MAGA supporters to Press: ‘I Hope You Get Raped and Killed’

[Younigue]

I value your opinion.

/s

That's the problem shit stain, the only opinion you live for is a traitors opinion.

 

[Jaskalas]

And yet, in today's politics, most think I'm some kind of leftist.

Suppose it has been almost two years.
*takes test

Excuse me, but... suck it righty. When it comes to politics... are we really talking policy? Or is it mindless partisan bickering where you're either "with us" or "against us"? Given that many would feel you are "against them" then clearly you're a stinking lib, policy be damned. Especially if you approach center. It makes sense that the GOP would want to disown you. Center is clearly where Democrats reside.

Anyways... this was my result Nov 2016. Ah, essentially no change.

Comparison with 2016 candidates.

 

[SNC]

Better than what is all over your monitor. Masturbating to Trump gets messy for you doesn't it pc?

See it's shit like this that makes it impossible to believe you're anything but an immature steaming pile of horse shit. You try to act better than those you ridicule but you really are exactly like them.
You give credence to the both sides do it comments, try being the change you want to see, no?

 

[SNC]

Suppose it has been almost two years.
*takes test

Excuse me, but... suck it righty. When it comes to politics... are we really talking policy? Or is it mindless partisan bickering where you're either "with us" or "against us"? Given that many would feel you are "against them" then clearly you're a stinking lib, policy be damned. Especially if you approach center. It makes sense that the GOP would want to disown you. Center is clearly where Democrats reside.

Anyways... this was my result Nov 2016. Ah, essentially no change.

Comparison with 2016 candidates.

Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.0
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-3.13&soc=-2.0

 

[Younigue]

See it's shit like this that makes it impossible to believe you're anything but an immature steaming pile of horse shit. You try to act better than those you ridicule but you really are exactly like them.
You give credence to the both sides do it comments, try being the change you want to see, no?

Not with people like pc and taj ... And you if you keep at me.

When someone is full of hate and purposeful stupidity it enrages me. And as I stated before there is no way a person who defends anything Trump says or does is anything but. It stopped being about conservative/republican views a long time ago. I told you earlier I can tolerate opposing views even as I disagree with them. In fact, I miss those days. That is NOT what is happening these days. I 100% believe in continuously calling bad people, bad people (more colorfully of course because I have a love affair with swearing).

I'll tell you the difference between me and the people I say things to. I don't want to do anything to them. I don't want anyone to do anything to them. I don't want anything to happen to them except for them to realize they're being disgusting in the name of their hate and stupidity and choose to become better people. In my experience it's not just that they don't want to... They fear it.

What I see in these people... they want people that aren't them or like them to suffer physical pain, financial pain... Through violence, separation, telling them what they can and can't do with their own bodies, ensure certain people can't have health care, to settle dispute with their guns if they feel like it, take clean air and water from them, convert them to being just like them (with hate at the center of it of course), annihilate people (for a number of reasons), keep people more poor than themselves poorer than them forever... The list goes on and on.

I on the other hand wouldn't begrudge those fu*ks their families, health, wealth, religion, gender, their bodies, clean air and water (I would deny them their guns if I could and their hate and stupidity/ignorance). No I want those things for them even as I loath the hate and stupidity they let rule their lives. That's the difference SNC. That is why I'll never care what any of them has to say. That is why I go after them. That is why your plea for change in me is entirely rejected. They are a disease that doesn't want to be healed. No, no, I don't think I'm attempting to heal them with my approach toward them. I think they're lost causes by choice and as I said, it enrages me. I vent at the fu*ks in here because of how powerless it makes me feel that people like them have a voice in the White House. If it were just about gloating I wouldn't give a shit but it's not. The way they walk the planet, stains it and damages it.

But if you gotta hate me for it SNC more power to ya. I'm not going to stop calling bad people exactly what they are... colorfully.

 

[jackstar7]

Economic Left/Right: -6.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21
You other folks posting your results convinced me to go through it. I have no issues with these results.

 

[alien42]

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.1

we should have a thread for just these graphs.

 

[SP33Demon]

Did somebody pull your chain or what?

Go get a drink and relax Francis.

LOL

Francis has been unusually stressed lately. I suggest he mix some distilled water and protein powder and hit the weights.

 

[jackstar7]

we should have a thread for just these graphs.

In that scenario, I'd like everyone to log and share their answers, so we could have an integrity check against whatever map they produce. Otherwise, I imagine some people being disingenuous and posting things that do not match their personal philosophy.

 

[HurleyBird]

The political compass test sucks. If you don't find yourself thinking something along the lines of "Yes, but..." to at least a good third of the answers, you probably lack critical thinking skills and nuanced views. Part of it's the format (lack of a neutral response being particularly egregious), and part of it is that the statements were seemingly written by an incompetent person.

