On-line Test of Fascist Tendencies
Duke of URL
Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
in the outcome
--
The One-and-only Holy MosesT
Chad Irby
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> in the outcome
It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
J.B. Moreno
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> in the outcome
Hey, those people that call me a liberal apparently have it right -- it
says I'm a liberal airhead.
Of course, this might be because the questions are mainly too
sweeping....
2, I say breeding is bunk, so anything that includes "person who has bad
...breeding" I'll strongly disagree with. OTOH, I think "manners" (in
the "treat others with respect" way) is part of being "decent, so if
they'd dropped that, my answer would have been a bit more on the nazi
side.
4, what were they thinking? Business men and manufacturers types in
todays world are heavily tied into and reliant upon the artist and
professor types. I'd like to see Ford just try going back to the Model
T.
7, "ought to get over them"? Doesn't that depend upon what exactly the
rebellious idea is?
8, Country needs devoted leaders, ha. What it needs is for some of the
corrupt leaders to be lynched for breaking the laws...
9, are they crazy? If you don't occasionally think of hurting those
close to you, then you're probably comatose.
10, learn through suffering? Not unless you want to count effort and
time spent as suffering, which I don't.
11, they just had to include "strict discipline" -- I like discipline,
but it should be used in moderation...
Well, looks like most of the questions just had something wrong with
them as far as I was concerned...so, I marked "strongly disagree".
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
> > http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> > Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> > in the outcome
>
> Hey, those people that call me a liberal apparently have it right -- it
> says I'm a liberal airhead.
Me too.
Personally, I found the following juxtaposition amusing:
[13] Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more
than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped,
or worse.
[14] There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel
a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents.
--KG
Sw...@nospam.com
wrote:
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>in the outcome
Well, it seems that I'm just another liberal airhead. No doubt that
would surprise some of the people that I argue with on the net:)
This one question I just don't get:
"Some people are born with an urge to jump from high places."
The others I could mostly follow but this one is from way out in left
field. I don't get it. What is this question trying to get at?
Swyck
Carl Dershem
@corp.supernews.com:
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
I scored a 2.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Bill Snyder
Some strange equivalent of "Hey, the bitch wanted it," possibly? If
people crave destruction, you're just doing them a favor by destroying
them?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
J.B. Moreno
Apparently, believing that someone was born with an urge to jump from
high places is the same as believing they were born and destined to be
school principals or presidents.
Chuck Bridgeland
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> in the outcome
"Urge to jump from high places"
Huh?
(3.3)
--
"like a Rattus norvegicus in a hive of naked mole rats."
Chuck Bridgeland, chuckbri at computerdyn dot com
http://www.essex1.com/people/chuckbri
Chuck Bridgeland
> Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>> in the outcome
>
> Hey, those people that call me a liberal apparently have it right -- it
> says I'm a liberal airhead.
>
> todays world are heavily tied into and reliant upon the artist and
> professor types. I'd like to see Ford just try going back to the Model
> T.
Ahhhrr-tists and academics are more important than the folks who actually
grow the food and make the stuff? Let them go on strike, and see who blinks.
Bah! I sentence you to re-read _Atlas Shrugged_ a couple times.
(Big smiley, of course, as I unleash the great Thread Eating Meme.)
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>in the outcome
I find it almost impossible to not cheat. Take this one, for example:
Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than
mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or
worse.
Ok, I agree that sex crimes deserve more than mere imprisonment, since
I don't think that actually solves the problem. On the other hand,
publicly whipping them doesn't solve the problem, either. So I
strongly agree with the first half, and strongly disagree with the
second half. If I don't want to fake an answer, what exactly should I
put?
Rebecca
David Johnston
>Ok, I agree that sex crimes deserve more than mere imprisonment, since
>I don't think that actually solves the problem. On the other hand,
>publicly whipping them doesn't solve the problem, either. So I
>strongly agree with the first half, and strongly disagree with the
>second half. If I don't want to fake an answer, what exactly should I
>put?
Disagree with part, disagree with all. Unless you think that they
should be executed, since that probably qualifies as worse than
whipping.
J.B. Moreno
The only thing to do, is to focus on the "or worse" part, as "publicly
whipped" is a fairly light punishment for rape -- really, it's hardly
any punishment at all. Anything that lets them out and about 2-3 months
later to do it again hardly even counts as a slap on the wrist in my
book, even if it's done with a cat-o-nine-tails and draws blood.
If you do that, then the answer is clear -- strongly agree.
(If I change that, and my answer to the jumping question, I become a
whining rotter)
Also, I think my answers 26 and 27 cancel each other out...but really, I
don't see how anyone could answer either question differently (unless
you take 26 *really* literally, and say that the human race isn't
"always" going to be around).
William December Starr
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> said:
> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be
> interested in the outcome
I got as far as statement number two:
[2] A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly
expect to get along with decent people.
and was stuck because it combined three different issues -- manners,
habits, breeding -- into a question that demanded a single answer.
So I quit there.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Per C. Jorgensen
> In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
> > http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> > Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> > in the outcome
>
> It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
> has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
I got a 3:
"You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American."
And I'm not even American...
Of course (as with all such tests) sometimes my preferred
answer would have been "I do not accept that question, next
please"...
-- PCJ
Andy Shepard
> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> in the outcome
Woohoo! I'm a whining rotter!
--
Andy Shepard
<andy+...@andyshepard.org>
GAT d+ s-:- a20 C++++ ULI++++ P+ L+++ E W-(--) N++ o? K w--- O? M-- V PS+++
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@* 5+++ X R tv-- b++(+++) DI+ D+(++) G+++ e++ h+ r++ y+**
Pete McCutchen
>In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>> in the outcome
>
>It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
called before, actually.
--
Pete McCutchen
Charlie Stross
as <der...@cox.net> declared:
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in news:10j7eqrf8er5464
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>
> I scored a 2.
Damn, that means either I'm growing old or I'm a brownshirt! (I scored
2.33. Mind you, the average for a random population of 1950's Americans
was about 3.8, while serious fascism doesn't kick in until 5.5 or
thereabouts, so ...)
-- Charlie
Helgi Briem
>In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>> in the outcome
>
>It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
I am, like you, a liberal airhead.
And proud of it.
--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is
Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!
