Slashdot Mirror

The mistake is to divide politics in 2 directions, left and right or liberal and conservative. You can have fiscally conservative, socially liberal people and the opposite so left vs right isn't clear cut. Then you also have the 2 directions of authoritarian vs libertarian. Either can be left or right. Currently almost all politicians are authoritarian. See http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
About political correct speech. Both sides play that card, here in Canada it is currently very politically incorrect to call the bitumen sands tar sands instead of oil sands even though bitumen has much in common with tar.

Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.

And who would you have voted for that wouldn't have approved similar legislation?

Stewart Alexander (Socialist), Rocky Anderson (Justice), Gary Johnson (Libertarian), and Jill Stein (Green) all ran on civil libertarian platforms during the 2012 election; (for example, all four sought the repeal of the PATRIOT Act).

Among third-party candidates, Virgil Goode (Constitution) was an odd-ball, his authoritarianism exceeding that of GWB, BHO, and Romney. Although Goode expressed regret for voting for the PATRIOT Act, was a "money-out-of-politics" guy (accepting donations no greater than $200), his campaign positions and HR voting record showed little regard for civil liberties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results [Compact table w/ links for leading 3rd-party candidates/parties]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 [Graph depicting 2012 candidates' political positions]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 [Graph for 2008 — note Obama's rightward/authoritarian shift between '08-'12]

Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.

And who would you have voted for that wouldn't have approved similar legislation?

Stewart Alexander (Socialist), Rocky Anderson (Justice), Gary Johnson (Libertarian), and Jill Stein (Green) all ran on civil libertarian platforms during the 2012 election; (for example, all four sought the repeal of the PATRIOT Act).

Among third-party candidates, Virgil Goode (Constitution) was an odd-ball, his authoritarianism exceeding that of GWB, BHO, and Romney. Although Goode expressed regret for voting for the PATRIOT Act, was a "money-out-of-politics" guy (accepting donations no greater than $200), his campaign positions and HR voting record showed little regard for civil liberties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results [Compact table w/ links for leading 3rd-party candidates/parties]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 [Graph depicting 2012 candidates' political positions]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 [Graph for 2008 — note Obama's rightward/authoritarian shift between '08-'12]

It seems that both the left and the right solely focused on the color of his skin, and projected "what he' supposed to do 'cuz he's black" on him, without ever realizing he was and has always been the most centrist Democratic candidate ever elected president.

Anyone who ever looked at this already knew this. Obama is about as conservative as anything the Republicans can get into the presidential election, with a few twists thrown in that move him slightly left of the standard republican.

The fact that Obama was the most liberal politician that could get elected to the national office should tell actual leftists/socialists/liberals exactly what they're fighting against.

For the record, I'm ok with with Obama being fairly conservative. I can live with his brand of conservatism, even if it doesn't exactly tickle my fancy. Do I wish that he'd actually be a liberal? Sure, but then I'd have to live with McCain/ Palin and Romney/Ryan as presidents. It's the cost of living in the US.

Fascists have always been of the left. Leftest continue to deny it.

Actually I think it is a two-dimensional situation, as illustrated by Political Compass. Though I don't know how accurate their assessments of the individuals is, I think the principle that either left or right wing politicians can be authoritarian is true.

BTW I do not consider myself to be authoritarian in general, its just that the expressed intention of Muslims to undermine our societies necessitates extraordinary measures. The freedoms of non-muslims should be protected as far as possible when a hostile group has declared war on us.

Apparently you can. If you scroll down to "International Chart" you can see the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Spoiler: They're both authoritarian right wingers.

No, the right usually calls for less State power while increasing it. Just like they go on about being fiscally responsible while racking up huge debt.
Interestingly the political compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/ shows my extremely right wing government to be about the same as Obama fiscally, just more Statist. (They really make Obama look open and transparent)
This is what is weird about the American Libertarian movement, they back such a statist party.
On the same political compass site I come in as extremely libertarian and left wing and it's true, the only way libertarianism could work is through socialist ideals like Credit Unions instead of banks and CO-OPs instead of big monopolies. Left = pro-people and Right = pro-aristocracy.

No it doesn't matter on your ideological point of view at all. If it did, you could literally make up anything you want about any party you want and "be correct". Granted, both parties particularly enjoy that freedom.