A few of the most egregious examples:

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

Of course that's an advantage. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that even the most terrible forms of government can have advantages here and there. Acknowledging that advantage doesn't necessarily make one more sympathetic to authoritarian governments though, even though the political compass test assumes as much. How about "Overall, a one party state has more advantages than it does disadvantages compared to a democratic political system."?

"In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation."

A loaded question. Punishment for punishment's sake is immoral and evil, so of course people will be drawn to disagreeing with this statement. "Deterrence is more important than rehabilitation." is a hugely superior statement.

"Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade."

Well, yeah. This is obviously true. If you're dealing with a protectionist trading partner then you don't want to be walked over and some reciprocation is necessary. It's entirely possible to hate protectionism with a passion without taking a stupid, absolutist stance. "Sometimes" is quite broad. Again, you shouldn't use an obviously true or false statement to gauge political preference, since that will only work on idiots who can't see the inherent truth value of the statement. Better here would be "Protectionist trade policies should be avoided when not absolutely necessary" or "On the whole, it's good for a nation to adopt a protectionist stance on trade when it can get away with it" or "In general, protecting domestic producers is more important than importing cheap goods from other countries". These also aren't perfect, but they're all a whole lot better than the original garbage statement.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

"Predator multinationals"? Just say businesses.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

[jackstar7]

Aww. You didn't include a link to your test.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Aww. You didn't include a link to your test.

I doubt he took it. I don't think that he actually understands it.

 

[jackstar7]

I doubt he took it. I don't think that he actually understands it.

I meant to imply that his criticisms implied that he had made a better test.

I should have been more explicit.

But since you mention it, I wonder if his results are not in line with his self-perception. Curious!

 

[Victorian Gray]

I meant to imply that his criticisms implied that he had made a better test.

I should have been more explicit.

But since you mention it, I wonder if his results are not in line with his self-perception. Curious!

Ah, read it just a bit too fast. And, now that you mention it, that might be a closer read of the whys and wherefores behind his BIG reaction to the test and questions rather than simple ignorance/lack of understanding.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The political compass test sucks. If you don't find yourself thinking something along the lines of "Yes, but..." to at least a good third of the answers, you probably lack critical thinking skills and nuanced views. Part of it's the format (lack of a neutral response being particularly egregious), and part of it is that the statements were seemingly written by an incompetent person.

A few of the most egregious examples:

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

Of course that's an advantage. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that even the most terrible forms of government can have advantages here and there. Acknowledging that advantage doesn't necessarily make one more sympathetic to authoritarian governments though, even though the political compass test assumes as much. How about "Overall, a one party state has more advantages than it does disadvantages compared to a democratic political system."?

"In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation."

A loaded question. Punishment for punishment's sake is immoral and evil, so of course people will be drawn to disagreeing with this statement. "Deterrence is more important than rehabilitation." is a hugely superior statement.

"Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade."

Well, yeah. This is obviously true. If you're dealing with a protectionist trading partner then you don't want to be walked over and some reciprocation is necessary. It's entirely possible to hate protectionism with a passion without taking a stupid, absolutist stance. "Sometimes" is quite broad. Again, you shouldn't use an obviously true or false statement to gauge political preference, since that will only work on idiots who can't see the inherent truth value of the statement. Better here would be "Protectionist trade policies should be avoided when not absolutely necessary" or "On the whole, it's good for a nation to adopt a protectionist stance on trade when it can get away with it" or "In general, protecting domestic producers is more important than importing cheap goods from other countries". These also aren't perfect, but they're all a whole lot better than the original garbage statement.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

"Predator multinationals"? Just say businesses.

Etc, etc, etc.

Uh...so...yeah, you don't get that was very clearly intentional, right? I really want you to take one of those psychology tests now. The questions are intentionally loaded for a reason.

For that first one. Uh, a single party system would basically nullify a Democracy. The only way it would represent a diverse group of people would be to have no party at all or more than one because with just one party you have just one source of power (hmm, seems like there's a name for that...). So basically you'd either want a very homogeneous group of people (something commonly desired by authoritarians), or you're someone that views the "progress" of a single party as a positive if you agree with that. That is blatantly pro-authoritarian, where you want everyone to be all pushing for where the party wants it. I mean, holy hell, it straight up says "avoids all arguments that delay progress" which is so blatantly an authoritarian phrase that...just wow.

I think you'd be surprised to find there's quite a few people that would agree with that second statement. That's the whole point though, its so blatantly keyed to explicit a response that that is part of the assessment.

That's why they have the varying degrees of agree and disagree.

Likewise the "predator multinationals" is intentionally keyed with a typical ideology's view of large corporations. Its intended to elicit a response.

