Last thread went down
Post dem charts boys and let the pointless arguments ensue
Link to the test/survey?
>>709712189
https://politicalcompass.org/test
Sorry bruh, OP fucked up and forgot
>>709712299
Sane/10
so are we all libtards?
>inb4; sjw trash fag
Green Master Race
im ghandi
>>709712457
There were some right wingers in the last thread but there seems to be quite a few that look exactly like yours
>>709712457
fucking faggot libtard
>>709712620
thank baby jesus
>>709712688
Love you too <3
What am I?
>>709713042
Sane
>>709713042
One of the crew, apparently
>>709712457
so this i me
anyone belive in the wage gap?
>>709713042
Retarded
>>709713276
God no.
Guess who I voted for
>>709713411
yeah its bullshit
>>709713472
Hah! suck it lib-tards. There's a conservative among you!
Wtf am I?
>>709712261
>https://politicalcompass.org/test
thanks
>>709713472
REEEEEEEEE
>>709712028
literally the same
Time to break the libtard train.
>>709713510
Trump?
I'm OP and I'd vote for Trump if I was an Amurikun
>>709713556
confused, apparently, lol
>>709713556
A little to the right of worthless?
>>709712028
pretty much
>>709713556
Clueless?
Why do you reckon basically everyone in this thread have the exact same results?
>>709714484
we're all on /b/
This is the only correct ideology. The rest of you are stupid.
>>709714717
Forgot chart haha
>>709713472
Finally, someone with sense and logic...
get on my le(ft)vel
>>709713276
Don't know. I've never bothered to follow that sort of thing.
>>709713042
One of us.
>>709714717
>This is the only correct ideology. The rest of you are stupid.
>They don't attach an image
Yup, sounds about right.
>>709714850
Faggot right wingers can't do anything correctly.
>>709713276
The wage gap exists but is much smaller than people quote. Also it IS wider for minority women.
>>709714583
I guess it might explain some. I thought there's be more variety.
>>709714952
>>709715057
Basically this is how it breaks down
The reason there's any discrepancy between the overall wages of men and women is because by and large men work more hours, more overtime, take less holidays, less sick days and retire later in life.
Obviously there are some chicks who work harder than men and what have you, but for the most part that's why.
>>709715128
I'm surprised there aren't more hard right
>>709715370
Yeah, so the 70 cents thing is bullshit. But when you DO account for all that (and get to the actual "equal work" part), the wage gap for white women is like 93 cents to the dollar or something like that.
still exists, but smaller than is often stated
>>709715694
It's illegal to pay differently based on gender.
It literally doesn't exist in the terms people say it does.
Fuck all you libtards
>>709715821
illegal? yeah. still happens tho. There's no enforceable way to ensure its nonexistence. Especially considering workplace culture says its taboo for people to discuss salaries.
I got my friends to take their tests and compiled their data, I'm in green
>>709715939
Explain to me what fuckin company would risk an international scandal to pay female employees 7c less than male counterparts.
If the wage gap was real then why don't employers hire only women?
>>709716095
not deliberately. Just happens. No one's saying that a male CEO explicitly puts his female employees on lower payroll. It's a subconscious thing.
like rejecting applications with black or latino names even when the credentials are the same as one with a white name.
Do.
I would vote johnson but going to vote trump
>>709716325
>Not voting Stein
I surprised myself.
>>709715694
CEOs are literal psychopaths, the only thing they give a shit about is making money any way possible, so if they could hire women for any less than men they would sack every single male in the workforce and replace them with women
>>709716231
No, sorry to say but you're flat out wrong.
It can't "subconsciously" happen. Accountants fill out the paperwork. Payroll is viewed many times throughout the year, nothing happens subconsciously.
Same with what you're saying on race. Employers don't even consider names when looking at resumes, if one graduated from Harvard and the other from community college, Mr. Harvard is getting hired whether or not he's black white or purple.
I like the saying "business doesn't care about any colour except green". It's true.
>>709716613
except studies show that name discrimintation is literally a thing that happens
also an accountant isn't going to find a smoking gun when men and women are paid differently. In any individual case, it's not really possible to prove that the two employees are equally valuable. There are a lot of factors at play.
But over large sample sizes, the trend of women being paid less is apparent.
/b/ros
>>709716954
I mean the burden of proof is on you, if you want to end this discussion just provide sources for these "studies" you're citing.
What you're saying on discrimination is laughably false though, affirmative action and diversity hires are absolutely revered in modern society. Any form of real discrimination would easily be found by rejected applicants and a witch hunt would ensue.
