What happens here?
What happens here?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
myredditvideos.com
twitter.com
dude weed lmaos happen m9
Autism.
I'm in the very top middle of that box. I assure you, nothing very interesting happens here. Basically I just disagree with most people on politics.
Tipping
starvation
People who call themselves classical liberals
irrelevance
Cowardice
But not actual classical Liberals?
I like this image.
Even though it outright states that far bottom right is objectively the best?
Ask someone in that spectrum anything. That's me BTW
Do you identify as:
a Libertarian?
a Socialist?
a Progressive?
a Classical Liberal?
Other? (please specify)
The leftist half of the Classical Liberals. Right or left, they're among the most reasonable people there are.
Moderate anarchist.
Probably someone like Max Keiser. An economist who is clearly from the left but hates contractionary monetary policy. Wants the free market to determine interest rates rather than some banker in his or her ivory lizard hole.
I guess if I had to choose I'd say a classical liberal.
Awesomeness
Yeah, classical liberalism has nothing to do with the leftists that appropriate the term today.
cocks
oc
high taxes but you can have immoral sex and do drugs
I'm not bothered by that because it's true
>Low Ego
>Best
I think that's subjective.
good. yes.... i saved... yes... good...
Severe autism and violence.
(((MIT)))
Why does a lavos spawn have a nice girl face?
>not knowing the spikeman
Welcome to my domain
thanks for reminding me about that game
I like how there's just fewer blue dots on that graph than red dots
Really gets the noggin going
Good scale.
>I guess if I had to choose
So you have no idea then. You confirmed people in that quadrant have no idea about politics
Anarchy.
accurate
Fedora toting stoners.
...
Literal autism.
Low T
Autists tend to be either top left or bottom right, though. (Don't confuse the inverse: That doesn't mean I'm saying the majority of top-left or bottom right are inherently autistic.)
Both apply rules in the most rigid fashion, which makes them appealing. It's easier to just say "Well, read this bit of Marx" or "Muh NAP" than to go "Right, we've accepted that theft is immoral, however Pol Pot is about to invade and unless we do something dangerously close to theft - which we can justify with redefinition of the word theft since we control the law - we're not going to have enough money to buy the tanks necessary to chase Mr. Pot away and he's going to fucking disembowel us, so even though it's technically wrong to do so, it's less wrong to do so in this situation and overall in the fuzzy self interest of everyone except the rich guy we're going to take the money off. It's all very morally grey but it stacks up into the actual political nature of societies we've got today instead of rigidly adhering to abstract rules that lead to absurd or painful outcomes in the real world, okay?"
Autists suck at moral greyness. Much easier to say "Stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family violates the NAP, so fuck off and die elsewhere poorfag."
Which, I mean, is something you can believe without being autistic. Again: Don't confuse the inverse.
Holy shit that's too accurate
I tend to view this space as basically: [current libertarianism] + [decent welfare safety net]
Libertarianism that includes talk of social justice and acknowledges that some welfare is necessary to ensure the political support for very free markets. Ideally welfare money would flow directly to people instead of institutions, so "liberaltarians" support things like universal basic income policies and such.
People who are neither into politics nor into religion are generally at this point (this is my thesis).
Mutualism
This mainly shows that Clinton supporters are mostly normies who don't actually care about politics and instead just go with the choice they are told is socially acceptable.
same. we're fucking unicorns
Fuck the Political Compass website shits me off. On every other political test, I'm calculated as being more or less a centrist, yet politicalcompass.org puts me firmly in libertarian left.
It doesn't exist, because there is no such thing as Left Libertarianism. People who call themselves this are actually just Authoritarians who believe that their permissive attitudes towards various social behaviors negate their belief that people should not be allowed to do what they want with their money and that economic contracts should be restricted by the State.
>b-but muh classless stateless society
Literally an oxymoron. Social classes occur naturally and can only be abolished through coordinated use of force. Coordinated force on a societal level is a State. There is no such thing as a classless stateless society.
Well done.
Explain Proudhon, burger.
...