The Guardian is a filthy liberal rag and "Comment is Free" is a scam [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Guardian is a filthy liberal rag and "Comment is Free" is a scam

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:18 PM
I am tired of my points made on "Comment is Free" on the Guardian being removed by moderators. I posted nothing insulting or incorrect. Some liberal ultra-sensitive politically correct person who can't take the heat reports you and the post is just deleted.

Too bad many of the Guardian Comment is Free columns routinely bash gender, religious and ethnic groups that it is PC to bash (e.g. straight men, Russians, evangelical Christians, etc.). Those columns go right up without a problem. But make a comment pointing out other faults and the hypocrisy therein and your posts get deleted.

Disgusting.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 04:20 PM
A liberal news outlet -- you don't say.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 04:21 PM
the guardian is my favorite british paper. i don't read much politics/news on their website but the sports section is out of this world. fantastic coverage. their minute-by-minute reports for example are hilarious. :D

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:22 PM
A liberal news outlet -- you don't say.

I don't care if they are liberal. I'm annoyed when they posture with a "Comment is Free" board, where if you post anything that is tangentially un-PC, it gets reported and removed. I'd rather they just didn't even give us the opportunity to comment. It is one thing if the posts are personally insulting, invective, cursing, etc. but this had nothing to do with it.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:23 PM
the guardian is my favorite british paper. i don't read much politics/news on their website but the sports section is out of this world. fantastic coverage. their minute-by-minute reports for example are hilarious. :D

Both they and the BBC are horrid trash.

American papers are even trashier.

I am so disgusted with our English-language media.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 04:23 PM
I don't care if they are liberal.

uhmmm...why the headline "the guardian is a filthy liberal rag" then? :confused:

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:25 PM
uhmmm...why the headline "the guardian is a filthy liberal rag" then? :confused:

Because it is their orientation that makes them so hardcore PC that they delete polite well-argued comments by readers if they find them inappropriate.

Why do they call it Comment is Free? Call it Comment is PC, then.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 04:26 PM
Both they and the BBC are horrid trash.


i like both. very much, that is.

Dini
12-12-2009, 04:27 PM
The BBC News website is fantastic. It's the first thing I check in the morning.

How is it 'trash'? :confused:

Henry Chinaski
12-12-2009, 04:27 PM
utter bollocks. 60% of replies on CIF look like they were automaticaly generated by a right-wing bot.

There's a hell of a lot of censorship of all kinds of posts there.

British libel laws are the harshest in the world so it needs monitoring and the power obviously goes to some people's heads there. goes completely overboard. I had several harmless posts about Agassi's meth use deleted.

why you'd want to rant about it here is beyond me though

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:28 PM
i like both. very much, that is.

To be honest, I am surprised. Most of the BBC analyses are biased garbage.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 04:29 PM
I don't care if they are liberal. I'm annoyed when they posture with a "Comment is Free" board, where if you post anything that is tangentially un-PC, it gets reported and removed. I'd rather they just didn't even give us the opportunity to comment. It is one thing if the posts are personally insulting, invective, cursing, etc. but this had nothing to do with it.

Political correctness is a tenet of modern liberalism, therefore if it is not liberalism itself which you decry, then what problem have you with the chosen modus operandi ?

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:29 PM
utter bollocks. 60% of replies on CIF look like they were automaticaly generated by a right-wing bot.

There's a hell of a lot of censorship of all kinds of posts there.

British libel laws are the harshest in the world so it needs monitoring and the power obviously goes to some people's heads there. goes completely overboard. I had several harmless posts about Agassi's meth use deleted.

why you'd want to rant about it here is beyond me though

I'm irritated over the fact that they are not nearly so kneejerk in their censorship when it comes to certain groups that it is OK to bash.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:31 PM
Political correctness is a tenet of modern liberalism, therefore if it is not liberalism itself which you decry, then what problem have you with the chosen modus operandi ?

Liberalism is a misnomer. It's just as hostile to truly "outside the box" opinion as the conservatives.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 04:35 PM
Liberalism is a misnomer.
Therein lies the distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, one postulates freedom while the other opposes it.

jonathancrane
12-12-2009, 04:38 PM
I agree, liberalism is the antichrist

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:38 PM
Therein lies the distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, one postulates freedom while the other opposes it.

Agreed, I find that both sides of the political spectrum are becoming more controlling of expression of opinion. In the US, the conservatives made it almost anathema to speak out against the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early days. You would be considered a traitor or something. The liberals are trying to make it a crime to say anything against gays, Muslims, etc. and the Guardian (especially CIF moderation) could be their mentor.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 04:38 PM
Liberalism is a misnomer. It's just as hostile to truly "outside the box" opinion as the conservatives.

PD uses "liberal" in the American sense, basically "leftist". Here in Europe a "liberal" is a follower of classic liberalism, a right wing person.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 04:40 PM
I agree, liberalism is the antichrist

shut up you progre clown :o

prima donna
12-12-2009, 04:40 PM
PD uses "liberal" in the American sense, basically "leftist". Here in Europe a "liberal" is a follower of classic liberalism, a right wing person.

