Political Compass

[Sweet Angel]

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44


I'm really close to Alexis Tsipras... Funny cuz I'm also an Alexis except he's a man :c

[GuidoHunter]

Let's break open a new quadrant. EDIT: Dang, didn't see Arch's post.

Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36





Political Compass said I sided almost exactly with Rocky Anderson, but after having read up a little on him it sounds like we have very little in common.

--Guido

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Let's break open a new quadrant.

Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36
--Guido

It's like you're from some bizarro world

<3

PS you forgot the broken link you put at the end of all your posts =(

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

The abstract art question is there because the National Endowment for the Arts provides public funds to arts programs. Some people like this program, but want a stricter definition on what constitutes "art." I can understand thei position because they want their tax money to support art that they actually consider artistic, but as jewpin has eloquently put in response to the argument before, artists have a better idea of what art is than the general public.

It allows someone to take a middle ground stance on the NEA and have an opinion in the quiz.

The problem I have with that is that I consider abstract art worthwhile art, but I don't really agree with spending tax dollars on supporting art. There is no way for me to correctly answer the question.

[All_That_Chaz]

The question simply will register that you value art, which is a social barometer for a moderate dem. So that will register a couple percentage points for dem.

Worst case, no, there is no currect answer for you. Still better than that stupid inflation/unemployment question where there actually is no right answer.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

It's like you're from some bizarro world

<3

PS you forgot the broken link you put at the end of all your posts =(

Nah, I just declined to keep tagging it on since "coming back". The FFR hiatus afforded me the chance to start fresh and thus omit the cumbersome URL.

Also, I celebrated ten years last year, but the gesture was appreciated before being deleted.

--Guido

[Reincarnate]

Sometimes art comes under fire if it's deemed useless/talentless/too controversial.

A famous example might be "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano. He received like $20k from the National Endowment for the Arts (taxpayer funded) for what amounts to a crucifix submerged in urine.

Or you might come across abstract expressionist pieces that look like they "took no skill to make," such as the works of Jackson Pollock -- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...umn_Rhythm.jpg

Aesthetically speaking, you'll find that time and time again, most people can't tell the difference between famous pieces of abstract art and just-some-random-crap-a-three-year-old-made.

You can also argue that art isn't like a good/service that must be publicly funded because it can't be done alone (roads, parks, etc), nor is it as essential like schooling or healthcare -- so why not delegate it to the free market like any other consumable good? Do we really need the government to subsidize things, here?

The arguments in favor, however, is that when you dig deeper, you'll find that art is much more than just aesthetics, but rather history, context, expression, etc. It can actually get pretty complicated.

Also the budget for the NEA is pretty tiny relative to the whole (I wanna say less than .01% but I'm too lazy to check). Trimming something so small is akin to trying to free up hard drive space by deleting a few text files.

Generally speaking, the idea is that art provides a social (and in many cases financial) benefit, but it can be hard to quantify/measure. In theory, art generates lots of positive externalities.

It can be argued that public art funding is a very small price to pay to help make our society/culture a more vibrant and interesting place to be, and such an environment is conducive to artistic growth and entertainment and media, blah blah blah.

IMO there's validity to both sides of the argument, and it's an interesting topic.

[GuidoHunter]

Art is culture, and while I can't or don't appreciate it I pretty much have to respect it. Hell, there are plenty of things I believe are beautiful that plenty of other people can't or don't appreciate.

While I'm a huge proponent of "that's not the government's business" I generally look the other way to a small amount of funding for creative ventures that enrich our culture in some way or another. Of course, if a state, local, or national government decides not to spend a dime on it, I'm okay with that, too.

--Guido

[Snowcrafta]

Guido alert!!!!!!!!!

An old schooler appears

[Snowcrafta]

Ps tell stretchy

GO A's!

[smartdude1212]

I didn't put as much serious thought into my answers regarding how much I agreed with something (or the "choose a better stance" option, which I only started using near the end of the quiz), but this seems about right.

Green Party
Green Party
on social, science, economic, foreign policy, healthcare, and environmental issues
84%Democrats
Democrats
on social, economic, science, and environmental issues
61%Socialist
Socialist
on social, economic, and environmental issues
36%Libertarians
Libertarians
on foreign policy, healthcare, and immigration issues
3%Republicans
Republicans
on immigration issues

I haven't developed opinions on US immigration issues though because I don't live there. (clap)

[Nick Skyline]

Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18


http://www.isidewith.com/results/305126732

[Arch0wl]

right side pride

[adlp]

swag

[Arch0wl]

so I did this again



I feel like this deserves some explanation since my political compass was right-of-center economically and -5 socially

I tend to be pretty socialist when it comes to building infrastructure (environment/research policy/energy) and think that the federal budget for R&D should be triple what it currently is; additionally I feel like significant subsidies should be given out to fund alternate energy (far more than there already are) since I don't think environmental restrictions will be able to be enforced with any kind of effectiveness

on the other hand, I am very libertarian on internet/gun/drug issues and the last isidewith I took had questions more tailored to this segment iirc

the green party overrepresents environment/energy issues so it gets a higher score from me usually, but the gist of my position has little to do with environment necessarily and could be summarized as "fiscally liberal on infrastructure policy, fiscally conservative on everything else" -- simply because I don't think infrastructure-building comes fast enough from the private sector without a lot of deliberate funding from investors

also I put that schools should be federally controlled because state-centric evaluation sucks dick and makes performance data worthless across states, so this presumably increased my socialist rating. there is no option for something like "peg school performance to ACT scores" or I would have picked that.

[FoJaR]

[mellonxcollie]

I'm not American, but whatever





I'm shocked at my results

[FoJaR]

why?

[devonin]

Remember how she said you guys needed to fix your sarcasm detection plugins? Yeah.

[gnr61]

isidewith was pretty dead split b/w Green/Dem/Soc/Libt, managed 3% Republican with not particularly liking wind :v