Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Political Test

Recommended Posts

Not sure why everybody likes this test so much. Ambiguity abounds, and they ask you to comment on common definitions of things, but anyway - I'm centrist, especially for a Canadian. PS - Cyber, I used your method for getting the .png linked here via imgur. Thanks.

gpeBkcq.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't put much stock into a test like this, but here is what i got,

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -2.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

Near the middle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - Cyber, I used your method for getting the .png linked here via imgur. Thanks.

No, thanks. There is an easier and better way of doing it. Use the following hyperlink in your post:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=3.0&soc=-5.9
and put your score in the variable equations. This link is automatically generated on the results page. Here is my current position:

Economic Left/Right: 3.0

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be more questions to take into account the authoritarianess of SJWs. I'll make a list below.

1) Is saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' a microaggression?

2) Should internet anonymity be abolished?

3) Should people be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive?

4) Should certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities?

5) Do you support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people?

6) Does the media have a moral duty to make sure that the information they present doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue?

7) Should universities be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them?

8) Should progressive western societies respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender?

9) Is it racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada?

10) Is criticizing Islam racist?

Please tell me your answers (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) for each one and and I'll give you your SJW authoritarian score (from -10 to 10). :)

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, thanks. There is an easier and better way of doing it. Use the following hyperlink in your post:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=3.0&soc=-5.9
and put your score in the variable equations. This link is automatically generated on the results page. Here is my current position:

Economic Left/Right: 3.0

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.9

You're both wrong. I took a screen cap and uploaded it to imgur. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cybercoma, please try my SJW authoritarian test, since you scored so libertarian on your last result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be more questions to take into account the authoritarianess of SJWs.

You know most people probably just tune you out as soon as you say "social justice warriors." It's like those idiots that call the right "fascists" and other such nonsense. You know whatever that person is going to say afterwards is nothing but inflammatory rhetorical garbage. More importantly, you've done nothing but built up this ludicrous strawman you call "social justice warrior" that has absolutely no resemblance to anyone's arguments here. Try addressing the things people are actually saying, instead of addressing the strawmen you create over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cybercoma, please try my SJW authoritarian test, since you scored so libertarian on your last result.

I can't take your test. Your indicators use a likert-type scale of agree-disagree, but they're questions instead of statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take your test. Your indicators use a likert-type scale of agree-disagree, but they're questions instead of statements.

You got me there. Fine:

1) Saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.

2) Internet anonymity should be abolished.

3) People should be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive.

4) Certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups should not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities.

5) I support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people.

6) The media has a moral duty to make sure that the information presented doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue.

7) Universities should be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them.

8) Progressive western societies should respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender.

9) It is racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada.

10) Criticizing Islam is racist.

Please tell me your answers (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) for each one and and I'll give you your SJW authoritarian score (from -10 to 10). :)

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me there. Fine:

1) Saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.

Nice passive aggressive jab. Oh please. Let me take the rest of your test. :rolleyes:

I'll play along.

Agree.

2) Internet anonymity should be abolished.

strongly disagree.

3) People should be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive.

Disagree.

4) Certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups should not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities.

Strongly disagree.

5) I support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people.

Strongly disagree.

6) The media has a moral duty to make sure that the information presented doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue.

I have no idea what you mean by this question. What do you mean "moral duty"? What do you mean "wrong conclusion"? This sounds like you're saying media should editorialize and give people conclusions rather than information. If that's what you're getting at then:

disagree.

7) Universities should be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them.

Threatened by opinions?

Disagree.

8) Progressive western societies should respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender.

Where are you talking? In their own religious institutions? Their demands on the public? What?

If you're talking about demands on public spaces, then disagree.

9) It is racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada.

Strongly disagree.

10) Criticizing Islam is racist.

Strongly disagree.

