Forum:A poll: Uncyclopedian political slants

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > A poll: Uncyclopedian political slants
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6413 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.


Hammer and sickle.svg A КоммциiзT was written by this article☭ China emblem.PNG
"In Soviet Яussia, template adds УФU!!"

Note that both the Chiniзe and ze Яussians love ziz AЯTICLE!

A comment in another Forum post made me curious about the political makeup of Uncyclopedia. If you can take the time and don't mind other people knowing how you lean, go do the Political Compass test and post your results here. When/if we get a good number of results I'll graph them and we can see the range of political ideologies here and whether Uncyc has a dominant slant in some way. This is purely out of idle interest - I don't plan on using this information for any vile purpose (except to kick out any commie pinkos that may be hiding out, of course). —rc (t) 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go little test for he web devs. out there, someone knock up a cgi service to convert this table (or similar) into an image with a proper labelled graph, so we can see where everyone is at (and laugh at the most commie/fascist). Shouldn't be too hard (I would but I'm a bit lazy/lack a server to host it on)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Results

Bastard Admins

(in no particular order)

  • Rangeley: Economic Left/Right: 5.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.59
  • Bradaphraser Economic Left/Right: -2.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
  • Dawg: Economic Left/Right: -2.00, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05
  • RadicalX Economic Left/Right: -0.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
  • Mhaille Economic Left/Right: -5.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23
  • Hindleyite: Economic Left/Right: -3.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44
  • Savethemooses: Economic Left/Right: -1.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
  • Famine Economic Left/Right: -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36 (I am ashamed. Very ashamed.)
  • Keitei: Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51 (late to the party)
  • Braydie Economic Left/Right: -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
  • gwax: Economic Left/Right: -4.75, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87
  • Sikon Economic Left/Right: -3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26
  • Chronarion: Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97
  • Flammable: Economic Left/Right: -6.00, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23
  • Isra1337: Economic Left/Right: 5.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59 (the only whig here apparently)
  • PantsMacKenzie Economic Left/Right: -4.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
  • sannse Economic Left/Right: -5.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79
  • Hinoa: Economic Left/Right: -5.75, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85
  • flyingfeline Economic Left/Right: -6.50, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85
  • Todd Lyons: Economic Left/Right: -8.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90
  • Tompkins: Economic Left/Right: -4.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
  • Rcmurphy: Economic Left/Right: -5.63, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
  • Zombiebaron Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
  • Elvis: Economic Left/Right: -5.88, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
  • Codeine: Economic Left/Right: -8.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

The Gentle Populace

  • Premier Tom Mayfair Economic Left/Right: -9.85 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.05
  • Composure1 Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49
  • Crazyswordsman Economic Left/Right: -3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
  • Nazlfrag Economic Left/Right: -2.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23
  • Rogpyvbc Economic Left/Right: -7.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18
  • Squiggle Economic Left/Right: -6.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13
  • The fatgoat Economic Left/Right: -9.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97
  • Modusoperandi Economic Left/Right: -6.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46 (4 months pass...)
  • diMario Economic Left/Right: -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
  • Hardwick Fundlebuggy Economic Left/Right: -2.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31
  • Kenvalyi Economic Left/Right: -6.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
  • ENeGMA Economic Left/Right: -3.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
  • Modusoperandi Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
  • Happy Weasel Economic Left/Right: 0.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
  • Lemon: Economic Left/Right: -6.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
  • Rataube Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
  • Electrified mocha chincuilla Economic Left/Right: -6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
  • Nintendorulez Economic Left/Right: -8.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41
  • InfiniteMonkey Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41
  • Mordillo: Economic Left/Right: -3.50, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
  • NeedABrain Economic Left/Right: 7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05
  • Super90 Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
  • Guutog Economic Left/Right: -5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
  • 02barryc Economic Left/Right: -1.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92
  • DiZ Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36
  • Cainad Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
  • Orion Blastar Economic Left/Right: -2.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64
  • Ceridwyn Economic Left/Right: -6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49
  • George guy Economic Left/Right: 5.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36
  • |Insineratehymn Economic Left/Right: -3.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21
  • General Tso's Chicken Economic Left/Right: 5.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.31

The Rugged Populace

  • Tooltroll: Economic Left/Right: -5.75, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54
  • Prolix:Economic Left/Right: 4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64
  • Cs1987:Economic Left/Right: -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51
  • Hrodulf: Economic Left/Right: -0.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49 (I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian, btw)
  • Capercorn: Economic Left/Right: 1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.08. Wow I really am an evil Republican...

Which dictator/criminal/politician are YOU?

