These are my political compass results. Ask me questions, and challenge my answers. Tell me why I'm wrong...

These are my political compass results. Ask me questions, and challenge my answers. Tell me why I'm wrong. Test my political beliefs, try to redpill me.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I can see you've never met a nigger in your life

I know that feel

I have read over OP, and it's a complete nothingburger. I am now tired. Aren't you, user? 1488, gas the kikes, racewar now. Please, let's get some sleep. It's time for sleep.

I know many black people actually. I live in the largest city in Canada. Large immigrant population as well.

But I will say that Im not too fond of Islamic immigrants, mainly because of their reluctancty to integrate into Canadian society, as well as their core religious beliefs being incompatible with western society.

So you want high taxes and/or no religion/tradition, but you simultaneously want less government?

What happens when I tell you go take your taxes and social programs and shove them? You wouldn't be able to argue from your perspective. You'd have to leave me alone and make your leftie paradise work without my resources.

Seriously... you picked the ONLY quadrant where stable civilization is impossible. Everyone who starts out here either gravitates right, or up.

Live in a place for generations where it has been majority black, you will see the difference.

I'm okay with taxes, provided they go towards things like national healthcare and public infrastructure and services. I think everyone should be taxed to their ability and income. I'm also completely fine with religion or tradition. Anyone can practice whichever religion they like, provided they do not infringe on anyone elses rights and freedoms.

>What happens when I tell you go take your taxes and shove them?

Well, that really isn't an argument. I want to know why my political beliefs are wrong. Yes, it would be nice if no one had to pay taxes, but thats unrealistic and childish in my opinion. I believe each citizen should find pride in paying taxes and building their country up.

I'm always seeing people on this board post memes about how lefties are anti-intelluctual, anti-debate, cuck commies who have no grasp on the real world, and who care more about feelings than actual reason or facts. I certainly don't think I'm any of those things. I don't know, everytime I ask someone to challenge my beliefs, or explain to me why I'm wrong, they never really give me a proper answer other than "fuck you, I don't like taxes/Jews are evil/niggers/you're a cuck".

Do you believe that socialism is a better idea than capitalism, if so why.

>being incompatible with western society.
With what? Remember... you are on the left, and with no value placed on nationalism and tradition, you shouldn't have any problems with people coming into your space with their own ideas about how to live.
Where is your tolerance?

I think you make less-than-average money for your area/age, and you are less than age 23. You may have started out as a Communist, but aren't likely one today.

If you are any older than your mid-20's I'd suggest you grow the fuck up and either...

A) Gravitate Upward and admit to yourself that your ideas about how society ought to be structured are unrealizable without copious amounts of force.

or

B) Gravitate Rightward and admit that you don't understand how human beings are constructed and how they actually behave.

>I want to know why my political beliefs are wrong.
IDK what your political beliefes are. All you gave us was a 2-space transect of a decision space that is at least 4D. All of my prior comments were drawn off the fact that 3 of those dimensions correlate very tightly.

>find pride in paying taxes
I don't. Looks what they are used for. I think we would at least agree on this dimension: "We should not be at war."
Am I right on that point?

>who have no grasp on the real world
I have yet to meet one that violates that trend. I spent 6 years in college. Please forgive me for jumping down your throat. But I've heard this tune before.

First of all, I place a ton of value on nationalism and tradition. Why is that incompatible with left leaning political views? I have no problem with immigrants coming to my country with their own traditions and customs. But when they become Canadians, they are Canadians first and foremost. They should respect their new country, and the way we choose to live. And 99 percent of the time, this isnt a problem. Again, I really only see Muslims having issue with this.

I never started out as a communist. I'm also in my late 20s, and make average for area and age.

Let me switch to my computer so I can type and respond faster and easier.

Ok... so let's figure out why you think you are Left.

Why do you feel the need to have taxes?

What is the role of tradition is society?

Is there a genetic basis for intelligence?

>being anywhere under the line

How long have you been here?

OP here again.

Well thats why I wanted someone to ask me some questions and tell me why my answers are wrong.

I respect that view. Perhaps we could be spending our money in better ways. But the answer isnt to stop paying taxes and building our nation, its to better allocate tax resources to best benefit the citizens and the nation.

I believe at the very core, the reason we should pay taxes is to maintain a sustained quality of living. Things like police for safety, hospitals for health, and schools to educate us. As citizens, its our duty to improve our nation and make it a better place for everyone to live in.

As for the role of tradition, its to unify us as citizens, and to allow us to live peacefully. When we share the same core values, no matter our race or religion, we will better achieve the goal I mentioned previously.

I actually dont know if there is a genetic basis for intelligence. I know that there is a correlation between race and IQ scores, but I dont think we can definitely quantify an individuals intelligence based on IQ tests.

