where does /lgbt/ stand on the political compass
>>5817343
Authoritarian left I guess, but not in a tumblr way
Last time I took that, I was lib/left. Closer to the bottom corner than the center. It wasn't too long ago, but I did take it on the fly and without too much research/deliberation on each question, so that might not be totally accurate.
around there more or less,,did the test but not saved my results
Just another faggot in faggot corner.
cba to do it again, but I'm way down in the left, almost touching the corner.
>>5817343
near the lower left corner.
I always end up in the middle.
But is deporting all illegal immigrants really a thing centrist scum would say?
>>5817670
Possibly yeah. One side wants open borders, the other wants high walls. Allowing immigrants, but enforcing standards is pretty much the middle these days.
I'm not sure of all my views yet, life's very complicated.
I just want to be good but idk how.
>>5817719
tbqh sounds like you need to hit up more books and experience life familam
getting caught up in labels and charts before just ends up in disaster, better to stay labelless
>>5817343
Very tip of the bottom left corner. Communism is best.
>>5817343
Bi UK here
>>5817749
thats not where communism is
>>5817788
Depends what you're thinking of when you say communism. Anarchism tends to be communism.
>>5817814
lmao
>muh anarcho communism
>>5817730
I'm pretty well read to be honest, but yeah, I don't really have any life experience. It's okay though, I'll just try my best to be kind and open minded and slowly I'll learn!
>>5817343
>>5817343
I'm at (-9.5 , 3), which puts me in the authoritative far left.
Liberalism is an error, and I'm glad we're so close to seeing its demise.
>>5817788
Okay bud
>>5817916
spotted the dummy
>>5817343
link to site desu, i'm a dumb fag.
>>5817459
Interesting, but what's it matter if we're not taking steps to make it?
>>5818078
Let's hate fuck
>>5817343
I expected a lot more centrist/right, oh well.
>all this lower left
Literal pleb tier. High Center-left is based
this test is bourgeois af
>>5817343
Sorry, I'm not coloring this.
Boy, we're all over the place. Ironically, 90% of /r9k/ usually ends up in the green quadrant.
Middle of blue
>>5818459
Filthy bourgies git out
/leftgreencorner/ masterrace reporting in
Leftist degenerates plz leave
>>5818783
Muh nigga
wow... I didn't know my views were that far down there.
>>5819247
Fuck da gobamin, man.
You're probably a cool dude, that's about where I scale on that test, not gonna take it again as I've taken it like 20 times
Bi tranny here.
>>5819336
Pretty good.
Just your genuine Jewish homosexual here
>>5817343
>>5819558
>gay
>jewish
>right libertarian
was i cloned at an early age or something?
>>5819336
Where can I make this one?
>>5819609
it broke a while ago :(
Friendly reminder
>>5819558
cis middle eastern bisexual male reporting in
>>5819558
Whoops my file didn't upload, a second time:
cis bi middle eastern right libertarian report in
I took this one: https://www.politicalcompass.org
God I hate some of the questions on there.
>>5819635
duuuuuude weeed lmaooooo!
>>5819664
>middle eastern
...whiat kind?
>>5819665
>dude weed lmao
>>5819588
Maybe, but only if you hold both American and Canadian citizenship ;)
Eh, I expected something similar to what I got.
took this test instead
>>5819755
I got clinton, I may as well kill myself
>>5819718
separated at birth then, f a m
>>5820869
You're stuck now baby
>>5820900
great, see ya
>>5819588
>right libertarian
The quadrants don't represent such broad political positions. Each intersecting point on the grid almost represents a completely different ideology. The one in that post for instance is more along the lines of anarchism or individualism. The issue of economic rights may not even apply to those ideologies because they may not involve any sense of an organized society. What would an anarchist have to say about fiscal responsibility?
>>5817459
>Just another faggot in faggot corner.
Ayee
>>5820900
>people have a different political ideology than me
>literal children omg i'm leaving
i think it is you who is the child
>>5821031
Let me in the club too!