  • Comrade Stalin Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 10.00
  • Der Fuhrer Economic Left/Right: 1.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 10.00
  • El Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet Economic Left/Right: 10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 10.00
  • Teddy Kraczinski Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00
  • Ken Lay Economic Left/Right: 10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00
  • Donald Trump Economic Left/Right: 10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 10.00
  • Rosie O'Donnell Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00 (See why The Donald and Rosie always fight?)
  • George W. Bush Economic Left/Right: 7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.00
  • Dick Cheney Economic Left/Right: 10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 10.00 (Cheney is the puppetmaster, Bush is his sockpuppet)
  • John Kerry Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.00
  • Jimmy Carter Economic Left/Right: -9.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.00
  • Bowl of Oatmeal Temperature Cold/Hot: 6.00 Sugar Brown/White: -6.00
  • Oceania War with Eurasia/Eastasia: 1.23 Big Brother Love/Sexual Attraction: 9.00
  • Darth Vader Light Side / Dark Side 10.00 Rebel / Imperial 10.00

Comments

I'm pretty close to Gandhi, but not as Gandhi as you, Gandhi Tooltrool.. --—Braydie 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comparing the charts, it would seem that I'm The Dalai Lama, with a slight nod in the direction of Nelson Mandella. Spooky. I apologize in advance if this means you don't want to be friends anymore. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm apparently as left wing as Stalin, and slightly more libertarian than the Dalai Lama. Now there's a mix for you. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm boring, pretty much in the middle of that graph thing, so it would seem. Do I need to get an opinion, or is this the effect of modern society on me? Whatever, I'm really not that bothered. And, I'm sure nobody else is. -- Hindleyite Converse 12:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I had some issues with this test. I think the questions were worded in such a way to make you lean more to the left and down than you actually believed. Anyways, it works for letting us see how we compare to one another, I suppose.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I leaned further up than I expected. Also, I was expecting more authoritarian spots from admins, given the rampant page protection, preemptive bans, and other such complaints left unaddressed. I won't name names though. --User:Nintendorulez 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Brad: I felt the questions were poor as well. They are asking more about my morality and beliefs than about my political opinions and choices. The Nolan Chart below is more accurate than this one. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So far, we're all in the lower left corner. . . except Brad. A witch! A witch! Burn him!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •Cannabagreen.jpg• I Card-hearts-up.gif my cat! 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it might be time to finally come out of the closet and admit I'm a Republican, then...--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That tailored suit was a dead give away. Spare some change?--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I still say we put him on a scale with a duck. . .  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •Cannabagreen.jpg• I Card-hearts-up.gif my cat! 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm almost exactly in the middle of the chart...But in this group, I'm the furthest right and the second most authoritarian.....Rad 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I'm the most libertarian. Not as commie-left as Codeine though. --Composure1 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
May we offer you some literature, comrade? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Да. Большое спасибо за информацию. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I can't wait to see how Tom Mayfair does on this.  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •Cannabagreen.jpg• I Card-hearts-up.gif my cat! 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Codeine, do I get a prize for taking your Most Liberal title? --User:Nintendorulez 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WTF ? So far almost all respondents are solidly in the lower left quadrant. Could it be the "Political Compass Questionnaire" suffers from a serious design error, such as asking the wrong questions or providing only politically acceptable answers ? -- di Mario 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Or we are after all encourageable lefties and we are planning to take away all your hard earned cash and give it to the poor.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. Even the most radical rabid conservatives I have known came in on the lower left of this test. This is the first time anyone I've ever known came in outside that quadrant, and I came in just barely outside it, which is totally wrong. I'm radically liberal, both socially and economically. Again, see the score below. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Political Compass is the Scrooge McDuck quiz. As I have stated bellow, how can you anwer honestly a question like "Does globalisation better to serve people or corporations?". I answered "YES" because this question just makes sense to a pinko. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 23:24, 19 December 2006
What if you think letting people make money off of serving humanity is the best way to serve humanity? --George guy 18:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