Correction:

Therein lies the distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, one postulates freedom while the other opposes it.

jonathancrane
12-12-2009, 04:41 PM
shut up you progre clown :o

Shy facha catalán

:Zaz:
12-12-2009, 04:42 PM
If you want good intelligent news reporting in Britain, Channel 4 news is a must.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 04:44 PM
Correction:

But that's a distinction only valid in American circles. Here in Europe "modern liberalism" is just the modern development, by modern authors and scholars, of the classic theory and praxis of classic liberalism. So in fact it's the same thing. The Economist is liberal, The Guardian is leftist.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 04:45 PM
Agreed, I find that both sides of the political spectrum are becoming more controlling of expression of opinion. In the US, the conservatives made it almost anathema to speak out against the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early days. You would be considered a traitor or something. The liberals are trying to make it a crime to say anything against gays, Muslims, etc. and the Guardian (especially CIF moderation) could be their mentor.
All very true, but should we choose to couch our discussion in geopolitical terms, one must acknowledge that political correctness is the progeny of Western European culture and, as most trends founded in Europe do, gradually disseminated to and throughout America.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 04:46 PM
But that's a distinction only valid in American circles. Here in Europe "modern liberalism" is just the modern development, by modern authors and scholars, of the classic theory and praxis of classic liberalism. So in fact it's the same thing. The Economist is liberal, The Guardian is leftist.

The Economist is vile beyond belief, can't stand them. Worse than the Guardian, in my view.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 04:48 PM
All very true, but should we choose to couch our discussion in geopolitical terms, one must acknowledge that political correctness is the progeny of Western European culture and, as most trends founded in Europe do, gradually disseminated to and throughout America.

PC an European invention? i don't quite agree.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 04:51 PM
The Economist is vile beyond belief, can't stand them. Worse than the Guardian, in my view.

I understand that. You're a true conservative, while The Economist is the world beacon of liberalism (European sense). While both schools of Tought are "right wing" they sharply diverge in several core principles.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 04:52 PM
But that's a distinction only valid in American circles. Here in Europe "modern liberalism" is just the modern development, by modern authors and scholars, of the classic theory and praxis of classic liberalism. So in fact it's the same thing. The Economist is liberal, The Guardian is leftist.
Not so. Perhaps the only noteworthy difference between American and European liberals is the level of forthrightness: In Italy, for example, many liberals nonchalantly refer to themselves as socialists, whereas Americans abhor the term liberal, much less socialist, and have adopted in place of both the euphemism "progressive".

The United Kingdom is perhaps, in some ways, more politically correct than the United States -- demographic projections of a growing Muslim population are evidence of this. Although it should be said, the United Kingdom remains the most conservative in Europe in economic terms.

Henry Chinaski
12-12-2009, 04:57 PM
All very true, but should we choose to couch our discussion in geopolitical terms, one must acknowledge that political correctness is the progeny of Western European culture and, as most trends founded in Europe do, gradually disseminated to and throughout America.

Utterly ridiculous notion.

USA is the country that encourages affirmative action which is illegal in Europe.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 04:58 PM
Not so. Perhaps the only noteworthy difference between American and European liberals is the level of forthrightness: In Italy, for example, many liberals nonchalantly refer to themselves as socialists, whereas Americans abhor the term liberal, much less socialist, and have adopted in place of both the euphemism "progressive".

The United Kingdom is perhaps, in some ways, more politically correct than the United States -- demographic projections of a growing Muslim population are evidence of this. Although it should be said, the United Kingdom remains the most conservative in European in economic terms.

What you call Italian "liberals" aren't called so in Italy or anywhere in Europe, only in America. Here a liberal is Mrs Thatcher. What you call a "liberal" is here a leftist, a progressist :rolleyes: a socialist, etc., never a "liberal".

Henry Chinaski
12-12-2009, 05:02 PM
"liberal" is a confused outdated notion. There's a big difference between liberal in the social and liberal in the economic sense. Those who are one tend not to be the other.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 05:04 PM
What you call Italian "liberals" aren't called so in Italy or anywhere in Europe
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that I was born in Europe and visit regularly. As for the semantics, I would like to think that my level of familiarity with the Italian language is such that I would be able to recognize the context in which 'liberale' and 'socialista' are used. The fact that you speak so broadly of Europe is, in and of itself, a revealing statement. It is as though you have chosen to disregard altogether linguistic and geographical differences.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 05:10 PM
I understand that. You're a true conservative, while The Economist is the world beacon of liberalism (European sense). While both schools of Tought are "right wing" they sharply diverge in several core principles.

I am not a true conservative by American standards. I endorse gun control, oppose abortion and the death penalty, oppose euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, oppose war, oppose affirmative action, oppose gay marriage and adoption, etc.

I am hardly anything "standard" on the American political spectrum.

Henry Chinaski
12-12-2009, 05:10 PM
yeah, not wise to use Europe as blanket term here as with most other debates. Thatcher certainly isn't referred to as a liberal in the UK too often for example

prima donna
12-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Just for the record, a similar dichotomy exists in American culture: libertarianism (adherence to classical liberalism) and liberalism (adherence to modern, politically correct liberalism).

Henry Chinaski
12-12-2009, 05:15 PM
true libertarians in the US seem to be a dying breed from my outside, barely interested perspective. It relates to Tommy V's post yesterday about the increasing issues becoming attached to identification with the 2 major parties.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 05:23 PM
true libertarians in the US seem to be a dying breed from my outside, barely interested perspective. It relates to Tommy V's post yesterday about the increasing issues becoming attached to identification with the 2 major parties.
To the contrary, I would say. Although libertarianism does tend to be more popular among those who are well-educated, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, George Will, and a number of other prominent figures are self-described libertarians. However, in the context of ordinary Americans, libertarianism has never been particularly popular. Ron Paul's popularity is at an apex, as a relatively large number of Americans (those who live in states where his name was included on the ballot) supported him in 2008.

It's not a practical political stance, so I suppose this might explain the reluctance of ordinary people to support it. It's generally viewed as rooted in theory rather than practice.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 05:44 PM
"liberal" is a confused outdated notion. There's a big difference between liberal in the social and liberal in the economic sense. Those who are one tend not to be the other.