Chad Irby
p.c.jo...@east-stud.uio.no (Per C. Jorgensen) wrote:
> I got a 3:
> "You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American."
>
> And I'm not even American...
>
> Of course (as with all such tests) sometimes my preferred
> answer would have been "I do not accept that question, next
> please"...
If you're looking for a bunch of folks who went the fascist road, the
answer should be "a true Italian."
Peter Meilinger
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:17 -0500 in <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>> in the outcome
>Woohoo! I'm a whining rotter!
Right there with ya. God knows what I'd be if I hadn't agreed
somewhat with a few of the less ridiculous statements.
Actually, hold on...
Okay, apparently I'm the bottom of the barrel already. Answering
disagree strongly for every single question still leaves me a
whining rotter.
Pete
Pete McCutchen
Well, I said to whip away, and I still ended up being a "liberal
airhead."
--
Pete McCutchen
loki
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ch1d6d$6pt$1...@panix1.panix.com...
Me too. It just didn't make sense. I'd say it was more telling on the
author's bias's that he/she/they would consider those three attributes
linked.
There is another around that does a similar thing to determine one's
political compass on two axes: left/right and authoritarian/libertarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
One of the questions involved astrology. Another about whether or not one
believed in luck. Yet another asked vaguely; 'are taxes too high for the
rich?' without defining 'too high' nor 'rich'; nor even considering that
people answering would be under varying tax regimes.
Someone defended by saying it is a statistical tool. It's not that belief
in luck or astrology causes one to believe or not in a certain fashion. But
that enough people who do believe in X also believe in Y. It's correlational
not causal.
The same would apply to the 'jumping off high buildings' question I guess.
People who answer yes to that
tend to lean one way on fascism. While those who answer no lean the other
way.
--
'Sell your sin
Just cash in' -jewell
Charlie Stross
>>It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>>has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>
> Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
> called before, actually.
I think it's a function of anti-authoritarianism and antipathy to
genetic determinism and romantic elitism: economic opinions barely get a
look-in. Another way of putting it -- if you're standing far enough away
to one side of the mainstream, libertarians and liberal socialists look
identical.
-- Charlie (another liberal airhead) Stross
MJ Stoddard
news:RP6dnY-nt6K...@giganews.com:
>
> Huh?
I figured it meant parachutists, and maybe rock climbers (who don't jump,
but like the feeling of being high.) Uh - did I miss something? JALA
(just another liberal airhead)
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
Welcome to the club. At 2.1 I am a liberal airhead though
I almost made whining rotter.
Now I'm trying to wrack my brains thinking of something
you, I have agreed on in this group over the past few years.
Other than a liking for the fiction of Poul Anderson,
not much.
The problem, I suspect, is that the test makes the
implicit claim "anti-facist = liberal". Plus it
regards not being superstitious as inherently a
liberal trait.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Michael Stemper
That's amusing. I hope that there's still room left on the "liberal airhead"
bench for me?
I tried not answering the questions that seemed to be gibberish, but it
wouldn't let me. I got a popup saying "try answering questions x, y, and z".
Unfortunately, there wasn't a button for "I *did* try."
What is it with jumping from high places anyway? Is this about skydiving
or suicide?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.
Daniel Silevitch
> In article <4pp7j0hle8k2js6mf...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen writes:
>>Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
>>called before, actually.
>
> That's amusing. I hope that there's still room left on the "liberal airhead"
> bench for me?
Join the club. It certainly seems to be the most common category.
> I tried not answering the questions that seemed to be gibberish, but it
> wouldn't let me. I got a popup saying "try answering questions x, y, and z".
> Unfortunately, there wasn't a button for "I *did* try."
I didn't answer one question by accident, and it still computed a score
for me. I had to look up the category by hand, though.
-dms
Ken McIsaac
Stemper) wrote:
>
>What is it with jumping from high places anyway? Is this about skydiving
>or suicide?
I assumed, because it was that some people are "born" wanting to jump
from a high place, that this was a coded way of asking "Do you believe
depression is biological?"
By stretching a little bit, I got from there to "If you believe that,
then you don't believe that the Will can overcome all obstacles, so
you must be some sort of namby-pamby non-fascist".
But, given that I am just another liberal airhead, what do I know?
James Nicoll
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:59:55 -0500, Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>> In article <4pp7j0hle8k2js6mf...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen writes:
>>>Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
>>>called before, actually.
>>
>> That's amusing. I hope that there's still room left on the "liberal airhead"
>> bench for me?
>
>Join the club. It certainly seems to be the most common category.
"What'd they give you?"
[...]
"Liberalism."
And they all moved away from me on the Group W Bench.
"And advocating short sighted public policies justified by
illusionary goals that can't be realized due to known factors." And
they all came back, shook my hand and we had a great time on the bench,
talking about cronyism, budget inflating, deficit spending, all kinds
of groovy things we was talking about on the bench.
James Nicoll
--
"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
you could be in the wrong business."
Pete McCutchen
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:31:47 GMT, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>> >> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>> >> in the outcome
>> >
>> >It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>> >has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>>
>> Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
>> called before, actually.
>
> Welcome to the club. At 2.1 I am a liberal airhead though
> I almost made whining rotter.
>
> Now I'm trying to wrack my brains thinking of something
> you, I have agreed on in this group over the past few years.
>
> Other than a liking for the fiction of Poul Anderson,
> not much.
Do you favor drug legalization? I'm a fairly orthodox libertarian on
that one. I'm also pretty close to being a First Amendment
absolutist. I don't know how you shake out on those issues.
I assume we'd agree that fascist tyranny, rounding up Jews for
execution, etc., would be a Bad Thing. We're clearly both "not
fascists," though in very different ways.
>
> The problem, I suspect, is that the test makes the
> implicit claim "anti-facist = liberal". Plus it
> regards not being superstitious as inherently a
> liberal trait.
The test appears to be very much a creature of its times. In the
fifties, it was folks on the left who claimed to be the rationalist,
scientific ones. Plus, another part is the test's excessive
compression of political views into a very strict left-right
continuum.
--
Pete McCutchen
Jeffrey C. Dege
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>in the outcome
Seems to be based not on any objective understanding of what left and
right are, but on what the leftist mythology believes about the right.