I think the quiz misses out on the distinction between being being libertarian on lifestyle choices and authoritarian on political/economic issues. For instance, I'm libertarian on lifestyle issues: I think it's your business if you want to get stoned and marry your gay lover. However, on political/economic issues I'm much more authoritarian: I think it's imperitive for the government to do things like make and enforce laws, field an army, build infrastructure, and take care of people who can't care for themselves. But the quiz doesn't ask about those much, so I'm classified as some kind of Libertarian. And personally, I think the Libertarian party is a bunch of dangerous idiots, case in point being Iraq. The Neocons bought into the Libertarian myth that the free market solves all problems. But without security, infrastructure, and judiciary, you can't have a free market. I can't run a store if there's no electricity, if I can't take my partner to court when he goes back on a deal, and if the death squads are constantly dragging my employees off the street and perforating their skulls with power drills. InfiniteMonkey 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The poor most certainly could make good use of your hard earned cash. -- di Mario 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And make use of it they certainly do (if you define poor as hookers and dealers, which being a dirty pinko I most certainly do!)</some-or-all a joke, you decide>--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahem... Hitler was not Economic Right, fellows. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq17 Deals with that point--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did Hitler speak out against Conservative Jewish people who held most of the wealth in Germany? I know Hitler had them killed, and redistributed the wealth via nationalist social programs (NAZI stands for National Socialist, don't you know?) and that some of the things Hitler did would be considered left-wing. Now Mussolini was a real right-winger and a real fascist, but Hitler took wealth away from the Conservatives in his nation. Is Hitler a fascist, or is he just a dictator who happens to have some left-wing ideas to go with that dictatorship? Can a left-winger be a fascist? I know that some of the Uncyclopedia pages joke about Hitler being a liberal or left-winger, but is there at least a kernel of truth that Hitler supported some left-wing ideas like socialism? I also read somewhere that Hitler held beer bashes to get the support of labor unions behind him. Aren't labor unions left-wing as well? Also true liberals at the time in the USA like Joe Kennedy, told FDR to appease Hitler and maybe stay out of the war. Yet they knew that a war would happen. When it did, FDR took Joe Kennedy's advice and stayed out of WWII, until the Japanese attacked Perl Harbor. These sorts of things confuse me, can anyone shed some light onto them? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
From a social-democrat standpoint, maybe. Mercantilism and corporativism are totally opposed to free market - yet I would agree that General Pinochet was a free market entusiast (you may not believe but I really didn't cry his recent train ride to the 7th depths). Political Compass has some very biased questions as the first one: "Globalization should favour people instead of big corporations". Who said there is such an oppositon? THE PEOPLE VS THE CORPORATIONS. Pew! That's imposing a pinko idea just from the beginning. Either you are Scrooge McDuck or you answer "humanely" - as a pinko. Nah. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Your just sore that we all know what a fascist you are, first against the wall come the revolution, [comment invoking Godwins law], etc. ;-)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Needabrain, I think you're just noting the same thing I noted above, that the test itself seems to cause the answerer to lean to the left and down (toward Ghandhi). Especially as we're doing this to post and tell others ("Oh God, I don't want them to think I believe we should force religion on students in schools", etc).--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don' think anyone is actually going to think less of anyone from a silly test like this.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That's easy for you to say, you didn't come out as the ONLY person who leaned toward fascism. ;)--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course this means that you're the only one here who'll make something of himself...can I be one of your jackbooted thugs?--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Only if you let me dress you up. I have some FABULOUS ideas for my minions' wardrobes.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...and you killed your own argument with that Scrooge McDuck comment. C'mon, join us here on the left. Up with people, throw off your chains and whatnot.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Any system that tries to generalize people's political views is inherently at least a little inaccurate. A person who is an extremist authoritarian on some issues and an extremist libertarian on others could end up being called a centrist. This compass would be a lot more useful if it showed multiple points on the coordinate plane, each for one issue. - Nonymous 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is more on the fact that we only have a two-dimensional graph. There has to be more specific ways to categorize political thought. --User:Nintendorulez 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, I'm a hippy. I do agree that some of the questions were poorly phrased. That we skew left doesn't really surprise me; I suspect the curve would be on the opposite side on, say, answersingenesis.org, but that's just a guess (one formed from my own lefty/pinko ideals)...and don't bogart that! Oh, great, you got bong water all over my shag rug. Damn fascists. I had so hoped to be part of the radical centre...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The -5, -7 combo seems very popular. Guess we have a high population of authoritarian leftists.... --Sir Zombiebaron 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
libertine leftists...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Naw man, mine was in the authoritarian quadrent. Same as Stalin. --Sir Zombiebaron 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No wait, your right. Guess that's why I failed math. --Sir Zombiebaron 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Commie pinkos commonly fail math. It's endemic to the ideology.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, it's success challenged. Be more politically correct. --User:Nintendorulez 21:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The compass test does not have enough questions to get a fully accurate result. Plus it is not left verses right, but a sphere of grays. I'd expect most Uncyclopedians to be left or mostly left, due to the nature of Wiki and community sites to be leftist in nature and the right-wingers mostly hang out at the stock forums, stock brokers, and conservative blogs out there and like to commercial copyright things via that private ownership the right seems to love so much. Amazing the number of people here accusing me of being a conservative, when my results lean just a little to the left off of the middle, showing that I am indeed a moderate. I hope this helps clear up some confusion most of you had about me. Writing anti-liberal articles does not automatically make one a conservative, I write anti-conservative ones as well, just not as much because the liberals are easier to make fun of and help me out by coming up with their own material on themselves via their own hypocracy. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it's spelled "hypocrisy" (I noticed it's one of your favorite words). --Composure1 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope hypocracy is the government system run by Liberal Democrats who are hypocrites who practice hypocrisy. The USA is a hypocracy that I happen to make fun of on Uncyclopedia, and Neocons are another form of Liberals, just NeoLiberals who happen to be right-wing or pretend to be right-wing. It is not one of my favorite words, but it is a word I use to describe the government that Liberal Democrats happen to run, because I cannot find a better qualified term to use. If you are confused, obviously you do not understand US Politics in the way that I and others do. Please kindly reference I can't believe it's not Liberalism!--Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Orion makes a very good point. If we WERE believers in the glories of capitalism, would we be giving away our jokes for FREE?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 20:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And in exchange for money, and refering others to do the same?---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
We're supposed to be writing jokes? /me runs to rewrite everything I've ever done...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm the capitalist here. For Adam Smith's sake for HOW MUCH do you think we could sell our articles at the humour stock exchange? Yes, this is an answer. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's what the market will bear, and we're doing it for free now...nothing.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Milton Berle made millions off of his jokes, and then sold his "jokebook" for $20 each and I think the bookstores still sell it after he is dead. Sure he wore a woman's dress for laughs, but he got paid a lot of money to wear a woman's dress, some of the people here do it for free. Even Michael Richards got paid money for his racist rant, and then got paid more money to appear on TV and explain why he did a racist rant. We collectively wrote an article on Niggers and never even got paid a penny. Mel Gibson got drunk and blamed everything on Jewish people, and he is now being paid more money than ever to crack jokes in a Fox News interview. WTF? Steven Colbert stole our "Jesii" idea for his show. Weird Al Yankovic ripped off our Canadian Idiot idea for a song, did Uncyclopedia ever get paid for coming up with that material? Nope. It appears that most of the funniest jokes ever recently told, start out on Uncyclopedia as part of a community project, and closed source comedians make millions off of our ideas. Does this mean that we are really Communist Pussies who let the closed source right-wingers steal our jokes and make millions off of our ideas? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, this just means that we should sue them. This is a contract violation, as it's clearly stated that everything inside is copyleft and by so cannot be used for commercial purposes. Legally, stealing from Uncyc is just like stealing from copyrighted material. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 22:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well who enforces the copyleft? I mean there are obvious thefts here of funny materials by people who got paid millions of dollars from the ideas they stole from here. Maybe we are really Communist Pussies who don't evenenforce the copyleft when someone violates it? Maybe we need to move a little more to the right or a little more up, or whatever, and get the copyleft lawyers on the people who stole our ideas for jokes? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The common justice, I guess. All the stuff you create are, by default, copyrighted. If you just don't say anything about something you've written, it's copyrighted. You may sue someone that plagiared one of your blog's entry. By copylefting, we are just giving away some of this non-declared rights on our material, that would be otherwise copyrighted. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you mention Robert Colbert? He didn't steal our ideas... --Jedravent
He (Steven Colbert) stole "Jesii" which was a word invented at Uncyclopedia years ago. He used it as a word of the day, and claimed that he invented it. Which he did not invent it. He stole "Jesii" from Uncyclopedia. Why are you defending a thief? He is not even that funny anyway and "Jesii" was the funniest thing he ever said, and he had to steal to get that funny. I meant Steven Colbert and got him confused with Robert Colbert, because his show is so unfunny that I tend to forget his real first name anyway. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm always just about in the middle, but I lean more to the left as Bush's presidency continues. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At least he's more of an asshole than a pussy... And so am I! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Social 0 Economic 6 is unlike anyone else here. I should start a cult. --George guy 18:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • GOD DAMN...you guys must smoke 10 acres of pot a day...hmmmm....pretty middle in the pack when it comes to being distasteful....a little much of a whore when it comes to money, though....Happy Weasel 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nolan Chart