As for the women, let's assume what you said is true. I seriously doubt it is, but for the sake of argument let's assume. Do you really think they're being paid less JUST because they're women? Or could it be that women in a whole don't perform as well in their jobs as men?
MAKE AMERICA RAGE AGAIN
What does this mean
>>709717486
hey man. I'm just comfy in my chair late at night. You're the one that's going against the claim that's backed up by research. There wouldn't be a discussion of the wage gap, nor of discriminatory hires, if these phenomenon weren't already well documented.
Google it. Don't put it on me to educate you on something you staunchly deny while preserving your ignorance about
how am i doing?
>>709717889
Yeah this is what usually happens when debating with libs.
>youre making a lot of claims, can you back them up?
>lol how about u educate urself honey I'm obviously right you have to prove my argument for me
Yeah, have a good night anon.
>>709718133
I'm saying I'm too lazy to prove it to you, bruh. Probably takes more effort for your to be ignorant than learn about it tbh.
That's like asking someone to prove to you that snowflake patterns are unique. like firstly how do you not know and secondly im not gonna prove it to you right now, lmao
>>709717889
Lib here (voting for Jill Stein). I must admit, you are a dumb cunt. Please join Hitlary and go fuck yourself.
Just finished. Am I an idiot?
>>709718510
people in here denying well-researched phenomenons in here, asking others to hold their hand through critical thought.
any other time, I'd have whipped up some links. But I'm managing another thread and chatting with my bf, so I'm too lazy. He can google shit himself
>>709712457
why be a libtard when you can be an anarchist
>>709719180
Are those actual legit answers?
>>709719180
Are you asking if i am really an anarchist or if anarchism is a legit answer. I would answer yes to both
>>709719542
wow im way too tired i answered myself
>>709719331
Are you asking if i am really an anarchist or if anarchism is a legit answer. I would answer yes to both
I've only taken this test once, with moderate effort. I'm not as educated as I'd like to be in the subjects of political ideologies.
>>709719686
I assumed that's what it was.
Most things that hard line in any form seem faked
>>709720095
Muh nigga
>>709720095
NORMIE
REEEEEEEEE
>>709720105
You do not seem to think i am sincere
Am I dumb?
>>709720211
I used to be a libertarian, so this is an improvement.
>>709720578
For once I agree with someone on 4chan
>>709720578
It's most definitely a turn for the worst
Try to explain how capitalism is better than socialism
>>709720801
the nazis were socialists
>>709720801
Freedom Motherfucker
>>709720701
Happy i shredded my pussy skin
>>709720957
That doesn't actually answer or refute anything
>>709720801
Capitalism plays in humans self interests, socialism requires humans to be inherently altruistic, which we're not.
I'm the leftist of all lefties
>>709721146
>Capitalism plays in humans self interests
By pitting one against another and rewarding those who fuck over the the most people?
>>709721425
muh patnais
>>709721450
By incentivizing mutually beneficial interactions.
You want a product, I'm selling a product. You get product, I get money.
Obviously big corporations are bad blah blah, socialism is worse.
>>709721664
>Obviously big corporations are bad blah blah, socialism is worse.
I like how you try to gloss over that one
>>709721664
More like you need a product to survive, I own the product, be my fucking slave so i allow you to live.
>>709721664
>I have more money than you so I own the land and force you to pay me money to live on it
Same as everyone else.
>>709721831
Because people think this nullifies capitalism as an ideology. Corporations serve a function in society just as small businesses, but they are unashamedly vilified and scapegoated.
Obviously they do things that are wrong, but they also make up the manufacturing centre, export centre, employment centre, etc.
>>709721957
That's an interesting way to view it. More realistically it is; Perform a function with marketable skills, get paid for that function, you are now able to thrive in society.
As opposed to; you exist, here's some money.
>>709722109
>all rich people/landowners magically brought their money into existence through no work or maintenance at all
Wew.
>>709721664
>You need money not to starve to death, I have more money than you so I own the methods of production. You're forced to be my bitch and make me even more money and I'l give you a very small part of it.
>>709722294
Fuck. Your dot is so suicidal, its gonna jump. O.o
>>709722590
its like +10 / -6.8 lol.
>>709722586
>I built this factory, and am giving you money to perform a task which will be beneficial to the both of us
In your ideology this somehow gives workers the right to this factory. Explain?
>tfw you will never be as conservative as obama
>>709722348
your view of socialism comes from the modern, disconnected notion of independence and self-centeredness. You'll frame socialism as lazy people getting carried along by hard workers, when really, it's about keeping the wealth in the hands of the people.