It's pretty common knowledge that there are at least four political axes. See this site to learn more. it also portrays very clearly the complete take over of both major political parties by right wing zealots. The less right wing are democrats, the extremist right wing are republicans, and anyone left of center barely exists and is completely ignored. Both parties are heavily authoritarian however; the only real difference is the degree of right wing ideology each party aligns with. And unless you have lived in a box (or in the US without ever paying attention to news outside the US in your entire life) it is painfully obvious that there literally is no left in America. It is just a circle jerk of kleptocrats who take turns being the "bad guy" while the other strips away our rights while we're busy being angry at today's "bad guy".

There isn't one and if you look at the chart on the middle of this page provided by a previous poster you'll see that BOTH Obama and Romney are practically on top of each other in the hard right authoritarian end of the political spectrum. Its like I said its not even Coke VS Pepsi, its Coke in a can VS Coke in a bottle, same product, just slightly different looking container.

Traditionally the political spectrum runs from Left (Anarchy) to Right (Authoritarian). What we have in this country is a mainstream Right leaning party with socialist tenancies and a mainstream Right leaning party with capitalist (or Corporatocracy) leanings. In recent years it has become popular to view political leanings on a two dimensional grid with Left/Right representing the X axis and Socialist/Corporatist representing the Y. Allowing for this both parties are fairly far to the right of the spectrum and one simply leans north on the Y while the other trends south. I used to consider my self a Conservative but after studying some of the actual definitions of political beliefs and looking at the real world interpretation of such I have found I actually have a fairly strong Left leaning and come in fairly well centered on the Y axis. Try this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 to get a better understanding (Note this site actually puts the economic leanings on the X axis).

Your median is slapped over on the hard left.

FTFY.

Leftist governments are traditionally the governments that are large and up in everyone's business. That's what we got today.

This graph of US state senatorial positions shows the opposite of your above quoted statements. Right-leaning states' senators hold more authoritarian positions, while left-leaning states' senators hold more libertarian positions — though all of those positions are on the right and authoritarian sides of the median axes.

Don't back down; you were correct, having doubts because you are a thinking person is used against you by the overly confident ignorant ethnocentric Americans. Expanding to compensate for misunderstanding is a waste of time because you are arguing with somebody who believes in a farce and is unaware of the rest.

There are plenty of studies which show US students (for a long time now) are the most confident but they are average in their skill evaluations... the result is adults who will game your wise insecurity possibly without even knowing it because they are so overconfident. I am a native; I am well versed in false confidence. It even comes out in the style in which the people speak here.

An old definition of fool (promoted by Ben Franklin) is somebody who doesn't know that they know nothing... the opposite of which is the beginning of wisdom.

I highly recommend http://politicalcompass.org/ because it is the best metaphor and does a good job dispelling the binary metaphor (or 1 dimensional spectrum) that trap people's thinking. It helps highlight the power of words and metaphors when it is impossible to discuss real politics in overly simplistic concepts. As simple as not being able to see something in 2D using only 1D (please nobody nerd out and talk holograms and linear algebra.)

Take a look at Political Compass. It at least splits economic and social issues, and does a decent job of explaining the different combinations. It also nicely shows how the Democrats and Republicans aren't as different overall as they would have you believe.

Nobody wins a war. Both sides lose in a war. We lost the cold war as well; our victory is in the form of prolonged collapse which is ongoing. Using fear to rob the populace of their money and freedom is as old as humans. Reagan and Thatcher are crooks; well Reagan is a corporate spokesperson who wasn't aware of what he was doing but that is no excuse. At least most the UK is not totally clueless about Thatcher unlike the USA where Reagan is a prophet (and like other prophets, many of the followers don't seem to actually know anything about them.)

There is no left or right. It is the French assembly's seating arrangement from centuries ago. http://politicalcompass.org/

Oh, and "job creators" are not one step removed from "the creator" - they are false demigods. If people want to buy it, somebody will supply it... even if its illegal. You'd think illegal drugs couldn't exist given the religion preached on mainstream media and our politicians today! Those drug lord "job creators" are under attack (in a "war" on their business) and yet their industry is booming...

It does line up with my personal beliefs, but all with the political compass. 2010. 2007.
I haven't seen a lot to be concerned about with Brown's intended regulations.

It does line up with my personal beliefs, but all with the political compass. 2010. 2007.
I haven't seen a lot to be concerned about with Brown's intended regulations.

So the puritans were left-wing now?

They always were. Left-wing = more central control, people telling you how to live your life for the good of the collective, etc. Right-wing = more individual liberty, balanced by more individual responsibility, and only as much government as is absolutely necessary.

On this graph of 2008 US Senators' positions, authoritarian policies seem to be favored by Republicans in comparison to Democrats.

I am not a Democrat or Republican. Draw your own conclusions from that graph. If anyone has any other sources of aggregated data to present (contrary to or consistent with my source), I'd be interested to see it.

