Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Political Compass

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ReaveTheJust
    replied
    ohhh noooo Jeeezuz !!!!

    turns out I'm a right leftie commie luvin hippy liberal bleeding heart :roll:

    Economic Left/Right: -7.12
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

    Leave a comment:


  • Kitsune
    replied
    I think Danisty is correct on this, I took a test like this called Policheck, many years ago, and It listed me as Libertarina (though I was pretty near the center on that score)

    Leave a comment:


  • Danisty
    replied
    Can you expand on why the test is inaccurate? I'm just curious to know what the other forum's reasons were for concluding the test was inaccurate.
    Unfortunately, I can't send you a link to that thread because it was before the forum was hacked and we lost everything. I'm pretty sure though that they thought it was biased towards the liberal side and...that it would be hard to get a conservative score out of the test. I'm sorry, but I really don't remember the details and I have no way to reference it because the thread is gone.

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    Originally posted by Rymdolov
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg

    Jag tycker att den أ¤r en bra idee. أ„r det i Borأ¥s? :lol:
    Titta efter kأ¤llardأ¶rren med en rأ¶dsvart stjأ¤rna.
    Okej, men vad ska jag gأ¶ra om det finns mأ¥nga dأ¶rrar med rأ¶dsvarta stjأ¤rnor?
    Vad ska vi gأ¶ra om alla dأ¶rrarna dأ¤r har rأ¶dsvarta stjأ¤rnor?

    Knacka "krossa den statskapitalistiska hegemonin" i morsekod tre gأ¥nger.
    Jag behأ¶veratt lأ¤ra mig morsekod, det أ¤r klأ¤rt. Skit! Jag hoppas att det أ¤r inte mycket svأ¥rt
    att lأ¤ra.

    Gأ¥ in nأ¤r du hأ¶r "Smash it up" med "The (International) Noise Conspiracy" spelad pأ¥ panflأ¶jt. Lأ¶senordet أ¤r "ninukab evel". Skaka hand med ringfingret mot handflatan.
    Jag fأ¶rstأ¥r. Vi ses.


    Oh, and bring a black mask and (if possible) some napalm.
    The napalm I understand, but is the mask necessary? :lol:

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    Originally posted by LEtranger
    LSN,
    I suggest we all, but most of all you Americans, try out the test again after the presidential elections, a week or so later.
    That seems like a worthy experiment, except a year later might give more perspective.

    As for me personally, I doubt it'll make much difference, I suspect. I also have reason
    to believe that I may not be typical. You remarked that your ex-Prussian major
    of a grandfather would've been a trifle unhappy with your political orientation.

    We've got more in common than I realized.

    Originally posted by L'أ©tranger
    Not that the test will have changed, but the perspectives. :roll:
    In some cases our perspectives are what cause us to react to the current conditions
    in the manner in which we do. I don't think it's the external conditions that produce
    our viewpoints in every case, but rather the opposite.

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • Foozle
    replied
    Danisty:

    Can you expand on why the test is inaccurate? I'm just curious to know what the other forum's reasons were for concluding the test was inaccurate.

    I'm sure nearly all tests have some level of subjectivity to them. That's why it's possible to defeat tests like the SAT and so on...you can specifically study in such a way as to succeed by knowing precisely what is being tested.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danisty
    replied
    This tested was posted on OccultForums and it was generally decided that it wasn't accurate. Anyway, here are my results, basically the same as before, but just a little bit more to the left:

    Economic Left/Right: -3.12
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

    Leave a comment:


  • Rymdolov
    replied
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg

    Jag tycker att den أ¤r en bra idee. أ„r det i Borأ¥s? :lol:
    Titta efter kأ¤llardأ¶rren med en rأ¶dsvart stjأ¤rna. Knacka "krossa den statskapitalistiska hegemonin" i morsekod tre gأ¥nger. Gأ¥ in nأ¤r du hأ¶r "Smash it up" med "The (International) Noise Conspiracy" spelad pأ¥ panflأ¶jt. Lأ¶senordet أ¤r "ninukab evel". Skaka hand med ringfingret mot handflatan.

    Oh, and bring a black mask and (if possible) some napalm.