Capitalism structures wealth and power into hierarchies, and the executives in control of wealth (business owners, CEOs, etc) are incentivized to keep undue wealth, generated by the workers and laborers of the country
In short, capitalism will never pay labor what it's worth, because doing so generates no surplus profit, which capitalists need to hoard to be successful.
What you're thinking of is probably state socialism, where the state controls the wealth and arbitrarily redistributes it "evenly." Most of the socialists I know are more libertarian or market socialists. It's about the workers owning the means of production and the wealth generated by those means. Workers share solidarity, and when the vast majority of people (workers) create the wealth that drives the economy, they should own that wealth also.
>>709722348
In most capitalists societies ''marketable skills'' are learned in schools or other formation centers where formation comes at a high price that many people who do not have a strong economical background cannot acces. Also even if they could get formation with a lot of savings ''Marketable skills'' change in nature all the time due to the unstable nature of the market so they could waste all of their money on a formation that will become useless in 3 years.
>>709722283
Good sir, I'll have you know that not everyone who frequents this site is of the lower left quadrant on the political compass chart. I for one have matured since my neckbeard days in my early twenties and am now of the lower right. See good sir, I, unlike most, understand the economic situation of the Americas and understand what the solution is to our debt. I also understand that everyone's problems can be fixed by my ideas being the same as theirs, the American people, my people. I bid you farewell, *tips fedora*
purple square best square
>>709722762
>will be beneficial to the both of us
Kek m8. The only thing you get from working in a factory is enough money to buy food and survive to work another day.
>>709722762
The owners are without doubt the winners in the situation, the workers never get paid even slightly close to the profits that are being made off them.
>In your ideology this somehow gives workers the right to this factory.
You need these people to operate and make your profit, these people are the truly important ones.
>>709723208
My comrade
>>709722929
Not who you replied to, but where can I read more about this shit?
>>709722929
Capitalism structures wealth to benefit risk takers and innovators. McDonalds was a small local restaurant at one point. Apple was in Jobs' garage. Facebook was a university project. If you take the risk and make the money, you deserve it. If you want to whine about wealth being in the hands of the rich, realize what made them rich in the first place. Risk taking.
And my god I fucking hate all this semantics with socialists and communists all having their own special definition for their ideology. But sure, let's talk about workers owning the means of production.
What right do they have to it, exactly? Did they build it? Let's assume they did than, do they decide what to produce? Who and what do they produce it for? Is an extensive trade network required across the country? Communities obviously wouldn't be able to be self-sufficient, so how are decisions made? A board of directors? Does everyone have an equal say, despite having unequal experience, intelligence, work ethic, etc...
Your ideology has too many flaws to explain.
>>709723437
>Apple was in Jobs' garage
All that cunt Jobs did was market the Woz's ideas.
>>709723208
You're equating someone who spent potentially millions of dollars creating this opportunity to a simple worker of the factory.
For your logic to have any consistency the workers would've had to build it themselves, which leads down a rabbit hole...>>709723437
>>709723392
dunno man. I've just been osmosing socialist ideology from leftist groups on social media (and was articulate to begin with)
I only recently started self-identifying as a socialist and losing my American-indoctrinated boner for capitalism.
From what I've heard though, read Das Kapital
>Red:
Crazy old bastards
>Blue:
Greedy old psychopaths
>Purple:
Edgy teenagers, people who learned politics from 4chan, trailer trash, and people who think Ayn Rand was God.
>Green:
Decent human beings, mixed with SJWs and stoners.
Rare breed
>>709723437
Thing is all the empires such as mcdonalds and facebook were not built by the owners alone. They were built by their employees who maintain them day after day to survive. I would like to see the owners of mcdonalds fucking run their thousands of restaurants all by themselves.
>>709723437
The owner's, creators, and investors bring valuable things to the table to be sure. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the assumption that the "idea guy" has an infinite claim to 100% (minus operating costs including wages) of the wealth generated by an enterprise that represents the time, hard work, and livelihoods of many other people.
>>709723798
This is probably the weakest point of your ideology, yet it's the focal point.
Did the workers take the risk? Did the construction workers who built the restaurant invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into building it?
No. They performed the function, they got paid accordingly, and moved on. What rights do the employees have to the property created by another?
>>709723953
That's called wages mate.
>>709723758
The bias is real.
>>709723758
Clear and concise summation of political ideologies. Excellent work as always, green square nerds.
>>709723009
I was only pretending to be retarded.
>>709724004
did the owner build it? did he lay the bricks? does he cook the burgers, and take the orders, and scrub the bathroom? If we're going to assume that people get what they are due and nothing more, I'm going to go ahead and say that large sums of capital and initial investments, etc. aren't worth what capitalism assumes they're worth (almost everything, indefinitely)
What you have is a bunch of people born rich, who now own the ongoing wealth generated by labor, and you're going to defend their right to take it all because "they took the risk" investing in this enterprise.
