I found out the political beliefs of my subscribers! - Political Compass Reaction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- What are the political beliefs of my viewers? Using the Political Compass Test questions, I asked my community questions about their political beliefs over multiple weeks. After putting all the data together, the results are in. Where do my subscribers fall on the Political Compass? Watch to find out!
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
TeeSpring - mr-terry-histo...
Patreon - / mrterry
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com...
PayPal - paypal.me/mrte...
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
Are the results what you expected? Do you think it represents TH-camr viewers as a whole?
Terry, you should know, the OG Political Compass test is very biased towards libleft. You should take the Sapply Values test that distinguishes between social and political freedom axes instead of mixing them up and only comparing against economy.
I have done this test a short time ago by myself ( im swiss) was also a left libertarian ( in my country i support the GLP party which is somewhat also center liberterian), but who the hell made these example countries on that site? switzerland is no where where it should be xD, looked to me more like propaganda from the far right of the us to take switzerland to promote their insanities
i am mainly in the majority
It's funny, I tried the political compass and ended up pretty close to where you ended with the video. Here in the Netherlands we do have something like this called the ''stemwijzer'' but that will just tell you wich political party suits you most instead of showing where you are on the compass.
THIS GENERATION IS WEAK! DISIPLINE IS IMPORTANT WHEN NEEDED!
I'm German and my compass puts me so far left that I basically moved back in time to write "Das Kapital" myself.
like many young germans xD however given some of the US questions the most right wing german seems left i guess
Hey. Not to be ignorant, and I'm sorry if this is rude, but I'm aware Germany as a whole have done their best to move faaaar away from Facism and Nazism. But I'm curious how that translates into schools? I figure they have the typical "Hitler bad" but do they take it a lot further than other countries? What do you actually learn about WW2 and modern day politics?
@@SlyLilFoxo i think you should explain it first how it worked for you for him to make a comparison
@@SlyLilFoxo We learn mostly about the situation of the Weimar Republic and how that led to the rise of Facism (in Germany) then focus most on the crimes of the Third Reich (including trips to holocaust sites, museums etc.) And of of partisan groups like the White Rose and their fight within Germany. We read Anne Franks diary and watched a bunch of documentaries with commentary from actual survivors. Not so sure what you mean about the modern day politics part? I'm 30 now so it's been a while since I've been in school.
@@jayman1772 Not so sure about the last part. The AFD is a thing in Germany and they're as far right as one can get without being outlawed for outright being Nazis.
One of the major issues I have with the political test is that it just leaves no room for nuance and debate for 90% of the questions, you can't reject the premises of a given statement only agree or disagree with it, you can't argue about the definitions of terms used or how to conditionally apply certain beliefs to certain circumstances.
Or also the way the question was phrased. For example, the question about needing a leader which by default forces others needing to be "commanded" as the question stated. If they just phrased it literally not in the wirst way possible, I guarantee more people wouldve agreed. Or even about the I support my nation even when theyre wrong thing too
That is true, especially when it is a poll and not a discussion forum. Feel free to discuss in the comments of those poll questions though. That’s what a lot of people did.
It's a test not an open book, obviously you can't discuss a test.
@@baph0met Yeah, that's exactly the problem
@@Sky-pg8jm How is that a problem? Do you discuss your history test with your fellow classmates during an exam? It aint a philosophy sitting, it's a test.
The 2% who disagreed with children keeping secrets:
Dad: disagree
Mom: STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!
Asian kids: you guys keep secrets?
The reason I disagreed was that it used the word "naturally". I don't think kids naturally keep secrets, most kids start out being honest, but they learn to do so as they grow and become older and figure out that lying has its benefits. I was surprised to see so many people disagreeing with that.
@@dylan8670 I would argue learned behavior is natural. Keeping secrets is essentially a tactic used to avoid negative situations. I notice toddlers lying all the time once they understand the conceptin some way.
I know or isn't exactly the same, but dogs that have misbehaved also seem to try to cover up, which I would argue is pretty natural
@@dylan8670 I see what you mean, but I didn't think of that myself when I interpreted the question. There are a few of these questions that are too open to interpretation for me to trust their results as indicating much.
What, they have 98 kids then?
In my own opinion School should be an opportunity for children and especially teens to explore their talents and passions with the guidance of experts. Of course a general education and basic job skills are necessary, but I believe the primary focus should be based on development of well rounded adults and not as much about how those adults will be making a profit for a boss.
Schools have been getting worse and worse every generation and looking at what the rest of the world is doing, what our own data shows us, and what we have done in the past that has worked well but don't do now, it is very tough not to believe it is as bad as it is by design. I think we ignore needed subjects everyone should know even if they don't go to college and entertain too many, what would be electives & extracurriculars in college, as mandatory high school classes.
The necessity of knowing personal finance, about taxes, car maintenance(if only just not to get swindled by mechanics), computer IT, how our government works, and economics is crucial yet ignored for things that could easily be after school circulars or clubs if they want to keep them in schools such as art, music, shop, home eco, health class(we already learn biology as a science class afterall), Typing class(called keyboarding now I believe) or foreign language to name a few I took in the 2000's that have not helped me or anyone I know as if interested most people actually got more from those in higher learning institutes.
@@tylerwilkes5846 well i wouldn't say that either because the american education system doesn't seem very effective at setting people up for work outside of menial labour
We can't assume everyone will have the chance to attend university or trade school. Teenagers are controlled by hormones and underdeveloped brains the frontal lobe doesn't fully develop until age 25. Most teens will not have learned what their passions are yet. K-12 should assume nothing about the child's economic potential or societal support. K-12 must provide the basic fundamentals which everyone requires in society, at higher levels you can begin to be more philosophical with them.
I think I should also help with learning how to work in society, like paying tax, and what parts of the tragedy of the commons certain laws are there to prevent.
Blue haired girls and sjw teachers get offended too much
Could be wrong but I feel like most of these, like having a rehab focused justice system, has most of us on the side the US government isn't doing. Prison is punishment based, companies are almost encouraged to violate nature and place morals below capital gain, and the government not really wanting to help the individual but opening all their wallets when Wallstreet goes under. Just proves that the actual (mostly silent) majority is being completely ignored
But It could also Just mean that He unknowingly grew a Community that believe those things
When I was getting my criminology degree, one of my American lecturers mentioned that American politicians don't actually want to address the criminal justice system because it's always a popular talking point for re-election.
I wouldn't disagree. The demographics of this channel, though, tend to skew young and educated.
Young and educated are like cancer to more established and conservative politics.
Prison is what you make it out to be.
I don't think that the answers allowed us to be conservative rather than anything else because it is loaded all of these are, and the comments are ignored entirely
Here's run-down of the most glaring issues with these questions (things to avoid if you ever have to design survey questions, as I have):
1) Absolute or categorical questions. Basically, asking a black-and-white question and expecting a grey-scale answer.
2) Compound questions. Having multiple clauses or categories in the statement that could be agreed or disagreed with.
3) Loaded questions. Asserting a controversial premise in the framing of the question. This will immediately annoy or confuse people who disagree with the premise.
4) Redundant or biasing qualifiers. Since the questions are statements of opinion, they obviously have to be biased one way or the other, but too much can either hammer on the point or caricature the position.
5) Hidden alternatives. Many questions are like "A is better than B", but what about C, D, and E?
6) Vague or loaded language. Vague terms that are often loaded with positive or negative connotation, even to the point that the only meaning of the term is "good" or "bad". Something like "it should serve humanity" just means "it should be good" since the positive connotation is the only meaningful content in "serve humanity", the rest is empty, vague rhetoric.
7) Negative statements. It's uncomfortable to agree with a negative. Moreover, most people hold opinions in the affirmative, i.e., they would state their position positively. So, generally, if you can't find a positive way to express a particular point of view, then you probably don't understand that point of view well enough (that's a pretty useful trick to evaluate your own understanding of an opposing view).
All in all, I think these particular questions were really poorly written. Maybe about a quarter of the questions are okay, but the majority have one or more of the issues listed above.
To be fair these are not questions but political statements, and they're designed to be loaded and divisive. The biggest problem is, most of the statements are spesific to US politics and early 2000's. Compared to rest of the world US politics are a bit shifted to right-authoriatianism and also world have shifed to Libertarian Left in the last two decades.
For anybody taking the test today, their result will be skewed towards Libertarian Left and even more so outside of US.
Another problem with questions is using words that might be beyond the vocabulary of some test subjects. An example of this might be the response about compulsory school. If you don’t know what compulsory means, your answer won’t be valid.
Another problem with negatives within questions is that people might read past them or misunderstand them-therefore answering exactly opposite their intention.
If this is the original than its because the only purpose of it was to prove the legitimacy and existance of the LibLeft quadrant so the questions are all biased to push you towards -x and -y
You’ve done a brilliant job of listing all the characteristics necessary to make a poll like this work at all. In other words “yes…and…?”
"should serve humanity" it is easy for me to find examples where I definitely not want to serve humanity.
"choice of sex partners should serve humanity"
strongly disagree. I place individual happiness above a genetically advantageous offspring for humanity.
And while I agree with the german constitution on property
"Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
many people especially in the US dont think wealthy people have an obligation to give back to society.
I knew something like that would happen.
Though full disclosure: While I don't know about others, personally, I didn't answer every question since some were just too american (as in: They aren't even a topic in my country) and others were about topics I simply do not know enough about to feel comfortable having an opinion/casting a personal judgement on.
So that may have altered the result a tiny little bit.
Anyways, it was certainly fun to see unfold. I hope you'll do something like that again.
Same. Also I didn't actively go through all of them and just answered the ones I happened to see and felt comfortable answering because I understood the question. If I didn't get it I didn't answer.