--
The Assault Weapons Ban expires in:
12 days, 11 hours and 36 minutes
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ch1d6d$6pt$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> said:
> >
> > > Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be
> > > interested in the outcome
> >
> > I got as far as statement number two:
> >
> > [2] A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly
> > expect to get along with decent people.
> >
> > and was stuck because it combined three different issues -- manners,
> > habits, breeding -- into a question that demanded a single answer.
> > So I quit there.
>
> Me too. It just didn't make sense. I'd say it was more telling on the
> author's bias's that he/she/they would consider those three attributes
> linked.
>
> There is another around that does a similar thing to determine one's
> political compass on two axes: left/right and authoritarian/libertarian.
>
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
I appear to be pretty much where the Dalai Lama is,
but a bit more libertarian.
Cal Macewan
> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> in the outcome
I joined the growing army of liberal airheads (2.7)
--
Cal
Chad Irby
jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:17 -0500, Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> > http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >in the outcome
>
> Seems to be based not on any objective understanding of what left and
> right are, but on what the leftist mythology believes about the right.
...and what many leftists want people to believe about the left.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> On 31 Aug 2004 12:47:54 -0400, wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>
> >Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:31:47 GMT, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >> >> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >> >> in the outcome
> >> >
> >> >It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
> >> >has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
> >>
> >> Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
> >> called before, actually.
> >
> > Welcome to the club. At 2.1 I am a liberal airhead though
> > I almost made whining rotter.
> >
> > Now I'm trying to wrack my brains thinking of something
> > you, I have agreed on in this group over the past few years.
> >
> > Other than a liking for the fiction of Poul Anderson,
> > not much.
>
> Do you favor drug legalization?
Yes, but I guess I killfiled those threads. Actually
we were in some agreement a while ago while discussing
the stock market. It's one place in life where I
am pretty conservative. Maybe too much so, now.
I'm a fairly orthodox libertarian on
> that one.
Though I am not a libertarian I guess that on the
libertarian side of things we are probably in
agreement on a fair amount. As you say, the
first amendment.
> The test appears to be very much a creature of its times. In the
> fifties, it was folks on the left who claimed to be the rationalist,
> scientific ones.
Before I knew about the test's date I thought those
were veiled creationism questions. Still might be,
I suppose.
Plus, another part is the test's excessive
> compression of political views into a very strict left-right
> continuum.
Did you try the politcal compass test someone posted?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> said
>In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>> in the outcome
>
>It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
I'm a liberal airhead too, which means it has trouble with non-standard
lifeforms. 8>. I think we'd perhaps better institute a program to
eliminate anyone who scores =other than= 'liberal airhead'. ?!
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:17 -0500, Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>>Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>>in the outcome
>
>Seems to be based not on any objective understanding of what left and
>right are, but on what the leftist mythology believes about the right.
Well, sure. It was written by a committed and very seriously deranged
leftist named Theodore Adorno whose Frankfurt School of Critical
Theory is accurately described by this very web page as a
"Freudian-Marxist melange of pseudo-scientific speculative foolishness
that is now, thank God, thoroughly discredited." Alas, I believe
that the purveyor of this web page is being somewhat optimistic about
the latter. There is no bit of once-fashionable leftist theorizing so
foolish that it won't attract at least a few adherents. Adorno
remains influential among the usual suspects.
Of course this "test" is nonsense. But ideas like this often burble
up from the fevered swamps of the left.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
I suspect it's the opposite. Question 19 (the puzzling "high places"
one) is categorized as being relevant to "superstition and
stereotypy." Presumably, if you believed that some folks were born
with an inate desire to jump off of buildings, you were either
superstitious or prone to stereotyping. Remember, back in the
fifties, it was an article of faith on the left that nearly everything
was environmental, that biology had almost no role. Hence the Soviet
Union's curious embrace of Lysenkoism. We think of animosity toward
evolution as a religious fundamentalist thing, but at one time it was
quite common on the left. (Some people attribute the late Steven Jay
Gould's confusion to his Marxist upbringing.) At that time, it was
the fascists who believed in inate characteristics, race and blood and
all that.
--
Pete McCutchen
William December Starr
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> said:
> Well, sure. It was written by a committed and very seriously
> deranged leftist named Theodore Adorno whose Frankfurt School of
> Critical Theory is accurately described by this very web page as a
> "Freudian-Marxist melange of pseudo-scientific speculative
> foolishness that is now, thank God, thoroughly discredited." Alas,
> I believe that the purveyor of this web page is being somewhat
> optimistic about the latter. There is no bit of once-fashionable
> leftist theorizing so foolish that it won't attract at least a few
> adherents. Adorno remains influential among the usual suspects.
s/leftist theorizing/theorizing/
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Konrad Gaertner
>
> There is another around that does a similar thing to determine one's
> political compass on two axes: left/right and authoritarian/libertarian.
>
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I got (-2, -3.28) which is about what I wanted: slightly left and
liberal of the center.
--KG
Craig Richardson
As Pete goes, so do I - 2.7. And even that is inflated because I
chose a fairly high agreement level on certain questions for exactly
the opposite reason I was "supposed" to agree with them (e.g. "Very
few people realize just how much secret societies control the world" -
since many people vastly /over/estimate it, too...).
--Craig
--
Craig S. Richardson Things I've learned recently:
<crichard-tacoma at -Ichiro is not a coin.
worldnet dot att dot net> -Ichiro is not a battery.
Stephan Lemonjello Jr. on r.s.bb. 2004/08/23
Craig Richardson
Starr) wrote:
>In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
>"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> said:
>
>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be
>> interested in the outcome
>
>I got as far as statement number two:
>
> [2] A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly
> expect to get along with decent people.
>
>and was stuck because it combined three different issues -- manners,
>habits, breeding -- into a question that demanded a single answer.
>So I quit there.
I strongly disagreed, as the question embodies a worldview that I
can't even tolerate, much less agree with, so any question couched in
these terms is by definition wrong.
Bradford Holden
>
> Did you try the politcal compass test someone posted?
>
>
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
I have issues with that one. When it asks questions like "What is
more important, the businessman and manufacturer or the writer and
artist?" it seems to be asking about my opinions of two rather equal
groups. I guess if I were a Stalinist I would have a strong opinion
on this but a to a free-market capitalist or an "air-headed liberal"
both fill different needs of the market or society (depending on their
point of view). Of course, everytime I take that test I come
out as some sort of rabid anarchist....
