The Student Room Group

Where do you fall on the political compass?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Hydeman
Don't judge. :sad: :getmecoat:

Spoiler



I would never. :teeth:

... sorry, I couldn't find a shaking-head-with-consoling-smile emoji. :biggrin:
Original post by Rk2k14

Good or bad lel?


You are what you are Rk. It's not good or bad it's just what you think. What you think can be expressed in good or bad ways but that's where morals and humanity come into the equation.
Original post by EtherealNymph22
You are what you are Rk. It's not good or bad it's just what you think. What you think can be expressed in good or bad ways but that's where morals and humanity come into the equation.


Not into politics so have no idea what it means. :biggrin:

Same section as Stalin, so must mean I'm a ballsy person.
Original post by Rk2k14
Not into politics so have no idea what it means. :biggrin:

Same section as Stalin, so must mean I'm a ballsy person.


Being in the same quadrant (that terminology tho the bear) as Stalin doesn't mean you're the same as Stalin. It's a spectrum. In terms of economics you are more left wing and I guess the position on vertical being close to the X axis Means that you support government control but not so far as to live in an autocracy.
(edited 8 years ago)
compass.JPG
Dunno what to make of this.

I honestly think that I am a bit more authoritarian than the test says.
Needs more diverse questions
Lefty Libertarian (Economic Left/Right: -5.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95) and I agreed most with SNP (side with them on 96%, Labour close behind on 94%) on http://uk.isidewith.com/ for the 2015 election (thanks to whoever it was with that in their signature). I thought I might have been more left wing actually on the compass.
Original post by longshot100

I honestly think that I am a bit more authoritarian than the test says.
Needs more diverse questions


Your underlying ideology does not have to align with your realistic opinions on how the world should work/countries should be run. A disparity between the two perhaps represents some realism and experience.
Original post by Zargabaath
Nothing too surprising

polcompass.png


am i a bad person?

Original post by bengali baba
am i a bad person?



wow molvi your phd from lse has not come in handy i see
Original post by bengali baba
am i a bad person?



[EDGY WARNING]

Spoiler

Original post by EtherealNymph22
Your underlying ideology does not have to align with your realistic opinions on how the world should work/countries should be run. A disparity between the two perhaps represents some realism and experience.


Makes sense. This test is made to measure my realistic opinion, as you said
Original post by bengali baba
am i a bad person?



...
It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you
Original post by somemightsay888
wow molvi your phd from lse has not come in handy i see

baba needs authority with kALa jAdU
Original post by Zargabaath
[EDGY WARNING]

Spoiler



#throwback



missed this fam
chart.png

EDIT: Can someone please explain left,right, authoritarian, libertarian?
(edited 8 years ago)
Your Political CompassEconomic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.87
Original post by Rakas21
The activists that bring about revolution may well value freedom but they are generally a small segment of the population. It's largely unimportant what a million people protesting think if the other 50 million will vote for nutters. That's basically what happened with Egypt.


That's true but it will always be a minority at the beginning of a revolution. Then as it gets more support it avalanches into visible change. I think an issue also lies with the fact that people are scared to voice their views if they lie with Arab Spring type mentality because yknow- the small matter of jail, expulsion, and even death for voicing something against the tyrants/theocrats.

Truthfully it's hard to say. In an ideal world the USA and Europe would occupy the nation for several decades and bring about a new generation of peoples who believe in our values but we lack the resolve to do that these days and it's somewhat imperialistic even if benevolent. Realistically i think what is going to happen is that we'll have multiple small and divided ISIS like groups which eventually get put down before another pops up. The big danger is that the isolationists win and the west pulls out of the region because if that happens then one of these groups will spread like a plague and develop a moderately functional state.. a few years later we find a massive terrorist attack was sponsored by them (like how Gadaffi sponsored the bombing of a plane in the UK).. after that, the danger is that the people in the west lose patience.. if that happens, there will be a war against Islam!


I don't think that would be an ideal world. The whole world doesn't need to pander to the West's idea of civilisation especially given that it is so fraught with problems itself. Just because it came first in terms of democratic progression it doesn't mean the model is right. I think it would be bad to go and take over and try to 'make them like us' because I think there will be mass rebellion on the entire spectrum of most people living in the arab world and they wouldn't acquiesce to western authority quite so simply. I think that would probably be a recipe for disaster. We have to work with them to reach a solution which allows them to live in a system that promotes their core values but not at the risk of global or regional meltdown. What about how the UAE currently looks? It's not like they aren't prospering and sharia is still in place. Of course there is room for improvement but it's further ahead than Syria right now.

The Arab Spring is progress and i'd prefer democracy to dictators but it's still expressing significant differences between our two peoples and will cause further tension.

Terrorism primarily spawns in states which lack law and order. In Libya we saw that Gadaffi was prepared to wipe out what he saw as terrorists while the country fell into anarchy once the government formed afterward was found to lack authority. Destroying terrorism requires strong governance which does not exist in many Arab states.

ISIS is the bigger danger, your correct.


Destroying terrorism requires destruction of the tyrants which is why the Arab Spring is necessary in the interim before we go in without any cultural sensitivity and tell them what to do. That's why I believe the AS is the best solution.

The fact we are banging on about ISIS so much in the west and ignoring the real problem (Assad's regime) which creates the conditions for terrorism to evolve in is hypocritical.

Going back to Russia, their endorsement of Bashar is ludicrous and their bombs aren't even hitting ISIS, they're getting the rebels. Terrorism will be exacerbated if the West intervene too hastily or too insensitively.

P.s thank you for your view points and discussion. Giving me food for thought.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PharaohFromSpace
chart.png

EDIT: Can someone please explain left,right, authoritarian, libertarian?


Left: :sheep:+:loony:+:lazy:+:dice:+:blah:+:elmo:+:fisheye:

Right: :security:+:nopity:+:proud:+:thumbsup:+:shakecane:

Libertarian: :bong:+:hump:

Authoritarian: :whip:+:spank:
Original post by the bear
Left: :sheep:+:loony:+:lazy:+:dice:+:blah:+:elmo:+:fisheye:

Right: :security:+:nopity:+:proud:+:thumbsup:+:shakecane:

Libertarian: :bong:+:hump:

Authoritarian: :whip:+:spank:


This has swung my vote for some of the TSR awards :lol:

especially love :bong:

Quick Reply

Latest