Even as an American, I didn't think that most of these questions were important politically, or the questions are so extreme, or have a large gray area that you just can't answer.
@@MetalMann-de3xi most of the apolitical questions were gauging how people value obedience towards authorities for the authoritarian vs libertarian axis
Yeah the results were probably skewed some by people who didn’t get to see/answer all the questions
Thanks for the feedback!
"From each according to his ability" is a direct quote from Marx, super interesting to see the obvious conflict between an even split on "the freer the market, the freer the people", but a 60% agreeing with "From each according to" when those statements are directly contradictor and are pretty much the foundation of Capitalism vs Socialism.
This shows that humans are complex creatures and not binary monoliths.
But given that Both were only regular agree, it could mean that with People who don't really know the context of the First sentence agree with there having to be some restrictions, and that people should get paid for how much and how well they do instead of how Long they do
I think it just points to a pretty strong agreement on Social Democracy for the community as a whole but with a vocal minority advocating for Socialism outright.
I think most people (other than anarchists, I guess) would agree that absolute freedom is not the ideal state and that some limitations are fundamentally a good idea. You can simultaneously hold the view that freer markets make people freer, and that that's not always a good thing.
I do think, however, that it is interesting to see the conflict here, as I think many socialists would disagree that free markets grant freedom.
@@user-bc7cb8uu7e How do you define the freedom of markets? I'm just curious. Is it freedom from regulation? If so, well the whole thing with the market economy making people free is very debatable in the first place, for many reasons, even putting that aside, market with 0 regulation is a nightmare that would do the opposite of making people free
@@user-bc7cb8uu7e it's the difference between positive freedom and negative freedom. However most people don't understand that distinction.
This was really interesting to look at and take part in!
"The prime reason for education should be to find a job"
I would never have expected a history teacher to say that he is interested to hear the rational of people who disagree... I mean, why would people who agree with this statement want history taught in schools? It doesn't help much to find a job.
(Which is why I disagree with the original statement... I want to be surrounded by educated people, not just people with jobs.)
I agree and I think the purpose of (primary and secondary) education is to give people the skills to self-actualize (see: Maslow) and be functional members of society, which goes beyond just getting a job.
I mean, just because something is the Prime reason doesnt mean its the only reason. Could just be the number one.
a person education level has nothing to do with a person's experience and wisdom/knowledge. At that I met a lot people who had far more education schooling backing, that could not do the job, because of how they are educated in those schools. They expected others to tell them what to do, while people right of the street would solve the problem them selves. yeah I don't place no respect on the level of education a person has, if they still need someone to tell them what to do in the end.
@@Darkphoenix3450
And I know a lot of people who instead of asking others what they should do, always try to solve things by themselves, and then make a mess out of things.
What you need is a balance of the two.
And I think that the reason that educated people ask more questions then uneducated people do, is that educated people often have a better idea of the vast amount of things they don't know (see the Dunning Kruger effect).
Anyway as I said, I don't really care about how well an educated and uneducated person do at their job... I want the education (that everyone pays for) to serve the common good of having a society full of knowledgeable people.
If you need specific knowledge or skills for a specific job, then let the boss pay for the extra courses.
@@longwingdetrain3183
I think most courses we get in school don't help to get jobs (or at least the majority of the jobs)... geography/cosmology, math, history, chemistry, physics, world literature, latin, ... in most jobs you don't need any of those, yet I think we as a society would be a lot poorer for letting those things be thrown away.
If many jobs need you to have a specific skill, then we can see to maybe add it to the curriculum, but this would be of secundary importance in my mind.
An outlet for the government’s view on things is valuable (as it is done on mainland europe) as long as there are independent stations to challenge its narrative
I’m kinda sad I never got any of these questions in my recommended. I find this sort of thing fascinating
You could do it on your own
They should have shown up in your subscription feed. You can still go on my community page and vote too!
@@saifmehdi178 I know! I just hadn’t realised it was happening before the video came up. I’ve gone back and voted now :)
@@MrTerry TH-cam being TH-cam to some people, perhaps. I remember not getting any notifications of your videos for around 3 months a while back, then suddenly they all showed up one day. I mean I wasn't complaining, I needed something to marathon while playing EVE Online, lol.
I watch on tablet its not available :(
Historian from Germany here!
Interesting results. It is true that the perception of politics differs in other countries compared to the United States. For example, someone who is by many people considered far left in the United States (like Bernie Sanders for example) would just be a moderate center-left social democrat here in Europe. Same on the other side: someone who is simply considerd right wing in the United States would under circumstances be considered far right here in Europe (like Donald Trump for example). If a German politican engaged in the same rhetoric as Trump over here in Germany, there would be a lot of controversies revolving around some kind of "Make Germany great again"/"Germany first" rhetoric. The Overton window seems to be way more on the right in the US compared to Europe. It is also true that the political compass test is very simplistic and usually pushes you towards libertarian left.
Man sieht in den Antworten sehr gut die US Propaganda. Aussagen wie Disziplin ist das wichtigste und Nationalstolz sind Dinge, die du hier nur selten hören würdest
It is true that the U.s. is more right on the Overton window, but Donald Trump is considered far right for the most part in the U.s. Even his most hardline supporters wouldn't deny he's hard right.
@@leeroydaanknz5064 Americans and Germans have different perceptions of National pride due to their upbringings. It's not propagnada it's just a different culture and mentality, both are valid in the context of their respective countries
@@i_like_chomp6382 no I know. That specially can't be tied to propaganda. It's just the image as a whole with a lot of details that often lead to things like this. Another example is the glorification of the military. You notice when something comes from propaganda when you ask for the justification of that opinion and it's just not well founded. There are so many subtle things we stand for that can be traced back to indoctrination
@@leeroydaanknz5064 @Leeroy Daanknz I think the military is debateable. The most veneration you get for serving is the occasional 'thank you for your service' but that completely stopped happening after the Iraq war. Most people don't really like the military, as can be shown by the massive decrease in volunteers. Biden cut its budget by a sizeable perventage and no one seemed to disagree. Neoconservatives don't really exist in the US goverment anymore, the American right tends to be extremely isolationist. Obviously the War in Ukriane is putting the US military in the headlines more often but most people just think of the military as an alternative. Yes there is a bigger presence of the military in the US than in Germany but that's because both are fundementally different players on the world stage. Different cultures see different things so it's only natural to be weirded out or slightly confused.
Well im from Europe so while in my region I would be considered a center-left progressive, in America they would probably call me a communist
In Australia our center-left is more in-line with America's far-left progressives (eg Bernie Sanders, AOC) with our conservatives being closer to Democrats than Republicans. We don't really have anything as far-right as Republicans here, but there are a few fringe parties that come close.
As your demo is mostly young males, these results (left libertarian) make perfect sense. The idea that half of the voters agreed with free markets=free people but a large majority agreed with the direct quote from Marx "From each..." seems incongruous. Though maybe they didn't all know who the quote was from or what it means?
One of those things that sounds good until the moment you try to apply it.
@@crowe6961 Yeah, free markets really do lead to insane wealth inequality, don’t they?
Do you think the results would be different if there were more female viewers? If so, how do you think it would change?
@@GogiRegion 2 billion people lifted out of poverty by capitalism
And communism has uhhhhhhhh…
They made some cool military stuff ig
@@stormjet814 State capitalism is not communism.
Capitalism is the private (or corporate) ownership of the means of production (or capital goods, goods that produce capital, factory Fields mines).
Socialism is the social ownership of capital goods. (whether this be by unions taking over the company and changing it to involve Democratic control and operation, Syndicalism. or having the municipal ownership of those capital goods (communism).(syndicate is trade / labor union in French)(commune is French for a municipality)
Monopolies do not create free markets.
Because of the monopolization of politics via the state, including the monopolization of capital, cannot call China the Soviets or any other self-proclaimed Communist States to exist (zedipest of Mexico is slightly different but they are definitely not authoritarians 4 they are anarchists.)
I am from Denmark and from a Danish viewpoint i would be placed as Libertarian Middle.
But when i take the test it will place me far left.
I had my friends and a couple of coworkers take it and only 2 out of the 10 places in the right Category, one as Lib Right and one as Auth Right.
Norwegian here, some questions were (personally) really hard to answer based on that fact, but i find it intersting to see it puts us (the people who answered) so much on the left side as it did, in Norway answering this way would more than likely place you smack dab in the middle. want to add that it was fun to participate and get my own reactions to seeing what the others had answered
The test is very biased. In the US I would be called "far right" by the "left", but I scored the same as this audience.
I want a no-party state system.
Some of these questions depend on how you interpret them though. I'm strongly in favor of the idea that prison should be about rehabilitation but I think it would be foolish to think that there aren't people who aren't going to change. And when someone says "aren't worth the effort" are we implying we know which ones are which before hand? And we shouldn't try or just that we recognize it isn't always going to work?
Also with the question of "having a one party system gets rid of the disagreements that hold back progress." I mean I wouldn't support a system like that because I think the dangers outweigh the benefits but I feel like this ultimately could be true. A dictatorship is absolutely more efficient and assuming they have good ideas they can make more rapid progress than a democracy ever could. The problem is you're centralizing power in the hands of the few and your government is only going to be as good as the ideas coming from those people, and you have no recourse if they just decide to build death camps. So it is possible to agree to then question but not think it's a great idea.
Personally I think rehab is always a first resort unless death is your sentence, but if rehab fails which it usually doesn't then the goal should be to punish the people unwilling to rehabilitate in order to convince them to pursue rehab.
Thank you for sharing!
That’s why he explained that the test has flaws in the beginning. He just chose the test because it’s the most popular and well known.