This [1] was made by libertarians so maybe you will get less pinko trying this one.

  • I was labelled radical libertarian -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate social liberal. Man, I'd forgotten just how "every man for himself" libertarians were...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I got Radical Libertarian, leaning to the "More Personal Freedom" side...go figure. --Sir Zombiebaron 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh, I got Moderate Libertarian, leaning heavily toward "more personal freedom," but practically centrist (right on the line). I'd say this is a pretty darn accurate description of my views, but then, I already knew I leaned libertarian in the Rep. party.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So I guess the whole "jackbooted thug" idea is kaput, then? At this rate I'll never get a chance to stand on the neck of the common man. /me takes of brown shirt...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I got moderate social liberal. Right on the "centrist" circle in the "liberal" quadrant a little towards the libertarian side on the circle. --Composure1 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Radical Liberal leaning towards more Slap bang on the max for personal freedoms, but whilst the above seems to me at least to have a reasonably unbiased world view (although obviously britishness/europeanness of the authors is a factor) this one is very americo-centric, especialy the questions about guns, education and censorship.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 19:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Economic Liberal Says I might want to join the Green Party. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually got caught up when it said "our country spends 20% of tax revenue on defense." I just assumed that if a country spent less than half of it's money on war, you immediately got invaded. - Lemon. Lemonwedge.gif 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
WAR! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again! --User:Nintendorulez 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
D'Oh! Most of the US Budget goes into making nuclear warheads and rockets that we will never use anyone, unless someone figures out a way around MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) or doesn't care about it and launches the first strike anyway. You cannot just solve a problem by throwing money at it. If the US Military taught Ninjitsu and Gun Kata (aka the Ballistic Fist, Martial Arts with hand guns and rifles) to the troops, they wouldn't need all that money being spent on high tech stuff because we'd have better troops that can get by with less equipment and weapons. Plus you wouldn't need to spend it on so many nuclear warheads and rockets, because your enemy will have to face tougher soldiers and would be willing to cut a deal to the US to reduce the nuclear warheads and rockets if they do the same thing. If they didn't, just send the elite troops to sneak in and overthrow their government without having to drop bombs on them and stuff. Any person can fire a machine gun and maybe get lucky with it, but if one is a Ninja with Gun Kata skills, every hit or every shot will be a perfect shot, maximizing the kill zone or disabling the enemy if you want to keep them alive. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy fuck, dude! That rambling diatribe got me so fucking pumped I headbutted my dog. I didn't know junta soldiers could flip out and overthrow governements. - Lemon. Lemonwedge.gif 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes they can. While a bomb kills and then does not exist any more, a ninja can kill and then still exist to kill some more. All one need be is #1 a mammal, #2 be able to fight all the time, and #3 have a purpose to to flip out and kill people. Unlike a bomb, a ninja makes no sound and can sneak into buildings and kill everyone in the building and leave it standing. Saddam would have been hit with a blow dart filled with puffer fish toxin and die. So would all of his men and guards. No need for expensive trials, and terrorists trying to murder people to put him back in power. Ninjas are hyper-violent, like Pirates, true, but a ninja is better suited for overthrowing a government, as a Pirate would just attack and steal all of the gold for themselves and then leave the nation to go spend it on rum and hookers. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Radical Liberal - You want government out of your personal life. On the other hand, you want more government in your economic life. This puts you closest to either the Green Party or the radical wing of the Democratic Party. You might even consider yourself a socialist, or a "true" communist (as opposed to the "state capitalists" who ran the old Soviet Union). --User:Nintendorulez 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Radical Libertarian, ever so slightly on the "More Economic Freedom" side. This is not surprising as I have scored here on this test since I was a teenager in college. Computer majors tend to be more libertarian, and the best computer people I've worked with were all libertarians. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Radical Libertarian - tell me something I don't know. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate social liberal. You want government out of people's personal lives, but you appear to desire some continued government control over people's economic activities. There is no political party that represents your views. You need a mix of Democratic, Libertarian and possibly Green politicians in office. The ratio between these depends on how high up your dot is on the chart. (The Green Party probably runs the most candidates with your views, but the overall Green Party platform is much more socialistic than you are.) Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oooh, exactly the same as mine. --Sir Jam 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Liberal-leaning centrist "[My] views call for roughly same amount of goverment and liberty that we have today, with a smallish desire for more personal liberty and more government involvement in the economy. It appears that [I am] relatively happy with the status quo, though [I] probably want a few more Democrats in office." I think this reflects on my secret, naïve hope that everyone will just shut up and quit being cranky dipshits, which would eliminate the need for all this controversy. I guess that makes me a Jewish-Buddhist-Quaker. --The Acceptable Thinking cap small.png Cainad Sacred Chao.png (Fnord) 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Liberal-leaning centrist like Cainad. I this basically does sum up my views, but the description of us, I think, sucks. I'm not happy with the status quo and I don't like the Democrats. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Liberal-leaning centrist also. Same result as with the compass test. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy - (Ring for service) 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Economic Conservative. ~'Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Liberal centrist which is exactly how I define myself. Democracy is a self-correcting system and and seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.--Super90 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You want government out of your personal life. On the other hand, you want more government in your economic life. This puts you closest to either the Green Party or the radical wing of the Democratic Party. You might even consider yourself a socialist, or a "true" communist (as opposed to the "state capitalists" who ran the old Soviet Union). Bulls eye. I am a card-carrying member of the Dutch Socialist Party and proud of it. Not a violent revolutionary, but I strongly feel that many things are very wrong in this world of mine, which gives me the incentive to raise my voice in protest and propose better alternatives as I see fit. -- di Mario 18:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Radical Libertarian. I guess you have no choice but to worship me now. I am the next Milton Friedman. --George guy 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It said I was a Moderate Social Liberal.... Happy Weasel 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Any other Smaller Government Centrists? Your views call roughly the same amount of government with just a bit more liberty than we currently have in the United States today. Thus, your views are probably best served by a nearly equal mix of Democrats and Republicans in the legislatures, with perhaps a few Libertarians thrown into the mix to nudge things in the direction of smaller government.

