Pfhorrest you won't be able to find out much with this kind of poll, it's too vague.

And th usual “left or right” poll would be better?

Because that’s the kind of bias that was accused in the other thread.

My idea here was to suss out where people place themselves on various scales that have been associated with the “left-right” scale, to be LESS vague.

I don't have an issue with the left-dominated forum but there are clear double standards in the moderation here. If I posted like streetlightx, I would probably get either banned or have a majority of my posts deleted, I know this from besides just logic and reading their rules because whenever I do just insult someone aimlessly, my posts are often just deleted (and should have been, not complaining). There are a number of evangelical, aggressive idealogues here and considering how many philosophical topics can be related to politics, one might have a tough time avoiding them while posting here. In an ideal world @Philosophim's approach would make sense but there's little sense in treating an ideologue like a normal person. If you post a view which goes against leftist thinking, be prepared for not just debate but unmoderated ridicule and trolling.

Some people live for that while others hate it but I see so many posters 1st time dealing with the likes of xtrix, 180proof, streetlightx, maw, baden and so on wondering what the hell they did to receive such insulting responses to benign comments. Basically, people should be prepared for it and ignore these posters and a few others if you're looking for a reasonable discussion. No reason to come in blind and expect a warm welcome to a discussion on ideas which fall outside of the leftist agenda.

I think while the poll may be a bit ambiguous, the results are pretty much what I expected and I'm really not sure who for instance voted "maximum hierarchy" and whether they're actually serious. The forum is dominated by the left, this shouldn't be controversial. Just something to take into consideration when posting.

Thanks. I may get cancelled at any time.

No reason to come in blind and expect a warm welcome to a discussion on ideas — Judaka

Politics completely aside, I think this is probably true of any ideas whatsoever. Most of my OPs haven't been about politics at all, but more about the "metaphysical" side of philosophy -- ontology, mind, epistemology, language, etc -- and I've felt an overwhelmingly hostile response to those too.

I get the feeling that many people only respond to anything when they disagree. I've seen very little in the way of people saying they like other people's ideas or adding further to them.

It’s a very difficult medium to use. Your comments can easily be misread and then replies add to the difficulty. But if anyone is really interested then they can persevere. Generally I like to explore a subject and see where it goes. I like to inject a bit of imagination into it as well. I don’t even need agreement, I just need participation.

I get the feeling that many people only respond to anything when they disagree. I've seen very little in the way of people saying they like other people's ideas or adding further to them. — Pfhorrest

I agree with that but I think the effect of the leftist ideologues is worse, you have threads of 4-5 people writing pages of comments with just name-calling, insults, trolling and so on because someone said something they disagreed with. Brett's thread about the "leftist dominated forum" was not the way to go I think because that is not the problem. The issue is that these aforementioned posters are literally breaking nearly every forum rule and it's allowed because the ones breaking the rules include the moderators. The rules are literally written by Baden, who routinely breaks his own rules unambiguously.

If all that happened was the forum rules were enforced equally or the moderators tried to lead by example rather than being an exception then Brett and others like him wouldn't be in this situation. The rules aren't "no disagreement allowed" or "you can't be highly critical of others" just don't be a twat basically.

just don't be a twat basically. — Judaka

Can’t be that hard, surely.

Libertarianism is predicated on the use of lawsuits to settle disputes between individuals. Thus in order to make the system effective it must have a relatively equal wealth distribution. If it does not do this, it must resort to brutal authoritarianism to enforce property rights. Thus there is no such thing as a society that is both maximal liberty and maximal hierarchy (which I suppose you meant as economic hierarchy).

Thus there is no such thing as a society that is both maximal liberty and maximal hierarchy (which I suppose you meant as economic hierarchy). — Garth

I didn’t mean to limit it to just economic but I did mean to include that, yeah.

Also :up: in general.

I don't have an issue with the left-dominated forum but there are clear double standards in the moderation here. — Judaka

If you post a view which goes against leftist thinking, be prepared for not just debate but unmoderated ridicule and trolling. — Judaka

I disagree with this. If you post an idea here, it will often invite ridicule and trolling, irrelevant of perceived political leanings. I have a feeling you are seeing ideologies that aren't there. Can you give some specific examples of what you would consider "liberal" versus your particular "conservative" view points? I think this is the more important discussion to have.

