www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Generally speaking, the more authoritarian government types have historically been the more right-of-aisle ones.

Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hoxha, Ceaușescu, Honecker, the Kims, just as a sample.

Be that as it may, being "pro" the government being able to support its work =/= authoritarianism.

Yes it does. That's not to say it's a bad thing, and it's a sliding scale from "your children will attend school and you will pay your taxes" up to "anyone who suggests the General Secretary isn't omnipotent will be shot", but authoritarianism, at it's most basic, is the imposition of the will of the state on the individual.

You are a: Centrist Libertarian Isolationist Cosmopolitan Moderate

Collectivism score: 0%
Authoritarianism score: -67%
Internationalism score: -50%
Tribalism score: -17%
Liberalism score: 0%

Interesting, the majority of the gov control questions I answered no. So how does that make for a high authoritarianism score?

Vic wrote:You are a: Centrist Libertarian Isolationist Cosmopolitan Moderate

Collectivism score: 0%
Authoritarianism score: -67%
Internationalism score: -50%
Tribalism score: -17%
Liberalism score: 0%

Interesting, the majority of the gov control questions I answered no. So how does that make for a high authoritarianism score?

By putting a minus sign in front of it.

OH! Indeed.

Captain Seafort wrote:Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hoxha, Ceaușescu, Honecker, the Kims, just as a sample.

Some of whom are leftist in name only. However, as a sample, that's still a statistically very small sample compared to, let's see, every dictatorship and monarchy in the history of ever.

Captain Seafort wrote:Yes it does. That's not to say it's a bad thing, and it's a sliding scale from "your children will attend school and you will pay your taxes" up to "anyone who suggests the General Secretary isn't omnipotent will be shot", but authoritarianism, at it's most basic, is the imposition of the will of the state on the individual.

Where I com from, the term "authoritarian" comes loaded with a negative connotation implying much of the latter part of your example rather than the former. Be that as it may, I con't call "authoritarian" a government that imposes not its own will on the individual, but the will of the constituency as expressed through a republic/representative democracy. We have no idea of "l'etat, c'est moi" in our presidency or or legislative bodies; and while there are certainly a fair share of bad apples among our elected officials, the idea of representation embodying the will of the constituency is integral to our system.

Nutso wrote:Hey sunnyside? What does mine mean?

Ok, actually the way it looks like that work, based on the results we've been getting is that they picked (sometimes wacky) terms to correspond to different levels in their "dimensions". I suspect that they're each independent of each other.
So, in your case.

Centrist=Collectivism score: 0% (Note the minuses elsewhere, so 0 is middle of the road)
Anarchist=Authoritarianism score: -100%
Isolationist = Internationalism score: -67%
Bleeding-Heart =Tribalism score: -100%
Liberal= Liberalism score: 33%

Most of those seem to fit except "Bleeding Heart" which I don't see as a thing on a "tribalism" axis. Rather a -100 would seem to mean you don't particularly care for your people/country.

As for Mikey. The site seems to be calling your 50% authoritarianism score "authoritarian". Higher scores are probably "totalitarian" or something. You may not think the questions you answered make you an authoritarian. Fox News would probably beg to differ.

I don't even know what some of these results even mean... Damn it's nice to be an American and not give a shit...

I'm gonna call this quiz bullshit and then call it a day.

Mikey wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hoxha, Ceaușescu, Honecker, the Kims, just as a sample.

Some of whom are leftist in name only. However, as a sample, that's still a statistically very small sample compared to, let's see, every dictatorship and monarchy in the history of ever.

I just listed a number of left-wing dictatorships. If you want extras (albeit for a given definition of "dictator") you can add Chavez and his various copycats.

Where I com from, the term "authoritarian" comes loaded with a negative connotation implying much of the latter part of your example rather than the former.

Colloquially, I agree, but given the context I think the more technical definition of "authoritarian" in the sense of one half of an authoritarian/libertarian axis is more appropriate.