It is confused because it's so often misused, above all by the clueless media. It isn't outdated at all, the body of work of classic liberalism and the principles it stands for are pretty clear and much in force.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 05:50 PM
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that I was born in Europe and visit regularly. As for the semantics, I would like to think that my level of familiarity with the Italian language is such that I would be able to recognize the context in which 'liberale' and 'socialista' are used. The fact that you speak so broadly of Europe is, in and of itself, a revealing statement. It is as though you have chosen to disregard altogether linguistic and geographical differences.

Totally irrelevant, there are millions Italians living in Italy that wouldn't tell your socialist from your comunist. Fact is, despite your European origin and frequent travel, you show scarce understanding of the meaning of the word "liberal" throughout Europe, as opposed as in America. I have no inclination to further educate you on the issue.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 05:50 PM
the guardian is my favorite british paper. i don't read much politics/news on their website but the sports section is out of this world. fantastic coverage. their minute-by-minute reports for example are hilarious. :D

I agree it is out of this world, in some never-never land.

My best memory is the 2002 World Cup when their reporter wrote a long piece about how much he was excited about the quarterfinals, when the real football began. He was particularly creaming his pants over the thrilling matchup coming between Germany and Mexico. Of course, this being the Grauniad, even the sports pages are written by political hacks and this idiot wrote his piece before the round of sixteen match between Mexico and the US. Which the US won in fine style, before narrowly losing to Germany in the quarters. I laughed my ass of at that one.

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 05:57 PM
Thatcher certainly isn't referred to as a liberal in the UK too often for example

Tricky because you have a named "liberal" party there, which wasn't Maggie's one. The general public use of "liberal" is tainted thus. Ideologically, in the serious liberal media and Academia, Thatcher is considered a basically liberal politician and ideologue.

Bibberz
12-12-2009, 06:03 PM
I am tired of my points made on "Comment is Free" on the Guardian being removed by moderators. I posted nothing insulting or incorrect. Some liberal ultra-sensitive politically correct person who can't take the heat reports you and the post is just deleted.

What sort of remarks did they delete? Can you give us an example or two? Thanks.

To the contrary, I would say. Although libertarianism does tend to be more popular among those who are well-educated, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, George Will, and a number of other prominent figures are self-described libertarians. However, in the context of ordinary Americans, libertarianism has never been particularly popular. Ron Paul's popularity is at an apex, as a relatively large number of Americans (those who live in states where his name was included on the ballot) supported him in 2008.

It's not a practical political stance, so I suppose this might explain the reluctance of ordinary people to support it. It's generally viewed as rooted in theory rather than practice.

I agree with this. It's not accurate to say that libertarians in America are a 'dying breed.' They can't be found in every single socioeconomic stratum, but then that was never the case.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 06:18 PM
Fact is, despite your European origin and frequent travel, you show scarce understanding of the meaning of the word "liberal" throughout Europe, as opposed as in America. I have no inclination to further educate you on the issue.
It is you who chooses to ignore geographical boundaries by speaking glibly and broadly of European political culture. Eastern European and Western European culture, for example, are not to be compared. Linguistic distinctions and cultural origins are significant inasmuch as an Italian probably would be in a better position to interpret the contextual usage of 'liberale' and 'socialista'. Yet, your obstinance precludes you from recognizing something so fundamental. There is no consensus that Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, or any other conservative politician was really a misunderstood liberal, this is an illusion.

Moreover, with regard to the notion that Margaret Thatcher can be considered liberal (libertarian would be appropriate), this is yet another revealing statement in that the very nature of politics is such that any democratic (small d) leader must compromise, thereby deviating from a sort of ideological prism. Absolutism is congenial only to dictatorships. Thatcher, unlike many libertarians, did not adhere to a doctrine of pacifism during her tenure. Libertarians are generally strict adherents of capitalism, pacifist-leaning, and socially moderate, if not liberal. Adam Smith is the father of libertarianism, yet not even he was as naive to the perils of unfettered capitalism as many libertarians seem to be, nor were Thatcher or Reagan in any position to impose unfettered capitalism upon their citizens. The list goes on and on, but it is not my goal to engage in esoteric discussion, rather to inform you that, much like paradise and unicorns, "true" libertarianism exists only in the realm of contemplation.

prima donna
12-12-2009, 06:31 PM
I agree with this. It's not accurate to say that libertarians in America are a 'dying breed.' They can't be found in every single socioeconomic stratum, but then that was never the case.
Right, my statement was poorly worded. Of course, there are libertarians of every socioeconomic background, but I think the concept is most actively accepted by a more sophisticated crowd (i.e., academics). Milton Friedman isn't exactly Sarah Palin, for example. Libertarianism is, in my view, the tool of the thinking man, one who is disillusioned with the fiscal profligacy of the Democratic Party, yet disheartened by the social conservatism of the Republican Party.

Prominent libertarian writers:
George Will (former Harvard professor)
Thomas Sowell (former Cornell and Stanford professor)
Milton Friedman (University of Chicago, the Adam Smith of his time)

JolánGagó
12-12-2009, 08:09 PM
much like paradise and unicorns, "true" libertarianism exists only in the realm of contemplation.

Yes, but that can be said of any notion. Trueness is difficult to attain.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 08:36 PM
I agree it is out of this world, in some never-never land.


linguistically the guardian is the perfect match for you btw. its reporters have the same kind of writing style you have.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 09:58 PM
linguistically the guardian is the perfect match for you btw. its reporters have the same kind of writing style you have.

That worries me, but I prefer the style of the Sunday Telegraph - a pun in every headline. I don't remember humour in the Grauniad.