 

[HurleyBird]

But since you mention it, I wonder if his results are not in line with his self-perception. Curious!

Like showing me as a Nazi or authoritarian, yeah? Sorry to disappoint, but solidly in the libertarian section just as I remember from the last time I took the test on a whim. Even if it did show me as an authoritarian though, that's not relevant as to whether my arguments are right or wrong. Don't be fallacious.

Uh...so...yeah, you don't get that was very clearly intentional, right? I really want you to take one of those psychology tests now. The questions are intentionally loaded for a reason.

For that first one. Uh, a single party system would basically nullify a Democracy. The only way it would represent a diverse group of people would be to have no party at all or more than one because with just one party you have just one source of power (hmm, seems like there's a name for that...). So basically you'd either want a very homogeneous group of people (something commonly desired by authoritarians), or you're someone that views the "progress" of a single party as a positive if you agree with that. That is blatantly pro-authoritarian, where you want everyone to be all pushing for where the party wants it. I mean, holy hell, it straight up says "avoids all arguments that delay progress" which is so blatantly an authoritarian phrase that...just wow.

Diversity? What? I'd attempt to respond to that, but it's so incoherent to me that I doubt I'd interpret you correctly.

That's the whole point though, its so blatantly keyed to explicit a response that that is part of the assessment.

If it's designed that way, then that's actually worse. It's adding noise into the equation. Yes, there are people who would agree with punishment for punishment's sake. So what? Those same people would also agree if you replaced punishment with deterrence. No change there. What makes "deterrence" better than "punishment" is that it's entirely possible to interchange the two concepts (Eg. "Punishment is important because it creates a deterrence") but in the later case you've now biased the response towards rehabilitation for anyone who isn't on one extreme or the other.

For an individual who doesn't agree on punishment for punishment's sake, but does agree with punishment for the sake of deterrence, how do they respond to the statement? As soon as you add nuanced views everything becomes rather ambiguous and muddy. At the least, statements should be formulated to avoid ambiguity.

Ideally, as much as possible, you want to separate left/right considerations from authoritarian/libertarian, and vice versa. You want the least amount of cross contamination and noise that you can reasonably get.

To give a few examples of why cross contamination is bad, you could easily bias a test by asking questions like "Government authority is necessary to combat climate change" or "Government needs to do more to curb down on hate speech." Obviously these statements would make left leaning respondents appear quite authoritarian and the right libertarian. Or you can do the reverse with a statement like "College professors need to be monitored so that they don't spread radical ideas to youths." Same thing. To what extent is any answer to such questions based on one's authoritarian/libertarian dimension versus their left/right skew? It's impossible to know for sure. (But based on how tribal people are, probably significantly more towards the later.)

And of course, as a quiz author, crafting the most neutrally worded questions possible is a way to minimize your own confirmation bias.

That's why they have the varying degrees of agree and disagree

Which works when the statement doesn't make an obviously correct or incorrect absolute assertion. Take the scenario where a statement is true based on a technically, but in principle the quiz taker disagrees with the statement. Their thought process is then "I disagree with this statement in the vast majority of situations, but I don't disagree absolutely as some times it's obviously correct. Therefore..."

One of four things:

a) "...because I'm very much against the principle of the thing, and because I know what the quiz is trying to get at, I'll strongly disagree."
b) "...I can't strongly disagree with something that is factually correct even if I disagree in principle, so I'll just regularly disagree."
c) "...I can't disagree with something that is technically true, but I sure as heck don't strongly agree with the overall thrust of it, so I'll just agree, but not strongly."
d) "...the question says never, but sometimes it's actually true. If it's sometimes true, then never is wrong, and it's wrong absolutely. I strongly agree." (This person is probably a programmer)

Once again, you've added noise to the equation. The issue with these absolutes is that respondents will not be consistent with how they weigh the absolute truth value of the statement versus their subjective agreement on the underlying principle. But with better phrasing of statements to avoid these kinds of scenarios there isn't an issue anymore.

 

[alien42]

it did show me as an authoritarian

for the TLDR folks.

 

[HurleyBird]

There you go folks, this is what political discourse has devolved into. No need to form a rational argument, just erroneously label and slander your opponents.

Please, go educate yourself.

 

[alien42]

and now directly quoting someone is to "erroneously label and slander your opponents."

when one's concept of education is consuming that which one wants to hear and believe, reality becomes FAKE NEWS.

 

[HurleyBird]

You mean selectively quoting in a way that transforms a statement into its exact opposite. Your intellectual dishonesty is really off the scale.

 

[jackstar7]

There you go folks, this is what political discourse has devolved into. No need to form a rational argument, just erroneously label and slander your opponents.

Please, go educate yourself.

Did you want a discussion? It seemed much more that you wanted to lecture.