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    replied
    LSN,
    I suggest we all, but most of all you Americans, try out the test again after the presidential elections, a week or so later. Not that the test will have changed, but the perspectives. :roll:

    L'E

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
    Economic: -5.75
    Social: -7.08

    The lack of a "neutral" option was a problem more than
    once. I think it may have skewed my results towards to
    positive in the economic phase, somewhat inaccurately.
    Out of curiosity, I looked at the test again, thought about the
    questions a little more instead of giving quick, offhand responses,
    and curiously, I obtained somewhat different scores. People
    might want to try this to see if your experience resembles
    mine -- perhaps not, as all of you may have thought about the
    questions in greater depth than I did the first time.

    At any rate, my scores changed a little. I'm still not happy with
    all of the questions, but I don't have a problem with either set
    of scores I obtained. In no way did I attempt to influence the
    test results; I simply tried to answer the questions honestly.

    Here's the results for the second time I took the test:

    Economic Left/Right: -6.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44

    I'm not sure whether this is more or less "accurate," but it reflects
    a curious subjective feature of such tests, I think. Answers might
    well be somewhat different at different times of the day.

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    Originally posted by Rymdolov
    Me and my Party Comrades have a little meeting on wednesday, to discuss exactly these matters. Perhaps you would like to come?
    Jag tycker att den أ¤r en bra idee. أ„r det i Borأ¥s? :lol:

    Bring an open mind. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
    Forstأ¥s! Alltid.

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • Rymdolov
    replied
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
    Originally posted by Rymdolov
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
    The lack of a "neutral" option was a problem more than
    once.
    There are no neutral options! Organisation is fascism! Long live the collective!

    Sorry, just trying to fit into my new role here... :D
    When I generally agreed with a proposition, but could think of exceptions,
    I often answered "agree" instead of "stongly agree".

    When I thought there were enough counterexamples to make it difficult to
    say yes or no, I selected my inclination as a mild "agree" or "disagree." Those
    are the cases where a "neutral" answer might have mattered.

    As for your high score, min vأ¤n, I conclude that you are young and very
    certain about some things. Some of us are a bit older, and experience causes
    us to temper our responses by removing the "strong" qualifier.

    That doesn't mean we don't agree with you. It means we don't possess your
    level of certainty. Absolute certainty in social and ethical concerns is difficult
    to come by unless the question is trivial, most of the time.

    LSN
    I'm sure you're right. You and I probably answered most of the questions the same way, except that I used the "strong" option a bit more. Of course I really agree that there are questions that can't be answered with absolute certainty, and at least two of the test questions were too simplistic for me to be able to give a proper answer. The test makers have really managed to pick subjects and questions which I happen to feel very strongly about, though. If there had been more questions about drugs, for example, I might have seemed less extreme, since that's an area where I really don't know what to think most of the time.

    Me and my Party Comrades have a little meeting on wednesday, to discuss exactly these matters. Perhaps you would like to come? Bring an open mind. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    Leave a comment:


  • Kitsune
    replied
    I perfer Julius Marx :lol:

    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
    Originally posted by Kitsune
    I suddenly feel the urge to refer to everyone as Comrad.
    Personally, Comrade Renard, I prefer anarcho-syndicalism and think Karl Marx was a
    bourgeois capitalist tool! Ecrasse l'infame!



    This was a joke, if you didn't already deduce it. :lol:

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    Originally posted by Kitsune
    I suddenly feel the urge to refer to everyone as Comrad.
    Personally, Comrade Renard, I prefer anarcho-syndicalism and think Karl Marx was a
    bourgeois capitalist tool! Ecrasse l'infame!



    This was a joke, if you didn't already deduce it. :lol:

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    Originally posted by Rymdolov
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
    The lack of a "neutral" option was a problem more than
    once.
    There are no neutral options! Organisation is fascism! Long live the collective!

    Sorry, just trying to fit into my new role here... :D
    When I generally agreed with a proposition, but could think of exceptions,
    I often answered "agree" instead of "stongly agree".

    When I thought there were enough counterexamples to make it difficult to
    say yes or no, I selected my inclination as a mild "agree" or "disagree." Those
    are the cases where a "neutral" answer might have mattered.

    As for your high score, min vأ¤n, I conclude that you are young and very
    certain about some things. Some of us are a bit older, and experience causes
    us to temper our responses by removing the "strong" qualifier.

    That doesn't mean we don't agree with you. It means we don't possess your
    level of certainty. Absolute certainty in social and ethical concerns is difficult
    to come by unless the question is trivial, most of the time.

    LSN

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X