--Leatherboundbooks 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Nolan Chart

  • DON'T FEED THE HIPPIES that's what I say. I rather spending my money in dope than in tax-funded movies. For the ones interested, here it goes my Milton Friedman's seal of approval:
$$$ This user is a libertarian, so he or she thinks that Oriana Fallaci was sexier than Rosa Luxemburg.

-- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Too much stoned" - No seriously, they're really freaking stoned! HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By Nolan Chart, aside of myself, we have four more assumed libertarians. By Political Compass, I'm alone at the 4th quadrant. So, which one is more feasible? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand by my assessment that the Libertarian chart is more accurate, given the spread and all the "that's competely true" comments.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The X Chart

The X chart explains all. Xchart.jpg
Rad 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to totally leave me out. And what about NeedABrain? --Sir Zombiebaron 19:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
He didn't want to display my teargenic loneliness. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you were late to post, and I'm a Commie Pussy that leans toward Nazi Asshole. =P Rad 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition, you can barely see NeedABrain's little speck on the right if you look closely...I just didn't get his labels on, because I didn't see him all the way over there! Rad 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Me ♥ RC --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to request one of these deeleys. --—Braydie 19:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I always knew Elvis and I had a deep spiritual political connection. —rc (t) 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt commie and pussy be switched on the chart? --Composure1 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, look: Stalin is a Commie....Asshole. Hitler is a Nazi....Asshole. Michael Moore (along with most of us) is a Commie....Pussy. Colonel Clink is a Nazi....Pussy. Simple. =) Rad 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right.... I simply misinterpreted the labels as axis labels instead of block labels. --Composure1 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is he any relation to Col. Klink? Or was that a test?--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretend it says Klink. I'm not doing this chart again! =P Rad 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RadX is a geek...he got so excited making this chart that he got burrito fillin' all over his redshirt. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Der Fuhrer is 1-10, not 10-10. http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 --User:Nintendorulez 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Put Fuhrer at the right place and El Generalissimo in that corner instead. Also the lower right coner should be labelled "Capitalist pigs", "Playboys", "coke sniffers" or something like that. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't you mean the upper right for those labels? The lower right is for pussy nazis. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It almost seems like NeedABrain wants to be located closer to the Fuhrer. --Composure1 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we are all pussy commies, we should make a pussy commie reskin instead of a christmas one.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
UnNews headline: Uncyclopedia editors are all a bunch of Communist Pussies. --User:Nintendorulez 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
UnNews headline: Uncyclopedia editors are all a bunch of Communist Pussies. Except NeedABrain, who's a neoliberal coke sniffer but will end richer than you. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
But moving the Fuhrer would make NeedABrain farther away from the Fuhrer! --Jedravent 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor Brad, all by himself :) Although I'm not on the chart, I'd be just a little bit right of ZB. So, for those of you to the left of me, I say "Damn liberals..." HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Brad WANTS to be alone. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
/me sniffs, a tear welling in his eye. That thing says I'm more authoritarian than Dawg, for Christ's sake!--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yay tompkins said something about me...and then he called me a "Damn liberal...". I guess that's all right cause I'm from Canada. --Sir Zombiebaron 07:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be a trend to my untrained eye.... --Ceridwyn 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell am I? Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It totally needs updating. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs a serious updating. HELP US, OBIWAN-RAD-NOBI, YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


