Political compass: ID used to score like a -7 on the left/right scale.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

The other test forces the taker to slant one way or another due to the non-existence of neutral ground, which does switch things a fair deal.

[Hunter Sopko]

Meanwhile, I scored relatively the same... I guess that just means I'm more decisive or what?

[Magetastic]

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

[Dhyerwolf]

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

Makes sense that economic moved left since I'm notably more anti-big corporation generally than I was then. Social Lib. moving right probably just means I'm more sick of people!

[Veryslightlymad]

Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

I continue my slide toward moderate liberalism. It's my reactionary reaction to the reactionary right.

1    left/right     -4.0112 (-0.2414)
2   pragmatism    +2.4162 (+0.1454)

Taking this test, I honestly expected to have a stronger right-leaning preference than the other test. Weird. Eerie.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Jihad vs. McWorld looks extremely interesting.

It was our textbook for Writing 221, I recall.

But yeah, I don't remember the numbers from last time I took this, I just remembered I synched up with Gandhi.

[Excal]

Can't remember what I got last time, though I still seem to be notably more right wing than most of the DL even as I sit squarely in the centre.  Which, actually, feels about right.

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

1    left/right     -0.0787 (-0.0047)
2   pragmatism    +0.3145 (+0.0189)

[kokushishin]

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

a little more libertarian than a couple years ago (I think it was -2.7 or so)

1    left/right     -2.7221 (-0.1638)
2   pragmatism    -0.3862 (-0.0232)

[Ultradude]

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90

A bit left, but the L/A feels about right.

1 left/right     +0.1413 (+0.0085)
2 pragmatism       -0.0008 (-0.0000)

More indicative of where I see myself - excessively moderate, ever so slightly right leaning.

[Bobbin Cranbud]

Left/Right: +1.5074 (+0.0907)
Pragmatism: -2.3521 (-0.1416)

Huh.  Although I agree not excluding the middle is all to the good, this feels somehow less accurate to me.  I mean, I'm literally - in the literal sense of the word - a "reactionary" on many issues by the standards of 1909, much less 2009.

I guess my issues are so removed from modern debate that I come across as relatively "moderate" to these tests, doubly so to one that assesses how decisively I come down on modern issues.

[Cotigo]

I'm... curious.  Exactly what ARE the issues you care about, if they are "so removed from modern debate," and you describe yourself as a reactionary by 1909 standards?

[Yoshiken]

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

[Bobbin Cranbud]

I'm... curious.  Exactly what ARE the issues you care about, if they are "so removed from modern debate," and you describe yourself as a reactionary by 1909 standards?

Hereditary monarchy is the big one.

Another is decentralization from large nation-states to smaller, semi-independent sates and/or fiefdoms loosely tied by hierarchical loyalties and economic and cultural considerations.

Basically, I support post-agrarian feudalism heavily restricted by Confucian-inspired concepts of reciprocity and the Mandate of Heaven, and culturally enforced by a strong, traditional, supra-national religious or cultural body (equivalent to the role the Catholic church played in medieval Europe).  I'm not especially picky on WHAT the religion is because the moral precepts of successful religions tend to follow similar lines and I'm not a believer myself; my interest is in religion as a check on excesses of temporal power and private behavior.

I also support powerful cultural disapproval of the discussion and publicization of sex, although people's actual private behaviors are irrelevant to me.

It's not a perfect match for a 1909 reactionary (hell, some of my socio-economic views already were off the table THEN, since that was the height of national centralization in tune with the second wave of the industrial revolution), but in a lot of ways it's closer to them than it would be to, say, a 2009 "conservative."  Some of my issues have migrated back and forth from "right" to "left" in the last hundred years, for instance.

[Ultradude]

...finally, someone quite blatantly more off-the-map than my Fascist but Nazi-hating friend.

I kind of want to see you two meet.

[Idun]

Man I'm upset at my moderation and you guys' extremities. Maybe I did the test wrong (not enough Strongly Dis/Agrees)! ^^;

Edit*

It was our textbook for Writing 221, I recall.