--
Bradford Holden
"What's the difference between a normal sorcerer and a supreme sorcerer?
Well, a supreme sorcerer comes with fries and a shake." PvP
Wayne Throop
:: expect to get along with decent people.
:: and was stuck because it combined three different issues -- manners,
:: habits, breeding -- into a question that demanded a single answer.
:: So I quit there.
: Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net>
: I strongly disagreed, as the question embodies a worldview that I
: can't even tolerate, much less agree with, so any question couched in
: these terms is by definition wrong.
But then your answer, due to the way the question sneaks in a worldview
using the "have you stopped beating your wife" method, is inherrently
incorrect. Or at the very least, ambiguous. This apparently yes/no
question actually requires a third response, ie, "mu".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
EAC
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:17 -0500, "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >in the outcome
>
The problem is that the question make you answer in either yes or no
(with each type has around three value), while people in real life
might answer things different.
> Take this one, for example:
> Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than
> mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or
> worse.
>
> Ok, I agree that sex crimes deserve more than mere imprisonment, since
> I don't think that actually solves the problem. On the other hand,
> publicly whipping them doesn't solve the problem, either.
Actually, public whiping isn't reserved for sex crimes only.
As for solving the problem. Well... What is the problem?
If the problem is that the victim feel maligned, then let the victim
decided on what he or she wanted to do with the criminal, there,
problem solved.
If the problem is that one is worried that the person might do it
again, then kill the criminal, there, problem solved.
If the problem is that the criminal want to atone for his or her
fault, then let him or her do it, there, problem solved.
If the problem is that one wanted him to learn his mistake so that he
would be saved from any future unfortunate event, then teach him,
there problem solved.
And so on.
Considering that this is a rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup, it should be
noted that in the novel "Starship Troopers", Juan Rico got five lashes
because he recklessly endangered his fellow M.I. ... in a simulation.
The kid fired a simulated A-BOMB eventhough he know that one of his
fellow recruits would be affected by the blast.
In comparison, Rico's former fellow M.I. Ted Hendrick got ten lashes
and a undesireable discharge for striking his superior. Though it's
kinda Sergeant Zim's fault anyway, because he let his guard down, that
gives the chance for Hendrick to put a blow on him. Captain Frankel
was quite upset at Zim for letting this happen.
Though the interesting thing about Rico's public whiping is this:
- Rico remember it and has his lesson.
- The people who saw the whipping remember it and has their lesson.
- The people (including the ones who administrated his punishment)
treat Rico pretty much the same before he was whipped, as if nothing
happened.
Anyway. There are more stuff in Starship Troopers about punishment as
a form of lesson, Rico's History and Moral Philosophy teacher Mr.
Dubois has a lot of things to say about it. Basically about using pain
as a form a teaching method, by giving pain to someone, one can
effectively control someone.
So I guess the key here is... a controlled action (though the novel
probably would refer it as 'controlled violence'), enough that it will
deliver the suefficient amount that the subject can be controlled, but
not too much that it will cause the subject to died or even gone
rebellious.
Though I don't understand on why the armies tend to use insulting
words toward the subordinates. Administrate physical pain to control I
understand, but insults? Was this to train the mental of the
subordinates to be resistant of ego bruising? Or was it to remove
their self esteem so that they can be control?
I do know that slapping someone in the face is much worse that a whip
on the back or even killing a person, and it's capable making the
situation much worse.
> So I
> strongly agree with the first half, and strongly disagree with the
> second half. If I don't want to fake an answer, what exactly should I
> put?
None?
Remember that a no action is too an action by itself.
> Rebecca
Anyway. I always got the result as "You may want to practice doing
things with your left hand."
J.B. Moreno
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:31:47 GMT, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >> in the outcome
> >
> >It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
> >has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>
> Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
> called before, actually.
Well, I have been called a liberal before....of course I've been called
a net-nazi before too.
In this test, about a fifth of the points go to be *different* types of
superstitous -- and none of the questions are likely to really resonate
with a *religious* person (a lot of them don't seem to believe that God,
capital G, is a "supernatural power").
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Karen Lofstrom
> I am, like you, a liberal airhead.
> And proud of it.
My score is 1.433 and I'm a whining rotter.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to hell. Here is your accordion.
Karen Lofstrom
> I got (-2, -3.28) which is about what I wanted: slightly left and
> liberal of the center.
I'm -5.5, -6.31. Which is what you'd expect of a whining rotter, I suppose
:)
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLANK CLANK BANG THUMP BOOM
Andy Shepard
loki <nolo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ch1d6d$6pt$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>> > interested in the outcome
>>
>>
>> expect to get along with decent people.
>>
>> and was stuck because it combined three different issues -- manners,
>> habits, breeding -- into a question that demanded a single answer.
>> So I quit there.
>
> author's bias's that he/she/they would consider those three attributes
> linked.
>
> political compass on two axes: left/right and authoritarian/libertarian.
>
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> believed in luck. Yet another asked vaguely; 'are taxes too high for the
> rich?' without defining 'too high' nor 'rich'; nor even considering that
> people answering would be under varying tax regimes.
I, an anarcho-capitalist, get (6.12,-7.38) on that one, but I think many of
the questions are poorly chosen, containing hidden assumptions and failing to
fully explore the space of possible opinions. For example:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity
rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
I answered 'agree' to this one, by which I mean that I favor free trade over
regulatory systems which protect established corporations at the expense
of their customers and competitors, but which probably was meant as favoring
regulatory systems which supposedly favor labor over capital and probably
got me a lefty point.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
I don't believe that the state is legitimate and hence I don't think that
international law is legitimate either, although military action against
a state might be ethically justified as long as it wasn't supported by
taxation or conscription and was extremely careful not to damage third
parties, including the alleged subjects of the target state, but in practice
I would consider essentially all present, state-initiated military action
as illegitimate. I ended up answering agree, as I could imagine at least
in principle military action I would consider legitimate, but overall I
was very uncomfortable with this question and wished for a neutral option.
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
I answered 'disagree', but ultimately I don't either one is a very interesting
way to categorize people.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
I answered 'disagree', but again I wished for a neutral option, as the
question implicitly assumes a tradeoff between the two, and that controlling
the economy ina ny form is acceptable.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of
medical care .
