Political Compass #26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.

*Proposition #26: * Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.
This is the language of sectarianism and segregation for those who realise that society now finds certain attitudes unacceptable and hence struggle to justify their prejudices without sounding like an extremist bigot. It might be spoken by the father who believes that people of all ethnicities should be treated equally but who would be sorely disappointed if his daughter fell in love with one.

Like other propositions dealing with race, creed, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary distinction one might draw in order to hypothesize some “kind” or “sort” of people, the superficiality and lack of scientific rigour of such distinctions is ultimately self-defeating: one day you might find yourself on the wrong end of discrimination from people you thought were your “kind”.

Diversity is a good thing. This very message board is a testament to diversity; a free and frank exchange of ideas by people from different countries, ethnicities, religions, orientations, indeed anything that might constitute a “kind” or “sort”. By posting here you are almost ticking Disagree by default!

2

Strongly disagree.
(7.15, -1.30)

Disagree as much as I do for the reverse: different people must integrate. Nothing much to say. People can be around or stay the hell away from whomever they want.

Though I don’t see how those distinctions you set up necessarily can be classified as arbitrary. Sex or nationality, etc. are hardly very fluid categories. And one might very well make the argument that segregation is the mother of diversity. Also I have no big problem with segregating murderers, rapist, terrorists and such ilk away till heel freezes over.

3

Libertarian/Right
Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.18

Strongly disagree. I think this philosophy comes as baggage from our ancient past when xenophobia was a survival trait. As the OP said, Diversity is a GOOD thing, the very foundation of this country who’s strength is in that very diversity, and the hallmark of Europe today as well where nation boundaries are starting to at least diminish.

Not much else to say on this one, as for me its a no brainer. I seriously doubt anyone on this board will come out and say that segregation is a good thing for anyone.

-XT

4

(0.75, -5) - I think, it’s been awhile.

Strongly disagree.

What more can you add?

xtisme, I know one poster who would probably agree with this proposition, but in general I agree. There won’t be much of a debate here.

5

+7/-3

Strongly disagree. This is one question where the “strongly” part came easy. It’s plain racist stupidity. I don’t see the debate on this one, unless we want to talk about the role of government in forcing people to mix if they choose not to. Surprisingly (:slight_smile: ), I would not want the gov’t to do anything in the private sector to encourage or discourage diversity.

6

-4.68, -5.28, Strongly disagree

As everyone else has said, this one is a no brainer. I’m really curious as to who that poster RickJay knows of is who would agree. In any case, I guess the potential for debate is perhaps in arguing whether the government has a place in discouraging racism/xenophobia. And by this I mean should the government seek to educate people who might otherwise remain ignorant (which is pretty much every god-damned racist person I’ve ever encountered).

7

-5.12/-6.77

I’m actually somewhat conflicted on this one–one the one hand, I have a strong visceral disagreement with it. On the other hand, sometimes I think we go to far trying to enforce this ideal on regions that just aren’t ready for it. A lot of the regions where we see ethnic violence (including Iraq, to an extent) are countries whose borders were artificially created without regarding to ethnic distribution–in some of those cases, I don’t think seperating everyone and letting them chill for a while would be such a bad idea.

8

Strongly disagree. Don’t know of anyone outside of Bob Jones University that would agree to this one.

9

Economic Left/Right: +5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: + 0.46

Strongly disagree

And like Rune, my reasoning has more to do with wishing to encourage integration rather than pursuing diversity.

10

7, -1.5. Disagree.

Get drawn into Scientology by your family when you’re little and you’ll lose the ‘strongly’ too. I might just have picked ‘agree’ if the question dealt solely with deeply religious folks of any faith.

11

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

Strongly disagree.

RickJay, is the person you’re thinking of fond of conspiracy theories?

12

No. And no more hints.
Metacom, that’s an interesting point. Still, I don’t see that raising barriers and drawing borders tends to solve those issues. You just get international wars instead of civil wars.

13

For archival purposes:

See also; “NEO-Eugenics” by Science Girl

(For the record… what the hell do you think? Sick crap)

14

Crap, what was the other Eugenics thread around the same time, different poster?

15

(-7.62,-2.31)

Nationality and creed are arbitrary distinctions only to someone who takes neither one seriously.

This thread is in danger of becoming boring, so I am going to put on my Kevlar vest and admit that I checked “Agree”. If “Neutral” were available I would have checked that. It is difficult to make a blanket statement, and I certainly do not advocate discrimination or prejudice, but overall, one can point to as many failures as successes caused by diversity. I think my resistance to diversity partly stems from the dogmatic nature of its proponents these days (some posters seem to have had difficulty restraining themselves from proclaiming disdain for anyone who didn’t check “Agree”, instead of simply making a positive argument for diversity)

Several posters have made essentially pragmatic arguments in favor of diversity, i.e. having diverse viewpoints allows a society to choose from a greater set of alternatives and thus be more likely to make the right decision. I would argue that, first, it is possible to have a diversity of intellectual viewpoints without having cultural diversity (and in fact some cultural uniformity may allow for more open and objective debate versus a situation where everyone has an ax to grind), and second, that there is at least one significant counterexample, Japan, which has achieved much of what is generally viewed as “societal goods” with practically no cultural diversity at all.

