Political extremism

I view politics as a clock or compass.
Neutrally or marginally left or right being at noon, left wing 10am, right wing 2pm, hard left 8am, far right 4pm.
I put Putin at 6am as I do Trump,both arriving at the same point from different directions.
They agree on so many things it is hard to separate them.
Am I right?

Isn't 6am basically the same as noon? Im not sure your clock is working correctly.

Exact opposite of noon Eds.

eddie wrote:
Isn't 6am basically the same as noon? Im not sure your clock is working correctly.

Midnight  ==  00:00  == "zero hundred hours"

6 a.m.       ==  06:00  == "six hundred hours"

Noon         ==  12:00  == "twelve hundred hours"

6 p.m.        ==  18:00  == "eighteen hundred hours"

This is why the military, emergency services, and many scientific measurements use the 24 hour clock --  avoids a lot of confusion..

ON a 12 hour clock, 00:00/12:00 and 06:00/18:00 are diametrically opposed.

Note: also, despite it's all-too-common usage, there really isn't such a time as, "12 a.m.", nor "12 p.m." -- just watch how many people get confused everyday with those two misbegotten expressions..      

Noon is where politically sane (if sometimes boring) politicians live.
6pm is the polar opposite - often borderline insane maglamaniacs bent on the new World order.

ON THE "Political Compass" website, where their quiz places you in one quadrant, I usually end up in the lower left quadrant --  not far from where they place  Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela..

I SUPPOSE on your more one-dimensinal clock face, Andy, I would be somewhere between 8 and 9 ?

Handy Andy wrote:
Noon is where politically sane (if sometimes boring) politicians live.
6pm is the polar opposite - often borderline insane  maglamaniacs  bent on the new World order.

SOMETHING both Trump and Putin have in common ==

They would probably both have loved to have been born Emperors..

Handy Andy wrote:Noon is where politically sane (if sometimes boring) politicians live.
6pm is the polar opposite - often borderline insane  maglamaniacs  bent on the new World order.

I know how to tell the time, but your clock makes no sense now youve worked it.

It does to everyone else!

Okay I see now - I was thinking that 6 was in the middle but you've used both pm and am - yours was the first post I read upon waking up this morning after not sleeping great.

I'm a middle-sitter but a little left on some issues and little right in others. If there was a gun to my head and I simply had to choose I'd go left any day of the week, but extremes in either direction are deluded and ignorant.

On my clock, about 80% of voters fall between 10am and 2pm.

eddie wrote:
Okay I see now - I was thinking that 6 was in the middle but you've used both pm and am - yours was the first post I read upon waking up this morning after not sleeping great.

I'm a middle-sitter but a little left on some issues and little right in others. If there was a gun to my head and I simply had to choose I'd go left any day of the week, but extremes in either direction are deluded and ignorant.

ON Andy's tweve hour clock,  the truly "deluded and ignorant" would be those on the bottom --  sitting between 5 and 7..

Those "centrists" who move either way between different issues are possibly floating between 11 and 1...

Our Tom is hanging onto the pendulum swinging below the clock. 6pm is too 'conservative'

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

ON THE "Political Compass" website, where their quiz places you in one quadrant, I usually end up in the lower left quadrant --  not far from where they place  Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela..

I SUPPOSE on your more one-dimensinal clock face, Andy, I would be somewhere between 8 and 9 ?

Probably I'm around 9 o'clock then, thinking about it --  as my ideas are often more 'green'-left rather than 'red'-left    ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

ON THE "Political Compass" website, where their quiz places you in one quadrant, I usually end up in the lower left quadrant --  not far from where they place  Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela..

I SUPPOSE on your more one-dimensinal clock face, Andy, I would be somewhere between 8 and 9 ?

Probably I'm around 9 o'clock then, thinking about it --  as my ideas are often more 'green'-left  rather than 'red'-left    ?

Most of my "left" ideas are green too.

I for one reject the premise that a socially authoritarian society can even be considered "left" in any real way.

I'm old-school in my definition of right and left, going back to where it originated, the French Parliament. Left-wingers supported republicanism and right-wingers supported the monarchy, and I find this a perfect symbol of the difference in the way true conservatives and true liberals think.

True conservatives believe that society can be divided up into superior and inferior groups of people. They're the ones who thought the nobles were superior to the commoners, who think that whites are superior to blacks, that men are superior to women, straights superior to gays, etc.

This is why you see conservatives engage in things like system justification, in which an unfair system is excused because they see it as rewarding those they deem superior and punishing those they deem inferior. Conservatives aren't upset when society treats minorities unfairly because they feel they deserve to be treated that way.

