The political compass thread

[MalletFace]

15 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

COUGHNERDSHACHGH

Would you rather a thread with only arguments to and from Rassah?

22 hours ago, Onnes said:

Didn't intend to duplicate MalletFace's work, but once I started on the image side I couldn't not carry it through.

I've not had the time to touch the thread in a few days, so I'm glad somebody jumped in.

I've been playing with the data in some TI software and Excel, but I haven't done anything fun to show with the time I have had.

Maybe soon, if only to keep the thread from chugging along straight into the walls of text Rassah and co. are beginning to throw on the rails.

31 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Moar Graphs.

This is my fetish. 

I'm not so partial to representations of statistical analysis so much as I enjoy plots of functions. Mundane, yes, but I like them.

I could go into what kinds of functions, but I'm rather inclined to think very few people care. I wonder why.

Edited April 6, 2016 by MalletFace

[Derin Darkpaw]

What the hell lets throw my hat into the ring.  Is any one going to be surprised by the results though?

 

[willow]

11 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

What the hell lets throw my hat into the ring.  Is any one going to be surprised by the results though?

 

I'm surprised because you're still not as far left as Mallet :u

[Onnes]

Realized I should actually put mine in here.
I'm always confused by the results of this test since typically my economic views are very different than the far left, although my goals are usually similar.

[Jerry]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Moar Graphs.

This is my fetish. 

Prepare your Kleenex box:

http://vis.adjectivespecies.com/furrysurvey/overview/

You're welcome. C=

[Victor-933]

sure, why the fuck not

[#00Buck]

20 minutes ago, :V said:

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -10.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.23

Wow.

This person is the bizarro world twin of Rassah. 

[Rassah]

12 hours ago, Troj said:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/12/13/The-Ten-Largest-Global-Business-Corruption-Cases

Every one of those is thanks to a corrupt government...

Quote

http://list25.com/25-biggest-corporate-scandals-ever/

Many of these are due to regulators failing to do their jobs. And note that most of these businesses no longer exist, i.e. the market works, even where regulators have failed. I'd also point out that despite this article and many like it listing failures of corrupt businesses, there's no mention of corrupt regulatory agencies or regulators, nor any regulatory agencies being forced to shut down and be replaced, or regulators going to jail. It's like government can do no wrong...

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_myopia

Not sure what this one is about...

Quote

http://gawker.com/5784025/the-18-most-suppressed-inventions-ever

And this one is just conspiracies. The first electric car wasn't suppressed, it sucked horribly, had terrible range, crappy battery, and was way too expensive. Nothing in the market changed between then an Tesla besides technology. Even Nissan's leaf had crap sales due to crap technology. 

Regarding streetcars, they probably would have died without GM's help, just like trains did, simply because it's hard to compete with go-anywhere cars on government subsidized roads.

99-mpg car is a victim of both lack of market demand, and regulatory restrictions. Cars in US must pass certain safety requirements, which result in them being very heavy (airbags, crumple zones, etc), and EPA has ridiculous restrictions on diesel. It's also why the American Smart car sucks ass, and sucks twice as much gas as a European diesel Smart.

Then that article goes into "free energy" and seals itself as total bullshit...

Anyway, not going to go through each link one by one. Will mention though that almost all of the businesses mentioned have gone out of business, and it's just as I said, there are examples of 25, maybe 40 businesses that screwed up bad, compared to a total of about 5,700,000 businesses in US alone. I'd say the odds are pretty good here.

 

Quote

I say that nature abhors a power vacuum because when the power is up for grabs, someone will ultimately grab it.

History has also shown us that if you make some types of power impossible to grab, government's power diminishes, and people become more free. For example Bibles used to be only owned by churches, which were like governments at one point, being able to claim anything they want to hold power. When printing presses came out, everyone was able to get a copy of a Bible, and church's power died. That vacuum can no longer be filled.

 

Separate from the wall of text...

8 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Moar Graphs.

This is my fetish. 

