Eight Values
- Thread starter a_skeleton_03
- Start date
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
Rezz
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 4,486
- 3,531
Social Liberalism
Which is roughly correct but there were a shitload of terribly worded questions. I had a lot of "Don't know" answers simply because the question was too ambiguous to make a statement on.
The science/tradition stuff falls right where I would imagine it would, except for being so black and white. People can have Christmas but they can also believe in nuclear energy. It isn't hard-line binary, but the questions were certainly worded that way.
My top two sections were more centrist than anything, but I would wager my hard pro-science stance basically threw me right into lefty-land. Skewed is a kind word.
Which is roughly correct but there were a shitload of terribly worded questions. I had a lot of "Don't know" answers simply because the question was too ambiguous to make a statement on.
The science/tradition stuff falls right where I would imagine it would, except for being so black and white. People can have Christmas but they can also believe in nuclear energy. It isn't hard-line binary, but the questions were certainly worded that way.
My top two sections were more centrist than anything, but I would wager my hard pro-science stance basically threw me right into lefty-land. Skewed is a kind word.
Feanor
Karazhan Raider
- 7,766
- 35,304
Trollan probably took it over and over till he gamed the test to get his desired label then came here to post it, probably like this:
Third time I picked the opposite of my values. Second I was pegged libertarian. I am not a libertarian. First time was most accurate.
I've always thought of myself as apolitical. Hasn't changed in years and doubt it will. My parents are democrats while most of my family and the adults I grew up around are republicans. If I had to pick I'd call me a centrist.
Third time I picked the opposite of my values. Second I was pegged libertarian. I am not a libertarian. First time was most accurate.
That there's something I have said several times among friends which I don't think most people get.
Last edited:
- 1
- 17,781
- 25,896
You express it well.
It's a desire to be your own person, but to be for everyone else. Maybe? I dunno. Well played.
- 3
Feanor
Karazhan Raider
- 7,766
- 35,304
You also expressed it well.
Yes to people, no to bad ideas.The questions are beyond dumb.
The 'all people should be treated equally' question is in the same question as the 'all world-views should be treated equally'? Fuck that. Yes to people, no to ideas. Jesus fuck when will people figure this out?
I'd bet a hundred bucks whoever wrote that question thinks disliking Islam makes you a racist.
View attachment 134172
- 1
Mur
Trakanon Raider
- 759
- 1,722
- 17,781
- 25,896
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 34,617
- 99,902
Every nation wide propaganda apparatus and famous military leader disagrees!
Dehumanization of your enemy is the first chapter in winning wars 101 (physical, ideological and/or cultural). It's basically the end state of every argument we have on here.
- 1
- 17,781
- 25,896
Really?
The end state of every argument is to demonize group-selected individuals... and what?
Maybe you could expand the realm of possibilities of your end-states. Maybe there is an end-state that doesn't involve making certain humans as 'demons' but rather, certain ideas as 'demons'. (So to speak.)
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 34,617
- 99,902
on here, rere
I'm not saying that's the goal, but it's what pretty much happens in the course of our arguments. For example, we just got xeq to tell everyone he thinks conservatives are nazi's. Boom, conservatives are obviously dehumanized to him, and he's dehumanized to a lot of people he was arguing against. We have reached end state. It's essentially just poe's and is applicable in warfare.
So ya I guess it's idea's we dehumanize on here. it's not like it could go any further.
- 1
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
Well that's definitely the conclusion of the "diamat"---Dialectical Materialism---for one thing. Even when Mao and Stalin modified Engels' Historical Materialism into their own ends, it ultimately reduced social evolution into a "negation of negations" of the prevailing idea groups during each stage in that Hegelian evolution.
It's basically why they kept purging a new set of "reactionaries" every time they came up a with a new five-year plan.
- 1
- 17,781
- 25,896
I gotcha. It's an iooti thing?
I am maybe jumping into the conversation a bit more than I should. My apologies.
- 1
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 34,617
- 99,902
No it's national doctrine throughout history to dehumanize your enemy. Why do you think Japanese were taught that to become an american officer to have to kill your parents or sacrifice a baby or some shit. And we thought they were all part of a brainwashed heathen horde (we were more correct). It plays out for real.
As far as on iooti it's less so as I'm pretty sure we all know we're all somewhat cool people, on different spectrum or retarded of course, which is a little bit dehumanizing.
I think my overall points is you part of winning an argument or a war, is making your side believe it's better then the other. It's basic tribalism stuff. I'm not all book smart so I'm probably not explaining it as good as I could be. Still working on my gulag archipelagos homey. Plus I'm knee deep in beer night.
- 1
- 1
- 17,781
- 25,896
Agraza
Registered Hutt
- 6,890
- 521
social liberal. pretty much accurate.
Welfare exists because it must to maintain the technological advances of our market economy. We argue about the extent of economic intervention and welfare as well as the application of government violence both externally and internally. These merely solve problems that the market is poorly suited to solving. In every case where the market can resolve the situation more efficiently, we should let it.
Furthermore, I think the government should continue to catalyze competition in the economy toward environmental goals as the market is not sufficiently including the cost of environmental maintenance. This is a pro-capitalist position based on the disparity in the findings of climate scientists, the price of hydrocarbons, and the cost of violent intervention to maintain the supply of hydrocarbons. I think a carbon tax would remove the bureaucratic complexity of trying to bring the market into alignment with the expense of environmental maintenance, and would minimize the government's need for intervention on this issue into the future.
Welfare exists because it must to maintain the technological advances of our market economy. We argue about the extent of economic intervention and welfare as well as the application of government violence both externally and internally. These merely solve problems that the market is poorly suited to solving. In every case where the market can resolve the situation more efficiently, we should let it.
Furthermore, I think the government should continue to catalyze competition in the economy toward environmental goals as the market is not sufficiently including the cost of environmental maintenance. This is a pro-capitalist position based on the disparity in the findings of climate scientists, the price of hydrocarbons, and the cost of violent intervention to maintain the supply of hydrocarbons. I think a carbon tax would remove the bureaucratic complexity of trying to bring the market into alignment with the expense of environmental maintenance, and would minimize the government's need for intervention on this issue into the future.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
8values
Results
Economic Axis: Market
29.5%
70.5%
Diplomatic Axis: Hawkish
64.1%
35.9%
Civil Axis: Moderate
44.6%
55.4%
Societal Axis: Neutral
48.5%
51.5%
Closest Match: Neo-Liberalism
Ideological matching is a work in progress, and is much less accurate than the values and axes.
You can send these results by copying and pasting the URL at the top of the page or using the image below. Think your matched ideology was wrong? Want to help us calibrate the test? Send the results along with your political ideology to us at [email protected], or send us any comments, questions, or criticism.
Results
Economic Axis: Market
29.5%
70.5%
Diplomatic Axis: Hawkish
64.1%
35.9%
Civil Axis: Moderate
44.6%
55.4%
Societal Axis: Neutral
48.5%
51.5%
Closest Match: Neo-Liberalism
Ideological matching is a work in progress, and is much less accurate than the values and axes.
You can send these results by copying and pasting the URL at the top of the page or using the image below. Think your matched ideology was wrong? Want to help us calibrate the test? Send the results along with your political ideology to us at [email protected], or send us any comments, questions, or criticism.