I interpreted 'right to higher standards of medical care' as 'right to contract
for whatever medical care they can afford' and answered 'strongly agree', but
the wording reeks of entitlements and positive rights that I am vehemently
opposed to.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
I answered 'disagree' on the grounds that I don't think governments should
exist, hence I don't think they should exist, but I'd prefer that fraud be
considered a tort by a private, polycentric legal system.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
I answered 'agree', but I think a free market is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for freedom. I could imagine a society with a very
free market but wich enacts personal morality into law, which couldn't be
called free by any standard.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
I answered 'agree', but I object to the underlying assumption that
schools' policies should be a political question.
The prime function of schooling is to equip the future generation to find
jobs.
I answered 'disagree', but as above I object to the assumptions that
schools' policies should be a political question.
Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect
society's support.
'Society's support' probably means the state's support, so I answered 'agree',
since I don't believe anyone should be supported by the state, but 'society's
support' could also be interpreted as support by private charity, which I
have no objection to anyone receiving.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the
arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
I answered 'strongly disagree', but this implicitly suggests that I support
democracy, which I most certainly do not.
Additionally, some questions appeared to have no relevance to politics:
It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy
with more cheerful things.
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at
all.
The businessman and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and
the artist.
(I also really wished for a neutral on this one; I think all four are
absolutely essentialy to any advanced civilization)
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Religion and morality are closely linked.
Some people are naturally unlucky.
Sex outside of marriage is usually immoral.
No one can feel naturally homosexual.
Finally, I would like to single out the last question for particular
ridicule:
It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.
I answered 'strongly disagree', meaning that I disagree that it's going too
far, but someone who disagreed that it's fine to be open about sex,
and hence was diametrically opposed to my position on the issue, could
answer the same thing with equal justification.
--
Andy Shepard
<andy+...@andyshepard.org>
GAT d+ s-:- a20 C++++ ULI++++ P+ L+++ E W-(--) N++ o? K w--- O? M-- V PS+++
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@* 5+++ X R tv-- b++(+++) DI+ D+(++) G+++ e++ h+ r++ y+**
Chad Irby
GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Bitstring <TFPYc.5520$uN5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, from the
> wonderful person Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> said
> >In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >> in the outcome
> >
> >It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
> >has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>
> I'm a liberal airhead too, which means it has trouble with non-standard
> lifeforms. 8>. I think we'd perhaps better institute a program to
> eliminate anyone who scores =other than= 'liberal airhead'. ?!
The plans for the anti-NLA detention camps are already prepped, all we
need is one or two more NLAs to help run things, and a few of the more
fascists types to make the trains run on time.
Mark Reichert
> I assume we'd agree that fascist tyranny, rounding up Jews for
> execution, etc., would be a Bad Thing.
What about liberals? I've noticed that recent conservative rhetoric
about liberals (they're a secret elite controlling everything, for
one) has more than a passing similarity to Nazi rhetoric about Jews.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>In article <j0v8j01uuv1nmr33p...@4ax.com>, Helgi Briem wrote:
>
>> I am, like you, a liberal airhead.
>> And proud of it.
>
>My score is 1.433 and I'm a whining rotter.
You should be a villain in an Ayn Rand novel.
--
Pete McCutchen
Rex F. May
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/31/04 5:59 PM:
Of all the ridiculous political statements I've heard in this daffy year,
that's among the most ridiculous. What conservative ever referred to
liberals as a 'secret' elite?
Andrew Wheeler
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >> in the outcome
> >
> >It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
> >has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>
> called before, actually.
Given that the test questions are written in '50s code ("decent people"
and suchlike) and were written for that generation, I'd bet lots of us
are "liberal airheads" now. I am -- at 2.56.
Many of the questions are either of the "have you stopped beating your
wife" or "given the absolute moral and physical superiority of male
white Christian Americans, then..." type, as well.
Come to think of it, if we're mostly liberal airheads, then we're even
further from fascism than the '50s generation, which I can only see as a
good thing.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"There are few things I enjoy so much as talking to people about books
which I have read and they haven't, and making them wish they had --
preferably a book that is hard to get or in a language that they do not know."
-Edmund Wilson
how...@brazee.net
As always, there are funny questions.
e.g.
Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched
in secret places
I think that most people do realize how much of our lives are controlled by
plots and hatched in secret places - which amount is virtually nil.
I bet if I agreed with this, the pollster would think I believed in
conspiracies.
I am a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian who believes in The Peter
Principle (as apposed to The Illuminati). I plugged in that above question
that I strongly disagree - trying to second guess the pollster.
This poll thinks I am a liberal airhead.
how...@brazee.net
On 31-Aug-2004, wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> The problem, I suspect, is that the test makes the
> implicit claim "anti-facist = liberal". Plus it
> regards not being superstitious as inherently a
> liberal trait.
Where I think people can be both liberal and fascist. But then I am a
libertarian.
how...@brazee.net
On 31-Aug-2004, Ken McIsaac <kmci...@uwo.ca> wrote:
> >What is it with jumping from high places anyway? Is this about skydiving
> >or suicide?
>
> I assumed, because it was that some people are "born" wanting to jump
> from a high place, that this was a coded way of asking "Do you believe
> depression is biological?"
I never thought of suicide. I was thinking of skydiving and mountain
climbing.
how...@brazee.net
On 31-Aug-2004, "loki" <nolo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One of the questions involved astrology. Another about whether or not one
> believed in luck. Yet another asked vaguely; 'are taxes too high for the
> rich?' without defining 'too high' nor 'rich'; nor even considering that
> people answering would be under varying tax regimes.
What kind of people are supposed to believe in astrology?
Certainly most of the Religious Right would disagree.
And anybody who believes in empowerment of the disadvantaged would disagree
that astrology controlled people.
And people who believe the state can control them would disagree with the
concept that their behavior is predestined.
I suppose I could take the test and vary this variable to find out. But
all I would learn is the biases of the pollster.
how...@brazee.net
On 31-Aug-2004, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> Seems to be based not on any objective understanding of what left and
> right are, but on what the leftist mythology believes about the right.
So does leftist mythology believe the right believe in astrology? Or that
they disbelieve in astrology?
Carl Dershem
@antipope.org:
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <der...@cox.net> declared:
>
>> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in news:10j7eqrf8er5464
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>>
>> I scored a 2.