True liberals believe that any of these groups can produce both "good" and "bad" people (and that very, very few of us are ever all good or all bad in the first place). When we celebrate things like the election of Obama and the future election of Clinton, it's in part because we see our conviction vindicated -- that any group can produce a person talented enough to lead a powerful nation.

Going by your explanation then, I'm a liberal.

there is nothing as illiberal as a "liberal"

who wants nothing more than to shove you into a straight jacket of THEIR choosing, simply becasue THEY think its good for you and THEY know best

the happiest liberal of all is the borg queen......

Lord Foul wrote:there is nothing as illiberal as a "liberal"

who wants nothing more than to shove you into a straight jacket of THEIR choosing, simply becasue THEY think its good for you and THEY know best

the happiest liberal of all is the borg queen......

Isn't every wing the same, all wanting to "shove you into a straight jacket of their choosing"?

Lord Foul wrote:there is nothing as illiberal as a "liberal"

who wants nothing more than to shove you into a straight jacket of THEIR choosing, simply becasue THEY think its good for you and THEY know best

the happiest liberal of all is the borg queen......

I've said this so many ways by now, but I simply reject your definition of liberalism. You describe authoritarian control, and I reject that as do the vast majority of people who describe themselves as liberals.

I really think this is all because you're so pissed off about something to do with shooting squirrels ...

eddie wrote:Going by your explanation then, I'm a liberal.

Going by my definition there are people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives but who are actually liberals. They might take opposing policy positions to the left, but if they do so because they believe excellence can come from any group of people and that no group is superior to any other, they're really liberals.

Likewise, self-described liberals can actually be true right-wingers if they think certain groups of people are just "born better" than other groups.

Squirrel don't taste too bad if your starving.

Handy Andy wrote:I view politics as a clock or compass.
Neutrally or marginally  left or right being at noon, left wing 10am, right wing 2pm, hard left 8am, far right 4pm.
I put Putin at 6am as I do Trump,both arriving at the same point from different directions.
They agree on so many things it is hard to separate them.
Am I right?

That is so very true. Extremes have more in common than they realise and sometimes they want the same thing, albeit for different reasons.


Here's a story, bear with me - Two men  despised each other so much that they both decided to get as far away from each other as  poss, not knowing that the earth was spherical. They met and symbolically stood  back to back and decided they would both keep walking / travelling away from each other for ever, on a straight line, ...so of course eventually they met face to face, stunned that all those years of walking were in vain.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:
Isn't 6am basically the same as noon? Im not sure your clock is working correctly.

Midnight  ==  00:00  == "zero hundred hours"

6 a.m.       ==  06:00  == "six hundred hours"

Noon         ==  12:00  == "twelve hundred hours"

6 p.m.        ==  18:00  == "eighteen hundred hours"

This is why the military, emergency services, and many scientific measurements use the 24 hour clock --  avoids a lot of confusion..

ON a 12 hour clock, 00:00/12:00 and 06:00/18:00 are diametrically opposed.

Note: also, despite it's all-too-common usage, there really isn't such a time as, "12 a.m.", nor "12 p.m." -- just watch how many people get confused everyday with those two misbegotten expressions..      

These concepts are explained far more easily in diagrams. Just one picture can replace a thousand words.

Yes there is too much confusion in the times around noon - the 24 hour clock is a blessing cos it strips away all ambiguity.

nicko wrote:Squirrel don't taste too bad if your starving.

Not much meat on them, though, I'd imagine. What's it taste like?

Jules wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:I view politics as a clock or compass.
Neutrally or marginally  left or right being at noon, left wing 10am, right wing 2pm, hard left 8am, far right 4pm.
I put Putin at 6am as I do Trump,both arriving at the same point from different directions.
They agree on so many things it is hard to separate them.
Am I right?

That is so very true. Extremes have more in common than they realise and sometimes they want the same thing, albeit for different reasons.


Here's a story, bear with me - Two men  despised each other so much that they both decided to get as far away from each other as  poss, not knowing that the earth was spherical. They met and symbolically stood  back to back and decided they would both keep walking / travelling away from each other for ever, on a straight line, ...so of course eventually they met face to face, stunned that all those years of walking were in vain.

I like that story.

HT, squirrel! no, it's a bit like rat only darker!

nicko wrote:
HT,   squirrel!    no,  it's a bit like rat only darker!

MY CAT has brought home 3 baby rats, and a young mouse, over the last fortnight --  and ate most of them -- except for some pieces like their livers..        

