Well I found a new political compass

sage

At least your result is cool

Someone should invent a political compass for leftists, political compass that would properly map out the different tendencies on the left correctly using leftist categories instead of vague liberal ones like the one posted in the OP

fight me

I'd rather hug you.

theres a political compass made by Holla Forumslacks that grossly emphasizes on the right, maybe we should do the same

thanks op I needed a good laugh wew

I'd rather we made a compass that understands the different shades of left wing thought better than just 'socialist' 'anarchist' if you're lucky, and 'extreme liberal' if you're not

well yes thats what i meant.
some one here got any experience with shit like that?

Not really, but I would say that a decent quiz has to be less based on numerics and more individual questions: ie. if you say you believe in free enterprise you're a liberal at best, if you believe in nationalisation you're a state socialist, if you believe in worker self ownership you're a communist, if you believe in no state you're an anarchist. And so on.

Most of these tests just work on 'well answering this question gives +10 collectivism points'

Yeah a mouth hug

yea you do have a point.
why not combine the 2 though? like asking basic individual questions to know their economics position, and combine it with points questions to measure social positions?

Degenerates.

Here.

Dropped

...

non state own media, son what?

...

Your compass is a shit.

...

gag, youre gross

...

Because I dislike fags and don't recognize government-sponsored marriage?

...

Like poetry.

Abortion is murder. All atempts to justify it typically tie back to trying to get pussy since neither autonomy nor "lack of humanity" hold up to further scrutiny.

And yes, I'd go so far as to argue that most meat consumption is unethical as well, though I wouldn't go as far as vegetarians would.

The only abortion I disagree is abortion based on gender. Autonomy certainly holds up because I'm sorry, but a bunch of cells is not a person.

Idk dude, I just think this entire time you've been on here it's been constant shitposting. I can't understand why you would think water should be private. NO one deserves not to be able to get water if they don't have an arbitrary amount of water. Stuff like that is why we have to physically remove you from society.

Probably not a perfect representation but it seems pretty close.

Fight me bros.

same

also some options lack a further enough left option.

My body is ready for your anger, bring it

I feel that the anti-state options are a little biased to ancap rather than collectivist anarchism. But whatever.

top kek

ancaps are the biggest hypocrites

Replace "modern" with libertarian and it's basically just another Nolan quiz. Still, it's shit.

Better version of my results.

>"Free Speech" doesn't have an option "only against minorities"

2/10 would get triggered again

It's a definitional game, nothing more. If you define "murder" as "the deliberate destruction of an whole organism that is genetically homo sapiens", then it's murder. If you define it as "the deliberate destruction of an organism of a human who has been born", then it's not. The argument ultimately comes down to sentimentality (I'm not using that word pejoratively) and utility. There is no "correct" definition for anything because all definitions are, by their nature, arbitrary.

I'm for legal abortion on utilitarian grounds: most abortions are requested by minority women and, more generally, by women who'd be shit mothers. Forcing them to raise their already low-quality kids incompetently and lovelessly only contributes to suffering - their own and that of society, when a higher-than average portion of those kids grow up to be criminals.

I'm sick of you fucking hippies. Dem furrn folks ain't showing der faces round dem dese parts, dats fer sure.

What gauges are missing? Not specific notches on gauges.

When you kill the last Anarchist

Permitted forms of corporations.

Historically, corporations in the US had to apply for a licence and prove that what they were doing served the "public good". This generally implied that they had a specific project in mind, like building a bridge, or laying railroad.

Marxists want to abolish wage labor as a whole and syndicalists only want co-ops.

AnCaps want to be able to sell recreational nukes to kindergarten prostitutes.

Labor organization.

Split into 2 gauges:
- State involvement (from ancap to full direct control)
- Allowed alienation of labor (from slavery to co-ops)

Murder is a legal term for killing of a human with their own body. Foetuses are not legally or scientifically human. They cant survive outside the body till at least 20 weeks so they cant rationally have their own rights while they are part of someone else's body. Even in places it is illegal it's not charged as murder; it is charged as abortion in its own separate law.

user, that's just fucking nonsense. It's ridiculous to say that the fetus is part of the mother's body until it develops internal organs and a skeleton, but stops being a part of it after that. "I have my own skeleton" is in no plausible way a good definition for "I am not part of someone else".

Both "life begins at conception" and "fetuses are not human, humanity begins at birth" are more reasonable positions than that.