>
> Damn, that means either I'm growing old or I'm a brownshirt! (I scored
> 2.33. Mind you, the average for a random population of 1950's Americans
> was about 3.8, while serious fascism doesn't kick in until 5.5 or
> thereabouts, so ...)
Hmmm. Depending on what "1950's americans" means I may be somewhat out of
the mainstream, having been born in the 1950's.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Andy Shepard
Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andy Shepard <andy+...@andyshepard.org> wrote in
> news:slrncj9vss.1l...@andyshepard.org:
>
> (in a discussion of http://www.politicalcompass.org/ )
>
>> I answered 'agree', but I think a free market is a necessary but not
>> sufficient condition for freedom. I could imagine a society with a
>> very free market but wich enacts personal morality into law, which
>> couldn't be called free by any standard.
>
> enforcement?
>
> For example, a miscarrying woman gets to the hospital way too late and
> the doctor can only save her by removing her uterus - which he does.
> This is what her husband asked the doctor to do ("please save her
> life!") but violates her family's spokesman's personal morality (at
> least the "an infertile woman is as good as dead" part). The family has
> bought weapons and hired help on the free market, and uses these to shut
> down the hospital. Weeks later, a private-sector mediator convinces the
> doctor to pay a hefty fine for compensation and the family to back off so
> the hospital can open again and
Do you mean hired weapons, mercenaries, etc. and attacked the hospital as
a vigilante sort of thing, or acted within the established framework of
agreements between defense agencies that we usually hypothesize for such
a society? In the former case, either vigilante action like that is rare,
unusual, and widely regarded as illegitimate, so the hospital will just
call its own defense agency to kick the shit out of the cave men in question.
In the latter case, remember that one of the assumptions we anarcho-
capitalists usually make is that violence is unreasonably expensive, so
disputes will generally be resolved according to pre-existing networks of
agreements between the parties involved, their defense agencies, and so forth.
If there are substantial numbers of obnoxious assholes around to harass people
who receive certain medical procedures, there's also a market for hospitals
which are extremely zealous about preserving patient confidentiality and
general telling aforementioned assholes to go fuck themselves, and this will
be reflected in the sorts of defense agencies these hospitals and their
clients patronize and the systems of law they agree to.
If you're really interested in this, it's been written about much more
carefully and thoroughly than I have time to in this post. To summarize,
if the sort of thing you're describing happens often, then the society in
question is quite different from what anarcho-capitalists generally are
advocating, and I think most of us would agree that if a purported A-C
society started having this sort of problem it would have failed. Anyway,
I agree with you that this is an example of a society that may have a
relatively free market, but is not overall a free society. However, remember
that you don't have to be a government to interfere with economic freedom, and
forcibly shutting down a hospital for engaging in a consensual transaction
definitely counts as such interference. We just complain about governments
a lot because they're responsible for most of the violations of freedom in
present societies. What you've described is not a totally free market
society, but if this is the only kind of violation of economic freedon that
happens routinely it's probably closer than what we've got now.
>> Additionally, some questions appeared to have no relevance to
>> politics:
>>
>> It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
>
> I guess this depends on what the secrets actually are.
>
> If the secret you're trying to keep from Mom and Dad is what your report
> card says, then that's just school policy. A law for or against them
> reading it is pretty hard to imagine!
>
> If the secret you're trying to keep is what the exact texture of your
> hymen is, then a law against them forcing their fingers up there really
> isn't so far-fetched...
I suppose so, but it seems that just saying parents can't molest their
children is sufficient against this. If molestation is considered
acceptable, whether children can keep secrets from their parents seems like
something of a minor quibble.
>> When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep
>> busy with more cheerful things.
>
>> The businessman and the manufacturer are more important than the
>> writer and the artist.
>> (I also really wished for a neutral on this one; I think all four are
>> absolutely essentialy to any advanced civilization)
>
> Weren't these two copied from that other quiz?
I think they appeared on both.
> Meanwhile, aren't all four sometimes absolutely essential *for each
> other*, never mind the rest of the civilization?
I'd pretty much agree with this.
Andy Shepard
I got a 1.66 and I'm pretty damn far from an Ayn Rand villain.
Chad Irby
Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote:
That's just because the liberals have decided that the Jews are running
everything, including the conservatives.
how...@brazee.net
On 31-Aug-2004, Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> Given that the test questions are written in '50s code ("decent people"
> and suchlike) and were written for that generation, I'd bet lots of us
> are "liberal airheads" now. I am -- at 2.56.
One trouble with a quiz written a couple of generations ago is that
conservatism does not stay put. We are conservative about the values that
we were comfortable at a young age. Liberal ideas have ways of becoming
conservative ideas after they have been the status quo long enough.
Chad Irby
how...@brazee.net wrote:
> re: http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>
> As always, there are funny questions.
>
> e.g.
>
> Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched
> in secret places
>
> I think that most people do realize how much of our lives are controlled by
> plots and hatched in secret places - which amount is virtually nil.
Well, that's just what they *want* you to think.
Carl Dershem
news:yv7zllfv...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu:
>> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>>
>
> I appear to be pretty much where the Dalai Lama is,
> but a bit more libertarian.
Same here. -6.12; -5.28
But the test itself is so ... badly written/phrased that it makes me
consider it more entertainment than anything else.
J.B. Moreno
> People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
>
> I answered 'disagree', but ultimately I don't either one is a very interesting
> way to categorize people.
That reminds me of one of the questions on the site that sparked this
thread....it asked about dividing people into two classes (weak/strong),
I picked the middle ground for that one (agree somewhat), but really,
it's just badly phrased.
There are practically un unlimited number of ways of dividing people
into two classes -- those that are awake and those that aren't, that's
that are sitting and those that aren't.
I only agreed somewhat because the question as asked didn't include a
criteria for "weak" or "strong"...
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Keith Morrison
>>> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
>>> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
>>> in the outcome
>>
>>It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>>has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>
>Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
>called before, actually.
Right there with you.
--
Keith
Chad Irby
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> Given that the test questions are written in '50s code ("decent people"
> and suchlike) and were written for that generation, I'd bet lots of us
> are "liberal airheads" now. I am -- at 2.56.
For a fun afternoon, look up some old 1960s-era Democratic campaign
platform planks, and notice how close they are to current
mainstream-to-rightish Republican comments.