>>5817343
>>5821084
My isidewith on presidents
>>5821135
And on party
>>5819336
Link pls
>>5820984
>would an anarchist have to say about fiscal responsibility?
its on the individual
>>5820984
A lot of those terms mean exactly the same thing. Most of their positions on the graph are completely arbitrary too.
I feel like I should be farther right by now.
>>5817343
This graphic is retarded.
You have to measure every issue you care about on 2 scales and then give it weight based on the general consensus about their x,y coordinate gradient. Some people can land on the same spot while having completely different political value systems.
>>5820900
>tfw/pol/ is teaching youth that it's okay to make safe spaces as long as you yell degeneracy lots
Well goodbye then.
Gays should be able to marry, even though marriage is just one huge scam
Illegal immigrants should be shot on sight
I'm not American, but I want Trump to win purely because he's not Hillary Clinton
>>5821744
Any graphical way of showing your political alignment is fairly useless because politics aren't simple.
these are mostly an approximation of where people stand
>>5825117
Government should stay out of marriage and we should adopt an open border policy.
Where do I fall on the political spectrum if, by the second page of questions, most of my answers just boil down to "I don't have the qualifications to say" and I can't answer anything anymore?
>>5819558
>right Jewish libertarian
RARE
A
R
E
>>5826194
Retard
>>5826143
>and we should adopt an open border policy.
Sweden pls go and stay go
>>5826880
I am not Sweden, I am American.
The welfare state would of course be ended before opening the borders. Anyone can come across the border freely, but they will have to pay to get here and pay for their own place to live and their food. The government wouldn't pay a cent.
That's freedom my friend.
I think I should be more to the right...
>>5826890
the welfare state is not going to be ended anytime soon
meaning that functionally you aren't for open borders i hope
>>5830115
I am for stopping taxation, and the programs that come with it, then adopting an open border policy.
![chart[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/0QBnYA8.png "chart[1].png")
Most notable thing is the perfect liberty/authority balance.
seems about right for me.
>>5830194
but its not going to happen so i think we have to BUILD WALL
>>5830931
Because bootlickers like you are content with things now.
I'm at coordinates -1, -2 if each square is a unit
So right at the center.
I used to be somewhere around, I'd guess, -3, -5.
Every time I meet a conservative, I like them as a person more, and a liberal, less. What's happening to me?
>>5831040
no, i advocate for both but i know that dismantling the state is a far taller order than just stopping the welfarian immigration. We can sort that shit out later
>>5832127
Building a wall won't help.
It's horrible how people to the right are seriously supporting a wall. If Reagan were here today he'd be arguing to take down that wall.
>>5831229
Getting older.
Happens to everyone. Age brings cynicism.
>>5819635
What a dumb faggot
>>5832194
sure it'll help
and fuck reagan
let's talk about how shit the country is and how our elections are so fucked. Also how the gov has no place in personal matters
>>5833768
Right, because you know, they can't just dig under or anything. And it's not like studies show that we actually don't have Mexicans coming here illegally, they are actually leaving because this country is going to shit.
And Reagan is one of the greatest presidents.
how about we argue how SJWs are authoritarian like Hitler? free speech 4 lyf.
it sucks being super libertarian/left and having to argue with "liberals" still
isidewith
>>5833818
disgusting.
>hi I'm gay and I hate myself and don't want gays to get married
>in fact, I hate all social advancement for things that shouldn't even be an issue
>baby killers should be euthanized
that's you
>>5833826
Not him, but I don't think gays should marry either. Marriage shouldn't be a state issue, it should be a religious issue.
And while I think abortion should be legal, I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking it should be illegal. If you view it as life starts in the womb, than abortion is murder so it obviously shouldn't be legal.
>>5833826
>not siding with the two closeted homosexuals in the GOP
>>5833834
Go back to the stone age.
I'll quote something that's in the Holy Texts of this nation that people like you adore so much:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Nothing is or should be a religious issue in this country. People should be free to do what they want with their persons and the government has no say, and if people want to get married, that's none of your goddamn business.
