Where do you stand on the political compass? (2020)

I did the 216 questions so the percentages changed

Neutral, neutral and neutral : D

https://prnt.sc/vv6mv9

So that's why almost everyone disagrees with me

So that's why almost everyone disagrees with me

This is 100% correct. We must have a strong federalist system with national institutions to counter majority rule (i..e., democracy); people must be able to govern themselves in a federalist system, but most of their majority decisions must have no bearing over people in other states. For this reason, there should be less freedom afforded to the people, which is to say the freedom to decide how to govern the lives of others.

Globalization is a positive sum game.

A military provides bargaining power.

Freedom must be subservient to security, because if freedom cannot be secured, then it will not exist for long. And in those rare instances when security no longer serves as a hedge against majority rule and instances of unjust coercion, the people always reserve the right to overturn their own government.

Equality is only significant in matters of justice, not the economy.

Beliefs, whether they are secular or religious, should have no significance except to the individual, and the emergent effects that might arise from a society of secular or religious individuals, which should help bind society together, regardless of whether their prevailing belief is secular or religious. That is, unless secularism implies a society becoming a-moral and morally bereft, in which case a society will collapse because its institutions cannot maintain legitimacy if the people they are supposed to govern no longer believe in the legitimacy of its authority over their own lives.

Progress in innovation is unmistakably important in a society that wants to prosper, but if a traditional system provides for such progress, then that must imply the system is worth upholding. Beyond this, traditional and modern views on society should only be an issue when their differences threaten national unity or when either threatens the political bands that connect a people together.

And, of course, a nation cannot survive in a multiculturalist environment. This is not to say that assimilation should be an important legal objective, but that avoiding the influx of multiculturalism is, at least as far as border security goes and the possibility of foreign influence in online communication.

Forgot

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 13.12.2020 at 16:46

This is 100% correct. We must have a strong federalist system with national institutions to counter majority rule (i..e., democracy); people must be able to govern themselves in a federalist system, but most of their majority decisions must have no bearing over people in other states. For this reason, there should be less freedom afforded to the people, which is to say the freedom to decide how to govern the lives of others.

Globalization is a positive sum game.

A military provides bargaining power.

Freedom must be subservient to security, because if freedom cannot be secured, then it will not exist for long. And in those rare instances when security no longer serves as a hedge against majority rule and instances of unjust coercion, the people always reserve the right to overturn their own government.

Equality is only significant in matters of justice, not the economy.

Beliefs, whether they are secular or religious, should have no significance except to the individual, and the emergent effects that might arise from a society of secular or religious individuals, which should help bind society together, regardless of whether their prevailing belief is secular or religious. That is, unless secularism implies a society becoming a-moral and morally bereft, in which case a society will collapse because its institutions cannot maintain legitimacy if the people they are supposed to govern no longer believe in the legitimacy of its authority over their own lives.

Progress in innovation is unmistakably important in a society that wants to prosper, but if a traditional system provides for such progress, then that must imply the system is worth upholding. Beyond this, traditional and modern views on society should only be an issue when their differences threaten national unity or when either threatens the political bands that connect a people together.

And, of course, a nation cannot survive in a multiculturalist environment. This is not to say that assimilation should be an important legal objective, but that avoiding the influx of multiculturalism is, at least as far as border security goes and the possibility of foreign influence in online communication.

the percents for equality and religion and i'd agree with you on everything.

On the nine axes:

48-52 neutral
81-19 extreme democratic
86-14 extreme globalist
38-62 moderate pacifist
28-72 freedom
80-20 extreme equality
91-09 fanatic secular
74-26 progressive
39-61 moderate multiculturalist

I'd say that this describes my views broadly well, except that I don't think I lean that far into socialism. I tried to avoid answering questions neutral/unsure (because that just sounds like a cop-out) unless I really didn't have much of an opinion, so that might've skewed my results towards extremes.

I also think that a survey like this suffers from an unclear definition of "culture". By culture do we mean art, cuisine, language, attire? In such superficial matters of culture I'm a complete multiculturalist and I think the more cultural diversity we have the
better. Or by culture do we mean values, etiquette, attitudes on law and on spirituality? In such more fundamental matters I tend to be much more uncompromising.

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 13.12.2020 at 16:46

This is 100% correct. We must have a strong federalist system with national institutions to counter majority rule (i..e., democracy); people must be able to govern themselves in a federalist system, but most of their majority decisions must have no bearing over people in other states. For this reason, there should be less freedom afforded to the people, which is to say the freedom to decide how to govern the lives of others.

Globalization is a positive sum game.

A military provides bargaining power.

Freedom must be subservient to security, because if freedom cannot be secured, then it will not exist for long. And in those rare instances when security no longer serves as a hedge against majority rule and instances of unjust coercion, the people always reserve the right to overturn their own government.