PS: I always check my posts and edit any typos. I suggest you google ''Grauniad'' if you don't already know.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 10:08 PM
i know the grauniad thing (even though i've never really noticed it, but then again, i only follow their sports coverage). but i was going for the latent irony. if you don't remember humour in the guardian, you've never checked out their sports writers. if the guardian isn't witty to you, german media must be your guaranteed death. yeah, that stereotype still very much fits.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 10:15 PM
Yes, a sports writer covering the 2002 world cup and never mentioning quarterfinalists USA was funny. (I will read a few recent web pages to find the humour)

But seriously, I was brought up on the Observer. Maybe not funny, but light years ahead of US sports writing. The Observer (and most other British weeklies) took you through the game and analysed what happened. In the US they give the score, ignore what happened in the game and immediately go to who is being traded or which manager is being fired.

Garson007
12-13-2009, 10:43 AM
Both they and the BBC are horrid trash.

American papers are even trashier.

I am so disgusted with our English-language media.
:tears: :hug:

I prefer Timesonline out of all the news outlets. Mostly because it covers the sport I care about. I do however agree that the English media in general are pathetic.

"liberal" is a confused outdated notion. There's a big difference between liberal in the social and liberal in the economic sense. Those who are one tend not to be the other.
Exactly. I prefer Political Compass' (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) way of presentation:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

It also has a nice quiz, although like all quizzes it's generally a bit off.

The problem I have with true libertarianism is that it basically calls for anarchy - something which cannot co-exist with civilization.

Action Jackson
12-13-2009, 10:51 AM
yeah, not wise to use Europe as blanket term here as with most other debates. Thatcher certainly isn't referred to as a liberal in the UK too often for example

She was a total free marketer economically and socially conservative, but definitely no liberal.

JolánGagó
12-13-2009, 11:00 AM
Same result in the compass than 2 years ago when I did it first. Apparently Im a Centre-Right Libertarian.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3913/pcgraphpngphpk.png

Vida
12-13-2009, 11:29 AM
this is cool stuff. heres mine.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.38&soc=-4.26

Action Jackson
12-13-2009, 12:14 PM
Political compass, good quiz.

buddyholly
12-13-2009, 12:47 PM
I (not necessarily buddyholly) fall in the same square as Jolan. I shall take two aspirin and repeat the test in the morning.

JolánGagó
12-13-2009, 01:04 PM
Set of questions not the best, there have been some better versions earlier. In fact with other sets Im located considerably more on the libertarian side (about 8) and noticeably more on the right (about 6)

Zirconek
12-13-2009, 01:18 PM
This is mine political compass according to the test :p

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.00&soc=-6.51

damn, I don't know how to post it :o


The result was
economic left/right: -7.00
social libertarian/authoritarian : -6.51

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 01:25 PM
Replace "liberal" with "lefto-pinko" and the thread title makes perfect sense. Very accurate too.

I have no idea what liberal is suppose to mean these days anyway. So-called Liberal Democrats in the UK are even more nonsensical than Labour. But socialists love their user-friendly terms.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 01:28 PM
Exactly. I prefer Political Compass' (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) way of presentation:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

It also has a nice quiz, although like all quizzes it's generally a bit off.
This is fun, last time I did it was back in school.

In fact, we should start a new thread for this.


The problem I have with true libertarianism is that it basically calls for anarchy - something which cannot co-exist with civilization.
In theory it may seem that way but as the 20th century showed us, the authoritarian end of the spectrum is the one that starts with anarchy.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 01:36 PM
Replace "liberal" with "lefto-pinko" and the thread title makes perfect sense. Very accurate too.

I have no idea what liberal is suppose to mean these days anyway. So-called Liberal Democrats in the UK are even more nonsensical than Labour. But socialists love their user-friendly terms.
Political jargon tends to be somewhat Orwellian, especially when applied by leftists. Again, Jimnik, and I don't know whether you've read the particular post in which I first stated this, but it seems as though modern liberals are on a perpetual search for new euphemisms in order to mask their true identity.

Are socialists in the United Kingdom willing to be recognized as such, or is there a myriad of euphemisms intended to mislead the public ?

Vida
12-13-2009, 01:36 PM
I doubt many people posting on MTF prefer authoritarian regime.

Vida
12-13-2009, 01:37 PM
myriad just became my second most favorite word. first is palette.

Action Jackson
12-13-2009, 01:47 PM
Depends on who they are Vida.

Lib Dems actually sum up the term liberal quite well. Even then people who actually think there are major differences between major political parties might as well believe the Himalayas are in the Netherlands.

The quiz is a bit outdated and the left/right thing even more so.

Vida
12-13-2009, 01:55 PM
yeah just the quiz is straightforward as they come. no real doubt over the outcome given the particular input. so I guess posters preference here on mtf would more likely be on the south side. esp given the fairly 'liberal' regime of moderation or state of the board.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 01:56 PM
Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.62&soc=0.67

Getta
12-13-2009, 02:05 PM
Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.25&soc=-7.38

prima donna
12-13-2009, 02:08 PM
Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.25&soc=-7.38
And yet you remain every bit as lovable.

Getta
12-13-2009, 02:10 PM
And yet you remain every bit as lovable.

it can happen without even trying.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 02:12 PM
Political jargon tends to be somewhat Orwellian, especially when applied by leftists. Again, Jimnik, and I don't know whether you've read the particular post in which I first stated this, but it seems as though modern liberals are on a perpetual search for new euphemisms in order to mask their true identity.

Are socialists in the United Kingdom willing to be recognized as such, or is there a myriad of euphemisms intended to mislead the public ?
Must say, never really thought about it before, but "socialism" is a term you very rarely hear in British politics. They talk about class struggles, social responsibility, fairness, equality etc but the term itself rarely seems to be used. It's a bit like America where almost no-one wants to admit that they're a socialist. Republicans and Libertarians use the term very loosely, especially since Obama came to power, but only to get their points across.