Here you go! *trollface*

Edited April 7, 2016 by Rassah

[Troj]

Basically, the core point is that businesses are not paragons of perfect sense and reason, even when they "should" be.

So, the point of the Market Myopia link was to say, "Hey, even people with MBAs are still human beings who'll be just as inclined to cling to a sinking ship as a person without an MBA."

Things can get especially ugly and corrupt when businesses get into bed with governments with no supervision or oversight.

8 hours ago, Rassah said:

Many of these are due to regulators failing to do their jobs.

So, does that mean regulations are actually necessary, provided they're enforced appropriately?

Regulations can sometimes be stupid and some regulators can be corrupt or lazy. But, the fact that some laws are dumb and some cops are corrupt doesn't imply that we should just do away with he whole justice system, to my way of thinking.

Well, and perhaps the market "works" eventually, but how bad should things be allowed to get before that happens? You skipped over my link on the Bhopal disaster.

Granted, I don't know the nuances of those various corruption cases, but on top of being hobbled or hindered by their owners and investors' increasing hubris, it seems like the final nail in the coffin for a lot of those companies was that their CEOs went to jail and/or were fined into oblivion. If the law hadn't stepped in, how long would it have taken for those companies to crash and burn of their own accord--and how much damage would've been done in the meantime?

As for various technologies, I can't necessarily comment intelligently on how or how well they actually work, but it's pretty evident to me that Big Oil has worked very hard to concern-troll about global warming and instill doubt about various green technologies, just as Phillip Morris has tried to spread confusion and doubt about the effects of tobacco, and William Randolph Hearst attacked hemp in order to bolster the cotton industry.

Many companies are absolutely not above lying about or demonizing the competition, or anything or anyone they see as a threat to the bottom line. Therein lies the danger for the rest of us.

From my point of view, the smartest business practice would be to adopt new technologies and get on board with new trends, instead of trying to suppress or kill them--but, that's not what we see in practice.

As for corporate stupidity and corruption, even if corrupt or stupid corporations are technically in the minority, if they hold a huge share of the market, their corruption and stupidity can have major ripple effects on the rest of society.

 

Quote

History has also shown us that if you make some types of power impossible to grab, government's power diminishes, and people become more free. For example Bibles used to be only owned by churches, which were like governments at one point, being able to claim anything they want to hold power. When printing presses came out, everyone was able to get a copy of a Bible, and church's power died. That vacuum can no longer be filled.

 

Hence the appeal of things like FOSS, yes.

Certainly, a sufficiently powerful and greedy group or person could try to lock down the market on a particular resource, idea, or technology, but once the cat has been let out of the bag, it's much harder to herd it back in.

Once people have experienced the freedom and joy of being able to do or create something for themselves, they'll generally be less inclined to give that up--that is, unless you can manage to steal it from them gradually and subtly, cater to their sense of greed or laziness in order to pull a bait-and-switch, or flat-out intimidate them at gunpoint (literally or figuratively).

Edited April 7, 2016 by Troj

[LazerMaster5]

Furries ruin everything? More like Rassah ruins everything. Nothing like seeing walls of text promoting libertarianism.

[Rassah]

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

Basically, the core point is that businesses are not paragons of perfect sense and reason, even when they "should" be.

Nobody claims they are. We're debating what is better, government regulation (green quadrant market authoritarianism)  or market regulation (purple quadrant compete lack of any authoritarianism).

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

So, the point of the Market Myopia link was to say, "Hey, even people with MBAs are still human beings who'll be just as inclined to cling to a sinking ship as a person without an MBA."

Of course. People don't like to lose stuff they have worked hard to build or maintain (even if it's their job). And we should let them sink, instead of having government step in to protect them.

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

Things can get especially ugly and corrupt when businesses get into bed with governments with no supervision or oversight.

It's even uglier when businesses actually take over and control the regulators, where it's not just a lack of oversight, but the agency actually starts to work together with and protect the business. Called "regulatory capture." That has happened completely with financial regulators, which is why we had issues from Enron to 2008 to everything that happened in between and will happen in the future. But how much do we see in the news about bad regulatory agencies that let all of that happen?...