Do people actually believe that nonsense? Obama is left, not left center, not center, left. The majority of what he does is extremely partisan, which is why many believe he may officially be the most divisive president in history.

You're crazy. Here's an unbiased view of the 2012 American Presidential election. He's clearly an authoritarian, right-wing politician. Jill Stein was the only major left-wing candidate, and she was center-left.

No from what he's done, he's not a conservative. He's a right-wing authoritarian: http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

And that action drove the usually civil-liberty-loving liberals into the hands of the NRA's opponents. Take a step back a moment: does it really make much sense that liberals, who detest restrictions on speech, on what you can do with your own bodies, on people being jailed, would actually, normally, be in favor - in principle - of someone owning a device as long as they used it responsibly?

What or who are you referring to as a liberal? Some people hate it because it supposedly is still too simplified of a model, but the political compass is a more granular way of describing political views.

A libertarian-leaning liberal is much more likely to be "hands off" on many issues. Unfortunately it appears that both the left and right have a double heapin' helping of authoritarians that want to legislate what you do as a rule, and in some cases more insidiously, tell you what to think. There are very few true liberals, and quite a few authoritarian cappuccino swilling "nanny staters" who love to preach social engineering and liberal values as long as you agree with their exact version of them.

Maybe, just maybe, the NRA should change its strategy.

According to a piece recently aired on NPR, the NRA is nowhere as influential as they would have people think. I have no opinion on the matter since I haven't read anything in depth on the topic, but the idea is interesting.

As somebody who owns multiple firearms, I keep a loaded six shot .357 in the nightstand (it's just me and the dog, otherwise I'd have a nightstand gun safe), and the semiautos locked up. For self defense, my argument is that if you can't do it with six rounds of .357 mag (actually .38+P) or five rounds out of a 12 gauge while holed up in the bedroom, you're very seriously doing it wrong. But.. to each their own. That being said, I carried an M16 for six years in the service, and I think most people would be surprised at the damage a proper shotgun load or deer rifle can do in comparison. Hell, if I really hate somebody I'm going to shoot them with a compound bow and broadhead arrows.. heheh.

Yes, I know the crux of the issue for many is the ammunition capacity and the easy reload ability, but my point is that crazy will find a way to be crazy, no matter the laws. In addition, I find it unnerving that many of my local police seem to be former high school jocks with a limited amount of training (and no time in the armed forces to compensate for it) and are running around with AR-15 variants in the trunks of their cars. If the M16 and its ilk like the AR15 are war machines, why are they packing them? How often do they engage an active shooter wielding an AK or an AR? Isn't that what SWAT is for?

Now.. if the jerkoffs in the media would quit giving these maniacs so much coverage. What a feedback loop that is.. sigh. I know guys.. TL;DR

this!
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Educate yourself.
http://www.politicalcompass.org
http://politicaltest.net
http://isidewith.com

I like the graph on this page (though I'm not sure why they felt the need to rant, there). Maybe a bit oversimplified, but it gets the point across beautifully.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Educate yourself.
http://www.politicalcompass.org
http://politicaltest.net
http://isidewith.com

I like the graph on this page (though I'm not sure why they felt the need to rant, there). Maybe a bit oversimplified, but it gets the point across beautifully.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The Democrats and Republicans might differ on some social and economic issues, but both are extremely authoritarian. What did you expect?

If more people voted for a libertarian party and this shit wouldn't happen. (And no, the Libertarian party is not the only libertarian game in town. They're just the next biggest player.)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Limited Gov. and Anarcho- are not the only type(s) of libertarian, just the most vocal - one is "libertarian right" - economically conservative, socially liberal on the polical compass. The other I have no idea - probably leftist, in the sense that they're cooperative.

I know it doesn't fit in with the Libertarian party's ideals in the US, but there is also a left-leaning type who can recognise the importance of a powerful, supportive, socialist (in the sense of being 'for the people') state and the freedom - that's right, I said freedom - that it gives to its citizens.

Freedom from disease through socialised medicine, sewerage and water treatment, freedom to travel through collective payment for roads, freedom from the aggression of other individuals who would seek to take what is yours, etc. These are the aspects of government worth paying for, and they are on the political left vs. politcal right, X-axis of the graph. It's a choice between the freedom to choose not to boil your water, get cholera and die versus the freedom from having to worry about it. And while some people don't appreciate that a good proportion of the taxes that they pay are being put towards buying them the freedom from having to constantly worry about where their next meal is coming from, or the freedom from having to walk 12 miles to the well and back every day on a dirt track to get it (or conversely to have to pay exhorbitant fees to use a decent road), others appreciate this second type of freedom.