Wolfie, my cat eats them but always leaves the Gall Bladder, too bitter I suppose. If cats eat rodents you should always treat them for Worms monthly.

nicko wrote:Wolfie,   my cat eats them but always leaves the Gall Bladder, too bitter I suppose.    If cats eat rodents you should always treat them for Worms monthly.

I worm her every month with one of those 'pour on' worm and flea treatments that are applied on the back of their necks...

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Going by your explanation then, I'm a liberal.

Going by my definition there are people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives but who are actually liberals. They might take opposing policy positions to the left, but if they do so because they believe excellence can come from any group of people and that no group is superior to any other, they're really liberals.

Likewise, self-described liberals can actually be true right-wingers if they think certain groups of people are just "born better" than other groups.

Hence my thread "20 questions"

I STILL PREFER  the 'Political Compass' analysis approach,  which plots both your political leanings (on the Y axis) and your economic policy preferences (on the X axis..), to place you in one quadrant of a political field,  rather than placing you on a political "spectrum" line...

Check out the site :

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

They also have examples on there showing where various political parties currently are;  and one showing where some historical figures can be found..          

I just re-took their test, and I'm still adrift down in the lower-left quadrant -- just to the left of the British Greens party..        

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:

That is so very true. Extremes have more in common than they realise and sometimes they want the same thing, albeit for different reasons.


Here's a story, bear with me - Two men  despised each other so much that they both decided to get as far away from each other as  poss, not knowing that the earth was spherical. They met and symbolically stood  back to back and decided they would both keep walking / travelling away from each other for ever, on a straight line, ...so of course eventually they met face to face, stunned that all those years of walking were in vain.

I like that story.  

Thank you eddie and as I created the story I feel duty-bound to give it a happy ending. So let's say by the time they met they had forgotten why they hated each other, and they became friends. Traversing all those towns, cities, continents and oceans in their trip half way round the world had broadened their little parochial minds.

I would like you to expand this story Eds, so run with it! I will even let you work in gay subplot if you wished.

It's not my story to write Jules, but a very generous offer all the same.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I STILL PREFER  the 'Political Compass' analysis approach,  which plots both your political leanings (on the Y axis) and your economic policy preferences (on the X axis..), to place you in one quadrant of a political field,  rather than placing you on a political "spectrum" line...

It's not even a case of preference Wolfie,  2 dimensions are a necessity for a political chart, the overly simple descriptions of LW and RW are not enough.

The well known, basic chart -



can be built up in layers,  by adding extra axes, or the names of politicians,  OR adding extra subdivisions like this -


The possibilities are endless

eddie wrote:It's not my story to write Jules, but a very generous offer all the same.

I was looking for a neat ending!
OK I'll say that as each had seen one half of the world that the other had not seen, they hooked up,  spent the rest of their lives swapping stories of their experiences and lived happily ever after.  

Jules wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I STILL PREFER  the 'Political Compass' analysis approach,  which plots both your political leanings (on the Y axis) and your economic policy preferences (on the X axis..), to place you in one quadrant of a political field,  rather than placing you on a political "spectrum" line...

It's not even a case of preference Wolfie,  2 dimensions are a necessity for a political chart, the overly simple descriptions of LW and RW are not enough.

The well known, basic chart -



can be built up in layers,  by adding extra axes, or the names of politicians,  OR adding extra subdivisions like this -


The possibilities are endless

Done the top one a couple of times, marrying the results with the bottom one, I'm an Anarcho Socialist - Yep, that sounds about right.

Lol Sassy. There's something there for everyone, I reckon.

Yep, people like Trump in top right hand corner!

WITH those further subdivisions, I reckon I would be around the juncture of Democratic Socialist, Left-Libertarian and Anarcho-Socialist --  which would pretty much likely be the same ground covered by the Greens political parties...

With those three different labels, which one would apply would probably depend on what mood I'm in and what topic is being discussed --  maybe I could describe myself as 3 parts Democratic Socialist, 2 parts Libertarian and 1 part Anarcho Socialist ?      

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Going by your explanation then, I'm a liberal.

Going by my definition there are people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives but who are actually liberals. They might take opposing policy positions to the left, but if they do so because they believe excellence can come from any group of people and that no group is superior to any other, they're really liberals.

Likewise, self-described liberals can actually be true right-wingers if they think certain groups of people are just "born better" than other groups.