And the worst thing about this is that when you have regulatory agencies, people themselves stop caring, thinking "There are regulations, they will protect me." Personal responsibility and people verifying things themselves disappears, and market forces no longer work, while the businesses that captured the regulators can continue to exploit the gullible masses.

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

So, does that mean regulations are actually necessary, provided they're enforced appropriately?

The question is are there better options. Without better options, regulations would help. But as we've seen historically, especially recently, they are the worst option and actually hurt.

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

Regulations can sometimes be stupid and some regulators can be corrupt or lazy. But, the fact that some laws are dumb and some cops are corrupt doesn't imply that we should just do away with he whole justice system, to my way of thinking.

What if all of them (regulations) are stupid, and corrupt, and all of them are being passed not to protect consumers, but to protect established business interests? What if the entire culture and incentives structure of the system is set up to guarantee that will happen (both regulators being "captured" and cops becoming progressively more corrupt

Because that's how things seem to be like now. No regulations get passed to protect us any more.

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

Well, and perhaps the market "works" eventually, but how bad should things be allowed to get before that happens? You skipped over my link on the Bhopal disaster.

I did, sorry. There's not much I can comment on when a major accident happens. But the company failed and is gone, though not before paying $470 million in damages and building specialty hospitals to help the victims.

It's unfortunate that Indian government immediately stepped in and sealed off the area, keeping what happened secret from the public, causing more harm to those who couldn't find out what was going on, and preventing Union Carbide India from being able to go in and asses the situation to figure out what happened and what to do to prevent further damage. It's also unfortunate that Indian government stepped in to claim to represent all the victims, instead of allowing this to be a class action lawsuit, and took over ownership of the area, assuming responsibility of the cleanup. As a result, who knows how much of the $470 million (which was immediately paid by the company) actually made it to the victims, and that action prevented any further lawsuits against the company by more victims, as well as prevented lawsuits to force the company to clean up the area. One wonders if the Indian government was just stupid, or if this was planned.

But this reminds me of another world's worst disaster, which wasn't caused by a private company: Chernobyl (accidents happen?). There the government also stepped in and kept things quiet, causing thousands more to get exposed. The aftermath reminds me of the BP disaster, where the company was fined with essentially a slap on the wrist, in exchange for protection for any future litigation.

Basically, accidents happen and both private and government industry can fuck up, but it seems that government being involved just makes things so much worse

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

If the law hadn't stepped in, how long would it have taken for those companies to crash and burn of their own accord--and how much damage would've been done in the meantime?

Law is not a government regulatory thing. Taking someone to court doesn't even require a government. So law would step in regardless. The question I'm wondering is, if people didn't depend on regulators, trusting the government to do its job, and instead verified things themselves (not even every person involved in the business, but just some), how much sooner would their misdeeds be found out?

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

As for various technologies, I can't necessarily comment intelligently on how or how well they actually work, but it's pretty evident to me that Big Oil has worked very hard to concern-troll about global warming and instill doubt about various green technologies...

No need to concern troll when the manufacturer themselves say something like "100 mile range, and takes a day to charge, but costs add much as a luxury car" or "this technology is not affordable and currently will never pay for itself, unless you get thousands of dollars from the government to offset your costs" (solar). If solar was really more affordable and efficient, people would be buying it without getting about $6k in subsidies (depending on the state)

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

Many companies are absolutely not above lying about or demonizing the competition, or anything or anyone they see as a threat to the bottom line. Therein lies the danger for the rest of us.

That's true, but in business all you have us your reputation. How many such companies can you name? Are they many out of the tens of millions in the world? And how many of them have not suffered from being caught lying?

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

From my point of view, the smartest business practice would be to adopt new technologies and get on board with new trends, instead of trying to suppress or kill them--but, that's not what we see in practice.