We're like playground ball; your team members and opponents can be anyone at any and every level of skill, reason, and purpose. There's a substantial level of trust built in. But sometimes you shove a person and he shoves back, the trouble being that you're a popgun and he's a cannon. When you go where the elbows are, sometimes you get hit. Weigh that against the occasions when you were the cannon and did the hitting and did not even realize it. There is, then, a need to find and keep in view the good of it, or the benefit of it - and if none, then not to be here.

I don't like political labels but if I had to give myself one then I'd call myself a liberal, not a conservative. What I believe is that a healthy thinker will not agree with or follow an ideology in its totality. It's not just that either because you can tell when someone has really thought out a position and when they're just following an ideological tract. An ideology is a system and it exists in competition with other ideologies. It can be an identity, a tribe to belong to, a cause to advance, it can simplify your worldview. I don't identify ideologues by just having particular viewpoints, I do it by how they describe their ideas, how often I can identify that they're just parroting an ideological point, how they treat their political opponents/allies, how concerned they are with what group (ideology) you belong to. It sounds like a lot but there are obvious red flags.

They act like soldiers on a battlefield. Here is not that bad, there are some truly terrifying ones out there. https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/ is a good example, incel community is infamous for it, I can't even stay 30 minutes, I lose my cool, you can get the picture. It is not necessarily the result of a concerted effort among the ideologically motivated frequenters, sometimes it's just that there's enough of them to have an effect. If I post a thread about "my theory of the universe" and write some random crap, yes, people might mock and troll but it's not the same as this. There are big differences besides the obvious, "it's an ideological disagreement, not just random people trolling".

It's a consistent and uncompromising attack on alternative ideologies, a dogmatic adherence to their ideology and displays of hostility which seem unnatural. Here, the group I refer to follows what is probably best described as intersectional feminism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

Actually proving that some of the posters I named or others follow this ideology and are dogmatic and uncompromising ideologues would take some considerable effort on my part. It wouldn't be worthwhile for me to make that effort at this point. However, I am certainly not saying this because I'm bitter about being trolled or ridiculed, there is a long history for many of these posters and being aware of it isn't hard when you've been here for as long as I have.

They act like soldiers on a battlefield. — Judaka

Certainly there are ideologues and ideologies here. But you seem to imply that this forum is dominated by leftist thinking. I'm not asking you to prove that certain posters are ideologues, there are ideologues in every forum. What I'm asking is why you believe the vast majority of posters here have a liberal viewpoint?

I have had many debates about typical talking points of the left and the right and they're simply left vs further left almost every time. If it's not then it's just one of the very few right-wing posters here or a new account (someone who normally doesn't post here). Somewhat recently, I spent a lot of time debating white privilege and honestly, it was just left vs further left and I really think if this forum had a right-wing presence, they would show themselves in topics like that. Racism, economic inequality, pc-culture and so on, so, experience basically.

Somewhat recently, I spent a lot of time debating white privilege and honestly, it was just left vs further left and I really think if this forum had a right-wing presence, they would show themselves in topics like that. Racism, economic inequality, pc-culture and so on, so, experience basically. — Judaka

You can be to the right and believe in racism, economic inequality, pc-culture, and white privilige. None of those pre-clude left or right thinking. Are you sure your "left versus further left" isn't just "right versus left"? You seem to be focusing on the extremists on the right, which are still a minority and do not capture what a healthy "right" perspective is. The vague responses here again seem to play into a self-perspective and not an objective perspective in assuming the majority on these forums are leftists.

:rofl: This is a bit silly coming from one of the few posters who has resorted to name calling towards me without provocation regularly.

It seems to me like you already made up your mind about it before I even said anything. You have said:
1. Ridiculing and trolling occur across the board
2. I may be seeing ideologies that aren't there
3. I am confusing left and right / I am confusing right and far-right
4. I am giving vague responses and making assumptions

I don't really think you have grounds for any of these suspicions but the fact that you've gone for all of them in a matter of 3 posts signals to me that you are pretty intent on discrediting me for whatever reason. Don't you think you've already reached your conclusion and you're just saying whatever you can right now?