Whereas in Germany, for instance, people seem much more open about calling it socialism and calling themselves socialists. The two main left-wing parties here are called "The Socialist Party" and the "Social Democrats". In Britain there's no party with a name like that getting more than 1% of the popular vote.

Ivanatis
12-13-2009, 02:20 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.50&soc=-4.31
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

good test, appropriate result, pretty much what I would consider myself

Black Adam
12-13-2009, 02:23 PM
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.12&soc=-1.49

prima donna
12-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Must say, never really thought about it before, but "socialism" is a term you almost never hear in British politics. They talk about class struggles, social responsibility, fairness, equality etc but the term itself rarely seems to be used. It's a bit like America where almost no-one wants to admit that they're a socialist. Republicans and Libertarians have used the term very loosely, especially since Obama came to power, but only to get their points across.

Whereas in Germany, for instance, people seem much more open about calling it socialism and calling themselves socialists. The two main left-wing parties here are called "The Socialist Party" and the "Social Democrats". In Britain there's no party with a name like that getting more than 1% of the popular vote.
Exactly as I had suspected, the same is true of Italy and the United States. In the case of the former, there are not only self-proclaimed socialists, but devout communists who are unabashedly such, whereas Americans are perennially in search of some new euphemism in order to conceal their political ideology. A combination of three factors converged over a period of years to render the very thought of communism -- or anything associated with it -- unappealing to the average American: McCarthy, Reagan, and the Cold War; however, Republicans have also shamed socialists into doing away with the term liberal, which has led to the adoption of the euphemism "progressive".

What is more, this discussion is interesting because it is based upon more than mere semantics. Indeed, as liberals/socialists have sought to conceal themselves, they have so greatly diluted their ideology that one can no longer compare them to the socialists of Western Europe. Fundamentally, however, these people subscribe to the tenets of socialism. They have only been forced to come to terms with the realization that working class people have come to fear the very ideology that pretends to improve their lives!

Marxism and socialism are founded on what is perceived to be altruism (albeit at the expense of others), yet the working classes will have none of it. In fact, blue collar workers supported George Bush in greater numbers than white collar ones.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 02:52 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=9.75&soc=0.31
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31


The person who phrased these questions wanted specific answers for each of them.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Trans-national corporations do serve humanity so this is a bull-shit compromise.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
Nor do we choose our parents so I guess it's foolish to be proud of them too.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
Doubt everyone is aware of the true meaning of Marx's statement.

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
This is wrong and boils down to a simple interpretation of what "manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society" means. Only banks robbers and computer hackers apply here.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Love the "predator" description, making sure people vote "correctly".

prima donna
12-13-2009, 02:58 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=9.75&soc=0.31


You can tell the person who phrased these questions wanted specific answers for each of them.


Trans-national corporations do serve humanity so this is a bull-shit compromise.


Nor do we choose our parents so I guess it's foolish to be proud of them too.


Doubt everyone is aware of the true meaning of Marx's statement.


This is wrong and boils down to a simple interpretation of what "manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society" means. Only banks robbers and computer hackers apply here.


Love the "predator" description, making sure people vote "correctly".

Great eye, reminiscent of a few undergrad exams written by left-leaning professors.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 03:00 PM
Wow -- you're far to the right, literally. How'd that happen, Jim ? Strongly agree and strongly disagree ?

Stensland
12-13-2009, 03:05 PM
don't know how to embed, so here it goes:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.38&soc=-5.18

kinda what i figured. i'd have thunk it would be a bit more north though, leaning towards a more authoritarian outlook.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 03:08 PM
Wow -- you're far to the right, literally. How'd that happen, Jim ? Strongly agree and strongly disagree ?
What can I say? I strongly believe freer markets are not only the best economic approach but also the correct one morally. No-one (no matter what his circumstances) has the right to forcefully interfere on another individual's freedom to pursue happiness.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 03:13 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

Looks like I'm exactly where I should be. Voted for the Libertarians last election.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 03:58 PM
Great Thatcher moments -- how arousing.

okHGCz6xxiw

Friedman
76frHHpoNFs

Aloimeh
12-13-2009, 04:13 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.12&soc=-0.15

Henry Chinaski
12-13-2009, 05:45 PM
Political jargon tends to be somewhat Orwellian, especially when applied by leftists. Again, Jimnik, and I don't know whether you've read the particular post in which I first stated this, but it seems as though modern liberals are on a perpetual search for new euphemisms in order to mask their true identity.

Are socialists in the United Kingdom willing to be recognized as such, or is there a myriad of euphemisms intended to mislead the public ?

It's nothing to do with masking identity. It's to do with avoiding terms which right wing america has succeeded by shouting loud and othen enough to turn from descriptive terms into pejoratives. Easiest way to avoid debate.

It's no coincidence that it's a phenomenon associated with the English speaking world.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 05:56 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif

Can't believe Brown and Sarkozy are further right than Merkel. She literally just rejected their banking bonus windfall tax idea. Wonder where Obama would be.

I'm a little disappointed in The Dalai Lama but if the questions are phrased like this it's hardly surprising.

Henry Chinaski
12-13-2009, 05:56 PM
massive holes in the pol com test but it's interesting enough to do I guess:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.25&soc=-5.03

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 06:01 PM
Everyone on MTF is in the bottom left corner. Never in doubt.

They should have shaded it pink, not green.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 06:05 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.38&soc=-5.18

kinda what i figured. i'd have thunk it would be a bit more north though, leaning towards a more authoritarian outlook.
You're the model political position on here.

Henry Chinaski
12-13-2009, 06:06 PM
Everyone on MTF is in the bottom left corner. Never in doubt.

They should have shaded it pink, not green.