>>5833847
Except marriage is a religious concept and having state sanctioned marriage IS the government making laws on marriage.
Back when they wrote that marriage was a religious issue, and it should be now. Having state marriage is an overreach of government. It is also pointless, if you want to claim to be married then do so, you don't need a slip of paper from the government saying it's true.
>>5833858
Marriage is no longer just a religious concept anymore. If someone wants to get married, whether religious or not, again, it's none of your fucking business. I don't understand how difficult this is to comprehend.
Religion has no place in any thought process of any piece of legislation and if it is, then that political candidate should immediately be withdrawn, for a breach of making a law respecting or prohibiting a religion.
and you do need a slip of paper saying you're married, otherwise you cannot receive any sort of marriage benefits, i.e. healthcare, hospital visitation, tax purposed, and other basic human rights.
Make your own conservative nation that Anders Breivik wished for.
>>5833877
How dense are you? Getting marriage out of government is literally getting religion out of our laws. If church's want to allow gay marriage (yes, there are LGBT churches) I don't care, but government has zero business in marriage.
Healthcare companies should not be forced to allow people on your plans, married or not, it is their decision.
You can visit someone in the hospital without being married.
Taxes should be eliminated.
Not being married does not take away any human rights from you.
>>5833895
About to go to bed so bullet points
>can't have a country without taxes, and it's in the constitution that you love so much that Congress can tax
>if a family member of the hospitalized doesn't want their "husband" to visit, they can enforce that if they aren't married.
>healthcare shouldn't even be an issue, everyone should have access to at least basic medical
>marriage isn't a religious concept anymore, and again, government should have no say whether you can get married or not. your religion may, but if you wanna go to a courthouse and do it, who gives a fuck.
and since this is 4chan and not irl where tact matters
>go fuck yourself
>>5833923
The ammendment to pay taxes was illegally added long after the founding fathers were dead. The founding fathers did not believe in taxes. And I like how you just assume I worship the constitution and agree with everything it says. Taxes are theft and should be stopped immediately.
I do not believe it should be that way, but if that's the hospitals policy that's how it is.
Healthcare and health insurance is not a right. You want insurance? Stop being a lazy entitled twat and work for it.
Government getting involved is having a say. Government should stay out. There shouldn't be any state benefits anyway. If you want to say you're married, that's fine. But it shouldn't go through the government. It isn't a matter of caring who gets married, it's a matter of limiting governed power and getting them out of our lives.
Cis gay male here
I've always liked isidewith more
>>5833937
lol it's not an amendment
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" - original constitution, therefore the founding fathers did believe in taxation. that was one of the issues with the Articles of Confederation. Did you even study American History or Government?
And therefore passing an amendment for income tax was completely within their Constitutional right. And a Court hasn't struck it down
>2/3 house and senate, 3/4 states
muh representation
>>5833973
I was talking about the income tax amendment, and it was illegally added because it wasn't properly ratified. They didn't actually get enough states, some states that agreed didn't really agree, they lied. And some states that agreed could not legally do so because of their state constitution. And this has been brought to court a few times but they always just sweep it under the rug.
>>5833984
link the proof, and if it's on some biased site I won't believe you, so keep that in mind
>>5833987
>and if it's on some biased site I won't believe you
Translation: "I won't accept any site the I don't personally read and contradicts my beliefs"
Why even bother wasting my time?
>>5833994
Nigga, I know you know what I mean
>muh fox
>muh neocon.com
>muh non-peer reviewed sites
so fuck off
therefore they did get the 3/4 vote. Do you even know how to argue?
>>5834002
Yes, I know how to debate.
And you don't start by saying you will dismiss anything that you do not agree with.
>>5834007
No, it's because I know how this works. You would've linked some random site that any random Tom, Dick, and Harry could have edited. Fuck, I could make a random site and say anything I goddamn want.
Do you trust everything on the internet?
I'd even fucking accept a wikipedia link, so please, I'm still waiting on your fucking proof.
