Jump to content

Political Compass

Recommended Posts

Industrial capacity is worthless if it produces worthless product. You might as well be handing out cash to the workers and let them do whatever they want, instead of forcing them to do make-work. It's just a way of burning cash taken from elsewhere.

 

When an old insustry dies out it gives way to new things and ultimately it is for the better for everyone concerned.

 

By all means - stimulate new things. Fund research, help start-ups - there are many useful ways of protecting new things while they grow but for the old pointless dinosaurs - save your tears, it's not worth it...

 

About the freedom of sex, though - I'd say it wasn't "given to us", it was hard faught for... Compare our life with, say, that in Afghanistan, where love will most likely cause you to be stoned to death...

 

Nah, you'll have to pry the freedom of sex out of my cold dead fingers, even though you'll never find me in an embrace of a prostitute or catch me out on a one-night stand :D

 

Regards

 

I never said - keep the old, inefficient industries. I'm up for innovation, productivity increases etc. What I meant is - don't let cheap goods flow in from countries with no (or close to none) environmental, climate policies, very low safety standards, worker living standards (e.g. the good old story about child slave work in Asia for big brands) etc. I'm worried about decent industries being destroyed because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
don't let cheap goods flow in from countries with no (or close to none) environmental, climate policies, very low safety standards, worker living standards (e.g. the good old story about child slave work in Asia for big brands) etc.

 

In an ideal static world that would make sense. But if you look into this from practical perspective - these countries will never have their environmental and climate and labour policies raised if they don't get the work, money and trade from the West in the first place. And if they do achieve those improvements on their own - they won't want to manufacture your stuff - they will by then design their own stuff and find someone else to build it for them.

 

I hate and despise Apple for a number of reasons but without it the Chinese labour practices would never have been drawn out into the light of day, let alone be forced to improve as dramatically as they had over the past 10 years. And that's just one example.

 

The economies are driven by things you can do better and more efficiently than others. So the West - if we want to remain ahead of the planet - must concentrate on finding things it can do best, rather than trying to undercut the eager and the hungry in the game of mass manufacturing.

 

That's my firm personal conviction.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
For some of the questions I was torn between quite opposing positions, often an intellectual response versus a more visceral emotional feeling.
I had that, yeah. I can't remember on what questions, mind. I'm temoted to retake the test again and see if my opinions on things have changed. (I have a feeling they might have)

Share this post


Link to post

Although I don't like it, its not my business what happens at someone's bedroom. Its just the process and the way its "given to us" that I have something against. But that's not that important tbh, there are a lot more important things around us.

Why do you care for something as cold and detached as sex? Sex in of itself has no depth. At this point it's just another commodity that some countries choose not to participate in for "morale" reasons. When you really think about it fucking a prostitute is about as mundane as buying groceries.

Share this post


Link to post

chart?ec=-1.0&soc=-0.26

 

It's about where I'd expect it to be. I personally think of myself as somebody who is pro-individual liberty but also pro-responsibility, and my attitudes towards criminals can make me unpopular with some of my leftist friends. In terms of the market and economy I tend to be a grudging realist instead of a zealous critic of capitalism. I'm not exactly pro-capitalism, but can any of us here really argue that our lives would be sustainable if we weren't subject to it. I honestly don't see how I could realistically be "freer" in any other kind of society in which huge numbers of people coexist. I find racism, sexism and homophobia terrible, but I'm skeptical of attempts to hush-up prejudice and bigotry under a veneer of political correctness.

Share this post


Link to post

crowdchart?name=+&ec=0&soc=-10

I knew I was an anarchist. :twisted:

 

DEATH TO AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Seriously though this site is full of shit. Yesterday it said I was on the Libertarian Left and now it's saying I'm on Libertarian Right. Also what do questions like "Astrology accurately explains many things." or "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." have to do with politics?

Share this post


Link to post
Seriously though this site is full of shit. Yesterday it said I was on the Libertarian Left and now it's saying I'm on Libertarian Right. Also what do questions like "Astrology accurately explains many things." or "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." have to do with politics?

In regards to the second question, a lot of art critics make the mistake of assuming that the tropes of rightist-and-leftist art can more-or-less be summed up as an internalized argument perceived to be focused on a notion of traditional realism versus unironically avant-garde abstraction. Much better art critics such as Hal Foster have noted that the supposed avant-garde of prior decades is in fact a kind of neo-avant-garde favoured by writers such as Clement Greenburg and Peter Bürger (predominantly critiquing during the 60's and 70's) who tried to elevate the values of abstraction into a formalized high art, whilst condemning the then more recent iterations of art that would later be called pop and minimalism - that aforementioned neo-avant-garde tendency ironically becoming a kind of cultural conservatism in it's own right.

Whether it was Henry Moore's predominance in British sculpture, the "colour-field" artists in America or even the more sensual and less cynical modern works of the Mediterranean, the previous avant-garde art had become subsumed by the establishment and in turn came to be associated with rightist sentiment - thus rendering it suspect by radical artists and movements. The whole of art history is an extremely confusing and often cyclical reflection of changing social tendencies and public discourse, which goes a long way to making the subject very interesting to a literary nerd like.

 

As for the astrology question, you might be able to argue that forced materialism resulting in the aggressive rejection of traditional systems of belief and interpretation is a political gesture, albeit a very offset and personal one.

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt this is truly where we would all stand on the political spectrum. I think it's more like throwing a dart and where it lands is loosely where we stand. I'm not sure I even answered half those questions truthfully because none of them had a "I don't really care" or "indifferent" option so I had to choose one of two not entirely true answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Seriously though this site is full of shit.

 

This is why I hate sites like this, the best person to determine your personality is yourself after you analyze everything you say, do, and believe.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.