I think the one party system is a fascinating question because it actually exposes flaws of democracy to some degree. Take a look at the U.S. I think one could say that our system prevents us from competing with authoritarian regimes. If China wants a hydro-electric plant and dam, they don't spend years debating the "environmental" impact. They build the dam. The Emirates in the Middle East (authoritarian regimes) have built magnificent cities with outstanding infrastructure without having the same constraints in the U.S. I'm not saying democracy is bad. I'm just saying, it is VERY inefficient which is a huge competitive disadvantage in a global economy.
I agree that rehab should be a thing but certain charges should NOT have that ability even though if the person 100% will change because the damage has already been done and there's no going back. Premeditated murder, rape, kidnapping and robberies and home invasions have led to someone being killed. I believe that if said charges if proven, the person should get a death sentence. Wasting resources and money on keeping them alive is useless.
about the one party state-for me it's wrong to call that an advantage. It takes less for a certain law to pass, because there's no real opposition, true, but it doesn't guarantee that said law would be good. And with plenty of autocratic mistakes in history, you can clearly see that as a disadvantage.
The strength is also the weakness... but it is a strength.
@@rhoetusochten4211 I'd argue that the "strength" isn't even an actual strength. After all, the premise of the question is that a one-party state "avoids all the arguments that delay progress", but that's operating on the presumption that just because it's a one-party state it doesn't have any infighting - and there's an enormous list of examples, historic and contemporary, of how that's not the case.
Speed always sacrifices precision to some degree. Yet neither of those are disadvantages. They are concepts to be used in tandem. That’s why any job training for emergencies train you to not only think a situation through clearly and quickly, but emphasize that you act.
There’s definitely something to work out, because good ideas are only useful when you actually put them into reality, when you test them. If they stay ideas on a politicians desk forever cause it’s a democracy, then the good idea means absolutely nothing
America has basically one party. IMO both the dem and repub parties are controlled by corporations. On the outside we see a two party system but the inside the same type of people control both parties. Both parties maintain close relationships with the corporate media.
What should always be available (free):
Housing
Food
Education (pre-k to college)
Healthcare
Public Transport (a functioning one, not like Americas public transport)
Internet
Electricity
Which usage of "college"? Here the term is nearly interchangeable with "university" it simply matters on the size of the school.
On the "able to work but refuse the opportunity" question, my issue is what constitutes refusing the opportunity? Is a new father refusing to work if he takes time to be with his child? Fundamentally I think everyone should expect society's support if they need it. As we see with international politics, integration and interdependance begets peace and stability, and overall prosperity for all nations. I see no reason why the same logic shouldn't apply to our national politics too!
That's a fair question, but as I see it, that's what the agree/disagree options are for.
Personally, I don't think the father in your example is refusing the opportunity to work. I also think that the extent and type of the support should depend first and foremost on the person's needs, but also on whether they refuse (not whether they are able) to contribute to the system whose support they need.
Also, what if someone is burnt out and needs time to recuperate and possibly figure out a new career change? Personally, I’d rather support someone before they reach the point of burn out.
the only question i strongly hated on this poll is the question regarding abortion because *EVERY PREGNANCY CARRIES AN INHERENT DANGER AND RISK TO THE BIRTHING PARENT*. Some go well, some dont, all of them are risky and require time to recuperate after.
Very true. That was a poorly worded question.
Threat isn’t a great term, “consent” and “mortal danger” would have been better. There are people arguing that mild emotional distress is a “threat”
7:47 I mentioned in a comment (on that post) that in my country (Spain) the debate was solved decades ago due to the fact that the death penalty was used for political persecution of dissentors. The last people to be given the death penalty were three members of the terrorist group ETA and three members of the FRAP (Antifascist and Patriotic Revolutionary Front, a far-left organisation that opposed the dictatorship). They were executed in 1975, right before the dictator died. In 1978, the new democratic constitution banned the death penalty on its article 15th, which reads:
"Everyone has the right to life and phisical and moral integrity, and cannot, in any case, be subjected to either torture or humillating or degrading penalties. The death penalty is hereby abolished, unless what the military laws can establish for wartime."
Death penalties still happen in all countries today. But they are always covered as a civilian murderers.
Not in America bud. But eh. You do you, we’ll do us.
@@longwingdetrain3183 Obviously. I mean, I was specifically talking about Spain (and noted so), and Spain is located in Europe, so obviously not in America.
I'm from France, I'm also a leftist and I think your question about how that scale would translate in our different countries was interesting and I wonder how it would look as well. Except for a few questions that were so clearly worded with a US audience in mind which I didn't answer, I think a lot of the questions which I did answer kind of resulted in me "agreeing" with what is already in place in France and widely consensual among all political parties except for the far right. So that is where I think that compass shows its limitations as it wouldn't be able to differenciate between left and right leaning people for the most part and would show even moderate right leaning people somewhere on the left.
@@delzerui4975 for sure, considering we already have all of the policies the American "radical left" (Bernie Sanders, AOC etc.) want implemented. If what is common sense over here gets so much push back from your moderate right wing I would definitely be labeled a communist even though it's not true.
The class vs nationality thing is interesting. Seeing this in action is how Irish, Italian, and other immigrants were initially seen as a different race but were included as white once they reached a certain level of economic status
And yet at the same time we American Asians have more economic success than white people, but are still seen as "others"
They were only seen as white after more than half a decade of blending with other nationalities and minority culture started to form and became the new societal underdog. It wasn't like other nationalities were waiting for them to reach a certain economical standard and went "Congratulations! You're white now!". Discrimination towards other nationalities continued all the way to the turn of the millennium. It wasn't like it was 80 years ago at that point, but it still existed.
That is not true. People of those backgrounds have always been regarded as 'white' both officially and unofficially in USA. What is true is that there has been discrimination on the basis of background that includes discrimination against people of Irish and Italian descent.
Source:
Bernstein, D.E., 2022, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America
@@Dystisis I wonder what the founding fathers had to say on the race of Germans.
Good point, but isn’t class and income are different things?
For the support people who can work but choose not to category: This is for people with severe burnout. They should be supported.
I think for the broadcasting one, people are thinking about PBS, BBC, CBC, and other of fairly well regarded news organizations that are funded by the state.
CBC is not well regarded here in Canada. Only people centre-left to left usually agree with state-funded media.
Us silent centre-right to right majority do not agree with state-funded media.
Terry, you alright, sir? That cough is a little concerning. Hope you're not getting sick, we're low on sane content creators. All the best to you and yours, sir!
Art should absolutely be accessable everywhere. It breaks my heart (as someone who works in theatre with working class parents) that there is still so much classism in art.
I agree art should be accessible. I disagree that the government should pay for it. I believe art should be best funded through philanthropy, patronage, and the free market. If the government wants to provide tax incentives for people to donate to art, that is okay, but for the government to directly budget taxpayer funds for art is 1) waste of money and 2) on a deep level a possible violation of the 1st Amendment.
Art is created at the patronage of the ruling elite, everywhere and always. Because they are the ones that can afford to do so. Art is intrinsically class based.
There are questions like "rich are taxed too little", which is true if you live in America, but not true here in Finland.. There is *multiple* questions that just varies depending on what country are we talking about. Hence my "position" in the compass could vary from side to side, without me actually changing my opinions on anything.
That's why it is flawed. It only works if you compare results in the same country (or state in US).
In reality, the test wants you to not imagine your country, but historical moments where you can exercise extremes. Eg URSS, Pinochet Chile's, Communism, Totalitarian Easter India Company, Nazi Germany, etc.
I disagree, I don’t find it to be true. I think if anyone is taxed at all, they’re being taxed too much. Taxation is theft.
@@cronnosli Where in those questions did they ask those superlatives? must of miss them.. but sure they might work if everyone took part in philosofical political studies... I'm saying we didn't.
@Vash theStampede 30 % is quite reasonable
I've taken this test dozens of times since I first took in in high school in 2006/7, now at 33, and taking it today, I find myself center-right, Economic Left/Right: 0.38; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.1. For me, some of the questions have become more nuanced as I get older, so instead of strongly agreeing or disagreeing, more of my responses were disagree or agree, and some retained their 'strongly' status, or were new ones. I ascribe this to the idealism of youth, that as we age we gather more information, ideas, concepts, meet different people. During my university years I swung widely from authoritarian up/economic right, to auth up/econ left, to liber left, econ left, but never ever crossed that libertarian down/econ right axis, even in my 20s, and now. I think it may be that psychologically, or intellectually, that part of the compass represents rampant chaos with companies being able to do whatever, and people doing whatever, with no social norms nor mores (simplified, I know). Maybe I'll change as I get older, only God knows that answer.
Im writing this before I watch. As someone who made sure to vote on every poll I’m excited to the results
Thank you for participating!
I think it’s great, I’m 26 now and I see so many people around my age getting involved in politics and society issues now and I think it’s awesome to see that during a time period when positive change is inevitable. Imo the results are representative for this specific demography. It’s kinda „do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anybody else, do your best to save the planet and just don’t be a d!ck“ huge fan of that
I think it’s fascinating how 26 year olds think they know something. I’d like to see 26 year olds get control of their emotions before they try to save the world through political activism. Words are apparently still pretty “harmful” to most 26 year olds currently which is exactly the kind of weakness we don’t need in political activism.
I found many agreeing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to be particularly disturbing.
That's modern diplomacy for you. The west isn't friends with India and Saudi Arabia because of their human rights situations. They are vital in oppositition to Iran and China though.
@@FCGroningen1987 They agree with Trudo.
Right? The enemy of your enemy can still also be your enemy and waiting to take you both out.