>>5834002
http://givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm
>inb4 dismissed
This is really irrelevant anyway. You're choosing to focus on just this issue and ignoring everything else. You're only choosing to nitpick on this issue to distract from my other arguments.
I already pointed out that you are wrong in assuming I worship the constitution and agree with everything in it. I said tax is theft originally, that has nothing to do with the constitution, and I do not need the constitution to back that it's wrong to steal from people.
>>5834017
you didn't respond to my last arguments besides the taxation issue, therefore I'm sticking to it. I gave you the opportunity to enlighten me on the issue whether it was legal to pass the amendment or not
and that site is exactly the kind of site that isn't to be trusted. Try writing a research paper using that as a source, bro.
>no sources
>just some text
hi, I killed MLK everyone
>>5834023
Feel free to further research the issue on you own.
And I have responded to all your arguments.
>>5834030
in an argument, YOU are supposed to prove me wrong or provide proof for your argument.
and yes you have, we are pretty much at an impasse with everything else as it's just an opinion thing "lol I'm for x" "well I'm for y!"
>>5834036
I don't really care enough.
Yeah, that's what this has been. US arguing our opinions.
>>5834048
meaning that you have lost the taxation argument
>>5834064
My taxation argument was never based on the constitution, YOU brought the constitution into this when you made assumptions and used them as an argument. Taxation is wrong because it is theft, that is a fact, not an opinion.
If I were to come up and point a gun at you, say I am going to take a percentage out of every paycheck you get, and if you don't comply I will break into your home and lock you in a cage, you wouldn't be okay with that. I'd be labeled a criminal and you'd have me arrested. If I did it on a mass scale, I'd be a monster and the country would want my head.
Taxation is the exact same thing, but because it's done by the government, you're will to comply and continue taking uncle Sam's dick.
I just want everyone to get along for fuck sakes.
Straight white cis male here
>queer
>anything other than left
it's like you don't even WANT to be able to marry
>>5838436
4% of gay men and 6% of lesbians are married according to pew
statistically you don't
additionally government shouldn't be in the business of marriage
>>5839052
government shouldnt be in anything at all, bud
>>5839133
i agree with that, but
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/
Bisexual male here. Libertarian (classic liberal).
The only recent compass test I had was this one with my mate's standings as well. I'm the black dot.
>>5839388
That article makes a lot of sense. I was impartial on the subject, but now I really think that gay people shouldn't get married. They should definitely be allowed to, but they shouldn't.
>>5839422
pleasantly surprised you read it
raimondo is a smart dude, founder of antiwar.com
>>5839388
Why is libertarianism so shitty? Yeah, that article makes perfect sense from a libertarian stand point, but if you're even slightly conservative socially it's terrible.
This poll is shit. Had to disagree with statements like
>Would you rather X or Y?
since X and Y were not opposites, which I assume means it treated me as wanting Y.
Whatever, at least I'm in the only reasonable quadrant.
>>5839458
Shit, Gay male.
>>5839445
>social conservatism:
>people are bad so we'll get those bad people to force bad people to be good, somehow
unsustainable
>cultural conservatism:
>being good people leads to better outcomes so people WILL be good when forced to compete against eachother
sustainable
besides, if you have to be forced to not be a degenerate you're still a fucking degenerate
>>5839412
I forgot. Gay leaning bisexual male
>>5839464
morals are such a sham
>>5839475
left libertarians need to be physically removed, so to speak
>>5839422
>>5839431
I read the article until I got to the following statements, one right after another, neither of which true:
>That’s because they [the liberal establishment] have never explained—and never could explain—why it would make sense for gays to entangle themselves in a regulatory web and risk getting into legal disputes over divorce, alimony, and the division of property.
>Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being
I then skimmed the rest, and found that it just continued to have very little facts and very many opinions - the only facts are about the history of marriage, but then he uses these facts to justify claims (like "childless marriage has no purpose") which just don't clearly follow. What, exactly, is supposed to be "smart" about this article?