You've given me so much too much to do for a topic that I don't really care about, I am not particularly interested in debating whether the forum is dominated by the left or not. I never said that the right doesn't "believe in racism or economic inequality", there just aren't many posters espousing conservative perspectives in threads on these topics. Even heated debates on political topics on this forum, both sides of the debate can be considered left-wing, that's my experience. There are posters with <100 posts who are right-wing but especially when you start looking at 1k+ posts, it starts becoming overwhelmingly left-wing and it's really not that hard, most of these posters openly self-identify. Happy to just agree to disagree, by the way.


I don't remember talking to you except in the thread about systemic racism...

I'm done with this anyways. For all I care, blacks should just go get revenge if white people don't want to listen. Burn this shit down and take it all. — Benkei

I called you an idiot and a racist, I don't see why I should apologise, you did earn those comments.

I don't really think you have grounds for any of these suspicions but the fact that you've gone for all of them in a matter of 3 posts signals to me that you are pretty intent on discrediting me for whatever reason. Don't you think you've already reached your conclusion and you're just saying whatever you can right now? — Judaka

No, I'm honestly just pointing out observations of potential flaws in your claim. I am quite prepared to learn something and change my mind. But, I don't think you've leant any credence to your claim, then what you have already decided.

I am not particularly interested in debating whether the forum is dominated by the left or not. — Judaka

And that is fine. Just don't take offense when I ask you to back that up on a philosophy board. =P I had no malicious intent to discredit you, just a disagreement of outlook, and to see if you could give evidence of your outlook.

Happy to just agree to disagree, by the way. — Judaka

Same, no hard feelings or personal attack intended.

Yes, let's pretend that was the sequence of events shall we? You called me several names before that in different threads and in exasperation that was my last comment.

59% lefties... one would suppose that few were left or right, a person identifying oneself as a philosopher ought to see the world as a more complex place than so. But OK, the progressive left agenda is maybe too much of a good answer to the question ”what do I want to do with my life”, the above-daytimejob-classes favourite mantra during adolescence. To be resisted.

And that is fine. Just don't take offense when I ask you to back that up on a philosophy board. =P I had no malicious intent to discredit you, just a disagreement of outlook, and to see if you could give evidence of your outlook. — Philosophim

I didn't take offence to anything but I'm not letting that comment slide. You give me a 1 liner "I have a feeling you are seeing ideologies that aren't there" and what is your feeling but a baseless guess? So, it's on me to prove that I am not simply seeing ideologies which aren't there but that is a monumental task if I wanted to do it properly. Even proving that a single person here was an ideologue would require me to demonstrate it over many threads, with many comments and even then, one could still reasonably doubt the claim. But okay, you're no longer interested in ideologies, now you ask :

What I'm asking is why you believe the vast majority of posters here have a liberal viewpoint? — Philosophim

I answered why I believe that which was my experience in threads that debated stereotypical left-right debate points and the lack of conservative representation in those threads.

You can be to the right and believe in racism, economic inequality, pc-culture, and white privilige. None of those pre-clude left or right thinking — Philosophim

Did I say anything this corrects? No, and yours is a pretty outlandish interpretation seeing as the left-right debate is not about "belief" in racism or economic inequality at any level.

You seem to be focusing on the extremists on the right, which are still a minority and do not capture what a healthy "right" perspective is. — Philosophim

Baseless, where is your evidence for even saying that it "seems' like I'm focusing on right-wing extremism? The actual question you asked was "why do you believe" and I answered it. Not "provide objective proof for the claim that the forum is dominated by the left". You see yourself as having handled yourself well here as someone rigorously testing my claims but you have both shifted the topic to something else and you made baseless accusations which you expect me to debunk with every single post. I never promised to provide proof of my claims, such a task seems too big to take on from my perspective.