Rex F. May
cha...@antipope.org wrote on 8/31/04 10:01 AM:
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> declared:
>
>>> It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
>>> has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>>
>> Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
>> called before, actually.
>
> I think it's a function of anti-authoritarianism and antipathy to
> genetic determinism and romantic elitism: economic opinions barely get a
> look-in. Another way of putting it -- if you're standing far enough away
> to one side of the mainstream, libertarians and liberal socialists look
> identical.
That's a point, but how far away do you have to get in order for Janet Reno
to appear anti-authoritarian?
Rex F. May
loki
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dm9Zc.3979$Of3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <41351B4B...@optonline.com>,
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
> > Given that the test questions are written in '50s code ("decent people"
> > and suchlike) and were written for that generation, I'd bet lots of us
> > are "liberal airheads" now. I am -- at 2.56.
>
> For a fun afternoon, look up some old 1960s-era Democratic campaign
> platform planks, and notice how close they are to current
> mainstream-to-rightish Republican comments.
One _could_ look at that as evidence of how far ahead the Dems were/are. -
or how far behind the Reps are/were.
:)
--
'The slackjaw gaze of true profanity
If culture is the curse of the thinking class.'
-rush
Andrew Maizels
Me three. Or me twenty-five or so.
Mind you, the quiz (such as it is) is all about social values, not
economic ones, and I admit to being socially liberal.
So chalk me up as a social liberal airhead/economic
conservative/foreign-policy hawk. In other words, someone who would get
instantly branded a fascist on most left-wing sites.
Andrew.
--
Visit mu.nu! It's crunchy and full of goodness!
http://mu.nu/
loki
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:k99Zc.4030$w%6.2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> On 31-Aug-2004, "loki" <nolo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the questions involved astrology. Another about whether or not
one
> > believed in luck. Yet another asked vaguely; 'are taxes too high for the
> > rich?' without defining 'too high' nor 'rich'; nor even considering that
> > people answering would be under varying tax regimes.
>
> What kind of people are supposed to believe in astrology?
>
> Certainly most of the Religious Right would disagree.
>
> And anybody who believes in empowerment of the disadvantaged would
disagree
> that astrology controlled people.
I've heard it cited that the belief in astrology varies inversely with the
amount of power the individual had. It seems intuitive; the less power one
has the likely they would be to the 'left' given certain values of left.
I guess it's similar with the; 'do the rich pay too much tax' question .
Regardless of the individual's tax regime whereby 'rich' is defined as the
top 1% or 66% or a high enough tax rate is defined as 1% or 90%; a lefty
will tend to answer one way in both cases and a righty the other.
[spoiler: they say you shouldn't read the FAQ before taking the test.]
The FAQ gives some of the rationale: The questions are supposed to seem
slanted one way or the other, to push buttons:
'1 Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant.
Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to
realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're
propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of
individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions
are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether
you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to
trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices
rather than detailed opinions on policy.'
--
' You don't have to look good,
you just have to look good enough.'
-red green
Mark Reichert
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:17 -0500, Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> > http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >in the outcome
>
> right are, but on what the leftist mythology believes about the right.
While of course you, Limbaugh, and the members of Fox News engage in
no mythmaking about the left. HA!
Mark Reichert
> In article <slrncj9d35...@jdege.visi.com>,
> jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:17 -0500, Duke of URL <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> > > http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> > >Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> > >in the outcome
> >
> > Seems to be based not on any objective understanding of what left and
> > right are, but on what the leftist mythology believes about the right.
>
As opposed to what many rightists want people to believe about the
right, like that it is any way compassionate.
Mark Reichert
> Of course this "test" is nonsense. But ideas like this often burble
> up from the fevered swamps of the left.
From where does the propaganda of Limbaugh, Fox News, and some posters
on this newsgroup burble? An oil field I imagine, which may have been
a fevered swamp of the distant past.
Craig Richardson
wrote:
I must admit, I have a hot button where (purpoted) Anti-USianism is
concerned. The above leaves me in the dust.
Which brings up another issue. Bush. Kerry. As many people around
the globe will happily tell you, they aren't that different. Why is
/this/ election so polarized?
--Craig
--
Craig S. Richardson Things I've learned recently:
<crichard-tacoma at -Ichiro is not a coin.
worldnet dot att dot net> -Ichiro is not a battery.
Stephan Lemonjello Jr. on r.s.bb. 2004/08/23
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in news:10939...@sheol.org:
>
>>:: [2] A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly
>>:: expect to get along with decent people.
>>:: and was stuck because it combined three different issues -- manners,
>>:: habits, breeding -- into a question that demanded a single answer.
>>:: So I quit there.
>>
>>: Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net>
>>: I strongly disagreed, as the question embodies a worldview that I
>>: can't even tolerate, much less agree with, so any question couched in
>>: these terms is by definition wrong.
>>
>> But then your answer, due to the way the question sneaks in a worldview
>> using the "have you stopped beating your wife" method, is inherrently
>> incorrect. Or at the very least, ambiguous. This apparently yes/no
>> question actually requires a third response, ie, "mu".
>
>Yeah, for some of the questions I answered in the middle instead of
>"strongly disagree" or "strongly agree" (or whatever the extremes were
>called).
Well, yeah. That's why I said that my score was distorted. I only
attempted to mediate between the extremes when there was some basis
for comparison. When the question itself was beyond the pale, it was
Katy Bar The Door. Sorry - I realize that cliches should be avoided
like the plague, but in this case, I can't help myself... /Decent/
people? Who talks like that? These days, at least?
Craig Richardson
Heh. Astrology has gone from right to left - not across the center,
but across the other side of the circle, from loony to loony.
Danny Sichel
>>Hmm...what if the society enacts personal morality via private-sector
>>enforcement?
>>For example, a miscarrying woman gets to the hospital way too late and
>>the doctor can only save her by removing her uterus - which he does.