You can object to the aspects of governments that take away your individual liberties - the right to to whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't impact on other people - while still approving of those aspects of government which provide a collective good much cheaper than any commercial entity would. That would make you a left-leaning libertarian, and although US big "L" Libertarianism doesn't want anything to do with them, they do exist. Maybe this is what the OP was talking about (albeit he's very ignorant if he thinks all Libertarians approve of paying taxes!)

In my view you'd be a fool to throw away a vote on a candidate who you don't agree with. If you really think there would be a big difference between a Romney or Obama presidency you are kidding yourself. They say anything they can to try to make themselves seem different, but if you actually look at their records rather than their words they are extremely similar. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

In case anyone missed the 4-way debate moderated by Larry King in Chicago on 2012-10-23:

https://kat.ph/torrents/20121023-full-third-party-presidential-debate-yt-avi-t6769764/

All of the presidential candidates' social/economic ideologies are graphed here. [Note the proximity of the two corporate parties' candidates.]

Please—especially if you live in an uncontested state—vote for the best candidate, not the second-least-worst candidate; our country (and especially our civil liberties) have taken just about all the "lesser evil" that can be withstood.

This quiz can help you determine which candidate best matches your own ideology.

The extreme left are extreme right they just have a different agenda. Both are right wing.

Reread your statement and notice how ridiculous it sounds.

Left/right economic policy is orthogonal to liberty/authoritarianism. Have you ever heard of the Political Compass? It explains how Stalin & Hitler had diametrically, vociferously opposed economic systems, yet both led totalitarian states. They were clearly the same on the liberty vs. authoritarian axis, but opposite on economic.

Analysis

Does this square with your expectations?

I can't speak for Obama fans, but as a liberal, yes, this squares with my expectations—both Obama and Romney are authoritarians.

Exactly what does being close to the actual left (the Scandavian countries are centrist to centre-right, btw) have to do with freedom of speech? You do realize that it's no a left/right issue, right? That authoritarian/libertarian are actually on a separate axis and that there's plenty of left governments that are far more libertarian than the US, which is largely right-authoritarion.

Here's some help for you:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I would like to introduce you to the concept of the "Constitution-Free Zone".

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone
http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

Just a friendly reminder that you don't actually have any rights. Any illusion of rights is performed solely to keep you from flipping the fuck out and starting a riot.

Brought to you and supported by your foolishly elected Authoritarian leaders (hint: all of them).

In short, both the Democratic and Republican parties are Authoritarian (Fascist).

Highly related.

When I was in high school (early 2000's) I used to wonder how they were going to teach lawmakers and enforcers so they could cope with all the new crap that was being made. Were they going to send them all to schools to teach them how networked computers worked or maybe hire a bunch of IT advisors? I was being way too optimistic, its been a decade of incompetent, ignorant, old people making and enforcing laws without an understanding of what they are making laws about. Why is there now law requiring knowledge and education in the field for which you make and enforce laws?

That's been pretty much my experience. I started following politics in 2002-2003 and it's just been one soul-crushingly cynical insight after another. My faith in humanity hit the floor at about the same time that Palin was taken seriously as a Vice Presidential candidate.

Anyway, what you describe is a libertarian technocracy. We've got an authoritarian plutocracy. Pretty much the opposite. It sucks and most of the world is the same, to some degree.

While I'm thinking about it, check these out if you haven't seen them already: Political Compass (US Presidential Election 2012) and Political Test. I find Political Compass to be simpler and more effective at getting the main point across to people, whereas Political Test is more nuanced. Long story short, there's no practical difference between Democrats and Republicans.

When I was in high school (early 2000's) I used to wonder how they were going to teach lawmakers and enforcers so they could cope with all the new crap that was being made. Were they going to send them all to schools to teach them how networked computers worked or maybe hire a bunch of IT advisors? I was being way too optimistic, its been a decade of incompetent, ignorant, old people making and enforcing laws without an understanding of what they are making laws about. Why is there now law requiring knowledge and education in the field for which you make and enforce laws?

That's been pretty much my experience. I started following politics in 2002-2003 and it's just been one soul-crushingly cynical insight after another. My faith in humanity hit the floor at about the same time that Palin was taken seriously as a Vice Presidential candidate.

Anyway, what you describe is a libertarian technocracy. We've got an authoritarian plutocracy. Pretty much the opposite. It sucks and most of the world is the same, to some degree.