In reality, many of the people that take these risks, are taking on less risk than a working-class laboror who's one workplace injury away from homelessness.
>>709724004
The propriety was not created by another. merchandises in factories are created by the employees. Sure the owner bought the brute materials but everything that is sold is created by employees and they have a right on it. Also, if we follow the logic that we cant have a right on something we did not created. We have no rights as we created nothing. We do not create the raw materials we use in facotries and we do not create ideas. we just assemble toughts a an other order. Plus, why would taking a ''risk'' allow you own the work of thousands of people.
>>709712028
>>709724644
pretty sure i am the most centered on /b/
>>709724464
Putting things in "quotations" doesn't make your argument right.
If you eliminate all the entrepreneurs from a society you cut the average IQ by probably 10 points. There are people who have ideas, and seize the opportunity. These people now employ millions of people because they had the idea, and took the risk.
And let me say, I'm not one of these people. I'll gladly perform my little function until the day I die, I've got marketable skills and I'm content. If you handed me, or the average worker control over a business empire, I would run it into the ground within days. Not everybody is created equally.
>>709723437
PREACH, my nigga. Some sense in this thread.
>>709723758
Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I'm glad people who think what you think personally single her out. Because I can't stand what you think. It's like a constant reminder that you're wrong.
>>709724546
You fags just abuse your quotation buttons.
>>709724967
>>709724967
>If you eliminate all the entrepreneurs from a society you cut the average IQ by probably 10 points. There are people who have ideas, and seize the opportunity. These people now employ millions of people because they had the idea, and took the risk.
Wut
I must have missed that day in school where they taught us in order to reproduce you need to start up a large business
>>709725225
In your ideology how would people innovate? What incentive would people have for performing exceptionally at their job?
>>709725172
wow you sure convinced me with thoses fresh arguments brother. Also, I quoted only one thing.
>>709724967
yes. And capitalism lets successful people blame working-class people without those same skills, absolving their conscience when those people are starving.
A worker in a factory makes his boss many times what he's paid. And yet his job is shit, benefits are shit, pay is shit. There's nothing right about that scenario. There is certainly wealth represented by the people that created the factory to begin with. But the workers created the ongoing wealth generated therein. For the owners to dictate what they should take home is problematic, because of course they want to pay them as little as possible. And people who need a job to not starve aren't capable of adequately negotiating for themselves.
I'm a communist
>>709725381
I would like you to define what you mean by innovation
>>709725412
Yes but the owner pays them. You're operating under the assumption that all factories everywhere are shit. It's just not true.
The owner still has to pay maintenance, still has to pay wages, still gives the workers money that will put food on their tables. You act as though anybody making a profit is a bad thing. Why is it so bad that someone makes more money than another?
Without a maestro to the orchestra it will inevitably fail.
Take test now. Take test again in 10 years. Post results.
>>709725412
It is on the worker to pull himself out of his condition. If he isn't happy with the pay he can find another job. No one is tying him down, no one is forcing him to do it, it's voluntary. If the worker isn't worth what he's paid, he gets fired. If he's worth more, he'll find a job that pays what he's worth.
>>709725670
What incentive would people have for making newer and better products?
Because in our society, entrepreneurs have money as an incentive. What about in your ideology?
>>709725762
Also if he's worth more, he'll ask for or be given a raise. Because he's worth more.
>>709712028
hi I'm new here please be nice
>>709725381
pretty sure microsoft and apple weren't conceived because the kids wanted the money. Pretty sure creative people strive to innovate naturally
Also you're assuming socialism = everyone gets the same redistributed paycheck from the state. That's a narrow, strawman definition of socialism. There are plenty of socialist ideologies that have clear economic benefits to innovation. They just aren't "I alone get to hoard all this money on this successful enterprise I lucked out on"
>>709725742
I think the argument here is why after wages / maintenance / consumables / whatever, should the owner of the means of productions make disproportionately more than the people that actually allow them to make the profit?
>>709725941
I've argued multiple times throughout the thread about an-com or whatever bullshit semantics you want to say, just read through.
And sure, some creative people do so without any other motive, however the incentive of money makes the competition to do so more fierce.
>>709725742
The problem is executives have the power to make more money than they deserve, and pay people less than they deserve. I'm not against profit entirely. But there's a conflict of interest, and money is going to people who by definition, didn't create it. Because you're overvaluing initial investments, initial conceptions of ideas, etc. Those are worthwhile. But they aren't worth all the profits of the business indefinitely.
