Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political compass for the21st century
(11-06-2019, 05:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 05:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 12:42 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: After a few tweaks:

[Image: compass.gif]

I've followed Eric's advice and classified Greta the Green as an inclusivist, not a theocrat. There are indeed theocrat-like forms of environmentalism like the ideas of the terror group Earth First, but they are quite rare nowadays. They might come back during the 2T.

Millennial environmentalism looks like being focused on empathizing with Nature's plight and including it in our global civilization. A lot like the attitude they have to gays and earlier Inclusivists had to Blacks.

I also added Al Saud, the ultimate merger between theocracy and market.

That does look a bit better Smile

-- where's Bernie? In the white with Roosevelt?

I would expect he would be put about where Corbyn is, or somewhere between him and Warren. But I've mentioned to Bill before that the word "communist" is rather loaded, and that "socialist" (though still loaded) would be a bit better.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-05-2019, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some of you virtual millennials need to take more time out and visit places in Nature, or just enjoy the air on a windy day in a local park. Get in touch with your own body more. Put down your phones and get out from behind your desktops and discover real life.

You seem to have an image of me which is very far from the real me. I don't have a smart phone nor any social media profile. I enjoy running and visiting the forest. There wouldn't be forests inside an asteroid, but there certainly could be gardens. Actually one of the reasons I support space colonisation is that spreading the population across the Cosmos would relieve our pressure on the Earth's ecosystem.

I don't even particularly identify with Millennials, though I appreciate the civic traits of rationality, positivity and togetherness.  I however don't like their social media conformity nor their excessive reliance on technology and I think their trust in institutional solutions rather than personal righteousness is misplaced.

Hintergrund Wrote:Your "compass" has five dimensions, but you want to depict it in two. It doesn't work like that.
Also, why stay at five? I've seen political tests with eight different axes. Why not make it an n-dimensional space, in which any combination is possible.

They are not axes, they are directions. It's not and never was intended to be a Nolan Chart clone.

It's hard to know where to put you knowing only your stance on two issues. What's your view on economics? Gay marriage? The idea of a World State? What do you consider the purpose of government and society in general?
Reply
(11-09-2019, 06:39 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some of you virtual millennials need to take more time out and visit places in Nature, or just enjoy the air on a windy day in a local park. Get in touch with your own body more. Put down your phones and get out from behind your desktops and discover real life.

You seem to have an image of me which is very far from the real me. I don't have a smart phone nor any social media profile. I enjoy running and visiting the forest. There wouldn't be forests inside an asteroid, but there certainly could be gardens. Actually one of the reasons I support space colonisation is that spreading the population across the Cosmos would relieve our pressure on the Earth's ecosystem.

I don't even particularly identify with Millennials, though I appreciate the civic traits of rationality, positivity and togetherness.  I however don't like their social media conformity nor their excessive reliance on technology and I think their trust in institutional solutions rather than personal righteousness is misplaced.
That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though. Space colonization does not seem a viable solution to human pressures on the Earth's eco-system, for many reasons. Unless the light barrier is broken (in which case we are already being visited by ETs), it would take far too long (many generations) to travel to another planet, check it out, travel back, import super-advanced terraforming tools in many spaceships, again travelling for many generations each, with provisions that would last that long or be ongoing somehow; it just seems like something very few people would be willing or able to do. And it would not relieve pressure on Earth at all, because the people here would still grow and multiply and continue their current behavior no matter how many times we set sail for another planet and how many more planets we ruin.

NO, the correct solution is for humans to change their behavior (attain greater righteousness as you put it), invent and rely on new eco-friendly tech, spread the wealth around better so poor people have fewer babies, etc. The Earth is our home; we need to take care of those beautiful forests and wildlife and treasure our home as the absolutely-unique place that it is, and until we do that, we are not qualified to go mess up some other planet. And the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self (Nature, God, etc.). We ARE Nature, we grew out of it, we are not isolated objects as Enlightenment Era rationality supposed. We need to ditch the old scientific and religious dogmas and move forward from the sixties and 1890s into the New Age in all our ways of thinking and being. Yes, I am a prophet Boomer Smile

Quote:
Hintergrund Wrote:Your "compass" has five dimensions, but you want to depict it in two. It doesn't work like that.
Also, why stay at five? I've seen political tests with eight different axes. Why not make it an n-dimensional space, in which any combination is possible.

They are not axes, they are directions. It's not and never was intended to be a Nolan Chart clone.

It's hard to know where to put you knowing only your stance on two issues. What's your view on economics? Gay marriage? The idea of a World State? What do you consider the purpose of government and society in general?

A five-pointed chart may have its purpose. Far be it from me to say what's the only way. Not everything has to be a clone of the most accepted version of something. Best wishes with it, and it may yield valuable insights. I like these sorts of explorations and maps.

Myself, I am a supporter of the the two axes and four directions model. It fits my philosophy circle, for one thing, and my astrology models, for another; as well as many other maps, circles and practices. I think all the issues can be resolved into those two axes and four quadrants/directions. But, your mileage may vary, and no one map is equal to the territory. The more ideas, the merrier I say.

I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-09-2019, 06:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though.

Enlightenment rationality yes, but I don't like their praise of selfishness.

I'd also say I'm more into biotech than AI.

But I'd also prefer to live in a society with less tech but correct attitudes, than one with super advanced tech but based on evil philosophy like Libertarianism or Neoreaction.

Quote:I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?

Without a nationalist sector, how do you conceptualize Middle Eastern politics? The Sauds and Al-Qaeda is theocratic and folks like Saddam and Assad are nationalists. So it's not just Trump.