8:52 from Polish and Soviet communism experience:
If there is one-party system then all the political fight happens inside that one party which starts to divide among intself into sub-parties
or if you have enough control over your party, when people dissent they go missing.
Dread it. Run from it. Multiple parties arrive all the same.
@@A.Martin Same happens in multi-party system.
If someone tries to establish a new party without agree from the ruling elite, then he and his co-workers will disappear like some 200 people in Poland between April 2010 and January 2018.
@@kefirmroku4494 yea that happens too. Russia and Belarus are multi party, singapore too. If you run opposition though you get harassed all the way or arrested for made up crimes, in Russia you may just straight up be murdered.
@@A.Martin Getting arrested for made up crimes if you do any political activity is normal, casual standard thing here in Poland. Everyone expects this and is ready for this if he does any politic activity,
Extraordinary are disappearings and "self-killings" of activists (this comes only to those who are too popular or too knowledgable to be let alive)
education isnt limited to school, the irony is that in school it is sometimes taught that it is the only way to receive education
Should be noted that Compass is slightly biased towards left
Lib left to be exact.
Something that almost only people who aren't left-leaning say.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 oh, I’m certainly centre left, just have to be fair to righties, they aren’t all pure devils.
@@Ake-TL yeah just partially devils.
This was a great video, it was intresting seeing what everyone including myself voted for. I'm 48 so getting a better understanding of your channels demographic polling stances was a good barometer of others word views.
I appreciate your participation!
Political Compass: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Viewers: Agree.
Me: More people need to read the 70 maxims of maximally effective mercenaries: 29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
Imagine, one group killing everyone in the name of their God, Another group is killing everyone in the name of their enlightened leader. Which one would you like to kill you as you befriend them?
I choose the secret third option: I kill myself, because screw that noise
I prefer "The enemy of my enemy is an ally of convenience at best.", you can't automatically trust such but they may prove a useful tool in a specific situation.
thats the problem with these tests. too many variables
As I stated on that very question, the enemy tries to kill me first, while the enemy of my enemy has to wait in line.
The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy, but I use him to weaken my enemy with psychological warfare, ez
The percentages given for “I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.” added up to 101%. There were a few others that seemed off at a glance that I didn’t bother taking the time to confirm, but yeah, that’s not how percentages worked last time I checked.
They round each individual percentage
Honestly most of those questions I answered with the majority but I’m more right leaning but some of those questions almost force you into the left camp
I think you might want to explore why that might be the case. Maybe your ideology isn't aligning with your own individual values.
@@tony1449 I can assure you that is not the case. I’d say I’m center right or more libertarian but I understand some of the views of more left thinkers.
@Vash theStampede The "problem" you're describing is cultural. Conservatism and libertarianism are fundamentally contradictory ideals, but American culture has caused people to associate them as if they're compatible when they're not. That's the thing about a test like this... if you answer it based on what you actually believe, you may find that the results disagree with what you *thought* you believed. Because you didn't actually put enough thought into your beliefs, and failed to realize that you disagree with yourself.
The end result makes sense. I've watched a few of your videos and while I can tell you try to remain apolitical, many of the comments seem to interpret it as more left. It's interesting to see the different lenses in which we all choose to view things. It reminds me and helps me assess my own lenses as well.
(1) It seems to me that "libertarian" in that chart marking the opposite side to authoritarian is rather problematic, as (US, few other places use the term) libertarian has a lot more connotations than just anti-authoritarian.
(2) I got the impression that the result had a heavy US bias, especially in those places where there's currently quite a bit of propaganda around in the US. Would have been interesting to see them split by geography.
(3) Far too many of these questions really needed a lot more detail in the question of the answer to really make sense. To pick just one example, the "are there criminals that can't be rehabilitated" one. More importantly, _how many_ such prisoners are there? And what should we conclude from that information?
For the first point, in the US the Red scare was bias against the left and the libertarian effectively wiping out that quadrant of the map and the moderate libertarian parties for an entire generation.
Edit to explain the bias against libertarian. The reason it ended up bias against libertarian was because the people with authoritarian views fell in line and didn't end up protesting or pushing for their beliefs as hard.
Here in Brazil libertarian means almost 90% to anarcho-capitalists.
But, if you take libertarian in the historical context, it is a nickname for anarchists(Left, centre and right).
49% of the US prison population is incarcerated for non violent drug offenses. Also keep in mind we make up 6% of the worlds population but 25% of the worlds prisoners. A better future is possible under a better and more rehabilitation focused prison system instead of the current one that exploits them for a constant source of cheap labor.
property rights are everything
@@cronnosli anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron. They're fundamentally contradictory ideals.
I will say, here in the US I am viewed as radical left, but when I was in sweden, I was basically radical right. I mean the conservative/capitalist parties of most european countries would even make democrats uncomfortable.
Really? So I guess the forcible seizure of all assets of those who have a net worth over a given amount happened long ago then and that's why I haven't heard of it? Obviously the government has strict control over all wages and prices so that the money you get as your first job before even becoming an adult is enough to keep a family of four just above the poverty line on just that wage.
And how many genders are recognized over there? I'm guessing that a three year old that us backward uneducated types would call a boy says "I'm a girl" in class they are immediately taken to hospital for surgery without parents being informed and this is just natural and proper? And since it is a given that whites are evil over there who is the poor oppressed victim of the whites?
Not meant as an attack, just that our "radical left" is all about those kinds of things and if that is just baseline for you guys........
I wonder how the answers would breakdown if the results were by country?
I'd be interested if they could be divided by strictly USA users, as this is very geared towards them than the rest of us. Not to mention how the majority of us is not from the US, even if by ~4%, we can definitely skew these votes.
I’d love to see that data.
I am currently pursuing a degree in sustainable urban development with a minor in political psychology. To answer Mr. Terrys' question about the questions not mapping onto particular ideologies they do and they don't, the question "when you are troubled it's better not to think about it but to keep busy with more cheerful things?" A conservative response to hardship is correlated with focusing on things within their control while a progressive response is correlated with finding a solution to the problem. For context, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden would be considered academically liberal. To answer Mr. Terrys' question about taxpayer funding for theaters and museums, I largely side with the poll, however, what would change my opinion is how historical districts would be redeveloped after taxpayers withdrew. For those not in the know calling a area, a historic site has been a longstanding tactic used by NIMBYs to oppose affordable housing; so if a city wanted to tear down a failing museum or theater to build affordable housing I would be okay with that.
I really hate this test since it pushes people to choose what it considers left leaning choices even if they don't feel that way on a topic. Some of the questions have nothing to do with politics and make you choose between looking like an a-hole or being a decent person even though in reality, the question is much more nuance and situational and not always subjective. For example the sex outside of marriage one. It could be taken as premarital or someone cheating on their spouse. Premarital is not always immoral while cheating is. Overall though, using a political compass to determine your political leanings is an awful idea similar to zodiac signs. Believe and fight for what you think is right and don't let a stupid quiz determine your voting and stances on topics.
Well, until I can vote for each issue separately rather than find the party that best aligns with my ideals, I will continue to lean on things like the political compass to introduce me to the best platforms for me to look to.
All I'm saying is that if we have an imperfect system, don't expect people to use perfect tools.
Right. They're great at that stuff. Like "do you think trans-people exist‽" .... I believe there are people that exist that call themselves 'trans' obviously. But I do not think a confused eunuch with an orchestrated hormone imbalance qualifies as a women. Therefore i am deniying that a human being in front of me 'exists'...
Such a stupid way to phrase that question. It exists somewhere between pure sophistry, gaslighting and social blackmail.
Exactly, it pretty much pushes everyone into or close to lib-left that isn't Stalin or some right wing autocrat.
Inb4 you are called a bigot and non inclhsive for calling cheating immoral.
But in all seriousness, there are much better tests than this one. Unfortunately battle lines are usually drawn around most of the political tests normally used.
I felt that far more questions, like public support for theaters and broadcasting, or regulations and responsibilities of corporations, were right-leaning because they used absolutes like "never" and "all" and I don't think it's true for all cases. I think more than half of the questions were right-leaning.
9:00. I don't care about democracy I care about my rights and as Mel Gibson once said "why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away...legislature can trample an man's rights just as easily as a king can"
Democracy is a terrible form of government........everything else is worse.
The political compass test is really broken, anyone who isn't far right ends up somewhere in the libertarian left quadrant, even though actual libertarian left views are really far left.
I mean I did manage to get it to properly classify me as slightly lib-right somehow, but yeah everyone I've linked this to is put into the green. It is skewed as heck.
i still got 10, 8 on the compass...
Damn dude I’m a full on syndicalist and that’s about where the political compass puts me too. Kinda happy this community doesn’t follow the “those who like history tend to be fascist” stereotype.
Is that a real stereotype? That people who like history tend to be fascists?? In Brazil, most historians and people who like history tend to be left-wing, socialists, communists or anarchs
@@Calabresa022 yeah in america it has a lot to do with “glorifying western society” basically just meaning whites. We only really learn about 3 periods of history in school, Ancient Greece, late Middle Ages to enlightenment, and American revolution to modern day. We don’t learn much about the golden age of Islam, North African, Eastern Europe, Asia or oceanic history sadly.
I really only dug into history because of video games like Empire Earth and EU4.
@@aridianknight3576 wow, I didnt know that stereotype. In Brazil its the complete opposite, with right-wing politicians trying to surveille history teachers to stop "leftist propaganda" in schools.
@@Calabresa022 oh well that happens here too but usually it’s because teachers say that slavery was wrong and republicans can’t allow that
As an Australian this chart skews way left. Abortion and gay marriage just aren't issues here, dealt with yonks ago.