Hence my thread "20 questions"

But my point is, people take different positions on issues for different reasons, and you have to look at the reasons. Those 20 questions were all on positions on issues, and I think it's better to look at the philosophy those positions come from. An example would be a Republican who says he supports fewer regulations on the market. We'd normally say that person is a conservative.

But you should ask why he believes that. If he says, "Because I believe the free market offers more opportunities to more people," he may be a liberal at heart. If he says something like, "The government shouldn't get in the way of the success of talented entrepreneurs," he's more likely to be a true conservative.

Yeah...I get your point.....wouldn't you say that most sensible people weren't one extreme or the other?

To me, if you swing too far one way, you're a little blinded and blinkered.

Oh, I'm also an Anarcho-Socialist:

You're on the left and libertarian spectrum of the political compass! You question authority and are deeply distrustful of hierarchy. You believe strongly in personal liberty and individual freedoms. You firmly believe in a self-governed and non-hierarchical society with maximum individual freedoms for all. You support women's rights, gay rights, and liberal attitudes on sex. You, however, favor collectively owned property and an economy that guarantees equality and opportunity. You believe in strong communities and favor a cooperative economy over dog eat dog capitalism. You're a lefty, but you hate big government just as much as the next libertarian!

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, I'm also an Anarcho-Socialist:

You're on the left and libertarian spectrum of the political compass! You question authority and are deeply distrustful of hierarchy. You believe strongly in personal liberty and individual freedoms. You firmly believe in a self-governed and non-hierarchical society with maximum individual freedoms for all. You support women's rights, gay rights, and liberal attitudes on sex. You, however, favor collectively owned property and an economy that guarantees equality and opportunity. You believe in strong communities and favor a cooperative economy over dog eat dog capitalism. You're a lefty, but you hate big government just as much as the next libertarian!

Lot of us about.

I have a different definition of Conservatives and Socialists.

Conservatives want to keep those at the top, at the top, at the expense of the many.

Socialist want to raise those at the bottom so that we can all have a decent life, and don't think those at the top have the right to be there at the expense of those at the bottom

eddie wrote:Yeah...I get your point.....wouldn't you say that most sensible people weren't one extreme or the other?

To me, if you swing too far one way, you're a little blinded and blinkered.

I think that may be true when you get down to the nitty gritty of policy. I still think the answer to the question "are some groups of people (nations, ethnicities, classes, genders, etc.) superior to others?" is a great way of dividing left from right at the core.

I've always felt like the policies I support are the ones that seem to me (to the best of my knowledge) to work the best. Thus, I'll take some positions that others who might agree with me on many issues might not take, like -- gun control is more important in cities than in rural areas.

eddie wrote:Yeah...I get your point.....wouldn't you say that most sensible people weren't one extreme or the other?

To me, if you swing too far one way, you're a little blinded and blinkered.

No, I'd say they were too cowardly to stand up for anything..

sassy wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, I'm also an Anarcho-Socialist:

You're on the left and libertarian spectrum of the political compass! You question authority and are deeply distrustful of hierarchy. You believe strongly in personal liberty and individual freedoms. You firmly believe in a self-governed and non-hierarchical society with maximum individual freedoms for all. You support women's rights, gay rights, and liberal attitudes on sex. You, however, favor collectively owned property and an economy that guarantees equality and opportunity. You believe in strong communities and favor a cooperative economy over dog eat dog capitalism. You're a lefty, but you hate big government just as much as the next libertarian!

Lot of us about.

I have a different definition of Conservatives and Socialists.

Conservatives want to keep those at the top, at the top, at the expense of the many.

Socialist want to raise those at the bottom so that we can all have a decent life, and don't think those at the top have the right to be there at the expense of those at the bottom

That kind of goes into system justification, where conservatives tend to see those at the top as deserving of being at the top, so long as they're from the right group. Thus, Obama should not be president, Clinton should not become president, etc.

Corporate CEOs are "job creators" and "innovators," rather than "exploiters" and "parasites," and anyone who wants to raise taxes on them to help the poor are accused of being "jealous" of their wealth (as though we want all their money for ourselves).

Meant to add a link to the quiz I played:

http://www.playbuzz.com/felixstablum10/the-definitive-political-orientation-test

Jules wrote:Lol Sassy. There's something there for everyone, I reckon.

The problem is that the concepts are not consistent, and are the products of several different thinkers/political philosophers, who didn't bother to consult one another when writing.  Nor is there a encyclopedia or committee of uniform standards.  So, the possibility of a steady, unfluctuating, internally consistent chart is about as remote as a book of Holy Bible standardized interpretations.

National socialist on the left??   See what I mean?

I got this