Equality is only significant in matters of justice, not the economy.

Beliefs, whether they are secular or religious, should have no significance except to the individual, and the emergent effects that might arise from a society of secular or religious individuals, which should help bind society together, regardless of whether their prevailing belief is secular or religious. That is, unless secularism implies a society becoming a-moral and morally bereft, in which case a society will collapse because its institutions cannot maintain legitimacy if the people they are supposed to govern no longer believe in the legitimacy of its authority over their own lives.

Progress in innovation is unmistakably important in a society that wants to prosper, but if a traditional system provides for such progress, then that must imply the system is worth upholding. Beyond this, traditional and modern views on society should only be an issue when their differences threaten national unity or when either threatens the political bands that connect a people together.

And, of course, a nation cannot survive in a multiculturalist environment. This is not to say that assimilation should be an important legal objective, but that avoiding the influx of multiculturalism is, at least as far as border security goes and the possibility of foreign influence in online communication.

This is bad

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 13.12.2020 at 16:46

This is 100% correct. We must have a strong federalist system with national institutions to counter majority rule (i..e., democracy); people must be able to govern themselves in a federalist system, but most of their majority decisions must have no bearing over people in other states. For this reason, there should be less freedom afforded to the people, which is to say the freedom to decide how to govern the lives of others.

Globalization is a positive sum game.

A military provides bargaining power.

Freedom must be subservient to security, because if freedom cannot be secured, then it will not exist for long. And in those rare instances when security no longer serves as a hedge against majority rule and instances of unjust coercion, the people always reserve the right to overturn their own government.

Equality is only significant in matters of justice, not the economy.

Beliefs, whether they are secular or religious, should have no significance except to the individual, and the emergent effects that might arise from a society of secular or religious individuals, which should help bind society together, regardless of whether their prevailing belief is secular or religious. That is, unless secularism implies a society becoming a-moral and morally bereft, in which case a society will collapse because its institutions cannot maintain legitimacy if the people they are supposed to govern no longer believe in the legitimacy of its authority over their own lives.

Progress in innovation is unmistakably important in a society that wants to prosper, but if a traditional system provides for such progress, then that must imply the system is worth upholding. Beyond this, traditional and modern views on society should only be an issue when their differences threaten national unity or when either threatens the political bands that connect a people together.

And, of course, a nation cannot survive in a multiculturalist environment. This is not to say that assimilation should be an important legal objective, but that avoiding the influx of multiculturalism is, at least as far as border security goes and the possibility of foreign influence in online communication.

I agree most of what you said, except multiculturalism not surviving.
How do you explain Canada then?

Skrevet av ITSGG1122, 20.02.2021 at 12:38

I agree most of what you said, except multiculturalism not surviving.
How do you explain Canada then?

Multiculturalism is a threat to every nation when the basic functions of its government are divided not just along political lines but also cultural lines. 72% of the Canadian population is white and mostly originates from where white people originate (Europe). The French/British distinction has very little significance when compared to multicultural countries like the United States, which has huge populations of Mexican immigrants and blacks imported from Africa. The point is that there are gradations to multiculturalism each with their own unique implications on the nation's future success, and Canada is on the lesser end of the spectrum

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 20.02.2021 at 16:36

Skrevet av ITSGG1122, 20.02.2021 at 12:38

I agree most of what you said, except multiculturalism not surviving.
How do you explain Canada then?

Multiculturalism is a threat to every nation when the basic functions of its government are divided not just along political lines but also cultural lines. 72% of the Canadian population is white and mostly originates from where white people originate (Europe). The French/British distinction has very little significance when compared to multicultural countries like the United States, which has huge populations of Mexican immigrants and blacks imported from Africa. The point is that there are gradations to multiculturalism each with their own unique implications on the nation's future success, and Canada is on the lesser end of the spectrum

Emphasized that its just your point of view.

You disregard that Canada is one of the most successful countries, while being the worlds leading multicultural country.

Facts just arent your thing sean

Skrevet av smegma lover, 02.12.2020 at 14:07

Here's mine:


Post your screenshot after taking the test: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

So your ideal society would be total anarchism?

Skrevet av Fatcheek, 03.12.2020 at 12:36

hitler says hello

Skrevet av Lemosus, 05.12.2020 at 10:07

So that's why almost everyone disagrees with me

Not really, you agree with almost all western- europeans. Your ideal society is social democracy, aka the german model.

Skrevet av nutt, 02.12.2020 at 14:46

https://prnt.sc/vul5nl

Nice, so how come you disagreed to most of my views? While your political compass is almost same as mine...

Skrevet av avatar, 20.02.2021 at 19:31

commie