>>This is what her husband asked the doctor to do ("please save her
>>life!") but violates her family's spokesman's personal morality (at
>>least the "an infertile woman is as good as dead" part). The family has
>>bought weapons and hired help on the free market, and uses these to shut
>>down the hospital. Weeks later, a private-sector mediator convinces the
>>doctor to pay a hefty fine for compensation and the family to back off so
>>the hospital can open again and
> Do you mean hired weapons, mercenaries, etc. and attacked the hospital as
> a vigilante sort of thing, or acted within the established framework of
> agreements between defense agencies that we usually hypothesize for such
> a society? In the former case, either vigilante action like that is rare,
> unusual, and widely regarded as illegitimate, so the hospital will just
> call its own defense agency to kick the shit out of the cave men in question.
Um. This actually happened, a couple of months ago. The hospital had no
such 'defense agency'; they simply closed down for the duration. I
believe this was in Mogadishu.
Mark Atwood
Of course.
After all, all it takes to turn a "liberal" idea into a "conservative"
one is the passage of a great deal of time.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Andrew Maizels
> Which brings up another issue. Bush. Kerry. As many people around
> the globe will happily tell you, they aren't that different. Why is
> /this/ election so polarized?
Economically, there's not that much difference. Socially, there's not
as much difference as either one would like you to think. (Though in
both cases there's more difference between the two parties than the two
candidates.)
On foreign policy, though, they're chalk and cheese.
That doesn't fully account for the polarization, though. The reasons
for that run much deeper and include many historical factors largely
unrelated to the present day.
Ross TenEyck
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
>>called before, actually.
>Right there with you.
I got a 2.07 -- liberal airhead, on the cusp of whining rotter.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Robert A. Woodward
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:31:47 GMT, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <10j7eqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.eirefirst.com/fascist.html
> >> Take it seriously, not cheating by faking answers, and you'll be interested
> >> in the outcome
> >
> >It claims I'm a "liberal airhead," which pretty much means that the test
> >has some problems with nonstandard beliefs.
>
> Apparently. I too am a liberal airhead. Something I've never been
> called before, actually.
I just made the cut off to be true American (3.06666...).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
Chad Irby
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Which brings up another issue. Bush. Kerry. As many people around
> the globe will happily tell you, they aren't that different. Why is
> /this/ election so polarized?
...because most people around the world just aren't as sophisticated as
they want to to think, and the U.S. has much finer political
distinctions than most places?
Chad Irby
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> After all, all it takes to turn a "liberal" idea into a "conservative"
> one is the passage of a great deal of time.
...or, as they say, a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged.
Mark Atwood
>>
>> For a fun afternoon, look up some old 1960s-era Democratic campaign
>> platform planks, and notice how close they are to current
>> mainstream-to-rightish Republican comments.
>
> One _could_ look at that as evidence of how far ahead the Dems were/are. -
> or how far behind the Reps are/were.
That's how it's *supposed* to work.
Progressives come up with, well, progressive ideas, and propose and agitate
for them.
Conservatives say, "that's a *stupid* idea", and agitate against that.
Progressives have come up with almost all the "right" ideas, yes. But
they also routinely come up and propose things that are silly, stupid,
foolish, destructive, misguided, and full of intended consequences.
Thus the proposals need to be attacked, argued, watered down, divered,
and winnowed before they get forced on people. (If you really want to
convience me that some progressive idea has merit, get a sufficently
large people to voluntarily give it a try for a generation first.)
Take a look at Bellamy and Dewey's proposals sometime, and then thank
a "conservative" that most of them were strangled at birth.
Craig Richardson
<amg...@pixymisa.com> wrote:
>Craig Richardson wrote:
>
>> Which brings up another issue. Bush. Kerry. As many people around
>> the globe will happily tell you, they aren't that different. Why is
>> /this/ election so polarized?
>
>Economically, there's not that much difference. Socially, there's not
>as much difference as either one would like you to think. (Though in
>both cases there's more difference between the two parties than the two
>candidates.)
>
>On foreign policy, though, they're chalk and cheese.
>
>That doesn't fully account for the polarization, though. The reasons
>for that run much deeper and include many historical factors largely
>unrelated to the present day.
Admittedly, my question was somewhat rhetorical. But only somewhat.
I'm still wondering why this election is High Noon, when the last few
- which were, from my perspective, at least, more of a real choice -
weren't, really. Tens of thousands are using their summer vacations
to protest the incumbent, who is certinaly worth protest - but hardly
more so than the last, oh, ten or so other incumbents... Every
positive mention of one candidate in the blogosphere is shouted down
by tens of blinkered ideologues from the other side.
As Mason said to Dixon, why are we drawing the line /here/?
Craig Richardson
>In article <e5aaj0hnp36skqghu...@4ax.com>,
> Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Which brings up another issue. Bush. Kerry. As many people around
>> the globe will happily tell you, they aren't that different. Why is
>> /this/ election so polarized?
>
>...because most people around the world just aren't as sophisticated as
>they want to to think, and the U.S. has much finer political
>distinctions than most places?
Actually, this one time, I'm sort of hip. A money-vomiting warhawk
social conservative versus a money-vomiting empty suit who won't be
able to avoid prosecuting an existing war (since if he does, it'll
just come to him), who has no particular social liberal chops (absent
Vietnam protestation, which is yesterday's headlines for /my/
generation, much less the one that just got the vote) and no social
mandate. Running against Ralph Nader volume V and an ex-Chicago Bears
linebacker. Color me impressed...
lewy
"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:e5aaj0hnp36skqghu...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:35:56 GMT, "Rex F. May" <rex...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >in article 99e65015.04083...@posting.google.com, Mark Reichert
at
> >Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/31/04 5:59 PM:
> >
> >> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:<0oa8j0tokvko3b83h...@4ax.com>...
> >>> I assume we'd agree that fascist tyranny, rounding up Jews for
> >>> execution, etc., would be a Bad Thing.
> >>
> >> What about liberals? I've noticed that recent conservative rhetoric
> >> about liberals (they're a secret elite controlling everything, for
> >> one) has more than a passing similarity to Nazi rhetoric about Jews.
> >
> >Of all the ridiculous political statements I've heard in this daffy year,
> >that's among the most ridiculous. What conservative ever referred to
> >liberals as a 'secret' elite?
>
> I must admit, I have a hot button where (purpoted) Anti-USianism is
> concerned. The above leaves me in the dust.
>
> Which brings up another issue. Bush. Kerry. As many people around
> the globe will happily tell you, they aren't that different. Why is
> /this/ election so polarized?
The real election is between Bush and anybody who's not Bush. Kerry is just
the guy who happened to fall into that role.