Political Compass

Xero · Post by **Xero** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:27 am

WangyJohn wrote:
Xero wrote:how the fuck am I like the most conservative one here?
The way Finland is the most liberal and least corrupted country in EU.

Or rather, how a mouse is a giant along the ants.

http://www.nationstates.net/sa-rakai

I guess I'm on the conservitive side of liberable police state...

WangyJohn · Post by **WangyJohn** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:12 am

Xero wrote:
WangyJohn wrote:
Xero wrote:how the fuck am I like the most conservative one here?
The way Finland is the most liberal and least corrupted country in EU.

Or rather, how a mouse is a giant along the ants.
http://www.nationstates.net/sa-rakai

I guess I'm on the conservitive side of liberable police state...

Wait...

Libertarian Police state where private enterprise is illegal and income tax is 100%?

Xero · Post by **Xero** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:27 am

WangyJohn wrote:
Xero wrote:
WangyJohn wrote: The way Finland is the most liberal and least corrupted country in EU.

Or rather, how a mouse is a giant along the ants.
http://www.nationstates.net/sa-rakai

I guess I'm on the conservitive side of liberable police state...
Wait...

Libertarian Police state where private enterprise is illegal and income tax is 100%?

you work for the betterment of everyone including yourself
what can I say I'm a tyrant, nao to find some spice and sandtrout...

Ce6 · Post by **Ce6** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:55 pm

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

Once again, I'm doing my part not to deviate in any obvious manner from the group average.

Vedius Pollio · Post by **Vedius Pollio** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:53 pm

Authoritarian: +2.00
Economic: -1.38

That's worrying.

Boring 7 · Post by **Boring 7** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:38 am

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
Non-pretty art is not art. And when did we change from the "politics" to the "amatuer art critic" test?

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
Japan can attest this is an objective falsehood.

"In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded."
"Must" or "will anyway"?

"All authority should be questioned."
"...By people who aren't stupid."

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31

WangyJohn · Post by **WangyJohn** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:59 am

boring 7 wrote:"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
Non-pretty art is not art. And when did we change from the "politics" to the "amatuer art critic" test?

It's been explained; abstract art is often held at a low regard by conservatice-minded and authoritarian people.

For example, Hitler was a sworn enemy of surrealism (and jews, but that's an other story), and whilst the Russian Revolution welcomed abstract art as a media suring the revolution, after the soviet union was established, Socialist Realism came the only form of art.

Lowky · Post by **Lowky** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:40 am

Vedius Pollio wrote:Authoritarian: +2.00
Economic: -1.38

That's worrying.

We got us a right wing wacko here

Lowky · Post by **Lowky** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:42 am

WangyJohn wrote:
boring 7 wrote:"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
Non-pretty art is not art. And when did we change from the "politics" to the "amatuer art critic" test?
It's been explained; abstract art is often held at a low regard by conservatice-minded and authoritarian people.

For example, Hitler was a sworn enemy of surrealism (and jews, but that's an other story), and whilst the Russian Revolution welcomed abstract art as a media suring the revolution, after the soviet union was established, Socialist Realism came the only form of art.

That's probably because it was a Jewish art critic who told the world how much Hitler sucked as an artist.

Hitler's Art

*edited to include a link to show how much Hitler's art sucked, in particular #15*

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:21 am

Xero wrote:how the fuck am I like the most conservative one here?

Don't worry, you're not anymore.

Economy: 6.12
Social: -2

Remarkable close to Friedman's point, as they have it; probably why I like the guy so much.

But I do agree that the questions have biases; some of them are worded in such a way as to trigger a "social desirability" bias. I really wish "Mu" was one of the available answers.

..

That's Milton Friedman; I keep forgetting there are about 4 Friedman's...

Boring 7 · Post by **Boring 7** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:23 am

I've seen worse.

More specifically, I've seen worse featured as great art with a "great art" price tag.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:39 am

WangyJohn wrote:It's been explained; abstract art is often held at a low regard by conservatice-minded and authoritarian people.

As the board's token conservative, let me take this opportunity to say that it's not abstract art that I hold in low regard, it's the funding of abstract art (and for that matter, any art, but particularly "abstract" art because it has the most pretenders) by the State which I hold in low regard. If the artists can sell their art to people willing to buy it, more power to them. (I probably wouldn't, but that's just my taste in art.) If the artist's only means of selling his art is because the government makes people buy it (see Naples, FL), then he should probably find a new line of work, or at least a side job.

