67 16

Where do you stand on the political compass? I found this short test interesting and accurate for me. I’ve posted my results...Here’s the link if you’re interested —> []

Edit: I wanted to say that though my ideas lean left, I really dislike most politicians and think they are different shades of evil. I am a humanist and will not claim a political party.

BohoHeathen 8 July 18

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Imagine that...


I’m apparently like ghandi.

See diagram.


Just as I thought.


Chaotic centre I piss everyone off at some point lol

Simon1 Level 7 July 18, 2018

I'm in the lower left quarter.


I refuse to be labeled

And thus you have been labeled "no response" 😉

@Donna_I I just can't win, can I?


Ends up I am just a touch to the right of Gandhi. Who knew!


I always considered myself a moderate Right Liberal. But my chart shows me to be a moderate Left Liberal. Hmm. I need to reevaluate.

xyz123 Level 7 July 18, 2018

I'm an authoritarian libertarian: I want you all to do whatever the hell I want. Just kidding! But I do think the dichotomies in the map are wrong. Libertarian and Authoritarian are not opposites, but just different shades of the same thing. If you deny your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you are saying you deserve more than them, just because you had better luck - and that they should respect your "private property". What is the net effect of this? Obey my money, or starve. See my first sentence, which captures the absurdity in the hidden attitude behind it perfectly.

ejbman Level 7 July 18, 2018

But I'm called a Trump supporter all the time on this site and others for seeing thru the Democrat party and all their lies.

jorj Level 8 July 18, 2018

I don't think either party has a monopoly liars. 🙂

@TonyMacaroni very true. Just seems that the majority of people on the left can't grasp that idea. I expect the right wingers to be uninformed but the left prides itself on being the intelligent people only to elect ppl like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. all the while claiming they are for liberal ideology. Nothing liberal at all about the corporate owned democrats of today. The war alone is enough to prove that. Obama expanded to more countries instead of work for peace and that is enough to prove he isn't liberal but add on the right wing think tank healthcare plan and his bailout on top of that and I just can't understand how the Dem voters can be so blind to this stuff.

@jorj I don't blame Obama for the healthcare because he was lucky to even get anything passed. He originally wanted to lower the Medicare age to 55 but I think that prick Joe Lieberman wouldn't go along. I do blame him for 1. Staying in Afghanistan and 2. Overthrowing Gadaffi. In particular, Libya has been a complete disaster and is now a failed state. But, my biggest complaint with Obama is that he did not reclassify Marijuana as a lower class drug and left it in the same class as heroin and coke. What a fucking hypocrite! That dude smoked weed and did blow during High School and College.

@jorj Now that I am started on Obama, I recently read James Comey's book. Obama should have directed AG Lynch to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's emails. They put Comey and the FBI in an impossible position.

They all lie. The trick is to pick the lesser of the evils.

@Science-guy If you’re picking the lesser of two evils then you’ve already lost. The trick is to change the game.

@Science-guy never will I vote lesser evil. I can write in another person every time no matter if the right wing Dems or right wing repubs win, it's all the same to me.

@TonyMacaroni I love how some people want to use the argument that Hillary lost and people should move on when she is just as relevant as Trump in this whole investigation. She did fund the dossier making her a person of interest in this too, esp knowing it involved a foreign power trying to influence our election as well. Steele stated he would do what it took to get Trump and people ignore all this stuff.


I am a moderate centrist. Didn't need to take the test.


Libertarian left. I keep telling people there is such a thing even tho I might be the first one. I have been the first one in many areas.

I'm a left leaning libertarian as well. Most people don't really know enough about political ideology to really understand what it means tho.

@jorj Yay. I am not alone.


I don’t stand anywhere on that map.

So you do not exist. We are talking to a gost.


Right on the upper left corner of your square. I sank your battleship! ?


I've completed this test many times and it's been shared here at least once, but I took it again - and am down in the bottom left-hand corner as usual.

Jnei Level 8 July 18, 2018

Girl!!! You are way out there. At least its on the left spectrum.. =0}

@Countrywoman I think I've got a bit more right-wing than when I first took the test 🙂

got the same result


Here's me...


No real surprise for me.

I was slightly more libertarian than that, but same quadrant.


Left. Always have been, always will be.



