(no subject)

[digitaldiscipline]

http://politicalcompass.org

Surprising nobody, I rated -1.62 / -2.13

I'm less liberal and more anarchist than. . . . Ghandi.

Comments

[angel-renewed.livejournal.com]

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

Surprising....nobody

I'm similar to Nelson Mandela.

Apparently, I make Ghandi look moderate.

[katyakoshka.livejournal.com]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

I'm more liberal or anarchist than you. Who'd've thunk that?

Re: Apparently, I make Ghandi look moderate.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

This time around, I got . . .
economic left/right: 4.38
libertarian/authoritarian: -6.92

I have grave issues with the way some of these questions are worded and "graded", however. The most egregious example, I think, is the repeated use of terms like "corporation" and "multinational" in referring to business. I found myself forced into a position of either lying about my feelings about corporate law and practice or giving the impression that I'm somehow morally opposed to the existence of large, successful businesses. Being kind of obsessive/compulsive that way, though, I was bluntly honest and took the hit to my apparent free-market sensibilities in the eyes of this test's scoring algorithms.

Ever since I first found this test a couple of years ago (at which time the questions were somewhat different, but still problematic), I've had reservations about it's supposed accuracy because of the poor choice of phrasing in many questions. The phrasing, however, really does say a lot about the assumptions and intellectual bias of the author of the quiz.

Its essential premises are flawed as well, however. For instance, divorcing economic matters entirely from authoritarianism and libertarianism, and claiming that the farther right the more "free" the market, is not entirely accurate, to say nothing of the fact that the scoring in this assumes that Left and Right have nothing to do with social issues.

Then, of course, we get to the fact that the term "liberal socialism" is not only utterly freakin' absurd as a proposed opposite to "authoritarianism" (indicating a complete lack of understanding of the terms "liberal" and "socialism"), but is in and of itself oxymoronic.

Ahem. Libertarianism is the Right Wing . . . ? Someone is high. Truly. Frankly, the idea that anyone would try to ascribe any tolerance for authoritarian ideas to strict Libertarianism is thoroughly ridiculous, and even repugnant, yet this test does just that. You can be a 100% (economic) Libertarian and a 100% Authoritarian according to the scoring charts for this quiz, with not a whit of contradiction. That's so ludicrous as to be almost painful to contemplate.

Finally, associating Libertarianism with Collectivism is such a feat of gymnastics for the brain to comprehend as to render it laughable, and yet the explanation of the scoring system does just that.

If you don't want your brain polluted by even worse drivel than the aforementioned, do NOT click on the link "A few words about the 'Extreme Right'". They actually claim, somehow, that Social Democrats qualify as slightly Libertarian in social issues and VERY libertarian in economic issues. This has got to be some kind of bad joke. Nobody is this ignorant of politics and yet able to discuss the terms they address here.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

what actually bothered me most was the lack of a fifth, completely neutral, option. I found myself, at many turns, not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the statements, or holding two equally-weighted opinions on the statement at hand, and wanting not to express a preference.

i agree with the questionable ratings, though - i'm well aware that my relative lack of wealth relative to previous periods has shifted my opinions slightly leftwards, but i'm still, by most accounts not held by religious fundamentalists, i'm decidedly right of center, and the relative moderation of the anarchism it professes i exhibit isn't truly accurate. . . i am absolutely pro-death penalty, but there wasn't an option to say "by posse."

of course, i'm pro-anarchy, but also hold an incredibly low opinion of people [and, by extension, corporations] and their ability to not actively fuck the other guy over for negligible personal gain, so i've resigned myself somewhat to the fact that anarchy would be nice, as long as we could kill people who were acting like assholes immediately.

and here's dave, with the sports. . .

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

I found that in many cases I wasn't undecided or neutrally oriented, but rather there was a third option that was essentially diametrically opposed to both options presented, and that's the one I would have chosen. The whole thing is just broken.