And nobody's fixed the Fuhrer yet. --User:Nintendorulez 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Complaints

As mentioned before, any test will inherently tend to skew the political ideologies of those it is not designed to represent. The political compass test has a number of assumptions that make sense for social and economic leftists, but that do not make sense for other ideologies. Examples are the "good of humanity vs. corporations in a market" question or the "come to terms with establishment" question. The Nolan chart can be similarly biased in that it contains the libertarian assumption of deep linkage between social and economic freedoms, and in that it tends to have a state vs. indivudual orientation that non-libertarians are not likely to share.

Beyond that, I have to question a test that puts most people who take it in the lower left corner and almost every government and major politician in the upper right corner. Clearly there is some confusion an distortion in the test when talking about translating raw ideals vs. public policy.---Quill.gifRev. Isra (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe we're just all liberal. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
While you raise a very good point, Isra, I do tend to think the Libertarian test is more accurate, as a strong majority of people aren't all bunched up in one spot.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this opinion, and I have long held that the "political compass" is a sham and skewed to that quadrant because the baseline people have a severely skewed ideology, as well as question biasing. Over the years I've seen many take this test and this is the first time I've seen anyone land right of the vertical line, and almost everyone lands south of the horizontal. We always considered the ones above the line to be errors, because the vast majority were down there.
Really, the center should be in the center of our grouping, discounting NeedABrain, then rotate it 135 degrees, and it would be a pretty reasonable approximation of our real political leanings. However, it is clearly inherently wrong to begin with, so I believe it should be dismissed outright. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the question is whether the 'center' should be the average of people's political thought, or the status quo based on the government. In the latter case, the shown center is an accurate descriptor of the US government compared to the typical voters stances on the issues. In the former, the center ought to be where Dawg mentioned. --User:Nintendorulez 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the Political Compass test is certainly biased to some extent - I think I really would have had to make a conscious effort to put myself on the right side, and a few of the questions were phrased in ways that didn't exactly seem objective.
That said, I've seen the same poll at a popular message board that is on the whole heavily weighted to the left, and if I remember correctly their results were significantly more evenly scattered than ours. This makes me think that either Uncyc really is just that uniformly leftist, or that people are exaggerating their political ideologies.
I'm inclined to think the second option is more realistic. I would expect a website like ours to be weighted to the left, but not to the extent that the results show. Moreover, I've seen some of the people who gave their results debate politics before, and from those arguments I find it very hard to believe that their PC scores (or the comments they've made here) actually represent their views. —rc (t) 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, I've seen this test on forums before, and even the most die-hard right-leaning people land in the lower left corner, which makes no sense to me. Also, the big difference seems to be intelligence and education - the better educated, more logical, and more intelligent a group is the more likely they land there, but not due to it being a more intelligent region. Instead, it reflects extreme bias and poor question design, as those that are more capable of understanding the questions will answer in a different manner than less intelligent people, who will select on emotional impulse.
Of course it is merely my opinion that most of the people I hung around were more intelligent, so it could be something else. They, too, pointed out that the questions were very poorly worded and they showed distinct bias. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case, a self-assessment is always going to leave a social desirability bias- regardless of how you feel, an evaluation of a phrase like "Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races" is very rarely going to be given entirely honestly by a genuine racist, and even less so by people who are so hysterically afraid of seeming intolerant that the image they feel a need to construct of themselves as a socially enlightened being is completely unrepresentative of their real feelings. That said, it does seem to me like uncyc would attract bottom-left people, if only because I can't think of a single comedian who'd be top-right. --Sir Jam 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Jim Davidson? Bernard Manning? Hitler had a short run as a stand up in Munich before taking up the whole war thing. I guess there's none that's top-right and funny, though. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy - (Ring for service) 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Emo Philips? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

I took two more quiz-type thingies; the world's smallest political quiz & OkCupid political quiz. I'm thinking that all quizes probably have biased questions, but I still hit Social & Economic Liberal every damn time (which pretty much kills the fantasy of running my own police state...).--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How I hit the right