I do feel that many diversity enthusiasts seem to exhibit what I call the “ethnic restaurant” perspective. I had this viewpoint myself in my younger years. Ethnic diversity looks great if your experience with it is limited to eating food. But if you encounter people from vastly different cultural backgrounds in difficult situations on a daily basis, your attitude may change.

Also, many non-Western cultures are highly intolerant and racist. If advocating diversity means that I have to welcome people who consider me their cultural inferior, then, no thank you.

16

Economic Left/Right: 8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.08

I don’t recall what I answered when I originally took the test; Probably ‘Agree’.

‘Different kinds of people’ does not neccesarily refer to race, religion, etc. I take it to mean ‘culturally incompatible people should keep to their own.’

I live in a fairly typical American suburb. Many posters here do. A person who is not willing to adopt the ‘suburban lifestyle’ (mow your lawn, don’t grow crops in your front yard, no hunting dogs, no skinning stray cats,etc) shouldn’t be there. Of course, most people will adapt to fit in. But those that do not are causing problems for themselves and for their neighbors. Of course, Amazon tribesman moving to Royal Oak and shooting poisoned darts at my dog are not a real-world situation, but if it they were to move to Royal Oak, I predict unhappiness for all, if they are not willing to adopt the broad cultural norms that rule here.

Also, I stongly disagree with ‘Diversity is a good thing’. True diversity is in itself neutral. ‘Diversity’ as practiced so often at univerities (in America) is simply a racial quota system; 5 white kids, 3 black kids, and an asian and hispanic is not neccesarily a ‘more diverse’ group than would be 10 white kids, but that seems to be the only sort of diversity preached.

17

Brutus, many thanks for joining in. As I have said before, your input is especially valued since your score is very different to that of any of the 100+ Dopers who have responded to date, so please continue to participate.

The last two are illegal. Are you suggesting some mandate of the first two, assuming that the land is freely held property?

If they obey the law, surely the ‘problem’ would be suburban intolerance of cultural diversity?

(Incidentally, I would suggest we kept to the proposition itself rather than conflating any tangential issues such as Affirmative Action, which are covered specifically later on in the test.)

Hyperelastic

Would many of these not be equally attributable to intolerance of diversity?

So long as everyone obeys the democratically mandated law of the land, why would it?

Which is why advocating that diversity is a good thing is a good thing there, agreed?

18

I am blushing.

:wink:

The mandate of ‘social norm’ applies to the first two. What is the ‘social norm’ changes over time, of course, and is different for different areas. Somebody living out in the country would be able to freely engage in frontyard farming without offending their neighbors. Here in Suburbistan, such behavior is an eyesore. ‘The law’ itself simply reflects what is culturally acceptable to a group of people. (Or it generally should, at least.) It cannot, of course, cover every possible situation, nor does it always cover situations that are considered unconscionable. (Germanys lack of a cannibalism law in that recent case comes to mind.)

I wager that some Saudi Arabian laws wouldn’t go over too well over here, and vice versa.

What I am trying to get across is tricky. I am not advocating mandatory ‘same-ness’, ala Maoist China and those goofy blue uniforms. Nor am I saying that different types of people should never interact. I am taking about broad terms here. Some broad measure of homogeneousness is needed for a smoothly functioning society. More homogeneousness is needed at the local (town or neighborhood) level than at the state or national level.

I see it the other way around: Those engaging in the ‘unusual’ (even if legal) activities are being ‘intolerant’ of the new group that they chose to live among.

Sticking with the example of immigrants for a moment, why would you bother moving to a new country/area if you are not willing to make an effort to blend in? Was it just for money? How can people complain about ‘discrimination’ and whatnot, when they themselves are not putting forth a real effort to fit into their new surroundings?

Why diversity, for the sake of diversity, is a good thing is beyond me. Should we accept the various cultural norms out there, like cannibalism, executing gay people, tribal rape, slavery, et cetera? The spread of Western laws, thankfully, is moving the above situations to the realm of curios and oddities, but they still occur all too often, IMO.

Agreed.

19

What I’m trying to impress here, Brutus, is that if something is not illegal (and note that this covers a great deal of ‘nuisance neighbour’ ground) then it is none of your business what others do on (or to) their own property. Indeed, is this liberty and individuality what distinguishes Western democracies from authoritarian collectivism?

Quite so: their laws are ultra-authoritarian and barbaric. Western democracies are true democracies entirely because the law represents all, not just the majority.

But they are not socially mandating that others be like them. They are making no judgement whatsoever on what you do on your property. Given the moral bankruptcy of majority fiat as described in the link above, how is such a social mandate justified?

Surely some broad measure of tolerance of non-homogeneity is necessary? How would you feel if, somehow, you became the ‘minority’?

In essence, would you not continue to mow your lawn even if everyone in your neighbourhood stopped mowing theirs?

20

I live in Toronto, so I do encounter such people daily. Everything’s just fine here.