I still stand my by claim that "suppressed technologies" is nothing but conspiracy. The world is massive. If your technology is being suppressed in US, and you know it's a much better technology, go develop it in France, Russia, or China. The only thing that's suppressing technologies is the market deciding they're shitty and need more work.

54 minutes ago, Troj said:

As for corporate stupidity and corruption, even if corrupt or stupid corporations are technically in the minority, if they hold a huge share of the market, their corruption and stupidity can have major ripple effects on the rest of society.

That's true. 2008 was a great example of that. And a great example of largest corporations that can do the worst damage also being the most able to capture regulators, on whom regulations in general work the least.

Huh. I didn't even realize that until I typed it just now. The bigger the company, the more power it gets, the more it controls regulators, and the worst regulations are to protect ourselves from it. Basically the opposite of what we want.

2 hours ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Furries ruin everything? More like Rassah ruins everything. Nothing like seeing walls of text promoting libertarianism.

There are, like, a dozen or two dots in the green quadrant, vs two far in the purple. You'd think there would be more text walls defending green... But as of yet, no one even answered whether those who ended up in the green would actually follow their own claims should they be put in a business situation themselves.

[Troj]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

It's even uglier when businesses actually take over and control the regulators, where it's not just a lack of oversight, but the agency actually starts to work together with and protect the business. Called "regulatory capture." That has happened completely with financial regulators, which is why we had issues from Enron to 2008 to everything that happened in between and will happen in the future. But how much do we see in the news about bad regulatory agencies that let all of that happen?...

Very true. It's horrifying to me how government regularly caters to the whims of the mega-corporations, to the point of even passing regulatory laws or creating loopholes that hurt the little guys.

You see this a lot with Monsanto et al vs. small, local organic farms.

But, without any kind of regulation or oversight, you open the door to a Wild West situation where a powerful few run roughshod over everyone else, and make it so that only an elite few only truly have freedom.

Something else on my mind: I'm also thinking about what will benefit the greatest number of humans over the long-term, and so it occurs to me that it may be beneficial to promote practices and products that are initially clunky or imperfect, but which will prove to be much more beneficial to humanity over the long-term. In a totally free and open market, the fast-and-convenient has the potential to crush products and ideas with potential.

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

And the worst thing about this is that when you have regulatory agencies, people themselves stop caring, thinking "There are regulations, they will protect me." Personal responsibility and people verifying things themselves disappears, and market forces no longer work, while the businesses that captured the regulators can continue to exploit the gullible masses.

You can't assume that the Powers That Be are always wise, impartial, and magnanimous. Unquestioning trust in and obedience towards authority figures sets the stage for corruption.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Troj

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

You see this a lot with Monsanto et al vs. small, local organic farms.

Monsanto actually hasn't been that big of a deal. They're just an easy target. Big banks however...

http://www.deepcapture.com/introduction-to-the-deep-capture-analysis/

Quote

But, without any kind of regulation or oversight, you open the door to a Wild West situation where a powerful few run roughshod over everyone else, and make it so that only an elite few only truly have freedom.

What is worse? The powerful few running roughshot over everyone else? Or the powerful few being legally sanctioned, protected, and even given money (bailouts) by government to run over everyone else? You seem to think there are other options besides just these two in the real world. Ideally there might be, but, like communism, it never worked in practice.

Quote

In a totally free and open market, the fast-and-convenient has the potential to crush products and ideas with potential.

Why do you think that? And even if that's the case, why force something else, if most people want fast-and-convenient instead of centrally planned long term potential?

 

Quote

You can't assume that the Powers That Be are always wise, impartial, and magnanimous. Unquestioning trust in and obedience towards authority figures sets the stage for corruption.

Yep. But that's the image we have projected at us by regulatory agencies. They are necessary, without them we'll be in a wild west, and if they screw up horribly... They are necessary, without then we'll be in a wild west, how dare you suggest we change anything!

Plus history is replete with examples of people becoming more dependent on authority and having less and less personal responsibility, from environmental disasters from thinking regulators are taking care if it, to economic disasters thinking government is taking care of it, to social disasters thinking social programs are taking care of it.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Rassah

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

Rassah, give up. No one's interested in buying your product.