I've already knew PC, so I consciously answered questions as "from each one accordingly his ability, to each one accordingly his necessity is a basically good idea" with "strongly disagree". The fact is, no matter how good this idea could be at first, it's behind the worst totalitarian systems in the world - for you have to destroy the market economy to implement such ideology, and by so you will produce major misery and have to deal with several people that sudden start thinking that this is not anymore a "basically good idea". But what kind of person is supposed to answer "strongly disagree" to such a candid humanitarian concept? The concept, not its consequences? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So you lied, then? It says "idea" right in the question! I am outraged (not really) that you'd cheat on a biased question! (besides, you already undermined yourself w/the whole "Scrooge McDuck" comment above...)--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have something against Uncle Scrooge McDuck, enterpreneur hero of my childhood? (Or else... was Captain Boeing a NKVD agent?) -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Citizen, stay calm! We're sending Tom Mayfair around to your domicile for ideological training. Stand away from the door!--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just remember: libertarians favour the 2nd ammend. :D
By the way, oh hell, we don't have an article on Political Compass. Lemme do it, please, please, pleeease?... I'm going to start it tomorrow, okay? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I said I strongly disagree to that question because I dont think something can be a good idea if in reality it has bad consequences. As a government policy, it doesnt work, because it would require forcing people to do things they are able to rather than allowing them to take a career choice that they enjoy. Maybe more people than necessary are musicians, and less than necessary are working in coal mines. It might be less efficient overall for a nation and make it less productive, but I would prefer this to forcing people to take jobs that would make the nation's productivity rise. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this is another side of the question, the first part. The second part is that it endorses welfare parisitism saying that everyone has a "natural right" to receive "accordingly to his necessities". Particularly, my "necessities" include 4 pints of Old Speckled a day, or else I would riot with such a social inequity. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, but while one can beleive that people deserve the necessities required to live, they can disagree with how to acheive this. The question isnt a choice between helping people and not helping people, it presents a specific way of dealing with this problem which you either approve of or do not. Sort of like the question on social security, saying you dont think social security is the best way to help people doesnt mean you dont want to help people, it just means you feel charity is a better way of doing it. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with that question because it was not posed as a question about the government. My thoughts went like so: "It's a brilliant idea, but it doesn't work in practice", therefore, I agreed that it was a basically good idea. It doesn't mean I'd go out and try to enforce a system based upon it on unwilling people. As I said, the questions are poorly worded and do not accurately assess one's political leanings, merely one's grasp on logic and intelligence. If you go for the PC answer or the logical answers, you land in the lower left. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the fundamental question is whether "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a good idea or not, I think it's pretty obvious that it is. Without getting to be like Peter Singer here, I think it's clear that it would be best if everyone did what they were able and everyone got what they needed. I don't see how you can really dispute that as it's basically saying "If the economy behaved perfectly, everything would be great" which is obviously true. And just because something fails in practice doesn't mean it isn't a good idea: democracy has produced its share of terrible things in practice, yet I'm not for tossing it to the wayside just yet. Anyway, the basic here question is, should human need come into play when making decisions and do people have some sort of obligation to their fellow man? That would be a more 'even' way of putting it, but I think the answer to both of those questions is 'yes'. So basically, I'm a raging leftist in theory, but actually pretty moderate in practice. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fundament under communism as stated above would work only if all people were perfect and were 100% ratio, 0% emotion. The Socialist creed puts it differently:
  • Basically, each person has a worthiness and a set of inalienable rights, e.g. the right to pursue happiness, or unhappiness as one sees fit. To make her or his own decisions, in short, to be an individual.
  • Although the worthiness of all people is equal to that of all others (meaning that no person can be intrinsically more important than an other), we acknowledge the fact that not all persons are created equal, and can suffer from misfortune. Thus not all people are able to lead a meaningfull or even just decent life all by themselves, given the cards life has dealt them.
  • Therefore, people should show solidarity towards one another. On a small scale, an individual should be disposed to aid those in need she or he knows of in their personal circle. On a large scale, solidarity should be organized by the goverment using tax money.
So you see, Socialism is about freedom of the individual, a caring society, and a government that spends the taxpayers money with wisdom and compassion. -- di Mario 18:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both left and right, authoritarian and libertarian are ideals and as such don't work in the real world, as people are not ideal. Hence, nearer the middle is best (or as close to the ideals as we can get without getting burned).--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea because it being a good idea assumes that all human abilities and needs can be easily quantified for every single person on the planet, and it also assumes that once this is done, these abilities and needs will be perfectly commensurate and possible to enact/fulfill without anyone getting hurt, shot, covered in pudding etc... --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy - (Ring for service) 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, functionally, it's possible. It isn't. It's a pipe-dream, but I think that, if it were possible, it would be desirable. I fully sympathize and agree with the fact that it's unworkable to people's inherent differences and disagreements. I don't believe it's a good idea to implement the ideology, word for word, with force. I do think it's best to understand that what's described really is the ideal for human society, economically. That's how it SHOULD work. As a practical matter, I think it illustrates a very real need to balance social freedoms with social obligations. But that's a practical matter, not a theoretical one, like the statement that underpins it. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I would consider functional possibility to be an essential criterion for a good idea - that's what differentiates the "good idea" from the "desired but impossible" - the realm of fantastical wishes. Confusion between the two things can lead to disaster. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy - (Ring for service) 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So you are talking about private morals, the kind of ideas that should not be state enforced. But welfare programs are state enforced, as you cannot avoid paying taxes. There's an immediate question that is raised when you say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Who is getting from each? Who is giving to each? You cannot imagine any implementation of such idea without a heavy collectivist framework - be it the all-powerful state be it an anarchist commune. And collectivism, if not totally undesirable, cannot suvive without some form of coercion, even if this cohercion is just the burden of tradition. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about social morals, the kind which any society must follow for it to be successful. If society as a whole does not aid those in need, it is not a good society and probably will not last long. And tell me, if a state isn't to enforce morality, what is it to do? "Uphold property rights" is morality. "Prevent people from killing each other" is morality. Should the state do those things, or are you an anarcho-capitalist? Anyway, the statement is saying, if everyone did what they could, and shared alike, everyone could then take what they needed, and everyone would have enough, with a little extra left over for beer. That's how it was originally meant. I take it it mean something less literal, more along of the lines of, "if you have the ability to help those in need, you are obligated to", in one specific instance, through taxation. And no form of social order can survive with coercion, even capitalism. In fact, I was watching a great episode of FRONTLINE on that very topic last night. The question is, how is the coercion to be implemented? For what purpose? --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I would say that if had two loafs and saw a beggar starving, I would give one to him. But I don't think it's a nice idea the state preemptively preventing me from buying the two rolls... Forbidding people to kill each other is more a question of the state monopoly of violence - acknowledged even by the majorty of libertarians as a conquest of Civilization - than properly morals. Using the state to force people in respecting contracts follows just the same logic. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And thats why you are right economically and I'm left, I think the state should make you buy him a loaf of bread (through taxes) you think you should be able to choose wether to give it or not (via charity).--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 11:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a morality, regardless. You think it somehow 'wrong' to kill or take another's property; at least, you think it's 'wrong' for the state to do it. That's morality. I don't think the state should prevent you from buying them either, but I might place more value on the life of the beggar than your 'right to own 2 loaves of bread.' It's a balancing act, you see. I think there are clearly cases when government assistence is right and proper, others where it's completely unecessary and harmful. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I love you neverthless... It's not everyday you have a political discussion so civilized as this one. (Puts monocle) Oh, Sir ENeGMA, how jolly and cheerful this opportunity to enjoy this tea and biscuits with you! -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