Livia Level 6 Aug 31, 2018

I have to say it surprised me. I believe in really strong regulation of corporations and while I am socially liberal, I don’t believe in free speech (hate speech is a crime in my country) and I am a firm believer in no platforming racists, nazi’s anti-semitists, islamaphobes etc, which really should put me in the slightly authoritarian left section. The questions aren’t scientifically valid, but it was a good waste of a few spare minutes for jollies.


No surprises.

GP73 Level 4 July 19, 2018

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54 A little more liberal than I would have liked but some of the questions gave me pause.


I AM a liberal.

I am NOT a member of the current "left."

Jacar Level 8 July 18, 2018


@Livia . . . this is informative:

Prager is silly.

@Jacar Very nice! Thank you for posting and following up. I enjoyed watching it. Do you agree with the dude with the long hair? Because I do, and whether he has a problem with democratic socialism, that is exactly what he describes of himself. And Chomsky is definitely left wing. If you share their thinking that would also put you in the category of the left. To be honest it’s something to be very proud of. The left’s history of fighting fascism and reforming policy to protect the public is incredible and honorable, so is the contribution of the left to economics and philosophy. Americans just cannot handle the terminology of politics and are scared to call themselves atheist or socialist. It’s some psychological leftover from the McCarthy era. Also the fear of “big government” is bizarre. Big government is how you get bargaining power to bulk buy drugs for free healthcare for the entire nation. Big government is how you redistribute wealth via regulation of corporations and the stock market. The crazy localism of America means even the local police fuck each other’s crime scenes up, because they don’t know which jurisdiction they are in. Nationalization of utilities, public services and transportation can only be done via big government. Works in many parts of Europe and is nothing to be afraid of.
Pragar is disgusting and dumb as fuck. The guy with the long hair is excellent. Thanks again!

@Livia "dumb as fuck" Not being crass, but, i have much more respect for fucking to ever equate such wonderment with any level of intelligence. And: too many of the "left" no longer support women's rights, nor science.


Well I definitely agree. Fucking and Pragar shouldn’t be in the same sentence. That’s revolting, and that’s twice I have connected the two. Sorry! ?
I would dispute the comment on sexism and lack of support for science. The left, while fractured, have basic tenets are the same for all socialists.

Equality and equity for all human beings of all races and genders
No enslavement to religion by the state or its institutions (that does mean banning it in public, all its symbols, and only permitting worship in church or at home - I struggle with that)
Education for all
Universal healthcare that is free at the point of service
Provision of a social safety net via social housing and welfare
Redistribution of wealth via taxation
Reclamation of secular public spaces based on the notion of a neutral space for all to enjoy
Regulation on corporations and markets
Public ownership of transportation and utilities
Complete ideological opposition of fascism

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”

Unless someone embraces all of that, they are not left wing.

Someone cannot be left-wing and sexist - it’s completely against the ideological premise of socialism, which is economic and social equality.

In the absence of religion, there can only be reason, science and progress, so science plays a huge role in both communist and democratic socialist countries.

It’s not socialist to legislate against women’s control of their reproductive rights or deny them equal pay. I have never so far encountered a socialist who is a climate denier or flat-earther (which I always thought was satire until I lived here a while).

IMO, Democrats are right wing, not left wing, as they don’t respect human rights, pander to religion and they embrace free-market economics over a managed economy. They are a sell out.


There is much much more to demonstrate that socialism and women’s liberation are inextricably linked.

@Livia The "regressive left" is anti science and anti women's rights.
Gad Saad presents a good summary of the anti-science, anti-free speech, behaviors of the lefters.

Defending the practice of islam is supporting suppression of women. The "hate speech" laws in the UK and in canada are expressly islam blasphemy laws. This is already happening here with FB, YT,... banning any comments about the evil of islam.
The adherents of the religion of peace think their feelings of offence are more important that our freedom of speech. So they get to retaliate with violence and threats of violence, without condemnation.
But those who draw attention to those threats are "punished" by being blocked, and otherwise censored.

I am from the UK, and we have never had freedom of speech as a enshrined legal right.
We don’t have a written constitution, we don’t have the same legal code, governmental institutions, attitudes, society, humor or culture. By living in the USA, I now understand all we have is a shared language.

I can promise you that what you are saying about hate speech laws being sharia blasphemy law is incorrect.

I can understand why you could think that, because freedom of speech is such a core value to Americans, but our hate speech laws were simply a codified extension of what already existed.