I mean sure they might not be issues for you, but they are still a factor in lib vs auth. Because it is an issue of bodily autonomy as a freedom. Your country went nuts with lockdowns and forced vaccines onto people which is 100% auth as heck and the opposite of bodily autonomy so it isn't as simple as you might think. But I agree, this skews left hard.
@@TheGooseIsLoose9000 The "lockdowns" probably aren't quite what you think they were. We were free to leave our homes for shopping (obviously), for exercise, walk the dog, for work etc. My life was mostly unchanged during them. The vaccines are a non-issue just like wearing pants is a non-issue. They're free, easy to get and have minimal or no side effects in the interest of protecting the population. The US also has forced vaccinations for various diseases already.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. --- Ok, well, I would tend to say two things can be true at the same time. Yes, it is an advantage but it is like saying - driving 60mph in a neighborhood is an advantage because you can get places faster... yeah but it is incredibly dangerous at the same time.
I'm from Scotland, in the UK.
I voted for what ended up being the majority vote for most of these questions.
In the UK as a whole, I would probably be considered left of centre.
In todays England I'd definitely be considered liberal and left-wing.
In Scotland? I'm fairly typical. Again, I might be considered centre-left . . . But I would not be considered remotely extreme or unusual.
Infact, my political beliefs typically align with the two largest parties in the Scottish Parliament - both of whom would consider themselves left of centre, socially liberal and progressive (their only major disagreement being on the constitutional future of Scotland. Whether its best served as a continued member of the UK or as an independent nation).
For the record:
- I would still vote the same for both museums and theaters if they were seperate questions as I appreciate the the cultural benefits of both.
- cutting through bureaucracy is an inherent advantage of single party states, but that doesn't mean single party states are preferable to democracy (I would argue lack of oversight / checks and balances superscedes that and makes democracy a preferable system of government).
- some prisoners are beyond rehabilitation but that does not mean we shouldn't at least try
- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" should come with the addendum "whilst it is convenient" or "for now".
- I also voted that I did not think there was a worrying fusion of entertainment and education. For me, what is worrying is the lack of education / ability for critical analysis in the general population. One should be able to seperate the information from the entertainment in one's own mind. One should also be cognisant of potential bias and should be able to evaluate a source and its utility on that basis.
The problem I find with these tests is it doesn't account for how people are answering. Are they answering in the context of their ideal political system or applying the questions to the world as it exists now? If I took the test twice with each of those attitudes in mind I would place very differently.
My issue with this test, is that there is a lot of them where my answer would be "it depends". For example, the Abortion question. It depends. We talking 1st trimester, 2nd? 3rd? Then you had the rehab question, same thing it depends. To much of this is black and white for it to really give you a good example of where you stand. In order to get an actual representation of where you stand, not only do the questions need to NOT be essentially yes/no AND more specific WITH more options, you need to be able to weight them to how much they matter to you. IMO, you really already know where you stand and this test is just a way of validating yourself or making you think you're a certain way and thus should vote that way. "I thought I was 'x' but then I took this test and it told me I'm 'y'. I should vote for 'y' regardless because that's what this test told me how 'y' more coincides with the beliefs I hold according to this test." This is assuming you don't understand how many flaws there are in this test (as you mentioned in your video).
The test intends to make you agree/disagree with your core beliefs. To answer that you need to simulate all kinds of societies in your head. Eg. If you were in Nazi Germany being asked if you agreed or not to classroom be mandatory. Or if you live in a communist country and agreed or not that TV Channels should receive public support.
This test has four cardinals. Totalitarian Anarchy and Comunism Capitalism. There is not a neutral position!
I mean it clearly says should abortion always be illegal, unless the mother's life is in danger. If you believe someone should ever be able to get an abortion for a non-health related reason, such as being only 6 weeks pregnant, you would disagree. Was your confusion deliberate or were you just not carefully reading the question?
@@ezra7088 The problem with the question is that "disagree" and "strongly disagree" aren´t any different, same with the agree side. It is a poorly worded question, since it is basically a yes or no question. People tend to interpret "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree" as the extreme pro-life or extreme pro-choice positions, since what is the point in having these when you already have agree and disagree saying the same thing?
outside of life of the mother cases i support the death penalty for getting an abortion, this includes day after pills... use a condom or dont have sex its murder and should be prosecuted as murder
@@constantineergius1626 I would wonder if you extend that penalty to victims of sexual assault as well...
In regard to some of those questions not having any sort of inherent political leaning. In reference to astrology, it implies a soft belief in a greater hierarchy or order that exists as a basic part of reality. This, however subtly, implies a natural tendency toward more authoritarian thinking. I don't think it's a strong connection, but I do think it does indicate a person's leanings. In reference to the question about ignoring your troubles instead of focusing on them, that shows a fairly strong conservative leaning... after all, the question is effectively asking whether you'd prefer to maintain the status quo or risk doing something to change it.
Could also just be that they throw in some questions that don't feel as directly targeted, as a way to kind of reset the mood of the person taking the test.
I wonder how many people chose an option then switched when they saw what everyone else was saying
Owning land has historically been tied to civil rights
For the question on theaters and museums, you hit the nail on the head. Theaters are for entertaining people. If a theater isn’t entertaining, it shouldn’t be propped up by taxpayer dollars. Museums however, in my mind, aren’t for entertainment, but preservation of historical knowledge.
Well but the whole point of preserving history is to remind us of our past, but if no one goes to it, it doesn't do it's job anyway...
It depends on what is meant by "theater." If we're talking about a movie house, sure. If we're talking about a playhouse then I think that those can provide a lot of value to society even if they aren't financially lucrative. If just a handful of teenagers have a place to go after school and participate in something rather than running the streets that is awesome. If an few elderly people have a place to go where they can meet people and enjoy a form of entertainment that they grew up with I think that can hold tremendous value. Plays and musicals and operas and such are almost like their own museums in a way because many popular plays are quite old and you're looking at the culture and social commentary of a by gone age.
@@kfiraltberger552 Also what if we subsidized a theater that exclusively played old movies and documentaries? That could be cool.
@@nathanjasper512 Is that... an argument? A statement? A thought? Feels like just a sentence...
Books are a lot cheaper, and do the same thing.
I didn't realize how conservative I was until I saw how many people disagreed with me on things. Your fans are extremely more liberal/left wing than I anticipated.
My results were -5.5 on the economy and 0.82 on the social spectrum. For anyone curious.
i got 6.88 ec and 7.38 so
12:00 I was in the disagree section on that one, and since you asked, here's my reasoning.
1) On a general level, I want to live in an overly-compassionate society. If given the choice between helping someone too much or too little, I'd want to help too much.
2) I believe in certain societal programs for all. Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare being two of those positions. This could be seen as "society" sometimes supporting those without work.
3) Having a society dictate what is or isn't considered "work" becomes problematic.
Who determines what is work? Is it politicians, who are greatly benefitted from corporations in the form of campaign contributions? Is it the government itself, encouraging involuntary conscription numbers for militaries?
Wouldn't this incentivize forcing folks into working conditions that are actively exploitive of the people at large?
If Walmart paid a bunch of politicians to pass a law saying what qualifies as work, are we just as comfortable with that? Are we concerned that all of a sudden the only thing that qualifies as work is stuff that contributes to Walmart's bottom line?
Also, how can you tell when someone is working? Is it whether or not they are creating revenue? What about writers working on their craft? Famously, J.K. Rowling (not everyone's favorite person, I know) was on government assistance while writing Harry Potter. Do we want to let all writers starve, bad ones and good ones?
What about entrepreneurs who are just starting up a business without a profit yet?
What about folks leaving work to do good in other ways? A son leaving work to care for his ailing mother? A mother leaving work to care for her newborn? They aren't creating direct GDP, but they're providing a benefit to society.
And you also don't know what folks are dealing with. Should we be trying to force someone into work who might have psychological stressors? If someone's extremely depressed to the point of being suicidal, it could easily effect their ability to maintain a job. Should out of work suicidal folks not have support in some form? A phone number to call? The ability to find help?
It's a question that, when carried to it's logical conclusion, should concern collectivists and individualists.
4) The people who need social programs the most are the people not making money. If you need an expensive surgery in order to be able to return to work, society should see the value in supporting that person for their surgery, for instance. That person could work, is willing to work, wants to contribute to society - but can't unless they get support from our society.
5) A society that benefits everyone will motivate everyone to participate in it. I think a lot of people hesitate to enter the 'rat race' because it's just that. If 'work' existed only to better yourself, to fulfill yourself, I think we'd find a lot more people happily joining the work force.
6) Social programs help everyone. With Universal Healthcare, pandemics are less likely to spread. Pandemics don't care if you work or not, they spread. Having someone out of work able to get healthcare will help all of society. Homelessness is undesirable in any location. Society creating shelters for the homeless will get folks off the street, lowering crime and driving up the cleanliness and value of all urban areas.
A society that invests in its people, ALL its people, will reap the rewards for itself. And it'll be kind while it does it.
Comrade you sound like an anarchist,
Etymology
Anarchy means absence of hierarchy/ ruler
Oligarchy, multiple rulers
Monarchy, singular ruler
Anarchy,no ruler
However the classic symbol of Anarchy is@ or (A)
A surrounded by an O this is actually very important
The O represents order
A represents no rulers
So order without rulers and that's more akin to democracy
No single individual rules but the collective
Or how I like to put it
A stateless classless egalitarian society, collectively owned and democratically operated.(preferably through a confederation of municipalities mutually working together,as to prevent the monopolization of politics via the conduit of the state).