Please tell me your answers (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) for each one and and I'll give you your SJW authoritarian score (from -10 to 10). :)

Go ahead. Add them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting to recognize how biased and fallacious your thinking is yet? You build strawman after strawman on this forum and you don't even see it yet. You're completely blind to it and no matter how many times it's pointed out, you still don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.-- strongly disagree

2) Internet anonymity should be abolished.-- strongly disagree

3) People should be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive.-- strongly disagree

4) Certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups should not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities.-- strongly disagree

5) I support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people.-- strongly disagree

6) The media has a moral duty to make sure that the information presented doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue.--- strongly disagree

7) Universities should be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them.--- strongly disagree

8) Progressive western societies should respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender.-- agree

9) It is racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada.-- strongly disagree

10) Criticizing Islam is racist. -- strongly disagree

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That a good test. Less ambiguity than the Political Compass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disagree.

Threatened by opinions?

Maybe I should have said threatened by people just because they have an opinion they disagree with.

Where are you talking? In their own religious institutions? Their demands on the public? What?

Like how some muslim groups are trying to get gender segregated swimming pools, or some Jewish people want segregated buses or planes.

Anyway, I'm mostly just making fun of SJWs.

You have a score of -6.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That a good test. Less ambiguity than the Political Compass.

You score -8.5. Congrats. You aren't an SJW authoritarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like how some muslim groups are trying to get gender segregated swimming pools, or some Jewish people want segregated buses or planes.

That question was a little vague. You could take it multiple ways. What I thought I was reading was: if someone wants to segregate THEIR activities by taking action to plan for that. That I have no issue with whatsoever. If the question is, should they be able to impose such sensibilities on others who might disagree, then absolutely not (and my question 8 answer needs to be changed to a strongly disagree.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question was a little vague. You could take it multiple ways. What I thought I was reading was: if someone wants to segregate THEIR activities by taking action to plan for that. That I have no issue with whatsoever. If the question is, should they be able to impose such sensibilities on others who might disagree, then absolutely not (and my question 8 answer needs to be changed to a strongly disagree.).

Rather than being private activities vs trying to impose it on everyone else, maybe more along the lines of 'we should be culturally sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and accommodate them, even if it results in gender segregation.' In the case of some muslims wanting gender segregation at swimming pools, maybe it's a public pool, but the muslims only want gender segregation once a week (so technically you could still swim unsegregated 6 out of 7 days a week at your local public swimming pool).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This test pegged me as Liberal. I called bullshit and did it again. Liberal.

http://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz

The other numbers

Economic Left/Right: -4.0

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

Liberal 65

New Democrat 56

Green 54

Conservative 53

Go figure.

Edit>

I didn't see all the extra questions the first time around. After those:

Libertarian 67

Conservative 64

Liberal 57

New Democrat 39

That's better...

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have said threatened by people just because they have an opinion they disagree with.

It's a poor question because it presumes to know people's personal thoughts.

Like how some muslim groups are trying to get gender segregated swimming pools, or some Jewish people want segregated buses or planes.

In that case, strongly disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a poor question because it presumes to know people's personal thoughts.

Or you could just listen & believe women when they tell you that they feel threatened by contrary opinions.

BxcuYwVCEAAONMQ.jpg

For example, removing the Honey Badger Brigade from the Calgary Comic Con because they threatened the 'safe and inclusive' environment for women with their dangerous opinions is an example of trying to establish this safe space.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could just listen & believe women when they tell you that they feel threatened by contrary opinions.

For example, removing the Honey Badger Brigade from the Calgary Comic Con because they threatened the 'safe and inclusive' environment for women with their dangerous opinions is an example of trying to establish this safe space.

And that's up to the event organizers. Honey Badger doesn't have some inherent right to have space at the event and neither does anyone else who is there. Also, you seem to have very serious trouble understanding why they weren't allowed there. It wasn't because the organizers disagreed with their views. The organizers disagreed with their behaviour. That is the fact that their purpose is to harass and insult feminists and people fighting for women's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's up to the event organizers.