It's one thing to say that something without a CNS shouldn't be considered human and that would justify your time limit, but not on the grounds that the fetus is just a part of the mother.

Never said anything about skeletons and organs. It has to do with at what point it doesnt die when separated from the mother. Before then it's kind of like a parasitic life form. Most abortions are first trimester anyway and for around 20 weeks they could just induce labour and see if it lives or not. Also late term abortions are already illegal so.

not 2 bad i guess

So why should it be illegal to abort a baby 2 days before birth?

That's fuckin' right.

...

Only premies are born at that time which is rare so no it's not about to be born because that would be later unless artificially induced which is something that can probably be done at just about any stage.. Plus it cant be about to be born if its aborted because it will never will be born.

You need to fucking rethink your life, m8.

Is this even English?

Because no comprende.

There isn't even any big words. It has a run on sentences at its worst. It's not hard to understand.

It is a matter of weighing the pros and cons of each option.

If you don't abort, you might be condemning them to a life of toil and misery under an evil government. They might never live to see any of their dreams come true, and they might only put off suicide because they don't want to hurt you as their parent.

The question is, how likely is that and how does it weigh up against a quick cessation of existence.

Women have different "needs" (whether biological or cultural is irrelevant) than men, different roles in society, and thus different risks attached. This isn't to say that they're "less intelligent" or any other bullshit that the alt-right neckbeards would throw around, simply that they have different ways of looking at the world.

Unless they have an equal risk, they should not be treated as an equal in the "political process" whatever form that might take. To ask otherwise is to tell a gambler they can keep all of their winnings, but to use your money to gamble.

Contractually if a woman wants to own property, actually risk being killed in war or invasions, etc. then by all means let them have a vote. If they aren't willing to have an equal risk in the venture, then they shouldn't have an equal role in the venture. A woman is in charge of the household while a man is in charge of keeping the stability around that household. Equally important, but inherently different roles.

And protip: I'm not an AnCap. They just happen to line up with more of my beliefs than most groups, so I associate with them.

Water is not a right. You do not get to benefit from the fruits of other's labor for the simple act of existing.

I'm kind of glad lefties have fewer kids. Future's looking bright.

Oh the irony hahahahahaha

That's a matter of scientific limits, not some sort of scientific law.

So you fully agree with me that as technology advances, abortion will become murder since we'll be able to preserve fetuses earlier and earlier up to the point of conception. Good.

Horrible interface on that test.

if you kill your unborn they win.

Working brain?

It's about one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

If you do abort, you might be condemning a happy life to death because it inconveniences you. Plenty of whore mothers have turned their lives around after having a child, raising a happy family. Plenty more whore mothers have gone deeper into depression, eventually committing suicide after killing their unborn child due to the guilt it induced. The body inherently knows that abortion is a horrible act. Why are you advocating for suicide? Why can't you see the other half of what might happen to that mother who committed infanticide?

Convenience doesn't excuse murdering an unborn child. That's fuckin' sociopathic, bro.

I should state that any argument applied to a fetus should be applied to an animal was well. If an animal passes it, then your argument needs some refining, or you need a new argument to justify killing an animal.*

In and , nothing whatsoever was said about brain.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had a 8-month-old fetus with under-developed lungs who needed life-support. Technically, it "can't survive outside the [mother's] body", so should it be legal to abort it?

I agree with your criterion about a developed nervous system, since that's what makes us human/capable of suffering, but all these attempts to reduce the question to survival outside of the mother's body and the description of the fetus as just some appendage until the moment it's born are silly.

As usual, my views are more nuanced than the compass allows.

Specifically on free trade, we should trade freely with nations that have worker protections and living conditions similar to our own (see: Canada, Japan, Europe, etc.) and embargo those that abuse the working class (see: China, the entire fucking middle east, etc.) rather than treat everyone else as equals, because not all countries are equal, some are backward shitholes.

So you want to force billions of people to stay in abject poverty?

Wow, pretty dick move there, bro.

youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo

Am I missing something? Isn't not doing trade with immoral actors a part of libertarian morals, voting with your wallet and getting the meanies to change their ways with out use of force?
Are you saying we are accountable for the poverty of anyone we choose to not buy products from?

There's various ways to look at it.