Quote:the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self

Why didn't your omnipotent galactic cops intervene when Hitler was gassing Jews?
Reply
I suddenly came to a recognition that the extremist environmentalist Earth First (these are the people who drive stakes into trees so that loggers will get severely injured by shrapnel from the stake if they cut down the tree). and animal-release groups (they break into research labs and free animals from testing labs) might be a totalitarian cause in the purple sector.

It falls clearly outside the free-market advocates (some environmentalists generally support a free market system with the catch that people pay dearly for the destructive consequences of their consumer choices), so it is not in the yellow sector. It is apparently godless, so it is definitely not theocratic (black sector).  Internationalist, it does not fit in the nationalist (brown) sector. Egalitarian? Not particularly.  I would put Earth First! on the rim in the purple sector, and on the rim. Also in this area would be those who support human extinction as god for the Earth. (OK, most of the animal world would be delighted if three species were to go extinct: Canis lupus familaris, Felis domestica, and you-know-who).

OK -- we have a person of such mentality -- Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. He did leave his Unabom Manifesto as an expressiion of his ideology.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(11-10-2019, 06:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(11-09-2019, 06:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though.

Enlightenment rationality yes, but I don't like their praise of selfishness.

I'd also say I'm more into biotech than AI.

But I'd also prefer to live in a society with less tech but correct attitudes, than one with super advanced tech but based on evil philosophy like Libertarianism or Neoreaction.

I agree

Quote:
Quote:I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?

Without a nationalist sector, how do you conceptualize Middle Eastern politics? The Sauds and Al-Qaeda is theocratic and folks like Saddam and Assad are nationalists. So it's not just Trump.

I explained before, that as I conceive it, loyalty and power reserved for your social group of whatever kind, and limits or repression imposed on other groups, just because they belong to that group and not to achieve greater liberty and prosperity, is what is called social conservatism on political compasses with two axes. I don't think it matters what kind of group it is. And fascism is a typical extreme version of social conservatism. Most fascist regimes are both nationalist and use religion to boost, prop up and enforce loyalty to the regime. Hitler's regime certainly was an example in his use of Germanic mythology.

Political theocracy has very little to do with religion. It doesn't matter what the specific beliefs of the religion are; they have little to do with the political movement. Religions do not preach political repression, generally speaking. Making religion an excuse for it is social conservatism, and that is politics and not religion. Religions at the core are much the same, while imposing one religion over another is using it for political power and repression of another social group.

I think Saddam was less of a social conservative because he allowed such things as women's rights. He was some kind of socialist statist, but he was also an imperialist, which is more nationalist and thus socially conservative, and also quite anachronistic. The goal of conquest of other nations is quite similar to fascism. The Soviet Union also combined those two goals. So, Saddam was quite similar to Stalin, then; maybe slightly left, but very close to the statist pole per se. I don't think Assad is a nationalist; just a statist. He is just about imposing his rule in his own realm, and it's a family dynastic rather than a national concern; but he does use religious sectarianism to gain loyalty. So, low on the scale, but shading toward social conservative. The Saudis are a slightly different mix. That is also a family dynasty, and more theocratic than Assad, but less imperialist than Saddam.

That's how I see it. Nationalism and theocracy are just two versions of social conservatism. But in the early 19th century and in anti-colonial movements, nationalism was liberal and their adherents would have been placed elsewhere depending on their overall philosophy. The nation, as originally conceived in the French Revolution, was a tool to achieve human rights and greater democracy. It was not a tool to oppress other nations and groups. That latter is nationalism as social conservatism. The French Revolution in fact sought to extend their own liberty to other nations-- which has its own difficulties that were demonstrated once Napoleon carried this out in his authoritarian way. But it did change the world.

Basically, as your circle is now, I would combine the theocratic and nationalist sectors, and then the rest would fit the political compass, except "communism" is too strong a word for economic liberalism generally.

That's just my view, which you asked for Smile

Quote:
Quote:the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self

Why didn't your omnipotent galactic cops intervene when Hitler was gassing Jews?

That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-11-2019, 03:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.

Wow, so your Galactics are no better than the terrestrial internationalists. Sovereignty must be inviolable, yadda yadda. Do you seriously think perfected interstellar beings act like that?
Reply
(11-18-2019, 04:31 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 03:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.

Wow, so your Galactics are no better than the terrestrial internationalists. Sovereignty must be inviolable, yadda yadda. Do you seriously think perfected interstellar beings act like that?

I would think they would act like any responsible organization would, to restrain entry into their membership people who are so immature as we are so as to be unqualified. But as I say, I don't know if they would stop us from sending out whole generations of astronauts to travel to and settle and terraform another planet, assuming we would ever be foolish enough to attempt such a hairbrained and impossible scheme.

But as far as coming to Earth and helping us to break the light barrier, I think they might be restrained from helping us too much, considering our immature condition, or from helping restrain us from our evil acts toward each other, considering their likely laws against interfering in the evolutionary affairs of other peoples. On the other hand, in some limited way they may already be helping us. So I can't be sure, not having contact with galactic federation officials. But I don't think our terrestrial neo-cons are models of what good galactic behavior looks like at all.

And it seems some ETs may be coming here to avail themselves of our DNA. So, it's a frontier of investigation and possible new knowledge.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Comprehensive Political Cycle Theory jleagans 15 2,247 03-19-2019, 09:57 AM
Last Post: Marypoza
  How Birth Year Influences Political Views Dan '82 12 6,583 05-21-2016, 09:27 AM
Last Post: Mikebert
  Where to post political topics Webmaster 0 3,021 05-06-2016, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Webmaster

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)