written by a Leftist Libertarian, so if you bear that in mind, their intention seems to be to convince people they aren't as far over into the authoritarian Right as they thought they were. However, a byproduct of that is centrists get mapped out to look like hippies.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The existence of bottled water doesn't bother me, some people like posh bottles and frou-frou BS like that, more power to them. As long as there are free (or comparatively very cheap) potable alternatives, why should anyone care? How is its availability a "sad" thing?
The sad thing is how loose the definition of drinking water has become. "It won't kill you unless you drink allot of it" isn't what i'm looking for in drinking water.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
"free market" and "restrictions" are incompatible?
Only in crazy extremist land. After all, is free speech dead once you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The entire test seems to have been written by a Leftist Libertarian, so if you bear that in mind, their intention seems to be to convince people they aren't as far over into the authoritarian Right as they thought they were. However, a byproduct of that is centrists get mapped out to look like hippies.
Hey, you're the one that posted it, buddy!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Now I see your point. However, the genesis of the bottled water coming to market was what I referred to above. So is this a case of understanding history leaving me reading too deeply into the question, or merely understanding what many people don't?
If it was shitty tap water that started the deal with bottled water, that would have been in Europe, because that's where it started.

I'll defer to your knowledge of municipal tap water over the last 30 years, but I'm pretty sure branded, bottled water existed before this happened. If the state of affairs is sad now but was not sad then, how do you pin the sadness on the bottled water? The operative factor in the statement was the same then as it is now.

Anecdotal: our tap water is fine. It doesn't taste as good as bottled, and it's very hard, but it's certainly drinkable.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I'm trying to take this but I'm stuck on a question.

Is this asking if I like monopolies, dislike monopolies or don't understand that "free market" and "restrictions" are incompatible?
I said "disagree", because not all regulations are "restrictions". *shrug*
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hey, you're the one that posted it, buddy!
The scale posted doesn't matter, I simply wanted to see where we are relative to each other.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I said "disagree", because not all regulations are "restrictions". *shrug*
Put better than I could.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The scale posted doesn't matter, I simply wanted to see where we are relative to each other.
Relax, I'm busting your chops.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I'm trying to take this but I'm stuck on a question.



Is this asking if I like monopolies, dislike monopolies or don't understand that "free market" and "restrictions" are incompatible?
I put "agree" because you can get to the point where a monopoly starts egregiously distorting the market.

It's more important to clamp down on these distortions than maintain absolute freedom.

That said, I'm sure I'd be way less into the anti-trust than our government is.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That said, I'm sure I'd be way less into the anti-trust than our government is.
Wait, is our government even into it anymore? What was the last big one, MS in the late 90s?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, is our government even into it anymore? What was the last big one, MS in the late 90s?
The government still is. Things have been quiet because corporations bend over backwards to avoid their gaze.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The government still is. Things have been quiet because corporations bend over backwards to avoid their gaze.
You gotta give me examples (if you want). A big counterpoint is our banks need breaking up and welp, speaking of looking the other way...
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, is our government even into it anymore? What was the last big one, MS in the late 90s?
They would have blocked the Comcast and TW merger.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They would have blocked the Comcast and TW merger.
Correct me if I'm wrong but according to standards that'd be the correct move, right? It wouldn't improve the market nor be beneficial for consumers.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The issue is that (IMO) Progressives think that it's somehow implied in the comment.
And I think this is partially what grinds my gears about the question.

I can see what the author was going for, but in an attempt to come off as neutral, it ends up being a non sequitur.

"it's a sad state of affairs you can get water as a product."

Umm... no?
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I put "agree" because you can get to the point where a monopoly starts egregiously distorting the market.

It's more important to clamp down on these distortions than maintain absolute freedom.

That said, I'm sure I'd be way less into the anti-trust than our government is.
I'm not arguing that restriction or regulations on the market are good or bad, but once you add them it's no longer a free market, and definitely not a "genuine free market"

My results
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:10 AM
 
I don't disagree.

It's a problematic statement the way it's phrased.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:28 AM
 
Isn't this the test that was formed by Libertarians in an effort to make everyone realize they were more Libertarian than they thought?

Regardless...

     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 12:56 PM
 
DIdn't see this one coming.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
DIdn't see this one coming.
You're like subego, jr. Interesting!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Isn't this the test that was formed by Libertarians in an effort to make everyone realize they were more Libertarian than they thought?
My (pre-Internet) initial exposure didn't even try and hide its frothy objectivism.

The paper it was printed on boldly exclaimed "this is a GIFT, not a TIP... if this were a tip, you would be obligated by the government to pay taxes on it."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're like subego, jr. Interesting!
Expect him to start overusing the word "shit".
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,