But yeah, I don't remember the numbers from last time I took this, I just remembered I synched up with Gandhi.

Is it interesting? The title seems so seductively scandalous.

[SageAcrin]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

I like how my dot's right around the two for Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Works for me. But yeah, that test needs more moderate options, many of those I do not have a strong opinion on, or don't have an opinion as the question was stated.

Still sounds about right though, numerically.

1    left/right     -5.0652 (-0.3049)
2   pragmatism    +0.8018 (+0.0483)

Also sounds about right.

[Ultradude]

Man I'm upset at my moderation and you guys' extremities. Maybe I did the test wrong (not enough Strongly Dis/Agrees)! ^^;

Edit*

It was our textbook for Writing 221, I recall.

But yeah, I don't remember the numbers from last time I took this, I just remembered I synched up with Gandhi.

Is it interesting? The title seems so seductively scandalous.

Embrace your moderation as I have.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Is it interesting? The title seems so seductively scandalous.

It was an interesting enough read. It's basically a study of reactionaries opposed with the global capitalization movement. Not all of it is necessarily about Islamic insurgents, by the way.

[Idun]

I thought it was more generally.. globalization with a bit of facetiousness. I'll see if my library has it once I'm done with these POUNDS AND POUNDS AND POUNDS of pages to read before Thursday. Dinner break time.

[Cotigo]

I'm... curious.  Exactly what ARE the issues you care about, if they are "so removed from modern debate," and you describe yourself as a reactionary by 1909 standards?

Hereditary monarchy is the big one.

Another is decentralization from large nation-states to smaller, semi-independent sates and/or fiefdoms loosely tied by hierarchical loyalties and economic and cultural considerations.

Basically, I support post-agrarian feudalism heavily restricted by Confucian-inspired concepts of reciprocity and the Mandate of Heaven, and culturally enforced by a strong, traditional, supra-national religious or cultural body (equivalent to the role the Catholic church played in medieval Europe).  I'm not especially picky on WHAT the religion is because the moral precepts of successful religions tend to follow similar lines and I'm not a believer myself; my interest is in religion as a check on excesses of temporal power and private behavior.

...You can't be serious. 

EDIT: Just culled the quote to make it more clear what ideas I find so utterly ridiculous that Cranbud MUST be trolling.  It's still a lot.

[Grefter]

...finally, someone quite blatantly more off-the-map than my Fascist but Nazi-hating friend.

I kind of want to see you two meet.

National Socialism is a different beast than Fascism.  Your friend is more on the ball there than you realise.  The gap isn't huge, but it is something different and that is enough for some people (you know, the kind that is reactionary enough to be a fucking Fascist).

Edit - Well not so much different beast, but not specifically the only species of that kind of beast.  Point kind of stands.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

I thought it was more generally.. globalization with a bit of facetiousness. I'll see if my library has it once I'm done with these POUNDS AND POUNDS AND POUNDS of pages to read before Thursday. Dinner break time.

As I recall, there's a couple pieces in there that I really didn't care for. One in particular, you can almost imagine the guy jamming his head up his own ass as he goes on and on about how he looks down his nose at people who eat fast food, ever. But it's generally a not-terrible piece of reading.

[Ultradude]

National Socialism is a different beast than Fascism.  Your friend is more on the ball there than you realise.  The gap isn't huge, but it is something different and that is enough for some people (you know, the kind that is reactionary enough to be a fucking Fascist).

Edit - Well not so much different beast, but not specifically the only species of that kind of beast.  Point kind of stands.

Oh I know there's a gap, it's just that most people publicly supporting Fascism seem to always wind up being Neo-Nazi to some degree or another.

Sweeping generalizations are bad, whatever.

[metroid composite]

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

1    left/right     -4.2066 (-0.2532)
2   pragmatism    +3.2514 (+0.1957)

Am I the most pragmatic person in the RPGDL?  I guess this wouldn't surprise me too much--I pretty much turn up my nose at idealism these days (whether it be environmentalist idealism or religious idealism or whatever).

[superaielman]

Nope, I got a 4ish on pragmatism.