Where the means of production is owned by those who toil collectively and democratically.(through union or worker co-ops,)
The means of production being quite simply the tools necessary to produce, this is farms factories Fields mines, (these are capital goods, goods to produce capital)these workers who already do all the shit get to own it collectively and democratically
So it would be the social ownership of the means of production (socialism the original definition). Abolishing private property and making it social property, ,to the benefit of the community the worker would also receive satisfaction from helping those in the community.
(private is the system by which corporation and the heads are reserved the Lion's share of the wealth, not to be confused with personal property, which is your house, your home, your books, your car your toothbrush the tools at which bring you comfort and satisfaction but does not affect society.)
This philosophy also includes,
From each too Their ability to each their own need.(mutual aid, mutual benefit.)
Intersectional (there is no race but the human race, however rich and powerful people like to devide and conquer, )
Housing and food being a human right (and preferably through housing co-ops.)
Also trains.(choo choo mothafuckas!)(
Wherer community is first, and pain overall is lessened wealth is an illusion for all those gold collected in their Ivory towers launched into space would be useless without society
Genuinely look into anarchism as a philosophy if you haven't already
@@anarchomando7707 thanks for the message. My understanding of anarchy though, is that without some form of authority, there wouldn't be a way to carry out social programs.
I always like to say that I'm an individualist, in that I prefer a system of government that gives the most freedoms possible to individuals, until freedoms for one harm freedoms for another.
@@niftyfiftytwo1484 What you described in your original post was anarcho-communism, in everything but name. A society of overly compassionate people doing the right thing because it's the right thing. Helping because it's helpful and not to forward their personal agenda.
Astrology generally will tie you to the more right side of the political spectrum, this is due to its roots within religion and other mythology. In most religions and in most pre-modern societies the stars were generally considered to be in the realm of heavenly guides or what not due to how you can use the fact that the majority of stars don't really traverse the sky and thus can be used to navigate the world.
in the US, Astrology is more commonly found in left-leaning parties as it is considered satanic in nature which is against conservative party values. While extremists do tend to steal cultural ideology from ideas like Norse paganism most specifically because of ideas of white supremacy, astrology tends to be more popularly from Eastern and Mediterranean which clashes with conservativism. This is also the same reason they hate yoga.
I think not only would the result vary by country, I think the result could be manipulated by skillfully changing the wording of each question... Most questions appeared to leave some artistic license to reword, asking the same question, but interpreted differently by the reader. It appeared to be a fun exercise!
Some of the questions and many of the answers are absolutely shocking for me as a German.
Like what? I’m interested
Inflation can equal unemployment because the expenses to various company’s are also going up. This might put company’s (especially smaller ones) in a losing position and lay-off or reduce the amount of employees or just foreclose entirely. Essentially, inflation makes everybody lose.
You are right, Inflation is bad for employment. But it is more a case of uncertainty. It is difficult to budget and plan for things like hiring more workers when you have no idea what anything will cost in the future.
Frankly its not even really an opinion as far as I am aware. I am pretty sure inflation is just factually all-around worse. Then again, I guess the assumption is the person being asked isn't an economist and doesn't realize the two are inter-connected. But still kind of a bad question if there is a factually correct answer.
mostly when i find new history channels people thinks violence is bad. so not surprised subbed
The Death Penalty poll shocked me. I personally, fundamentally disagree with the idea that the State should be afforded the power to institutionally murder it's citizens.
In any system with a functioning jury, the state is not afforded such a power: The _people_ are.
It is a _fact_ that some people are damaged beyond any attempt to rehabilitate them, dangerous beyond _any_ potential for them to _ever_ be among other human beings again.
While I would lock it behind many safeguards and an extraordinarily high standard of proof, I cannot find any reason such people should be kept alive at taxpayer expense. With modern tech, it is possible to establish guilt not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Given it is guaranteed such individuals will emerge over the course of a society, it makes sense to retain the power for a jury of peers, subject to strict and stringent guidance, to sentence one of their fellow citizens to death.
By removing it, what you really say is "I think taxpayers should have to fund efforts to make sure the most irredeemably evil people it produces are kept alive, because killing them would make me feel bad". It's just not efficient.
@@icedreamer9629 It's an ethical and moral argument that I'm making. I don't think the argument advocating for the death penalty is justified as an appeal to efficiency.
@@icedreamer9629 Merely one innocent individual killed as a result of the death penalty being applied in error, in my opinion, makes the whole thing unviable, and that still happens, occasionally.
@@christiananderson4909 Indeed. And we have a whole bunch of cases of people who are executed and later proven to be innocent - plus, you know, the fact that how the capital punishment is carried out is usually far from painless. The death penalty is not something a modern, secular society can afford itself.
Well, with so many Americans voting, it's no wonder. We've simply accepted that police are allowed to kill people without even losing their jobs, much less getting actually punished for it.
regarding Museums and theaters, I would NOT want public funds going towards theatres, but 100% I would want it going to to museums.
Purposes of criminal justice:
1. Compensation
2. Protection
3. Rehabilitation
4. Prevention by retaining credibility in the warning that crimes will be punished.
Punishment in itself is not a valid purpose, but it can be necessary in order to uphold credibility in the warnings put out by the lawmaker. In cases where prevention is not achievable through the punishment of others (e.g. abortion, drug addictions), punishment is not justified.
Have you ever heard of the rights forfeiture theory of punishment? It articulates why punishment by the state may by justified if a criminal wrongdoer forfeits his or her right not to be punished by breaking the law. You could argue it’s the least important purpose of criminal justice, but I’d argue it’s justifiable on these grounds
@@ethanoppenheim404 That sounds like in that case, committing a crime would be a voluntary agreement to a contract with the state. Which means that in that scenario, the deterrent clearly failed and, if it was truly voluntary, announcing an even higher punishment in the future could be considered based on point 4.
@@ethanoppenheim404 There could of course be scenarios where the punishment would consist of enough compensation that the crime would cease to be a bad thing overall. You can argue this to be the case with a variety of traffic or litter fines. In that case, you don't need more punishment since there's no incentive to reduce the frequency at which the crime is committed any more
@@iwersonsch5131 ironically I think some of the Middle ages had some decent ideas.
Laws were more about state and capital they were not about social.
Crime was a social issue, and so the best way to relieve that is to take it as a social issue.
A murderer Forced to make friends with the victim's family and provide at least a Year's worth of the murdered wages would be a decent idea
It's supposed to be mending the strife and tearing of the society.
@@anarchomando7707 I feel like the making friends part punishes the victim's family more than the murderer. Providing wages is an interesting idea, but what if the murderer can't afford it?
My take on an early that you were wondering about how it related to political ideology:
Astrology- This is a question that is a different angle to the questions asking about religion. People that have more religious thinking, believe in the supernatural, etc. will often feel as if many worldly problems are ultimately not solvable, and that trying to do so is a waste of effort. This is actually a fairly major divide between liberal and conservative thinking. For instance, Liberals will see poverty as a systemic failing and seek systemic solutions. However conservatives will see poverty as the inevitable state that people will fall into due to a lack of effort, moral fiber, etc. That's why liberals wonder why conservatives seem to lack any empathy, and conservatives wonder why liberals want to dedicate resources to enabling those who choose to make poor life choices.
The one party state question was worded incredibly poorly, yes, a more streamlined system is "an" advantage, but it doesn't ask if that advantage is worth everything else that comes along with it.
The question is asking you, Communism or a more free society?
I watched a court case where a woman got hella child support, in a 50/50 custody all because she is choosing not to work
That art question really got to me because something can't be abstract if it doesn't represent something. It should just say, "Art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
I believe there are only two arts; storytelling, and the art of war. All other art FORMS are derivative of one of those two. All art tells a story of some kind. Sometimes the story being told is, "The artist is a vapid air head with nothing interesting to say beyond, 'I was here' ."
@@tahoemike5828 I don’t think making an art piece purely to say “I was here” is vapid and airheaded, *inherently.*
For example, someone making art for fun in their house painting nothing in particular, just finger painting or what have you, does not make them vapid, it means they’re doing it just for fun and don’t feel the need to insert a story into something that will likely never see the light of day.
And art is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe someone painted something blaisé faire, but someone else who saw it enjoyed the raw energy and speed brought to the painting’s brushstrokes by the artist’s mindset of “I’m gonna paint this as fast as I can cause idgaf”, so even when an artist is genuinely vapid, that does not mean someone else might not find joy in it.
And depending on the circumstances, even things that literally just say “I was here” can be considered art in the right context, such as the graffiti on the walls of areas in Pompeii. They finally translated some of the sentences and half of them are dick jokes or literally saying “So and So was here”, but because of the context they’re surrounded by it is now historical graffiti wall ‘art’ worth preserving, and I’m sure if you could tell Mr. So&So his “I was here” graffiti would become a beloved piece of bittersweet, optimistic yet saddening art in the eyes of people from the future, he would find that laughable, as it was never intended to be art-just a statement, but one that now rings profound through the lens *we* see it through.
Now, to SELL an art piece that only says “I was in existence” for millions of dollars and claim it’s the best painting you’ve ever seen or sold-that’s a different story. That’s disillusioned. The dude who taped a banana with duct tape to a blank canvas and it was sold for millions in the name of “absurdism”-I don’t even think he was vapid, I think that dude just didn’t wanna work that day and wanted to see what level of BS people would still pay for, and took advantage of a bunch of air-headed rich folks with too much time and money on their hands. 😂 The idiots that bought it for millions are the air-headed ones there lol. Absurdist art is cool, but it can be so much more than a banana duct-taped to a canvas. That particular sale was upsetting to me.