Edited April 7, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[Troj]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

What is worse? The powerful few running roughshot over everyone else? Or the powerful few being legally sanctioned, protected, and even given money (bailouts) by government to run over everyone else? You seem to think there are other options besides just these two in the real world. Ideally there might be, but, like communism, it never worked in practice.

Neither is desirable.

Similarly, people becoming complacent and dependent on a higher authority is just as bad and unhealthy as them having to fight tooth and claw for every table scrap.

My understanding about the bailouts is that they were necessary to protect the whole economic infrastructure, in order to prevent a depression. But, that's outside of my wheelhouse, I admit. I feel like I need to do more research to really understand the bailouts properly.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Why do you think that?

Because people tend to favor the short-term fix or pleasure over what will be better in the long-term, and our species has a bad habit of putting off solving a problem until the 11th hour.

It's fine to let people choose if they're the only ones who'll have to deal with the consequences of that choice. It's not fine if their choices will have ripple-effects that will impact others. That's the dilemma we face as a society.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Troj

[MalletFace]

 

On 4/5/2016 at 11:53 PM, Rassah said:

I can show you the ever increasing amount of business regulations that started to grow in early 1900's, an ever increasing number of people dependent on government support, severe lack of economic and financial education, drift in economic policies towards more and more centrally planned or managed private monopoly businesses, increase in nationalism, wars, surveillance, general domestic spying, corporatism, and other things that show our country has been drifting first into the red, then into the blue... Much of that is common knowledge though.

Let me refer to your original statement so as to keep this neat and honest.

On 4/4/2016 at 1:24 PM, Rassah said:

Unfortunately, the problem with the green quadrant is that the only way to enforce it is to vote for (or end up with) a government that is in the red quadrant, since you do need strong authoritarian personality to enforce it, and that inevitably drifts into the blue quadrant as well.

First, I ask that you show me the regulations from the early 1900s that caused all of the things you listed above. Nothing anecdotal or loosely correlated, please. Common knowledge does not cut it, as even things like the general form of a quadratic and the definition of ennui may be called "common knowledge," yet they are unlikely to be known to any old Joe-Bob.

Second, I ask you to display how any of that actually enforces the economic programs of the far corner of that quadrant. If you are suggesting that the abolition of all redundant, illogical, or harmful hierarchies is unenforceable without the hierarchy of state, then I ask you to explain why you feel as though your system's inability to defend against the recreation of the statist system is permissible - even a feature.

On 2/19/2016 at 4:30 PM, Rassah said:

If people want to subjugate themselves to a tiny elite ruling class and have half of their entire lives and labor get taken away for the service of that ruling class, that's fine with us. We're just creating services for those who want to opt out. Preferably from wherever they live, in a sort of separate independent system on top of the current system. And if they want to congregate and move into a small area to live together, that's fine too.

I would also like to have you ask yourself,

On 2/22/2016 at 0:00 AM, Rassah said:

So in other words you're saying we need government, because without government we'll end up with government[?]

Nice question, Rassah.

On 4/5/2016 at 11:53 PM, Rassah said:

Downloaded, but will have to get to it later. Slogging through Mises's Human Action, which I should've read much earlier, but it's 900+ pages, compared to this 174.

That was an obvious jab at the size of the text; I assume it is because you link text size with authority on a subject. War and Peace and the Bible are both 1200+ pages. I don't recommend you attempt to live your life by what is laid out in them, though.

I was attempting to provide you with a starter - not to impress you, overwhelm you, or outclass you.

It seems you wish to act to the contrary, though; you direct yourself straight into the conflict and highlight how others are wrong simply because their ideas do not align with your logic.

Quote

It is common with narrow-minded people to reflect upon every respect in which other people differ from themselves.

Thanks for the input, Mises; I've been feeling a little sick. You just saved me the time of trying to say the same thing.