I agree, at best, with his criticism of the lobbying power of homosexual groups. But that's just inevitable with how our government works.
>>5839482
care to say why either of these statements are false?
>>5839487
Sure thing.
>The liberal establishment have never explained why it makes sense for gay marriage
Two reasons off the top of my head: (1) gay couples that marry often enter a more favorable tax bracket, and (2) marriage indicates a kind of "settling down" that family members might respect, it is seen as a sign of maturity. Both of these valid points have been made, at least in the media, and the media is part of "the liberal establishment."
>Marriage evolved ... without them, it loses its reason for being.
The statement about how marriage evolved is true, but the points I made above show that it still has a reason for being, even if that reason is a new one.
I think an argument against marriage in general is easier to make than one that advocates marriage but only among straight couples.
Ha take this
>>5839523
tfw no one realizes that we need to control economy and culture
tfw no bf to read Evola and Strasser with
>>5839505
this isn't my opinion, but I'll reply with the typical "Libertarian" argument
>taxes are illegal!!!!!
>marriage is a religious concept only!!! it doesn't matter if it's a social concept!!!!
>>5839551
I always imagine the SJWs as authoritarian as well, with wanting to control free speech and the likes, so you guys could have plenty to talk about
>>5839556
Were this actually someones argument, it's not hard to counter:
Even if that's the case, you'll need to change the law to remove taxation and the legal dimension of marriage _before_ barring gay marriage; to bar gay marriage while it still has a legal dimension and has tax implications is nothing short of discrimination.
>>5839558
>two completely opposed groups hold similar views on one random thing
>OMG they're totally the same!!!
>>5839562
but it is someone's argument. Just look at one of the previous arguments in this thread
>>5839569
Anon, you can always find people that think a certain way / will make a certain argument. It's way echo-chamber internet communities always feel populated, regardless of anything that would be against them.
Don't let it get you down, vibrant and diversed opinions should be encouraged, etc, such and such.
>>5839578
yes, but not opinions based on lies. Like I run into the tax argument all the time. Libertarians are always saying taxes are illegal, yet I always direct them towards the Constitution and they still say it's illegal. How can you argue with someone retarded? Like even whether you're for or against taxes, you should at least objectively agree that Congress has the right to levy taxes
>>5839581
You lack empathy for these people. They have stockholm syndrome with their own upbringing - their opinions are based on at least some contradiction, but it would be too painful for them to spurn their family and tear down everything they believe in.
Best to slowly coax them to mesh something based on truth with their current beliefs, this is how bipartisan politics can work.
In this case, if they say taxes are illegal, fine, there is probably some way to do away with taxes and still be compliant with the constitution (I.e. reducing taxes gradually to the point that they are basically negligible would accomplish this.) You just have to be creative with understanding what they _actually_ want, removing taxes is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
>>5839581
I never said congress does not have the right to levy taxes, I said it's wrong.
I never said taxation is illegal, I said it's theft.
I never said it isn't constitutional, I said the income tax was illegally added and the founding fathers were against it (if they supposedly weren't, why did it take over 100 years to add?)
My argument against taxation never involved the constitution, it was a moral argument over how such theft should not he allowed to go on just because it's the government, and taxes break the NAP.
Stop misrepresenting me, faggot.
>>5839586
My family is pretty much all republicans, except for my parents. My dad is apathetic to politics, and my mom is more moderate. My beliefs are way more extreme than my family, almost all the political beliefs contradict mine.
And studies show that we could function just fine with just a sales tax, and people would actually spend more (thus stimulating the economy and bring in more sales tax) if they had the extra money that gets stolen from their paycheck. I would be more than willing to compromise on that, even a higher sales tax than now, as would a lot of libertarians.
>>5839594
Sounds reasonable enough. I didn't mean to imply that the stockholm syndrome bit applied to you or anyone in this thread, just that it happens often and in those cases how to deal with it.