So certainly it can be vapid, but I don’t think inherently so, and I also don’t think that is always inherently a bad thing depending on who is viewing it. I have seen meaningless and meaningful abstract art much more beautiful than full painted sceneries full of meaning to the painter, and found their meaning and painting grandiose, unevocative, or unimportant to me. And vice versa, I’ve seen really ugly slapdash abstract that even with a good meaning I dislike, and beautiful subject paintings made with focus but not meaning. Subjectivity and not needing to know or care what the artist intended is the fun part of art. They can make art commentating on communism or for no reason at all but hey-if it’s evocative, it’s evocative.
@@tahoemike5828 "I was here" art is one of the oldest things of humanity. Especially vikings really liked to curve messages like that everywhere.
Public funding doesn't need to mean State controlled. It's just another degree of separation of powers, the independence of the media must remain absolute, but it also has to have a way of subsistence, hence: public FUNDED , not State controlled.
I am a hoppean (traditionailist ancap) so im kind of the black sheep here. Also the political compass isnt very accurate (and it has been accused and mocked countless timed for having a supposed leftist bias,mainly in the way the questions are written)
Classical anarchist( ancom Ansyn)
Etymology
Anarchy means absence of hierarchy/ ruler
Oligarchy, multiple rulers
Monarchy, singular ruler
Anarchy,no ruler
However the classic symbol of Anarchy is@ or (A)
A surrounded by an O this is actually very important
The O represents order
A represents no rulers
So order without rulers and that's more akin to democracy
No single individual rules but the collective
Or how I like to put it
Philosophy that seeks for
A stateless classless egalitarian society, collectively owned and democratically operated.(preferably through a confederation of municipalities mutually working together,as to prevent the monopolization of politics via the conduit of the state).
Where the means of production is owned by those who toil collectively and democratically.(through union or worker co-ops,)
The means of production being quite simply the tools necessary to produce, this is farms factories Fields mines, (these are capital goods, goods to produce capital)these workers who already do all the shit get to own it collectively and democratically
So it would be the social ownership of the means of production (socialism the original definition). Abolishing private property and making it social property, ,to the benefit of the community the worker would also receive satisfaction from helping those in the community.
(private is the system by which corporation and the heads are reserved the Lion's share of the wealth, not to be confused with personal property, which is your house, your home, your books, your car your toothbrush the tools at which bring you comfort and satisfaction but does not affect society.)
This philosophy also includes,
From each too Their ability to each their own need.(mutual aid, mutual benefit.)
Intersectional (there is no race but the human race, however rich and powerful people like to devide and conquer, )
Housing and food being a human right (and preferably through housing co-ops.)
Also trains.(choo choo mothafuckas!)(
Wherer community is first, and pain overall is lessened wealth is an illusion for all those gold collected in their Ivory towers launched into space would be useless without society
Genuinely look into anarchism as a philosophy
@@anarchomando7707 Classical anarchist is not ancom. Federalist, Mutualist and Individualist anarchism are classical anarchism. Anarcho-communism comes later!!! Proudhon was very against communism himself.
If you are a truly anarchist, then you will agree that no one could be forced to live in a determined kind of aggregation and all kinds of auto-governed societies that agree on fully personal liberty must be respected. Independent if is communist or capitalist!
Remembering that anarcho-capitalism means more like contractual free-market anarchism and not State Liberal Capitalism.
Ancap just means you don't understand economics, at a basic level. It's an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a capitalist system that isn't hardcore authoritarian.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 So you are saying that there is no such thing as a free market system?
I'm sorry but forget the word capitalist for a moment, because it can means different things for different people.
We just defend a free market, very similar to other anarchist views, we differ thoughts very explicit on the base rules of the market. While classical mutualism and individualism believe on work value, we believe in marginal value.
If you stop to believe in superficial analysis and really study what we stand for, you will see that we both are against what you call capitalism. We called it state-capitalism, we fight it, we don:t believe in hierarchy that are not based on free association.
@@cronnosli The free market was always a hypothetical ideal, a framework that has use in predictive modeling. The study of economics *begins* with a set of baseline assumptions that can never be true, and we use the predictive model those assumptions allow to help us understand how certain actions should theoretically impact our society. This ideal is, according to the logic and evidence presented by that predictive model, the theoretical most efficient manner of resource distribution for any group regardless of scale, and as such is an ideal worth striving toward. However, stripping away those false assumptions reveals that the ideal cannot exist without outside interference... wealth gravitates toward itself in any system without literal infinite competition (or perfect cooperation, but that's the other side of the coin), as shown by the predictive models for monopolistic entities (those with enough market power to have even the smallest sway on the market invariably grow their market power, leading to an infinite cycle with the only possible conclusion being a single authoritarian entity controlling all trade in every market). This leads us very directly to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalistic values (the idea that lack of regulation creates a more free market and thus a more free society) can never be true to reality, their ideals fundamentally contradict each other.
3:00 Does that mean that churches "live" religious values or that they teach religious values? That's an important difference.
I did that same test with the same questions but it was "calibrated" to represent politics in Finland. I gave pretty much the same answers, not like 100% the same but pretty much anyway, and it put me in the kinda center-right position (center in authoritarian-libertarian axis, halfway from middle to the right), so yeah I think it varies very very much from country to country.
I’m not surprised that I disagree with a lot of the things that most viewers may say because I am basically the opposite of most people in my generation
im pretty much authright full abortion ban now
As always this has been enlightening to see how very very few people understand basic economics and the frequency of governments creating monopolies.
Wow, the irony is thick and self-awareness sparse with this comment.
@@tomslastname5560 please find any monopoly in all of history that was not a result of government intervention. I'll save you some time it dose not exist. The only way a monopoly can exist is for one company to have a government contract or benifitial law that another company can not get access to.
@@reddrake4451 if you don't see how an unregulated market can allow monopolies to develop then you don't understand how markets work.
TH-cam videos are not a substitute for education.
@@tomslastname5560 sure they theoretically can. But the reality is that it has never in all of human history ever taken place. There are however PLENTY of examples where the governments of the world have both on purpose and by accident created monopolies. As a matter of fact to be more clear every instance of a monopoly you can possibly think of has been a result of government market manipulation.
The only stretch of imagination you could contort would be something to the effect of small town or tribal traders but even those proved temporary and had far more to do with lack of demand than inability to compete.
I see you lack a basic understanding of economics yourself... the word "market power" was coined by economists to specifically describe the fact that unregulated markets inevitably and invariably result in monopolies.
The questions are too vague, like death penalty for the most serious crimes? Serious like what? Murder? Rape? Robbery? Orchestrating a genocide? Like it's way too vague. In some countries being gay is a serious crime ffs, needs to be clearer.
When I took the political compass test by myself, I placed right in center libertarian. I'm all for freedom to do whatever you want, even if it makes me personally uncomfortable.
im a liberal fascist according to mine, so you know. Enjoy your freedom. OR ELSE!!!!!
So CP is okay in your eyes?
@@KlaustheViking That violates the non-aggression principle that libertarians traditionally hold in high regard, because children lack the mental development to consent to it.
I'm a white Australian male, with my recent ancestors born here. I'm 49 years old. I personally identify as being left of centre, and I feel a little more socialism can't hurt, especially in regard to health, housing, and education. We had a Federal Election this year, and our more left part, the Labor Party, claimed victory, and it appeared to be on the back of what are called "Teal" candidates. These are more or less conservative candidates who felt he previous, conservative, government had gone to far to the right and become too conservative, it was also on the back of their poor economy polices. Anyway before the election our public broadcaster ran their own version of the Political Compass, with general political questions and issue specific ones, and I came out as left authoritarian, which surprised me as a "live and let live" type person. Being more socialism inclined (not to the level of Neo Marxists and their ilk) left didn't surprise me in the slightest.
Honestly this test is written to be very biased towards leftist progressivism other than the authoritarian component that has become baked into the current iteration of leftist movements in the past decade.
I would be very interested if you did a similar video for other political compass tests.
Especially when literal openly-avowed Communists are behind the Political Compass. _Of course_ they would intentionally distance themselves from their ideologically-inbred sibling, Fascism/Nazism.
Regarding the question involving museums and theaters, my answer would have been different had the two been separated.
The biggest issue I have with the questions is that some have built in exceptions and others are absolute. Every case is different.
Take the question "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's absolute, compare it to "The enemy of my enemy could be my friend against my enemy". It's the same idea, but it understands that sometimes differences cannot be overcome.
A clear example, is the two questions about prison. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, some people are just too far gone (or lack the will) to be rehabilitated. I can't fix someone who doesn't want to be fixed, no matter how hard I try. However, at the same time imprisonment should be about rehabilitation and not merely punitive. That means, push for rehabilitation but at the same time understand that there will always be a few rare individuals that cannot be rehabilitated.
As a whole the your audience isn't as moderate as I am, but then again these political spectrums no longer reflect the political dynamics. Your audience is basically in the moderate range for US politics, the issue is that both parties are heading to the extremes. One party keeps pushing further and further out into crazy town.
Every question could have a nice long debate about the answers, and on another channel I would have participated, but I thought this wasn't an appropriate forum. It's not what your channel is about.
I appreciate your feedback!
I think everyone has the ability to be rehabilitated, and we should at least try with everyone. If they don't also try, then we can give up, but if you give up on people too soon your going to miss out on helping a lot of people
@@ezra7088 Exactly. You can teach anyone that is willing how to play the piano, but if you were try to forcibly teach someone to play the piano it wouldn't work at all. While there needs to be some investment/ willingness on the person who needs to be rehabilitated, the government should always have it's hand outstretched to help.
From the FAQ of the political compass:
"But it’s important to realise that this isn’t a survey, and these aren’t questions. They’re propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That’s how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
The propositions should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it."
@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei if so, it is a broken model.
LOL, in all fairness I scanned your videos after my other very lengthy comment and spotted this one. I was just too curious. Skipped to the end, not surprised.