For instance capitalist trade is likely to pull socialist countries towards capitalism by subverting their populace when they get ahold of capitalist products. This is what happened in parts of Asia, and what is expected to happen in Cuba.

On the flip side if you know a totalitarian government is utilizing the profits from your sales to fund their government, then pulling out your trade is a good method to help cause their collapse in order for the people to install a better government.

It entirely depends on external factors, which is why freedom of association/freedom to decide on your own personal trade deals is so important.

In other words, trade and capital are a nonviolent weapon to be used against assholes in order to inspire regime change and/or rebellion.*

I'd say it's not a question of nuance at all, but two basic defects:

1. You can't specify why you want something. Legal abortion is just seen as liberal per se, but I'm for it because it's mostly utilized by black women and therefore keeps the black population low. That goal is regarded as extreme and diametrically opposed to the method on the liberalism-axis.

2. The center is defined arbitrarily. Liberalism counts as our political center now, but that really is just a spook. In the past, you were a radical if you wanted voting rights for all free men, and if you'd wanted to extend them to women, you'd have been disavowed by every political faction. Liberals have this idea of liberalism just meaning a "oh well, let's just all have our own opinions and leave each other be" attitude, but a monarchist in an age of monarchism, any sort of republicanism would have been radical. To people even a hundred years ago, the idea that one should deliberately bring in millions of foreigners to make one's country multicultural would've been pure madness.

3. (Bonus) The values of the answers scale linerarly, but the perceived extremism of the positions in reality do not: In reality, there's a huge gap between between "equal opportunities" and "no voting allowed" on the woman-question, and a comparatively small one between that and "no voting or employment allowed". I think, instead of the options having the values -2x,-x,0,x,2x, (x being the question's importance), each should have a custom value, depending on its extremism. "No voting allowed" can easily have 10x, say, and "equal wage laws" only -4x.

It's hard for socialist countries to prosper when the same trade embargo's and sanctions that got put on Iraq which ended up killing 1 million people, are put on your country just because you're socialist.

Which is why I'm generally against any sort of tariffs/embargos unless the government of said country is using those profits to enforce their regime.

Better to let competition run its course.

...

property is violence and inherently violates NAP
only communism can be nonviolent
you have no argument, please stop replying and shitting up this thread (except I'm sure you'll reply to this)

Do I really need to clarify that I meant "purified water?"

Are you really going to try and justify major population centers built in the middle of a desert?

Also

If I didn't give a fuck, I wouldn't have come to the conclusions that I have over the years.

People don't become Libertarians (propertarians) overnight, and they sure as fuck don't become Pseudo-Voluntarists in a short time span either.

A communist commenting on the NAP has about as much weight as an atheist commenting on Christianity, fam.

The NAP is like parlay, it's a set of guidelines, not absolutes.

Sure but the youtube video you linked argued that sweatshops aliveate poverty, but trading with them would also disadvantage anyone trying to build shops with more ethical, but less cost efficient wages.
Saying that embargoing those that abuse the working class is a 'dick move' implies that we are moraly accountable for the effect of not trading with them, but presumably we would then move trade to enterprises more in tune with our moral principles, and so trading with unethical actors is the same as denying ethical actors buisness, regardles of any positive effect the sweatshop has on the local community.
I'm not saying embargos on nations are a good idea, but the logic in that particular argument dosen't add up for me.

This is why we need to kill capitalist

It's a set of guidelines that people wouldn't follow because they have no incentive to. The only incentive is if you threaten them with violence if they don't.

In a anarcho-capitalist society, if there is a recession and you loose your job you will not be able to buy food or drink water and you will die. Especially with automation entire sectors will become useless, and not only that but we will literally have to compete with sweatshops overseas since there is no protectionist laws. Your ideology is a mess.

nothing wrong with defending yourself against defending yourself. you want murder to be legal because property is magic
property is a direct contradiction of NAP
also

I know it's a joke

just wait for the sweatshops to be replaced
india is fucked

defending yourself against propertarians*

What do you mean?

india's economic future is in it's huge cheap labor reserve
the world has at least 20 percent overcapacity, because of lack in demand
automation is going to make all that cheap labor useless potentially in the near future
signs aren't good for india

Gommunism in India? Maybe the third wordlists were right……

Google Naxalites.

Did some thinking and this is something that matches me better by the way this is the original poster

This is me at my least sinnery

...

oops no sage

that pretty much sums up fascism anyway

Ok but my money is on me