On 4/6/2016 at 7:01 PM, willow said:

I'm surprised because you're still not as far left as Mallet :u

It is hard to be much farther left than myself. I would be the king of the left should I support that kind of authority.

[Victor-933]

I've had this nebulous half-baked idea sitting in my head for a while now, and I guess I'll just kinda ramble and spew it all out and see what others think...

 

In a similar fashion to our government having three branches that codepend on and balance eachother, there are three branches of society that codepend on and should balance each other in order to avoid tipping the balance of "power" too far in one direction.

"Power" would be a fluid concept and vary depending on the context in which it appears.  Public "power" would be things like democratic participation or gun ownership (to push back against other sectors). Economic power would be things like large-scale lobbying, while political power would be the legal system, industry regulations, etc.

 

The first social branch would be the public sector, which I suppose would contain all the "average" people, the grunt laborers. Policemen, firemen, factory workers, cubicle farmhands, etc.

The second branch would be the economic sector -- all the money shakers and decision makers of the business world. The "1%".

The third would be the political sector, the heads of state and high-level officials.

They all need to balance each other out. Too much power in the public sector and you have rioting and anarchy. Too much power in the economic sector and you get Brazil. Too much power in the political sector and you get the Soviet Union.

 

 

Of course it's probably just all naive idealism, but it's nice to think about.

[Pignog]

19 hours ago, Rassah said:

 

 

[Onnes]

In the interest of posting something that isn't a self-replicating wall of text, I've updated the plot.
http://onnes11.github.io/compass/
Aside changing user labeling, I've integrated the statistics I did further up thread into the page itself.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Onnes

[#00Buck]

23 minutes ago, Onnes said:

In the interest of posting something that isn't a self-replicating wall of text, I've updated the plot.
http://onnes11.github.io/compass/
Aside changing user labeling, I've integrated the statistics I did further up thread into the page itself.

Well done. 

[Rassah]

15 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

The first social branch would be the public sector, which I suppose would contain all the "average" people, the grunt laborers. Policemen, firemen, factory workers, cubicle farmhands, etc.

The second branch would be the economic sector -- all the money shakers and decision makers of the business world. The "1%".

The third would be the political sector, the heads of state and high-level officials.

They all need to balance each other out. 

The political sector mostly controls the economic sector, creating too much incentive for the economic sector to get control of the political. I don't think there's any way to prevent that from happening, since both dictatorship and democracy seem to inevitably lead to that. Which pretty much is the reason I hold the views that I do. If you can think of a way to balance political and economic without them simply colliding, I'd love to hear it.

13 hours ago, Onnes said:

In the interest of posting something that isn't a self-replicating wall of text, I've updated the plot.
http://onnes11.github.io/compass/
Aside changing user labeling, I've integrated the statistics I did further up thread into the page itself.

Thanks, that looks very clean. It's nice to see furries aren't fascists at least. Those are the worst.

[CETME]

17 minutes ago, Rassah said:

.

Thanks, that looks very clean. It's nice to see furries aren't fascists at least. Those are the worst.

I don't think furries and an ideology that thinks that "muh degeneracy" is a good excuse to discriminate against people would mix very well.

[WolfyAmbassador]

1 minute ago, BlitzCo said:

I don't think furries and an ideology that thinks that "muh degeneracy" is a good excuse to discriminate against people would mix very well.

Who are you referring to?

[CETME]

Just now, WolfyAmbassador said:

Who are you referring to?

Stormfags.

In other words, neo-nazis and the people who use a website called stormfront

[WolfyAmbassador]

2 minutes ago, BlitzCo said:

Stormfags.

In other words, neo-nazis and the people who use a website called stormfront

 

 

[Toboe]

17 minutes ago, BlitzCo said:

I don't think furries and an ideology that thinks that "muh degeneracy" is a good excuse to discriminate against people would mix very well.

Meh, logic consistency vs idiology...

[Troj]

You'd be surprised, actually.

I don't think it's particularly easy to be an out-and-out bigot or a screeching moral crusader in the furry fandom, but we've had our share of each, surprisingly enough.