Everone except like 50% of people who posted their graphs

prima donna
12-13-2009, 07:08 PM
It's nothing to do with masking identity.
Sure it is. You'd like to steal money from those who are industrious and redistribute it to those who are unproductive. Inherently, any label attached to such a doctrine is associated with that which is nefarious.

In the real world (outside of MTF, where the majority isn't comprised of college students), concealment of such a philosophy is a requisite for survivability.

Henry Chinaski
12-13-2009, 07:30 PM
hilarious. who exactly tries to conceal that they endorse taxation and some degree of a welfare state? certainly not any major political party in the democratic world.
It's not about concealing philosphy, it's about shunning labels that are rendered meaningless by cynical political mudslinging.

Garson007
12-13-2009, 07:47 PM
Jimnik:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

This was however done while the 2008 elections were going on, so his recent choices aren't marked. There is also one on the 2005 German elections; it's indexed on the left frame of the front page.

It's not about concealing philosphy, it's about shunning labels that are rendered meaningless by cynical political mudslinging.
:yeah:

Communism earned a bad name; the bad name didn't come with the philosophy.

Vida
12-13-2009, 07:59 PM
isnt Obama more like a 'leftist'?

cobalt60
12-13-2009, 08:02 PM
I am in the purple side;)
How does one embed the screen?

Vida
12-13-2009, 08:07 PM
I am in the purple side;)
How does one embed the screen?

like any image. copy image url, and paste it here with link. I guess.

Aloimeh
12-13-2009, 08:15 PM
I am in the purple side;)
How does one embed the screen?

Cobalt, in the panel above the space in which you type posts (see pic one), click on the yellowish button to the right (see pic two). Click on that and paste the photo URL into it.

You can get the photo URL by right-clicking on the graph and selecting Open Image in New Window/Tab. The address in the new tab is your image URL.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 08:40 PM
who exactly tries to conceal that they endorse taxation and some degree of a welfare state?
The answer to your first inquiry can be found in the United States, where candidates (be they Republican or Democrat) masquerade as tax-slashing, fiscal conservatives. Of course, after such politicians have been elected, their rhetoric is revealed as empty.

In fact, the animus toward higher taxes is so widespread that politicians are forced to wrangle with semantics in an effort to fool the public into believing that a tax increase isn't really a tax increase, even following its implementation. Barack Obama didn't get elected by promising to redistribute the money of the well-to-do, rather he waged unrelenting attacks against President Bush's foreign policy and promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

Adults, even those who are not particularly wealthy, are resentful of the concept of free-loading or a welfare state (the two terms are fungible). After all, evil conservatives can rely no more upon the support of the rich than can magnanimous socialists rely exclusively upon the support of drug-addled college students. Ordinary people must support one or the other. Reagan Democrats are a primary example of such a fact -- blue-collar Americans who just wanted a bit of dignity and peace. They didn't want what little money they earned being confiscated and used to construct housing projects, so they supported an evil conservative.

How about Bill Clinton who declared the era of big government to be over after decreasing the capital gains tax rate and reforming the welfare system ? Such behavior is hardly an endorsement of "taxation" and "some degree of a welfare state". Has David Cameron promised to steal from the rich and give to the poor ?

I would actually reverse the question: Name a single candidate (who has actually been elected) who campaigned on tax increases and big government (i.e., welfare state) ?

Aloimeh
12-13-2009, 08:45 PM
The answer to your first inquiry can be found in the United States, where candidates (be they Republican or Democrat) masquerade as tax-slashing, fiscal conservatives. Of course, after such politicians have been elected, their rhetoric is revealed as empty.

In fact, the animus toward higher taxes is so widespread that politicians are forced to wrangle with semantics in an effort to fool the public into believing that a tax increase isn't really a tax increase, even following its implementation. Barack Obamaa didn't get elected by promising to redistribute the money of the well-to-do, rather he waged unrelenting attacks against President Bush's foreign policy and promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

Adults, even those who are not particularly wealthy, are resentful of the concept of free-loading or a welfare state (the two terms are fungible). After all, evil conservatives can rely no more upon the support of the rich than can magnanimous socialists rely exclusively upon the support of drug-addled college students. Ordinary people must support one or the other. Reagan Democrats are a primary example of such a fact -- blue-collar Americans who just wanted a bit of dignity and peace. They didn't want what little money they earned being confiscated and used to construct housing projects, so they supported an evil conservative.

How about Bill Clinton who declared the era of big government to be over after decreasing the capital gains tax rate and reforming the welfare system ? Such behavior is hardly an endorsement of "taxation" and "some degree of a welfare state". Has David Cameron promised to steal from the rich and give to the poor ?

I would actually reverse the question: Name a single candidate (who has actually been elected) who campaigned on tax increases and big government (i.e., welfare state) ?

One of the problems of democracy is that candidates have to resort to lies to get elected. In the end, the people are voting for unknown entities, so the notion of choice is somewhat lost. It's like selecting toys by feeling them through a thick cloth - you can get a sense their shape and surface, but you don't know much about the color, details, sounds it can make, etc.

cobalt60
12-13-2009, 08:47 PM
www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36

If this works thanks:)

Worked sort of:lol:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36

prima donna
12-13-2009, 08:58 PM
One of the problems of democracy is that candidates have to resort to lies to get elected. In the end, the people are voting for unknown entities, so the notion of choice is somewhat lost. It's like selecting toys by feeling them through a thick cloth - you can get a sense their shape and surface, but you don't know much about the color, details, sounds it can make, etc.
Right, but I can't recall a legitimate candidate (in the global North) using as a campaign slogan: "Vote for me, I'll take from the rich and give to the poor, not to mention increase government spending!" or anything even remotely similar. Perhaps I'm suffering from mild dementia.

Politicians generally masquerade as responsible adults, as opposed to irresponsible profligates. Is that not so ?

