- 14 Aug 2018 00:57
#14939384
More and more often I see more and more people referencing, in their signatures or profile pages, their scores on the political compass test. And to be honest, I can't help but wonder from my own experience just how useful they really are in gauging where a person really, really stands on certain issues.
For instance:
I tend a little far towards being politically idealistic. And I've noticed that while my political score stays pretty much the same on the left/right axis regardless of whether I am thinking realistically or idealistically, the up/down axis can vary quite a bit depending on whether or not I'm considering where I stand on things now, in the practical now, and where I would stand on them in my version of an ideal society. To be specific, I'm very libertarian now...and while I absolutely feel that the specific social minorities currently persecuted now (pretty much all of them) would have a place in an ideal socialist society, the truth is that I would pretty much support shit-slinging nudism if I thought it would help f*ck up the society in which we now live. So naturally, if I lived in a socialist society, I tend much further towards authoritarian...rest assured - I would not support sh*t slinging nudism in a socialist society. It seems hypocritical...but it's completely understandable. Whereas now I want to destroy the current society and tend towards anarchy, in my ideal society, I would want to protect it. This is just the nature of the beast. It's how people are. I know it sounds scary on the surface - I'm not some closet goosestepper from the early 20th century. But I would be a whole lot more permissible of a socialist state to do surveillance, ignore international law, and god forbid...maybe even take somewhat of an interest in certain private matters of citizens if it was for the good for the whole mass of people and the continuation of the socialization of the people. It's like training wheels on a bike...I want to yank 'em off now! Let the bike crash and burn ...and I'll help it to happen however I can. But when the bike gets stood back up good and proper and set in the right direction, well my view on training wheels might not be so negative...at least until the people can go in the right direction without a state. It may come across as paternalistic and it almost comes across like a stereotype born straight from the McCarthy era...some Stalinist trying to undermine shit and rally social causes so they can mess stuff up and take over. It's not like that at all. That's NOT what I mean.
I am merely giving my example. The point of my post is about whether or not the aforementioned test is taken from a practical, live in the now perspective, or a political idealist vision for what you stand for in the society you hope to help create.
I would like to hear YOUR example in ways the two perspectives on the test might change things for you, if indeed it does at all.
For instance:
I tend a little far towards being politically idealistic. And I've noticed that while my political score stays pretty much the same on the left/right axis regardless of whether I am thinking realistically or idealistically, the up/down axis can vary quite a bit depending on whether or not I'm considering where I stand on things now, in the practical now, and where I would stand on them in my version of an ideal society. To be specific, I'm very libertarian now...and while I absolutely feel that the specific social minorities currently persecuted now (pretty much all of them) would have a place in an ideal socialist society, the truth is that I would pretty much support shit-slinging nudism if I thought it would help f*ck up the society in which we now live. So naturally, if I lived in a socialist society, I tend much further towards authoritarian...rest assured - I would not support sh*t slinging nudism in a socialist society. It seems hypocritical...but it's completely understandable. Whereas now I want to destroy the current society and tend towards anarchy, in my ideal society, I would want to protect it. This is just the nature of the beast. It's how people are. I know it sounds scary on the surface - I'm not some closet goosestepper from the early 20th century. But I would be a whole lot more permissible of a socialist state to do surveillance, ignore international law, and god forbid...maybe even take somewhat of an interest in certain private matters of citizens if it was for the good for the whole mass of people and the continuation of the socialization of the people. It's like training wheels on a bike...I want to yank 'em off now! Let the bike crash and burn ...and I'll help it to happen however I can. But when the bike gets stood back up good and proper and set in the right direction, well my view on training wheels might not be so negative...at least until the people can go in the right direction without a state. It may come across as paternalistic and it almost comes across like a stereotype born straight from the McCarthy era...some Stalinist trying to undermine shit and rally social causes so they can mess stuff up and take over. It's not like that at all. That's NOT what I mean.
I am merely giving my example. The point of my post is about whether or not the aforementioned test is taken from a practical, live in the now perspective, or a political idealist vision for what you stand for in the society you hope to help create.
I would like to hear YOUR example in ways the two perspectives on the test might change things for you, if indeed it does at all.
- By ingliz
- By JohnRawls
- By Doug64