>>Why is that incompatible with left leaning political views?

You might like to read:
Thomas Sowell - A Conflict of Visions

The Left is revolutionary versus incremental.
Someone leaning left is likely to see more value in protesting and taking action outside of established legal process than someone with an equal Right-leaning magnitude.

The Left is more likely to see tradition is the dead hand from the past. Power trying to rule from the grave, and this is here and now, and I will remake the world today as I see fit.

A right winger says to himself: I don't know everything, and can't predict the consequences of my actions. Things are more-or-less working. My first priority ought to be to not fuck it up.

Think about gay marriage and changing the legal definition of marriage. Right wingers go ape-shit about this because that definition is as old as civilization, and they know that the Lefties have no idea WTF will happen.

How do you feel about this statement from Margaret Thatcher?

"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation."

I see value in both protesting and in legal process. I believe they are both useful tools and can work in tandem to achieve goals. Im constantly getting pissed off when I see fellow liberals going out and assaulting those with different opinions or thoughts, or threatening to commit crimes against their fellow citizens in the name of their political agenda.

I cant speak about "remaking the world", I dont seek to remake the world. Yes I think gays should be allowed to marry, because I think there are benefits to being married, and preventing someone from receiving those benefits based on their individual choices of partner is wrong. We must all share the same freedoms. No one should be more free than others.

>there are benefits to being married

Ah! I found a lever!
Your chart says libertarian. What benefits are there to marriage for a couple that cannot possible have children? I'm not saying there are none, but consider....

In many parts of the world, marriage is treated as a business arrangement that only makes sense because of the economic/biological asymmetries between men and women.

So....

If there were no state involvement in marriage, would you still have that opinion?

Ahh, okay I see what you're saying. If there was no state involvement in marriage, such as financial benefits, then there would be no need for marriage to even be a legal term. Hence, we wouldnt have to change the definition of marriage. It would just be a strictly religious practice.

So there would actually be no benefits at that point (aside from maybe evolutionary/psychological ones, but thats another question).

In which case, I would say any man or woman is free to practice whichever religion they choose. So I would still see no reason why gays should not have the option of being married.

Revolutionary ideas are also correlated with youth. They have time but no plan but burn down the idols of our fathers.
While yes some do need to be burned, as we are not our fathers OR in their time, the left just goes full retard and says burn it all, it's all oppression, end the tyranny blah blah blah without realizing all those things are true for everyone and you're not special. With out society and the past we're fucking getting eaten by vultures, lions, and snakes.

But yeah that's a great book

>No one should be more free than others.

The picture is getting clearer, user. One more question and I think I'll have a good picture of your PoV. How do you feel about my statements below?

I asked about genetic basis for IQ, because it had to do with your ability to accept that fact that people are not equal (which it seems like you do, in fact, accept).

The Communists hated genetics. Their philosophy couldn't abide the idea that there was some facet of human nature that could not be re-made by the environment.

The Nazis, at the same time based a whole world-view around the imagined genetic immutability of some master race. They didn't know about DNA (1950's knowledge), but their ideas around heritability of virtue and wisdom were the Right-wing antipode to their Commie contemporaries.

Since both were authoritarian, they killed massive amounts of people they considered irredeemable. The Nazis because of imagined bloodlines and not moral choices. The Commies because of imagined moral choices and not blood lines.

why would you be green instead of purple

>ability to accept that fact that people are not equal (which it seems like you do, in fact, accept).

I accept his fact. Not everyone is equal. Not in terms of mental, nor physical ability.

Btw, I meant to respond to your Thatcher quote. I actually kind of agree with some of what shes implying there. But I think burden on the individual is too high.

I dont agree with entitlement thinking either, I think every person should work to the ability that they are able. But not everyone has the ability to work at a high enough potential. And what I mean by that, is that not everyone can afford to enjoy a comfortable living, or pay for healthcare, or even raise a family.

I think it is our duty to look after our nation, and thus, its citizens. Socialism. But this does not mean I should get a free ride on the taxes of others.

Of course, people need to work in order for this system to flourish. If a citizen chooses not to work, he cant expect to live this comfortable life. And Im aware this can be pretty unrealistic. If not enough people are working, but still using these socialist resources, then there isnt enough money going back into our nation, and it will eventually fail. There is a balance. You cant just create money out of thin air. Citizens need to work to the best of their ability. But I live in a quasi-socialist country already, and so far its been working for us. Most people will work so that they can have these things.

What does that make me?

...

>no need for marriage to even be a legal term
Correct. I'm trying to tease-apart your feelings about the tradition of marriage apart from the legal notions surrounding that tradition. Right-wingers often see the legal component as noise and human meddling in an tradition that is many thousands of years old. It isn't even a religious issue, necessarily. Even for unaware people who report otherwise.