Jrm · Post by **Jrm** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:50 am

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

Xero · Post by **Xero** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:23 am

Toawa wrote:
Xero wrote:how the fuck am I like the most conservative one here?
Don't worry, you're not anymore.

Economy: 6.12
Social: -2

Remarkable close to Friedman's point, as they have it; probably why I like the guy so much.

But I do agree that the questions have biases; some of them are worded in such a way as to trigger a "social desirability" bias. I really wish "Mu" was one of the available answers.

..

That's Milton Friedman; I keep forgetting there are about 4 Friedman's...

you live!

WangyJohn · Post by **WangyJohn** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:19 am

Lowky wrote:
Vedius Pollio wrote:Authoritarian: +2.00
Economic: -1.38

That's worrying.
We got us a right wing wacko here

Look closer, he's an authoritarian lefite. IE: A Stalinist!

Ans Toawa, you're not a conservative, you're a libertarian. You say you oppose public funding of abstract art, well, isn't it characteristic for a libertarian to oppose of public funding of just about everything (that doesn't shoot stuff).

Error of Logic · Post by **Error of Logic** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:36 am

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31

So what does that mean again, apart from my being near the 'Gandhi' point ...? (tired)

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:17 pm

WangyJohn wrote:Ans Toawa, you're not a conservative, you're a libertarian. You say you oppose public funding of abstract art, well, isn't it characteristic for a libertarian to oppose of public funding of just about everything (that doesn't shoot stuff).

Compared to the general population on this board, I am.

But yes, I'm of the school that doesn't support funding because it's not the government's purpose. This is as opposed to the school that doesn't support funding because the funding tends to go to art that they find offensive. It's a subtle but important difference.

And yes, I do support the funding of stuff that shoots other stuff because that's defense, which is the government's purpose. (This actually puts me under a bit of suspicion in the eyes of certain libertarian/anarcho-capitalist wings...) And yes, I do live. I just haven't read the board in the last several days.

Xero · Post by **Xero** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:17 pm

Toawa wrote: And yes, I do live. I just haven't read the board in the last several days.

I know you missed a good debate
hence my comment
-pat pat-

Fnyunj · Post by **Fnyunj** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:09 pm

Toawa wrote:...As the board's token conservative, let me take this opportunity to say that it's not abstract art that I hold in low regard, it's the funding of abstract art . . . If the artists can sell their art to people willing to buy it, more power to them. . . ..

Gosh, then I guess you deserve to live in a world where The Market decides what is good and what is not good art.

Despite the NEA's many well-publicized abuses*, overall, more good than harm has been done for our nation by this program. A measurable amount of taxable economic activity was generated from this subsidized industry. Is it the government's job? Ask yourself what ". . . to promote the general welfare. . ." could have possibly meant.

* wrote:(including the ill-advised religious blasphemies; ignore whether or not an artist should have a right to do this (ie. offend people; offend religions; offend very large, old, well-connected, well-funded, politically powerful, paranoid groups), whether or not the government should pay for it - was it a constructive endeavor, overall, considering the political (and actual) damage that it did to NEA? Answer: No. Hypothetical: Had I been the grant sponsor, I would have told Maplethorpe, and the urine crucifix guy, and the elephant-poo guy, to go sit down and take a sabbatical, and do a long, scholarly paper on what such art might mean; prior to actually applying for any govt. funding again. But that's just me.)

My bottom line on the NEA: it was poorly managed, but fundamentally a good idea. They really lost sight of their mission at some point - they got so taken up by the notion that since The Market only allows a certain very narrow range of art to survive (and it is not necessarily in the best interest of our Nation to limit our artists to only Marketable-art) - that the NEA should fund ALL art regardless of other qualities (or lack) of merit. - and they so bought into this idea, that they forgot about political realities, and basic survival of the endowment. Some art has to perish - and the notion that that may be "great art" - strikes fear into the heart of the grant sponsors and review boards, but that fear arises from incompetence, and elitist arrogance. People have been frustrated by religious oppression for centuries. That doesn't make a crucifix in a jar of urine "great art". The only thing that art accomplishes is it gives people like Toaoaowa a single example to use to abolish the funding of tens of thousands of other pieces of actual great art, that enriches all of our lives, and helps prevent our nation from slipping into what seems to be an inevitable future of commercial blandness.

Lulujayne · Post by **Lulujayne** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:05 pm

Seeing as we're all basically falling around the same area of the graph, I conclude that Gandhi and Mother Theresa both secretly dreamed of tentacle rape.