We definitely have our share of people who appear to hold rather bigoted and nasty views, but are good at dancing between the raindrops, so to speak.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Troj

[WolfyAmbassador]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

You'd be surprised, actually.

I don't think it's particularly easy to be an out-and-out bigot or a screeching moral crusader in the furry fandom, but we've had our share of each, surprisingly enough.

No, they just convert into degenerates to fit in, at least from what I've seen.

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, BlitzCo said:

I don't think furries and an ideology that thinks that "muh degeneracy" is a good excuse to discriminate against people would mix very well.

Good point. My belief is also that the reason so many furries are in the green is entirely due to where most of them grew up (like with religion, you'll likely be a Christian if you grew up in USA or Europe, Muslim if you're from the Middle East, etc.). Most furries are from USA, Canada, and Europe. Their only choices are Blue (Conservatives/Republicans) and Green (Socialists/Democrats). A lot of furries are gay or bi, and almost all have rather non-standard kinks, things which religious conservative blue tends to really rail against. So furs have green as their only option. I suspect if most furries were from USSR, majority here would be in the Red, and if most were from Middle East, more would be in the Blue.

I've unfortunately too often came across a situation where some fur was strictly in the Green/Red section, not because of any rational reasons, but because in their mind anything on the right was automatically bad, racist, homophobic, or hates poors, with them lumping Purple "you can be anyone and do anything" with anti-gay Blue (yeah, I've been called a homophobe, despite being gay married for 17 years, and been accused of being racist and hating poors by those on this same forum).

[Kinharia]

On 08/04/2016 at 0:20 AM, Rassah said:

I suspect if most furries were from USSR, majority here would be in the Red, and if most were from Middle East, more would be in the Blue.

Well from what I've seen, besides yourself of course, most people I've talked too from the former USSR would either be disgruntled Communists who long for "the good ol' days" or have swapped their colours and gone full Fascist.

[#00Buck]

Most people in general are in the green zone these days. 

 

[LazerMaster5]

10 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Most people in general are in the green zone these days. 

 

Isn't that a movie with Matt Damon in it?

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Isn't that a movie with Matt Damon in it?

 

 

[Kinharia]

11 hours ago, #00Buck said:

*video*

 

No lie when I went to see The Martian I just kept expecting him to shout "Matt Damon!" at some point in the film. For the love of all things Matt do it at least once for us!

[Sutekh_the_Steak]

 

I got his, idk how accurate it is though.

[Mapa]

I don't know jack shit about politics, so here's my gravely uninformed position based solely off of gut feelings.

[#00Buck]

This thread feels incomplete without someone way out in the blue zone. 

[Endless/Nameless]

 

[Saxon]

On 4/12/2016 at 0:42 AM, #00Buck said:

This thread feels incomplete without someone way out in the blue zone. 

No love for Thatcher, I suppose. Many sads. ;^;

[CETME]

Or Augusto Pinochet 

[#00Buck]

Someone here must love Hitler right?

[MalletFace]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

No love for Thatcher, I suppose. Many sads. ;^;

One has to love any person that looks more and more like a displeased Q-tip as they age. That's some kind of magic there.

[Pignog]

On 2016-04-14 at 3:44 PM, Saxon said:

No love for Thatcher, I suppose. Many sads. ;^;

ill go steal some kid's milk and retake the test

[Saxon]

4 hours ago, Pignog said:

ill go steal some kid's milk and retake the test

*chants* Margaret Thatcher: milk snatcher!

[Lucius]

Needs more questions.

[#00Buck]

4 minutes ago, Lucius said:

Needs more questions.

You just missed. 

[Lucius]

I think I'm closer to true neutral than anything.

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, Lucius said:

I think I'm closer to true neutral than anything.

You should be a druid. We don't have on in our party. 

[Wax]

The questions aren't great on it though. It could do with more, and some better written. Also, some answers that would make one more left or more right can actually have politically opposite justifications