>Not everyone is equal.
>our duty
>I actually kind of agree with [...Thatcher]
>You cant just create money out of thin air.

Honestly, if you hadn't shown me your alignment chart and opened the way you did, you could have easilly convinced me that you were Right-of-center. I wonder if you have some nuance of language (I vs us) that fucks up the test.

>Citizens need to work to the best of their ability.
On the other hand.... For whose sake?

>But I think burden on the individual is too high.
Pls clarify?

You have a fellow Leaf up there named Stefan Molyneux. You ought to go on his podcast and ask him these questions. I hope I've better armed you, because if you do it, he'll put you through the wringer. :-)

>What does that make me?
I don't know how things are in Canada. I think your world can exist in principle. But in order for it to exist in practice, your country would have to be mono-ethnic, higher average IQ than present day US, with a birth-rate that made it un-necessary to import blood from abroad.

You'd have to be Japan with a better libido.

But if you met those criteria, I'd say your Nolan chart would be far-closer to center due to the strong national identity and deferrence to traditional family roles that this would require.

Hence the tone of my first comment. You sound too aware, and convinced me that you aren't ignorant. So I'm going to blame the test, and call you center-line.

>On the other hand.... For whose sake?
For their nations sake. We are social creatures. We need eachother, for better or for worse. United we're stronger.

>But I think burden on the individual is too high.
I'll explain more clearly hopefully.
Mainly this part of the quote: "It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour".
I think its disingenuous to say this. You cant make it in today's society without the help of your community. I think its a very egocentric view Thatcher has there, and its not realistic. The burden of accountability on the individual is too high because its not just the individual who is accountable for his success.

>Honestly, if you hadn't shown me your alignment chart and opened the way you did, you could have easilly convinced me that you were Right-of-center.
Honestly, maybe it has to do with my opinions on regulation? Im very much pro-regulation when it comes to things like market, and environment haha.

Ive heard of this Stefan guy a couple times on here. I'll have to check him out, thanks man.

>its not just the individual who is accountable for his success.

Then why is he the only one accountable for his crimes?

>a very egocentric view Thatcher has there
I agree. Some people hold that view because they know that the only person you can control is yourself, and that you are the only one who is obliged to live with the consequences of your actions. It has nothing to do with other people. Such a person's PoV wouldn't shift if he were the last man alive.

>my opinions on regulation?
Yeah, we hadn't got into that. But I hope I've given you enough good leads. I'm out for the night. Good luck, man.

Haha, thats really interesting to hear. I do have a strong national identity. I disagree that we'd have to be mono-ethnic as well though. I mean, I would hope that we could achieve this with diverse racial groups, not because I want more diversity in my country (dont get me wrong though, thats not to say I am against it. I just dont really mind either way), but because I feel it would be the easier of the two options. This is why immigrant integration is very important to me. I dont base my national identity on race, I base it on shared values.

>I wonder if you have some nuance of language (I vs us) that fucks up the test.
Nope. You really are collectivistic. That's why you wound up so far left.

>I dont base my national identity on race, I base it on shared values.
On that point, we also agree. And by monoethnic, I mean that there is one clear majority, and no other group has a double-digit presence (say). The US does not meet this criteria. Canada might.

The cost of diversity is community. You cannot have both, as one will always eat the other. Come live in a "diverse" place in the US or Singapore. You'll see what I mean.

Not OP, but while her statement is ideologically sound, it implies that in this objectivist utopia none of us will infringe on each other's right to the same standard of life. Realistically, we end up with neoliberalism, which is just a dictatorship of the bourgeoise.

Basically, I think a centralized government is easier to manage and more transparent than the diffused, untraceable authority of private corporations when it comes to major services like energy, transport, and welfare. Speaking of 'entitlements', I think welfare is acceptable insofar as it helps the citizen meet their particular 'obligations.'

>collectivistic
I would say Im collectivistic on a national scale. But definitely not a communist. I dont subscribe to communist beliefs.

Anyway thanks for the chat my friend. Im currently watching one of the Stefans videos.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Its pretty interesting. I'll check out some more of his videos over the night. Have a good night man.

Reminder that a "nation" is essentially a "collective agreement to share a specific set of values in order to cooperate so we all get rich"

The reason nationality is so important is because it's the way a culture defend it's existence. Without a country, you are powerless. If you are a minority, your culture becomes replaced with the new majority culture. It's not about race, it's ALL about culture and beliefs. You can't tell white people that they're wrong for valuing free speech/equality/individual rights/etc. It's a decision the individual makes to value their rights and respect the rights of others. Government is a way to get money out of people, but also it functions as a way to "define" the culture more clearly.

you'd better be joking