Yes, I may be biased. Yes, my experience might be skewed. Yes, our definitions of left/right may differ. All of this goes without saying. If you had decided exactly what it was you wanted, which now seems to be, proof of my claim that the forum is dominated by the left, then I might have been able to provide it.

When you consider we're in a thread about political biases and 60% said they're on the left. With what... 1 person saying they're on the right? And that the "neither" camp are probably less likely to participate in political threads, then maybe you can already see it is reasonable to think that such threads may have up to 80% or 90% of posters being "left-wing". I think even beyond this, I could create a compelling case for my claim but I don't think it's worth the time and there's no guarantee of success. I can think of several ways to go about it but they're all a lot of work. We can just agree to disagree as previously arranged but your comment here is unfair and so I had to respond, I'm not accepting the "sorry I asked you to back up your claims" or whatever.

Ok, I thought you had mentioned you weren't interested in debating this, and tried to end this on a friendly note. You are seeing attacks where there are none. This is exactly my point as to why you don't bring political affiliation to these boards. People get WAY too defensive, and see issues where there is none.

Yes, I may be biased. Yes, my experience might be skewed. Yes, our definitions of left/right may differ. All of this goes without saying. If you had decided exactly what it was you wanted, which now seems to be, proof of my claim that the forum is dominated by the left, then I might have been able to provide it. — Judaka

That was my entire point. I felt you were claiming these forums are leftist without qualifications.

I can think of several ways to go about it but they're all a lot of work. We can just agree to disagree as previously arranged but your comment here is unfair and so I had to respond, I'm not accepting the "sorry I asked you to back up your claims" or whatever. — Judaka

Ok. Lets just agree then. There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion but nothing wrong with me asking to back your opinion. If you are not interested in doing so, I do not see that as unfair. I would hope you would not take offense at my initial request to back up that opinion. We debate and challenge other people's opinions all the time, its not personal.

Ok, I thought you had mentioned you weren't interested in debating this, and tried to end this on a friendly note. You are seeing attacks where there are none. This is exactly my point as to why you don't bring political affiliation to these boards. People get WAY too defensive, and see issues where there is none. — Philosophim

No, you are misreading the situation here because honestly, I have no idea whether you even have a political affiliation or what that is if you do. I do not feel offended except that you suggest I am being defensive about "being asked to back yourself up on a philosophy board".

Ok. Lets just agree then. There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion but nothing wrong with me asking to back your opinion — Philosophim

I would hope you would not take offense at my initial request to back up that opinion — Philosophim

You should know exactly what I think about this because I just wrote about it and yet you still persist undeterred. You ignored everything I said and just repeated the same self-serving crap, reaffirming to me that there is nothing wrong with you asking me to back up my opinion. You went ahead and said it twice more, actually. Do you really think that's how this went down? You asked for evidence and I got upset that you asked for it? I did try to agree to disagree on friendly terms, now you're surprised that comment of yours isn't going down too well, lol. Whatever, have it your way, I'm not continuing this.

Do you really think that's how this went down? You asked for evidence and I got upset that you asked for it? — Judaka

Yes.

Whatever, have it your way, I'm not continuing this. — Judaka

Its a shame we got off on the wrong foot. I'm sure we'll have a better conversation another day.

You're really stubborn, your assertion here annoys me a lot, I should just ignore you and let it go but I can't. Quote where you asked for the evidence, the part you think I got upset about.

So after about a week of collecting results, with a sample size of 35, it looks like the forum leans:

- pretty strongly libertarian
- moderately egalitarian, and
- slightly progressive;

and slightly more than half of respondents identify as "left", while both/neither options (most neither) come in second, and only a minority identify as "right".

I'm not at all surprised.

One's interest in change is inversely proportional to the level of advantage one wields.

So after about a week of collecting results, with a sample size of 35, it looks like the forum leans:

- pretty strongly libertarian
- moderately egalitarian, and
- slightly progressive;

and slightly more than half of respondents identify as "left", while both/neither options (most neither) come in second, and only a minority identify as "right". — Pfhorrest

No, you couldn't find that out, it's too vague :P

I am surprised that 9% chose "maximum hierarchy". I'm intrigued by this.