Aloimeh
12-13-2009, 08:58 PM
Cobalt's political orientation:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36

Vida
12-13-2009, 08:59 PM
www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36

If this works thanks:)

Worked sort of:lol:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36

noooooo!!!! its not my fault, I dont do that often!!!!! :lol::)

prima donna
12-13-2009, 09:03 PM
www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36)

If this works thanks:)

Worked sort of:lol:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=1.62&soc=-2.36
I think you're one of the few sane individuals on this forum.

I actually would not mind exchanging a few words with you over an espresso or San Pellegrino.

cobalt60
12-13-2009, 09:06 PM
I think you're one of the few sane individuals on this forum.

I actually would not mind exchanging a few words with you over an espresso or San Pellegrino.

Thanks I consider myself rather sane as well;) You'd also enjoy chatting with my hubby- reform jewish educator and republican all in one ( that is an oxymoron trust me :p ) I am an independent; think of myself as a moderate actually. Wasn't always this way. Just grew up and lived a little;)

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 09:23 PM
Jimnik:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

This was however done while the 2008 elections were going on, so his recent choices aren't marked. There is also one on the 2005 German elections; it's indexed on the left frame of the front page.
Thanks mate, very useful.

Looks like I'm even more libertarian than Bob Barr, the American Libertarian Party candidate.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 09:28 PM
Germany 2005

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/germany2005.gif

Awesome, I hope Rainy sees this. He always votes SPD yet his position was middle of the bottom left box. Shows how poorly phrased the questions are on this quiz.

No prizes for guessing which party I voted for.

Garson007
12-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Adults, even those who are not particularly wealthy, are resentful of the concept of free-loading or a welfare state (the two terms are fungible).
Too many baby boomers, and their parents, are still out and voting. With the increase in freedom of information, more and more youngsters are moving into the liberal-socialist corner - it can easily be seen right here in this thread and every other forum with this topic. If it will stick or not is another question altogether. I do however think that we're entering a period of great ideological shift for the next 40-odd years.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 10:00 PM
With the increase in freedom of information more and more youngsters are moving into the liberal-socialist corner
Are you gleeful about this ? If so, why ? What element of the socialist doctrine makes you feel so at peace ?

Garson007
12-13-2009, 10:22 PM
Are you gleeful about this ? If so, why ? What element of the socialist doctrine makes you feel so at peace ?
I cannot approach this question without also bringing in technological advancement into the equation. On a technological front it's about a future where we can eliminate the blue-collar worker; it's about making every person a potential scientist (etc.), a contributor to society, instead of another donkey. We are not yet at that point however, and without reaching that point true liberal-socialism is an unattainable dream on a practical level. It is however possible that I would live to see that future and that is enough for me to be happy with and to believe in (and to work towards) this particular ideology. I do however have reservations on present day socialism and on how realistic it is.

prima donna
12-13-2009, 11:35 PM
On a technological front it's about a future where we can eliminate the blue-collar worker; it's about making every person a potential scientist
Not even the most quixotic thinker would be ingenuous to such an extent as to suggest that every person possesses the intelligence quotient necessary to write, comprehend, and apply complex scientific formulas. Actually, given your scientific ambition, you would be well-advised to do a bit of reading on nature vs nurture as it relates to intellect. While there is no consensus on whether environmental or hereditary characteristics affect more greatly one's intelligence quotient, there is however a consensus when it comes to acknowledging that heredity does indeed factor into the equation.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity did not come as a result of societal molding, but rather as a result of an innate level of intellect that most people could never hope to achieve, assuming one's level of intellect isn't shackled insomuch as there are inborn limitations on one's intellectual abilities.

We are all very different, and the uniformity which you propose sounds very similar in theory to eugenics. Some people are great with their hands, which is great as civilization needs construction workers, plumbers, and mechanics. To suggest that such individuals should instead become "potential scientists" is to infer that such work is less than dignified and must therefore be eliminated. Bankers and writers possess two very different sets of talent, chances are the writer isn't great with numbers while the banker is far from George Orwell.

Inherent in your mentality is a sort of condescension which sees it necessary to "rescue" others from what you deem to be inferior societal roles, instead suggesting that every man and woman ought to subscribe to a one-size-fits-all sort of system.

Henry Chinaski
12-14-2009, 12:40 AM
The answer to your first inquiry can be found in the United States, where candidates (be they Republican or Democrat) masquerade as tax-slashing, fiscal conservatives. Of course, after such politicians have been elected, their rhetoric is revealed as empty.

In fact, the animus toward higher taxes is so widespread that politicians are forced to wrangle with semantics in an effort to fool the public into believing that a tax increase isn't really a tax increase, even following its implementation. Barack Obama didn't get elected by promising to redistribute the money of the well-to-do, rather he waged unrelenting attacks against President Bush's foreign policy and promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

Adults, even those who are not particularly wealthy, are resentful of the concept of free-loading or a welfare state (the two terms are fungible). After all, evil conservatives can rely no more upon the support of the rich than can magnanimous socialists rely exclusively upon the support of drug-addled college students. Ordinary people must support one or the other. Reagan Democrats are a primary example of such a fact -- blue-collar Americans who just wanted a bit of dignity and peace. They didn't want what little money they earned being confiscated and used to construct housing projects, so they supported an evil conservative.

How about Bill Clinton who declared the era of big government to be over after decreasing the capital gains tax rate and reforming the welfare system ? Such behavior is hardly an endorsement of "taxation" and "some degree of a welfare state". Has David Cameron promised to steal from the rich and give to the poor ?

I would actually reverse the question: Name a single candidate (who has actually been elected) who campaigned on tax increases and big government (i.e., welfare state) ?