Much like it's up to university administration on who they hire or give tenure. So if they financially punish someone for having an incorrect opinion, such as thinking the most qualified person should get the job, it must be okay. You realize this type of argument is known as 'might is right'?

Honey Badger doesn't have some inherent right to have space at the event and neither does anyone else who is there.

No, but they did pay and they didn't break any rules. Should a bakery be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

Also, you seem to have very serious trouble understanding why they weren't allowed there.

I understand why perfectly fine.

It wasn't because the organizers disagreed with their views.

No, it's because those views were threatening the safe and inclusive environment for women. So to make the environment more safe and inclusive, they kick out some neuroatypical bisexual women with differing views.

The organizers disagreed with their behaviour.

If you want to split hairs, I guess the organizers might have been okay if Honey Badger just kept their mouth shut all the time and never mentioned that they have dissenting opinions.

That is the fact that their purpose is to harass and insult feminists and people fighting for women's rights.

Yes, the neuroatypical bisexual women that support trans rights and gender equality were harming the cause of women's rights. *sarcasm*

Name one person that was 'insulted' by honey badger brigade while they were there.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like it's up to university administration on who they hire or give tenure. So if they financially punish someone for having an incorrect opinion, such as thinking the most qualified person should get the job, it must be okay. You realize this type of argument is known as 'might is right'?

You realize you asked me for examples of strawmen arguments and here you are. You're making up crap about universities "financially punishing people" for having the "wrong opinion." That's a strawman.

No, but they did pay and they didn't break any rules. Should a bakery be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

Now with false equivalencies. It's like logical fallacies are your only tools of conversation.

Should bakeries be able to discriminate against gay people. Absolutely! If those gay people are going to come in and harass the bakery's customers, publicly shaming them for not eating gluten free. Then yeah. The bakery should kick them out.

I understand why perfectly fine.

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't given your previous arguments and this reply.

No, it's because those views were threatening the safe and inclusive environment for women. So to make the environment more safe and inclusive, they kick out some neuroatypical bisexual women with differing views.

How does it make the environment unsafe and uninclusive? Because they harass people. This is what I mean with you just making crap up and arguing against that. The event organizers made it perfectly clear in their statements why they did not want them there. You want to pretend it's about censoring opinions. Let me share something with you:

free_speech.png

If you want to split hairs, I guess the organizers might have been okay if Honey Badger just kept their mouth shut all the time and never mentioned that they have dissenting opinions.

You mean if they just passed out their literature and didn't actively harass people.....uh, yeah.

Yes, the neuroatypical bisexual women that support trans rights and gender equality were harming the cause of women's rights. *sarcasm*

Name one person that was 'insulted' by honey badger brigade while they were there.

Name one person who wasn't. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize you asked me for examples of strawmen arguments and here you are. You're making up crap about universities "financially punishing people" for having the "wrong opinion." That's a strawman.

You really don't understand the meaning of strawman argument, do you? To be a strawman argument I would have to misrepresent someone's arguments. Regardless of whether or not you agree with my claim about universities threatening to financially punish people, I'm not even making a claim about someone's argument being X, so it's not a strawman argument.

Now with false equivalencies. It's like logical fallacies are your only tools of conversation.

So much self projection, wow. I guess you are mad that I point out your logical fallacies when you make them. Asking a question about the consistency of someone's position is not a false equivalence. A false equivalence has the logical form of A and B are similar, therefore A and B are the same. That's very different from asking 'do you believe A?'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

How does it make the environment unsafe and uninclusive? Because they harass people.

Who did they harass and how did they do it? Back up your claim with evidence.

You want to pretend it's about censoring opinions. Let me share something with you:

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it isn't kicking people out for having the 'wrong' opinions.

and didn't actively harass people.....uh, yeah.

Name 1 person who was harassed...

Name one person who wasn't. :rolleyes:

Karen Straughan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...