It's Time

[Mock Turtle]

I'll not bother since my views don't tend to change that much, but like others, I would probably be placed close to the lower left hand corner.

 

[Heyo]

I'll not bother since my views don't tend to change that much, but like others, I would probably be placed close to the lower left hand corner.

In an older OP someone aggregate all the RF results into one chart. Sadly the site (crowdchart) doesn't work anymore and we can't see the old results.
I remember the green corned pretty crowded with very few outliers.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In an older OP someone aggregate all the RF results into one chart. Sadly the site (crowdchart) doesn't work anymore and we can't see the old results.
I remember the green corned pretty crowded with very few outliers.

Sanity usually prevails.

 

[Soandso]

Oof, my score was a lot more left leaning than I was expecting

I suppose the current political climate has been pushing me further left than I had thought. I feel the left and the right wings have been isolating themselves from eachother and spreading out further and further in the USA, and I've certainly not been immune from being caught up in that occurance

All that said, I think it's accurate with placing my political allignment on "social democracy"

 

[Father Heathen]

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In an older OP someone aggregate all the RF results into one chart. Sadly the site (crowdchart) doesn't work anymore and we can't see the old results.
I remember the green corned pretty crowded with very few outliers.

The heavy concentration of results in the lower-left quadrant was suggestive that the survey instrument was not adequate to distinguish between some of their intended measures.

 

[Heyo]

The heavy concentration of results in the lower-left quadrant was suggestive that the survey instrument was not adequate to distinguish between some of their intended measures.

I'd say it is indicative of RF being a self selected group of mostly social and liberal people. Other groups (political candidates) had a heavy bias in the blue quadrant. (Also a self selected group but of anti-social, authoritarian individuals).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'd say it is indicative of RF being a self selected group of mostly social and liberal people. Other groups (political candidates) had a heavy bias in the blue quadrant. (Also a self selected group but of anti-social, authoritarian individuals).

maybe, but the pattern has shown up in several studies of survey instrument and the website. I had more than 200 students in a database that also displayed the same lopsided distribution.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In case anyone wants to see what the right answers are... (j/k)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And my political compass...

 

[Viker]

My views, specifically economic, have changed wildly over the years. I've become increasingly anti corporate and highly open to mixed economics. So the shocker is my shift towards friendliness with socialism.

The civil and societal down there have changed very little. I actually agree with this test more than others as it breaks down the social, economic and political facets one may hold. It's still not perfect. It should have something about open to mixed and adaptive economics.

So, here it is... the ever changing growing Viker.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The latter, because I'd have more fundamental views in common with them. I'd vote for a socialist of a sort but they'd have to be a family values type and cool with religion. I am not an anti-capitalist like a Marxist would be. I support capitalism if capitalism means people having the ability to own their own property, start a business, compete fairly with others and keep the earnings of their hard work, sure. But this neoliberal hellscape? Hell no. That's just a monstrosity that is throwing the world into chaos and a downward spiral as it reaches its final stages and collapses.

I agree about capitalism. I don't see abolition of private property as a desirable or even realistic goal, and Marxists who advocate for that tend to adhere to Marxism-Leninism or an offshoot thereof (e.g., Stalinism or Maoism). I also see religion as an entirely personal affair with which the state shouldn't interfere whether to promote or suppress it.

I mentioned that I saw some issues in the questions on that test, and one of them was the one about "family values": the term is too vague when not accompanied by further context. I chose "I agree" for the question asking whether family values are important, because I believe family values include trust, helping each other when in need, respect for the elderly, social etiquette, etc. But I also know that many people view family values as necessarily including opposition to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, open relationships, or even opposite-sex friendships, all of which are positions I definitely reject. I don't know which definitions the test was using in this and other parts.

Globalism is deeply intertwined with neoliberalism, and a huge part of the problem. Through globalization, we have gotten harmful economic policies like NAFTA, outsourcing, etc. which has ruined the working class in the formally industrialized nations of the West, throwing them into deep poverty with no future. It has spurred this "open borders" mindset which has manifested as government-endorsed corporate rape of people and the environment. Now we have illegal immigrants being used as cheap, almost slave labor. Many of them are abused badly and many disappear into human trafficking networks. But a lot of people are making money off of it, so it's got to be allowed to continue. So those people are suffering as much as the working class natives whose jobs they are taking and displacing. It's sad all around.

So I think more nationalistic, protectionist policies are what are needed, to rebuild our working and middle class. This is direly needed. We're headed towards a collapse if nothing is done to avert this.

Maybe this would be a good idea for a new thread. I don't want to derail this one.

Yes, I think this would make for an interesting topic for a new thread. I see a lot of issues with globalism, but I also see a lot of benefits. I completely agree about how it has contributed to corporate exploitation and environmental destruction, but at the same time, it has helped to liberalize some societies (to various extents) in ways that have made life much easier for many people, including ones like me and many of my friends. At least they have hope of immigrating to more suitable countries instead of being stuck in theocracies for the rest of their lives—theocracies that would be even stricter on them if it weren't for the tempering effect of globalism on many countries' social and cultural climates.

I'm not sure what the best way would be to balance the pros and cons, because I don't believe in unchecked globalism but would also never want it to completely disappear either. I see immense value as well as immense risks in it.

By the way, since quoting someone in a new thread requires permission per the rules, would you mind if I quoted your post in case I decided to start a new thread about all of this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

By the way, since quoting someone in a new thread requires permission per the rules, would you mind if I quoted your post in case I decided to start a new thread about all of this?

Go right ahead.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Closest Match: Radical Centrism​

Radical Centrism is a political ideology that aims to borrow ideas from different sides, often merging them together to create an independent worldview.​

Last year I took the 10Groups quiz which is far superior over 8 Values or the Political Compass. More questions and more thorough representation of ideas overall. These are my complete results.