You should do this again but use the Sapply Values test and see if the results are different
It's almost identical. It just slightly rewords the questions.
It’s probably rare but it can happen that the top vote does not reflect the majority sentiment:
In cases where there is no clear majority (let’s say >50%) you probably should tally up the pro and con side and choose the lightest option on the side with most votes since there are two diametrically opposed answers without neutral ground,
i.e.:
Strongly agree: 28%
Agree: 26%
Disagree: 30%
Strongly disagree: 16%
Total: 100%
Pro-stance: agree + strongly agree = 54%
Con-stance: disagree + strongly disagree = 46%
Here “disagree” may be in the lead, the overall majority sentiment however is on the pro side, thus you should ultimately choose agree to reflect that reality.
In the realms of rehabilitation vs punishment I'd argue it falls down to the crime & context of it. A mass murderer vs a kid that got wrapped up in shady dealings type of situation. Less a lack of consistency and more of context needed for each statement.
I think the question goes to the dilemma "prison to rehab vs prison to isolate" kind of thing.
Punishment doesn't mean killing all criminals.
what would you prefer as a person if your car is stolen?
Has it recovered, car or money?
Or pay taxes to maintain the criminal rehabilitation?
A well-executed punishment is the only way to a peaceful society. Punish(to impose a penalty for a fault, offence, or violation) is not something bad, instead, it means applying justice
@@cronnosli if your car gets stolen, punishing a criminal won't bring it back, most likely.
@@camilox6666 Why not? If he is punished, then he has to pay for what he stoles!!!
That is the meaning of punishment in justice. It is not talking about physically punishing someone!
Punishing is not the same as beating!
Sometimes punishment means even rehab!!!
4:01 not a good question. Most religious people agree that you can be moral without religion but without god morality is subjective. There isnt anything in nature to objectivly draw morals from but if god exists then objective morality is determined by him.
Thats not a pro-religious argument either, there are plenty of people that agree with this that are militant atheists. In the absence of god then morality is really determined by society, but not every society will agree on what those morals should be. Kind of a pointless gripe I know, its just something I find interesting.
Even with religion, morality is subjective. It’s always humans interpreting what they think God/s want, or how they understand the afterlife, etc.
About the broadcasting institution:
Both state -funded and private funded institutions have biases. Difference being-state officials are elected, or put in place by someone who is elected, so there is a person who can be held responsible by public. It's still not perfect, hence why it's not Strongly disagree, but it is at least something. Even that isn't a thing with privately sponsored institutions. There's a common myth about consumers getting outraged and voting with their wallet which has many times been proven false. Coca Cola hired military groups to kill union leaders in Columbia, most of chocolate on the market is made with child or slave labor, amazon working conditions are well known, and Tesla has a terrible history of racism in their factories. Doesn't seem to bother those companies, somehow they are still doing fine.
For me the most interesting part of the question is "no matter how independent the content is" because I don't think I have seen truly independent broadcasts so far. It's hard to not be biased to some extent and every person is in my opinion
government shouldnt be owning the means of production, any attempt to seize private assets should be generally regarded as treason
With a mayority of American viewers, it was almost comedical to think that a mayority would go against the Question of National pride, since it is the main idea that get's beaten into Americans from birth^^
One of the biggest flaws I've found with the PC is that answering some of the questions in a certain way makes you a Libertarian in this circumstance, even though most people who are progressive or lean left in general would agree that the government/state actually getting involved and helping society is a good thing. I'm all for the state doing right by it's citizens and I happily pay taxes because I understand the amenities they pay for, but when it comes to what I do in my spare time and what I do in the privacy of my own home and bedroom, that's where the line has to be drawn. So does that make me a Libertarian? Or does that make me someone who just values privacy? As someone who considers himself progressive, being grouped in with Libertarians is weird. I see them as people who never really grew out of that teenage angsty mentality when it comes to their outlook on life and the political climate of the world. It is interesting, though.
right wing libertarianism doesn't have anything to do with historic libertarianism
Leaning on the libertarian side doesn’t automatically make you (partially) libertarian as a political belief, but rather you’re not authoritarian where personal life is dictated.
@@Paul-ft9dn You're right, but we're speaking on modern day libertarians. You'd be hard pressed not to find a right wing extremist group who didn't consider themselves Libertarians. But historically, when people didn't have the same luxuries we're afforded nowadays, being a Libertarian made sense. Living off the land in the 1700s, working every minute just to make it to the next day... It makes sense that those people didn't want the government telling them what they could and couldn't do. And if someone was living like that now, I would say the same thing. But people don't live like that now, not most of them at least. Modern day libertarians sound like babies whining, and then they throw fits and become radicalized because they don't like being told what to do. Just my thought process.
@@MFBloosh libertarianism historically has been anti capitalist, anti authoritarian socialist and strongly on the left, nothing to do with anarcho capitalism.
@@Paul-ft9dn Again, if you read my comment, I said MODERN DAY LIBERTARIANS. Historically speaking, Republicans used to be the progressives/liberals and Democrats were the conservatives. Is it that way in modern times? No.
there's a fine line between spanking your kids and abusing your kids.
but like a friend of mine once said, a slap given at the correct time can save a life.
i was spanked as a kid. not abused, just spanked. and i dont resent my parents. in fact i thank them for correcting me when i was in an age where i wouldnt listen to reason, so physical force was pretty much the only way. i still remember being in elementary school talking to some friends. it was about the age when they were switching from spanking to using their words to correct you(because it was aroudn the time you start developing better skills at listening to reason), and we agreed that getting yelled at was even worse than being whooped. because the physical pain would subside very fast, but the emotional pain(and shame) of the words would linger.
Not in my opinion. It’s wrong to commit violence of any sort against a child, as they aren’t able to defend themselves against adults, being physically smaller and weaker, generally lacking the knowledge of _how_ to defend themselves, and that parents are in a position of trust with and power over their kids.
Spanking _is_ abuse, and it needs to stop. Your parents could have found other ways to discipline you that are just as effective whilst avoiding causing pain to their children in the process. Temporarily revoking certain privileges, for example, as punishment for disobeying them, amongst others. What your parents did to you was _wrong,_ full stop.
That said, that doesn’t necessarily mean you should resent them for it or that you shouldn’t forgive them for it. That’s entirely up to you to decide, because they’re your family, your relationships. Only you get to determine how you feel about your parents’ choice to use corporal punishment.
For the record, I was also spanked as a child.
It didn’t work on me.
@@DarkJediPrincess
"Spanking is abuse"
not really.
when i was a child and wouldnt listen to reason, my parents spanked me.
they did not abuse me.
"other ways to discipline you that are just as effective"
for example?
"avoiding causing pain to their children"
that's the whole point of spanking.
"Temporarily revoking certain privileges"
didnt work on me. or anyone in my family of my generation.
"What your parents did to you was wrong"
on the contrary. what my parents did FOR me(not TO me) was provide me with an education, without abusing me.
"that doesn’t necessarily mean you should resent them"
now you're contradicting yourself.
if you are in an abusive relationship, you should leave that relationship, and never come back. that doesnt just apply to romantic relationships, but to ALL relationships.
"or that you shouldn’t forgive them"
there's nothing to forgive. they did something GOOD for me.
"Only you get to determine how you feel about your parents’ choice to use corporal punishment."
weird. earlier you were pontificating about how it was somehow wrong, and claiming that it was abuse. so make up your mind.
" I was also spanked as a child"
interesting, so your parents are abusive pieces of sht?
This is a modified version of the world's smallest political test, which is originally designed to promote libertarianism. I'll be interested to know if the LP is still pushing this or if this was a private reworking of the test. It is considerably more socially liberal than the original test from the 1970s and the one that I took 25 years ago. And frankly, it still has many of the same flaws. Firstly, socially liberal and economics are only two of many political axes. I would think that nationalism versus internationalism and post nationalism should be up there. Also, some of the questions don't really even work for politics. I'm not sure where astrology stands on the political spectrum. But let's look at something like the way that people feel about homosexuals or drugs. One can disagree or find certain behavior to be immoral without necessarily thinking that the government should have anything to do with it. There are plenty of libertarians who would disagree with pornography etc, but don't really think it's up to the government to promote it. Likewise, there are libertarians who support gay marriage strongly, but who don't like the government forcing its recognition on to people and institutions.
Well I’m a card carrying member, and a party official in my county’s LP. I’m not aware of the party pushing this test nowadays. Not saying it isn’t happening, just that I haven’t seen it happen.
@@OP5redsolocup it certainly has been used by the party and by activists in the past.
Being Italian, the American system as a whole would translate to only the right side of our politics. Even the democrats are right leaning when compared to our "corresponding" parties, while the republican side (especially the current populist one you have) pretty much aligns almost perfectly with our "far right" parties here
The political compass puts me to the literal extreme side of the left lol, while any test from my country (although far left representation is lacking here) would put me moderately to the left
Being from Sweden it would probably land slightly in the right leaning side and being almost in between authoritarian and libertarian.
Hi Ivan
Odd....... another guy claiming to be from Sweden (can you ever know for sure on the internet?) said that he's as right as right can get at home but seen as left as left can get here in the US.
@@travissmith2848 Well I meant that based on what the community answered it would land where I said it would in Sweden. I did not disclose where my personal opinion would. However no matter what Swedes would generally be more to the left than the US counterpart but with the guy you referred to be extreme right would not be extreme left in the US. The difference is not that gigantic.
Coming from Canada, these views would be considered slightly more centrist, but not far off from where things are in the US. The Overton Window in Canada extends a little further left, nowhere near as far right, and not quite as far toward either authoritarianism or libritarianism than what we see from the US.