We have historically and legally never had any right to freedom of speech. I always chuckle when I hear Brits saying that phrase, because they don’t know the law, and they are assuming there was one entitling them to say what they like. Some even think it’s something to do with the EU, and they took away our freedom of speech, but they didn’t because it has never existed. I think it was never something legally considered as something separate to generic concepts of freedom. It’s like we never have had a constitutional right to arm ourselves. I don’t know why, but we haven’t.

These differences are historical structural and cultural between the US and British system that Canada, NZ and Australia share. British law is weird as it’s been codified since 1297 A.D. It has nothing to do with Islam and sharia.


@Jacar I watched the entire lecture with interest. He is very challenging and charismatic. He has a great sense of humor. I like discussing controversial ideas, so I am willing to listen and debate with someone who doesn’t lose their temper. That’s another of his strengths. However there is a lot to unpack there. His field of study, evolutionary psychology is fascinating, but the issue is not that left wingers won’t tolerate evolution. Evolution is a a scientific theory so supported by fact, like the law of gravity, that only someone very dense would deny it. The issue is the tie of evolution with psychology. Now, I am not denying that biology, specifically sexual biology and the biological cues that drive evolution don’t affect human psychology, they do, and that’s a hard scientific fact. Our hormones and neural pathways can absolutely drive behavior- ask any menstruating woman or somebody who is taking hormones for transitioning gender. They will say their mood, behavior and personality may undergo changes. A person who has a gene that means they’re living with say, an endocrine condition that affects reproductive organs will also agree that it has a huge impact on their impulses, lack thereof, and ability to behaviorally engage with peers etc. I have no problem with any biological theory that can explain psychology. The problem is reductionism or determinism. Reductionism and determinism is seen across disciplines, but when it is seen in evolutionary psychology it’s extremely dangerous. In that discipline there was a time where structuralism, reductionism and determinism produced things like eugenics and scientific racism. Post-structuralism, which derives mostly from linguistics, was a post-WW2 reaction to the extremes of scientific racism and biological determinism, and historical factors like the dismantling of imperialism by independence movements based on national identity of oppressed people, ethic and religion.
The rise of critical theory and relativism is part of an entire liberation movement in world history. Again the problem becomes determinism and reductionism when these ideas are pitted against each other.
I find Gad Saad to be a genetic and biological determinist, and Judith Butler a cultural determinist. Neither of them is right. The truth is an intersection of these approaches.
For Saad, there were a lot of things very wrong in this lecture. He named serious academics alongside weak academics and then put them all on the same par by reducing their complex research to absurd, and disingenuous conclusions. “Solar panels caused terrorist attacks” was absolutely not what Nye ever said.
Saad attacks identity politics while using his own minority identity and intersection to bolster right wing ideas. “Why can’t an overweight Lebanese Jew win the Boston Marathon - because it’s a competition!” This is an attack on affirmative action, and he is using his identity to legitimize an attack on equality and equity measures. He can do that because of his class privilege. He is a member of the bourgeoisie. He can afford to attack equality laws, because despite his identity, he is wealthy in relation to a janitor, and his wealth and position have exempted him inequality. He can call on his Lebanese Jewish childhood as much as he likes- The man he is now is in a very privileged and influential social position. He is no friend of the man down the coal shaft, according to evolutionary psychology, the miner is a evolutionary loser- with a lower chance of passing on his genes.
His opening line about Antifa terrorists was incredible coming from a Jewish person. He could at least remember the Antifa movement was part of the active resistance against Nazism that produced the holocaust.
Although he sounds good, he is definitely a right wing activist and is using seemingly neutral data to prove his point, but it’s not neutral. Just because 58% of PhDs were women doesn’t mean they were not experiencing sexual harassment on campus. It also does not mean that women had better equal access to education. Perhaps the rate of women in education has increased due to better flexibility of programs- hybrids and online courses. Perhaps men are choosing careers over terminal degrees.
I found him charming, funny but scarily racist and persuasive in getting other racists to “engage in battle”.
He is dangerous and insidious. Not my cup of tea at all!


That's almost exactly where I fall as well. Left leaning libertarian.


I'm in the radical center. It's not out of having no opinions, it's out of refusing to hold emotional views, and sticking to facts.

But emotions are a integral part of human life. Just because people like us see in graphs, and coordinates and patterns doesn’t mean we can’t work with, accept, and enjoy our emotions


Nearly as I suspected for myself. I actually enjoyed this survey.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:133969
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.