About freedom

There's other major issue regarding left and right. It's about our hypothetical beggar's liberty. You are right wing when you say that, despite being dirty, miserable and not having a roof to sleep under, our beggar has just the same rights, conscience and obbligations as any citizen. It's not less immoral for him to pickpocket as it would be for a millionaire. If you are left wing, you tend to consider him more as a type of pinball or pool ball, always being bounced from one side to another by the circunstances. He's not free, or at least not free as "the middle class deafault person". He's more or less a slave of accident, and by so cannot be judged by the same rule you use for a "normal" person. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here that N.A.B's comments do not reflect the diversity and intellectual nuance that can be found on the right. I was going to go into it and cite prominant conservative and libertarian thinkers, but then I remembered this isn't a politics site and this thread is already really long.---Quill.gifRev. Isra (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just tried to explain that right wing morals are non-relativist. There's a major issue regarding the concept of forgiveness, specially for religious conservatives or compassionate conservatives. But, yet the society can forgive a former criminal, his previous mistakes are not to be diminished due his social condition. At least I understand it this way. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lame Nameless Image

No fancy names on this, but here is how it looks as far as trends go. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Graphwithoutnames.jpg

Well, it looks like we have two Commies and a Nazi. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

More like one authoritarian right, two libertarian right...and a wagonload of hippies, which by a strange coincidence is the name of my folk album.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Using the Hellman's method of simplifying stuff, let's say we have two trüe cömmies, one hateful-warmongering-republican, two coke sniffing porn tycoons/stock exchange vandals and a bucketful of politically correct "I-think-this-way-because-my-college-teacher-told-me-to-do-so-and-elseways-I-would-never-get-along-with-those-chicks-with-hairy-armpits". -- herr doktor needsAshuttle Rocket.gif [scream!] 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, it's funny how true that is. Looking back at my years in college, I now realize how much leftist authoritarian socialist propaganda my professors forced upon up, even in classes that had absolutely no reason to involve politics. Worse yet, many of the students blindly followed them... I, on the other hand, just played it for them and my mind totally rejected both their lies and the lies of my parents, resulting in my becoming something entirely different. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 02:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh, being a moderate, I believe Aristolean ideals of how there's a truth hidden in every lie, sometimes a fool speaks wisdom, and a wise man is not always right. The middle road is the safest path, and you'll never be COMPLETELY wrong if you take it. ;)--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Three commies, if you count me. --The fatgoat 04:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw, damn you Tom Mayfair! How dare you take my "Most Left-wing insane" title! --User:Nintendorulez 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help it. Spacer.gifSpacer.gifPremierTomMayfairChe.png RedPhone.png Unsoc.png Hammer and sickle.png 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we still post results here if we were too lazy to do this before?--KWild 11:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. Guutog 12:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC +2)

I sit very close to Famine and Braydie. I would have thought they would both be much more iron fisted fascists than my communist pussy self. Icons-flag-au.png Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Braydie is an emo. Look at his picture. Heck, read his poetry. Famine is...Famine. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Forum:A_poll:_Uncyclopedian_political_slants&oldid=1824756"