>>5839594
My issue with only having a sales tax is that it gives no way for the government to combat the growing inability of the poor and middle class to climb the social ladder. Say that the number of people below the poverty line is growing, then the government would like to address this issue by expanding education programs. They can't, without increasing sales tax in your system - which will throw more people below the poverty line, which isn't an acceptable solution in the short term. Increasing corporate gains taxes in this case to pay for the new programs would be justified.
You're taking away the ability of the government to solve social problems by adjusting tax rates by restricting to a specific, simple, tax rate. Sure, it might result in a strong economy, but if quality of life sucks who wants that.
>>5839597
Just responding to that because my argument above got brought up.
I'd also like to point out on the marriage issue, my stance was getting married out of marriage. Get rid of marriage benefits, and end state marriage for everyone, not just gays. Being married would just be religious, or something people can say they are. He/she makes it sound like I was arguing to just make it harder for gays and would be discriminatory, but that is false. It is widely agreed upon libertarians that the benefits would be the first to go, because a government for the people cannot discriminate against the people. We are generally not as crazy as people like to make us out to be.
>>5839388
>being right-wing libturd
>above the age of 14
>>5839607
You can thank the lack of a proper free market for that. It's the crony capitalism that causes such a large gap. All these regulations and insanely high taxes on business are preventing competition. In reality the corporation like the regulations, because they can afford them while using loopholes to avoid those taxes. Small businesses though can't afford all those regulations, and don't have the means to avoid those high taxes, that stops new businesses from entering the market and allows a select few to get to the top while the gap between middle class and upper class continues to grow.
We fix this by getting rid of all the useless regulations, lower business tax and close the loopholes. This allows more competition on the market, which results in more jobs, lower prices and better quality along with the income gap shrinking. Free up the market, and stop favoring the rich and letting them get away with whatever and the wealth will naturally spread out on its own.
>>5817343
center mostly
>>5839638
Improving competition will help out the poor, no controversy there. But why can't we have both a competitive market and allow the government to use business taxes as a knob to relieve pressure on the poor? You seem to imply any level of business tax will make small businesses impossible but there has to be some level that even small businesses can afford. Also, the owners and employees of small businesses and startups benefit from the programs that the business taxes fund, which helps them, possibly as much as reducing the business tax would.
Really, I don't see why things have to be in absolutes "Completely get rid of regulations! Completely get rid of taxes!" There is a middle ground based on tradeoffs and careful calculations.
>>5839651
I don't believe just no business tax, I believe in a scaling tax based on business size and profits. Right now it's a flat tax, so this would be a bit more complicated and harder to implement, but I believe it would be fairer. The only tax I think should be 100 percent abolished is the income tax, I do not think it's right for the government to dip their hands into the money you worked hard for.
>>5839638
Closing tax loopholes is an underrated opinion. In fact, however, there is often public pushback on closing tax loopholes so this has to be done carefully and slowly. The recent decision involved Swiss bank accounts and the need of US govt to access information about those accounts to find out the flow of money so taxes could be accurately assessed (I think.) Switzerland claimed this was impossible, so the situation we had was US citizens had to pull money out of their Swiss accounts. This was unpopular enough that it slowed down the progress of closing tax loopholes as a whole, I believe. Progress here will just be slow, but hopefully there will be progress.
>>5839664
Fair enough. I'm not sure that doing away with income tax would really do that much in practice. A company right now will set incomes so that its employees get a living wage even after income tax is subtracted, so the income tax acts in that sense indirectly as a business tax, no? The issue is that if you change income taxes, companies may not adjust employee pay, so income tax probably shouldn't change.
>>5839672
Income tax for me is a moral issue. It's stealing and thus breaks the NAP. A libertarian society would have its laws based around the NAP (non-agression principle).
bisex
I think I've moved slightly up and to the left since last time.
also hello
>>5821084
>>5839458
>>5829910
There are probably a lot of different ways to reach the same spot on the chart though, I honestly don't think these things mean too much.
>>5839723
Sup my nigga
>>5821031
So close
gay ftm, your average liberal scum