While I'm thinking about it, check these out if you haven't seen them already: Political Compass (US Presidential Election 2012) and Political Test. I find Political Compass to be simpler and more effective at getting the main point across to people, whereas Political Test is more nuanced. Long story short, there's no practical difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Here's a neat map of all candidates,
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

(Ron Paul was almost exactly where Gary Johnson is)

I've put this out there before, but: http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Disclaimer: unaffiliated, just an interested visitor to the site.

8-PP

So you're somewhere in the green area on this, then?

Looking at it... yep!

So you're somewhere in the green area on this, then?

"They're both the same" is code for either "I'm too lazy to research" or "I'm simply going to lie to support my team".

I'm generally familiar with the overall (good) quality of your typical posts, but I'm at a loss to find any redeeming value in what you've said here.

This chart shows the 2012 US Presidential Candidates political positions.

Here's where I'm at, mapped to the same chart.

I've researched. Which is "my team?" Which "team" represents the interests of the 99%? Since you're apparently relying on an erroneous/planted/compromised/imaginary codebook, allow me to offer a clue in English plaintext: NONE OF THEM.

"They're both the same" is code for either "I'm too lazy to research" or "I'm simply going to lie to support my team".

I'm generally familiar with the overall (good) quality of your typical posts, but I'm at a loss to find any redeeming value in what you've said here.

This chart shows the 2012 US Presidential Candidates political positions.

Here's where I'm at, mapped to the same chart.

I've researched. Which is "my team?" Which "team" represents the interests of the 99%? Since you're apparently relying on an erroneous/planted/compromised/imaginary codebook, allow me to offer a clue in English plaintext: NONE OF THEM.

Hey, from here they certainly look the same to me since I'm in the opposite corner from Barak and Mitt being a single point away from each other:

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Take a look at this chart of the political opinions expressed by world leaders: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png

Hugo Chavez is left wing. The Dali Lama is left wing. Romney and Obama? On the broad global stage, they're both sharply right wing. The fact that their campaigns have you believing they're worlds apart is simply not reflected in their actual policies and rhetoric.

If you take an outside expert and place politicians by their words or actions using a uniform test and a placement system that is not childishly simplistic... you get this interesting chart from the best political website on earth:

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Notice where McCain was and where Obama ended up (also remember in 2008 Obama was more talk because there wasn't much of a record to place him. Everybody shifts quite a bit from talk vs action. Sadly the site doesn't do charts on both, but does tend to use action over talk when possible.)

If you take an outside expert and place politicians by their words or actions using a uniform test and a placement system that is not childishly simplistic... you get this interesting chart from the best political website on earth:

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Notice where McCain was and where Obama ended up (also remember in 2008 Obama was more talk because there wasn't much of a record to place him. Everybody shifts quite a bit from talk vs action. Sadly the site doesn't do charts on both, but does tend to use action over talk when possible.)

Or, as The Political Compass divides the axes (the proper plural of "axis"), it's simply labeled Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian.

There are other charts with different names for the axes, but they all amount to the same idea. It doesn't really matter how you label the axes; it's far more important that the distinction is made clear: there's a difference between a person's political standing on personal freedoms and economic structure.

Here's where I think you need a little help: the political spectrum isn't a single axis. It's multi-axis, and the thing you're actually railing on about is authoritarianism which can be of both the left and right variety.

Unfortunately, both sides* seemed to be rather authoritarian in the US. That may be because of the contentious, war-like approach to politics in the country. Which you seem to embrace rather vigorously, btw.

*It's debatable whether or not there is actually a party on the left in the US. I tend to agree with Political Compass' take.

A more complete model, that with any luck may calm down the idiots who think all definitions are useless just because they don't explain things they weren't created to explain, is the political compass. It uses two axis, one for left/right and another for authoritarianism/libertarianism. On http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2 they explain the system and have a silly online test thing too.

socialist NDP

You're a twat. Seriously, you don't know what the word means. You may want to lookup the NDP on Politcal Compass. Really, though, don't you want to say pinko commies, since that's more in line with your intellect.

They're barely on the left, and more properly described as centrist.

And PS - the left/right paradigm is weak. The country is being taken over my authoritarian fucktards, but you're too busy fretting about the commies. It's idiots like you that have brought the level of political discourse down to strawmen and windmill tilting. Wake up.

Idiot.

Indeed. Another nifty way to explain the Right/Left, from
politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Note the image
http://politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

For comparison to some current political choices
http://politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

Indeed. Another nifty way to explain the Right/Left, from
politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Note the image
http://politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

For comparison to some current political choices
http://politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php