Politicians claiming they'll cut taxes is irrelevant. It's minor details in the grand scheme of things. The socialist model (if that's how you chose to label the philosophy you describe) has won. They don't need to say "they'll steal from the rich and give to the poor" or whatever bullshit faux-anarchist way you want to phrase it. That taxes will remain is a given. Cameron doesn't have to say it explicitly. People know that any changes in the tax system under a Tory government will be miniscule, especially given the huge budget deficit running in the UK and everywhere else.

A degree of wealth resdistribution is necessary for the benefit of everyone. The millions of people who have lost their jobs in the last year, the currently "unproductive" are the same who will be working once countries emerge from recession. Their children are the workers of the future. It's in the interest of the "productive" that such people are protected from the worst excesses of the current financial hardship they find themselves in. They need to be healthy and fed, their kids need to be educated. Government is the institution in the strongest position to provide this protection. If they need to steal to accomplish it then so be it.

Ilovetheblues_86
12-14-2009, 01:09 AM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.88&soc=-0.67

I think I´m a socialista economically axa. But then again most be a Brazil influenced thing because wealth here is poorly divided between the classes so I always believed in a strong estate to interfere both in some social problems and economical.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

Clydey
12-14-2009, 01:16 AM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.38&soc=-4.92

Interesting. Not sure how much I trust that site and its interpretation of people's answers, though.

JolánGagó
12-14-2009, 06:09 AM
Amazing uniformity of Tought. Human herd.

Ilovetheblues_86
12-14-2009, 06:38 AM
As a matter of facth I still think I should be in the red one, but I would probably have to support death penalty in order for this to happen.

MariaV
12-14-2009, 08:33 AM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.38&soc=-4.56

Wow, I'm like close to Gandhi and Mandela. :o :D I don't consider myself that leftist but yeah whatever. :shrug:

Jimnik
12-14-2009, 10:56 AM
Rest my case.

Everyone on MTF is in the bottom left corner. Never in doubt.
The person who phrased these questions wanted specific answers for each of them:

Jimnik
12-14-2009, 11:02 AM
"A big fat evil greedy company should not be allowed to massacre ten-thousand people for the sake of $1 extra profit."

Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree?


Even Thatcher would appear in the bottom left box if questions were phrased like this.

Sophocles
12-14-2009, 12:02 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.38&soc=-4.92

Interesting. Not sure how much I trust that site and its interpretation of people's answers, though.

I did it years ago & came out as a moderate left-liberal. This despite the fact I believe in an exclusively hereditary House of Lords, am a staunch monarchist, a cultural & educational elitist, oppose mass immigration & British membership of the E.U., loathe & despise political correctness with every fibre of my being, am broadly in favour of a largely free-market economy, & support traditional institutions such as marriage. It seems a realistic & mature attitude on issues such as recreational drugs & a (conservative) concern for the environment & a distrust of market fundamentalism were enough to outweigh all this. I think the problem is that they haven't even considered genuine small-c conservatism as a possible political outlook.

prima donna
12-14-2009, 01:38 PM
Rest my case.
Well, it somehow all makes sense now. I'm a moderate Republican, yet people on this forum routinely portray me as a fierce ideologue. Perhaps it is not I who is guilty of such an offense, but rather those who register as being so far to the left that even they themselves are rendered incredulous by such a revelation. Cognitive dissonance is a succint way of describing such an affliction.

These people have been indoctrinated to such an extent that their views are out of touch with those of mainstream society. Case in point, I was accused of homophobia last year for supporting civil unions while daring to oppose same-sex marriage. I have been surrounded by liberals much of my life (Milano, Manhattan, Greenwich, and Palm Beach are not exactly conservative bastions), yet never have I encountered such radicalism.

Insanity.

Har-Tru
12-14-2009, 02:44 PM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.62&soc=-3.13

Stensland
12-14-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm a moderate Republican, yet people on this forum routinely portray me as a fierce ideologue.

first up, that's because you love your role on mtf with every fiber of your being and play it like nobody else. so better stop complaining, people might tone it down a notch and you on the other hand might need to up the ante to keep the shrine shining.

and secondly, as many have stated before, american politics has moved to the right over the last couple of decades - which is something the rest of the world has not. think about it: there is no party in the u.s. favoring universal health care. there is no party in the u.s. favoring straight up gun control. there is no party in the u.s. favoring straight up gay marriage. there is no party in the u.s. favoring legalized marijuana. there is no party in the u.s. favoring taxes for heavy polluters. there is no party in the u.s. favoring straight up higher taxes on the very richest 1%. we could go on like this for some time.

now, all of those points are taken care of by political parties outside the united states. so for someone inside the cocoon, yes, it might indeed seem like quite a contradiction to be labelled an ideologue. but for the rest of the planet, well, go figure. there is a extreme-right party and a centre-right-party in washington - period. that scenario is basically unheard of outside the states, which is why the reactions on mtf shouldn't surprise you that much.

Clydey
12-14-2009, 07:07 PM
I did it years ago & came out as a moderate left-liberal. This despite the fact I believe in an exclusively hereditary House of Lords, am a staunch monarchist, a cultural & educational elitist, oppose mass immigration & British membership of the E.U., loathe & despise political correctness with every fibre of my being, am broadly in favour of a largely free-market economy, & support traditional institutions such as marriage. It seems a realistic & mature attitude on issues such as recreational drugs & a (conservative) concern for the environment & a distrust of market fundamentalism were enough to outweigh all this. I think the problem is that they haven't even considered genuine small-c conservatism as a possible political outlook.

Yeah, it's not particularly scientific. It looks like one of those stupid tests you get on social networking sites. The problem isn't just the questions, it's also how your answers are interpreted. How can they seriously think answers are so black or white?