Be that as it may, I con't call "authoritarian" a government that imposes not its own will on the individual, but the will of the constituency as expressed through a republic/representative democracy.

Again, in the colloquial sense of the word I agree with you, but in this context we're not talking colloquially but technically.

You are a: Communist Humanist Reactionary

Collectivism score: 100%
Authoritarianism score: 0%
Internationalism score: 0%
Tribalism score: -67%
Liberalism score: -67%

Captain Seafort wrote:I just listed a number of left-wing dictatorships. If you want extras (albeit for a given definition of "dictator") you can add Chavez and his various copycats.

By definition, a dictatorship rest power and decision-making in the hands of a single person, without any recourse for the ruled nor any say in policy or resource allocation for the constituency - in other words, as far right as it gets. Ergo, any true dictatorship that claims to be leftist - communist, socialist, or otherwise - is so in (fallacious) name only.

Mikey wrote:By definition, a dictatorship rest power and decision-making in the hands of a single person, without any recourse for the ruled nor any say in policy or resource allocation for the constituency - in other words, as far right as it gets. Ergo, any true dictatorship that claims to be leftist - communist, socialist, or otherwise - is so in (fallacious) name only.

Not at all - all "left-wing" refers to is state ownership of assets, be that simply key services such as the postal system, railway network and health system, through to direct state control of the entire economy with the existence of private property forbidden. It says nothing about the form of government of such a state, although I'd concede that "pure" Communism would require such complete decentralisation as you refer to.

You are a: Socialist Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Humanist Traditionalist

Collectivism score: 67%
Authoritarianism score: -17%
Internationalism score: -17%
Tribalism score: -50%
Liberalism score: -33%

I just wish I knew what that all means.

So...I'm the only extremist around here...

stitch626 wrote:You are a: Socialist Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Humanist Traditionalist

Collectivism score: 67%
Authoritarianism score: -17%
Internationalism score: -17%
Tribalism score: -50%
Liberalism score: -33%

I just wish I knew what that all means.

The writer assigned terms (somewhat inappropriately I think) to different scores in the five different areas. Actually, this wasn't a long quiz, I bet it's easy to sort out the questions by category. Lemmi see if I can do it quick.

Collectivism
The government always has the right to impose taxes on people
Private corporations would be better at delivering services than government agencies
Welfare and similar programs are not worth the money
The culture of dependancy on the government has created an entire class of useless people
A society is judged by how it treats it's most vulnerable citizens
Income inequality harms our society

Authoritarian
Terrorist propaganda, incitements to violence or other violent hate speech should NOT be protected free speech
People should be allowed private ownership of heavy weapons to defend themselves from the government
The government always has the right to dictate what people can and cannot do
Whether you agree with a war or not, it is your duty to support the armed forces
Government interference does more harm than good
The smaller the government is, the better

Internationalism
Dangerous ideologies that threaten our nation and our values should be fought across the globe, not just at home
Our nation should eliminate all foreign aid and spend that money on other things
Our nation should never intervene in civil wars or rebellions, let them take care of their own problems
The United Nations is a completely useless organization and it's not worth being a member
Our country should never join a currency union like the Euro
There should be a single worldwide government

Tribalism
My country is inherently better than other countries
We should just nuke our enemies, it's a waste of time to try and deal with them
Racial profiling is never a legitimate law enforcement tactic
Some nations are poor because of their culture or values
Immigration has a generally positive effect on my nation
Illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship


Liberal
Euthanasia, abortion and suicide should all be legal
Hard drugs (eg. cocaine, heroin), should be legal
The moral decay of our society is a significant threat to our civilization
The decline of traditional families has caused more harm than good
Multiculturalism, religious pluralism and diversity are something we should strive for as a society
Our laws should be based on our religious beliefs and values like the 10 commandments


I suppose with most you don't know what they answered. Except for the people with 100% or -100% in something.