Political Discussion

Indymisanthrope said:
Right? Why is the whole framing based on the measure of one's conservative qualities?

1. Why are these surveys NEVER "answer these questions to find out how retrograde and biased your views are?"
2. These points are plotted in a completely arbitrary manner. So the 'Progressive Party' is the least socially/economically conservative, and there's no rightwing analog to that? Don't we find that...pretty hard to believe?
3. This is, IMO, a stealth campaign to bemoan the lack of the mythical ideological center (marked by lines that likewise have no definitional value or inherent meaning).

Dumb graph.
Click to expand...
Amen. What are the units of measurement here? Like how many Reagan-meters are you away from "center"?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Right? Why is the whole framing based on the measure of one's conservative qualities?

1. Why are these surveys NEVER "answer these questions to find out how retrograde and biased your views are?"
2. These points are plotted in a completely arbitrary manner. So the 'Progressive Party' is the least socially/economically conservative, and there's no rightwing analog to that? Don't we find that...pretty hard to believe?
3. This is, IMO, a stealth campaign to bemoan the lack of the mythical ideological center (marked by lines that likewise have no definitional value or inherent meaning).

Dumb graph.
Click to expand...

The far right side of it actually makes more sense to me. Those two parties occupy the positions you’d largely expect to place far right parties. Perhaps the Nazi Party with a different name might be a little less economically liberal but still.

The whole idea of a “Progessive Party” right there in the ideological corner is vaguely comical. The left is even more riven by factionalism and bizarre ideas of ideological purity than the right. Everyone on the left thinks there interpretation is where the fictional Progressive Party lies and none of them are actually there no matter how condescendingly they lay out their bullshit to you.

Finally I might be as economically illiberal as it’s possible to be in a democratic society but I’m not a fucking communist lol. There should be more room to the left.

That said and despite everything I’ve said above the whole concept really is bollocks tbh and just a daft bit of fun more than anything else.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Right? Why is the whole framing based on the measure of one's conservative qualities?

1. Why are these surveys NEVER "answer these questions to find out how retrograde and biased your views are?"
2. These points are plotted in a completely arbitrary manner. So the 'Progressive Party' is the least socially/economically conservative, and there's no rightwing analog to that? Don't we find that...pretty hard to believe?
3. This is, IMO, a stealth campaign to bemoan the lack of the mythical ideological center (marked by lines that likewise have no definitional value or inherent meaning).

Dumb graph.
Click to expand...
True, but also it’s an online quiz.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Yeah, I guess that's really what I was getting at, just stated as the inverse. IF the Progressive Party occupies that extreme corner, then certainly there is a rightwing analog. The fact that 'Progressive' is indiscriminately housed as the most extremely liberal party (or rather, in the terms of the graph, "least conservative") on both axes is the issue here, not that it wasn't balanced by an entry on the right.
Click to expand...
I figured my views would be a bit closer (though still on the progressive/liberal side of things) to the center as I think they are my views are far from extreme. They feel pretty mainstream and rational to me.

Another thing that is wild (but probably true) is MAGA Patriot Party is the most economically progressive portion of the Republican Party according to this chart.

Also, I guess Libertarians have no place in either party.
 
Last edited:
I landed pretty much where everyone else landed. Closer to the Progressive Party dot than the New Liberal Party. I honestly expected to be a little more central, but there weren't a lot of questions...
 
Today the White House withdrew their nominee for head of ATF. They did not have the votes in the senate to confirm him.

Zero Republican support and no support from moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin.

The reason for the lack of votes is Biden's nominee has historically favored reasonable gun control. And that has riled up the Pro Gun supporters and organizations to block his nomination.

Apparently historically thinking some gun control is acceptable makes you unfit to be the head of the department that regulates guns...
 
Last edited:
RenegadeMonster said:
Today the White House withdrew their nominee for head of ATF. They did not have the votes in the senate to confirm him.

Zero Republican support and no support from moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin.

The reason for the lack of votes is Biden's nominee has historically favored reasonable gun control. And that has riled up the Pro Gun supporters and organizations to block his nomination.

Apparently historically thinking some gun control is acceptable makes you unfit to be the head of the department that regulates guns...
Click to expand...

Increasingly having no position on anything of substance is a clever political move. Depressing…
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Today the White House withdrew their nominee for head of ATF. They did not have the votes in the senate to confirm him.

Zero Republican support and no support from moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin.

The reason for the lack of votes is Biden's nominee has historically favored reasonable gun control. And that has riled up the Pro Gun supporters and organizations to block his nomination.

Apparently historically thinking some gun control is acceptable makes you unfit to be the head of the department that regulates guns...
Click to expand...
Speaking of guns, the other day I heard a suggestion that a blue state should enact a law that makes ownership of some/all guns illegal and provides enforcement not by government actors, but by private individuals through whistleblower lawsuits. I wonder what the SC would think of that?
 
dansomeone said:
Speaking of guns, the other day I heard a suggestion that a blue state should enact a law that makes ownership of some/all guns illegal and provides enforcement not by government actors, but by private individuals through whistleblower lawsuits. I wonder what the SC would think of that?
Click to expand...
A bit more apt would be to allow private citizens to sue any gun retailers that sells a firearm if the firearm sold ends up being being used for an illegal act. It doesn’t outright ban firearms (which is obviously protected by the constitution) but would make it highly unlikely that anyone would be willing to sell guns within the state borders It would essentially pigeon hole the SCOTUS.
 
Unfortunately before any of this rat fuckery is likely to be undone the Supreme Court will likely overturn roe v Wade through the Mississippi case making the whole Texas thing to be moot by the time it surreptitiously makes it’s way to the SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top