>>709725762
That isn't true in practice. If the worker needs the job to eat and pay rent, he'll keep it. In many lower-paying jobs, if he asks for a raise, they'll replace him with someone less uppity and more desperate. It's the same reason companies outsource labor to other countries where it's cheap as fuck. They're profiting off of human desperation, off of people that will jump at the chance to earn barely enough to eat, because it's slightly better than starving.
>>709726049
Because it is his business. He started it, he had the idea, he seized the opportunity. He then employs and pays thousands of people, all of whom perform functions which serves the purpose of the factory. THEY ARE PAID ACCORDINGLY.
Contrarily, why should an employee who works in the assembly line have any right to the property of another?
>>709725762
Except for the fact things are now changing from small individual businesses to large multi national conglomerates where the vast majority of stores and businesses are all owned by two or three parent companies, so even if you leave because you're not happy you're going to be working for the same people regardless.
>>709726354
Without the entrepreneur there would not even be a means of production for the worker to seize. Do you understand yet? The profits are generated BECAUSE OF the entrepreneur, without him the workers wouldn't even have jobs.
>>709726445
Which is why protectionist policies are a good thing in a globalizing economy.
Friendly reminder to vote Trump.
>>709726404
>THEY ARE PAID ACCORDINGLY.
They aren't. If you have X factory workers that generate products you sell for Y, and after wages, maintenance and other expenses the company has Z in profit, what is Z?
You'll probably say it's the dividends of the startup risks, or the abstract, creative investment of starting the enterprise. But how much should that really be? should you really pocket the vast difference between what your workers generate and what you deign to pay them just because you had the opportunity to start this business 15 years ago?
The socialist says that Z is the rightful wealth owned by the workers.
>>709726404
>Because it is his business. He started it, he had the idea, he seized the opportunity.
He/She has more money than anyone else so he/she throws money at something so they can go on to make even more money
My heart bleeds for them
What does this make you think about me?
>>709726580
and without the workers the entrepreneur would be a trust fund kid playing golf with his dad wishing he could start a business.
Owner needs workers and workers need owner. That mutualistic relationship is not a justification for the owner indefinitely claiming the lion's share of the wealth that the workers generate in his business.
>>709723762
You would be surprised, just saying. What if.. WHAT-IF, everyone who was conservative or socialist(republican or democratic), suddenly knew what those two things meant and decided they were liberal or libertarian or found out that they were? Think about it. Just think about it.
>>709726730
Without the entrepreneur there would be no means of production. Unless you want the state to build the factories, it's left to the entrepreneur.
The entrepreneur orchestrates the entire operation, hires the entire staff, makes the entire thing function. What right then does the common employee have to suddenly seize it all?
Your argument on profits is essentially; why is there wealth inequality. Because not all jobs pay the same. The worker has every opportunity in the world to work hard and start his own factory, however not everybody is made for that. Not everybody is created equally.
>>709723437
There is a demand across this world for certain goods. And we have a bunch or people. And a bunch of people need a bunch of jobs. A bunch of jobs run by a bunch of people making a bunch of stuff that a bunch of other people want.
Your argument can be countered.
>>709726921
You seem to have some unresolved issues towards rich folks. You're making this entire argument assuming that all of them are spoiled snobs who were given everything in life.
Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates, Musk, you name it. None of them were trust fund kids.
You're assuming the relationship between employee and employer is equal. The common worker is not the same as the common entrepreneur.
>>709727204
Either you believe that some of those people are inherently incapable of achieving that higher status or you're admitting that because some people wanna be rich as fuck everyone else has to accept a much lower quality of life.
Either way it's a fucked up selfish argument. In this framework, many many people are going to be at "the bottom" because they just don't have the intelligence or whatever, or because the opportunities weren't there, etc. The idea that people "deserve" wealth being used to justify capitalism is just a handy way to blame poor people for being poor.
>>709727268
So you're making decisions based on profit? You're arguing basic capitalist principles, supply and demand.
So are all these profits shared equally than? Who directed the whole operation? Do they make as much as the one who packaged the product?
Not everybody puts the same amount of work in.
>>709712028
Suprised me
>>709726868
that you and i are the most sane people on /b/
my political compass here
>>709724644
>>709727503
I'm exaggerating because people in here are deifying "risk takers" when many of the entrepreneurs come from wealth and privilege such that the risk they were taking wasn't even as existential as the stresses that working class people deal with on a monthly basis.
entrepreneurs and workers aren't equal. But what we're dealing with here is a system the ends up with CEOs making 500x more than their workers. It ends up so grossly unequal that it's not even funny.
And people end up justifying a capitalist investor taking 20% of the profits because without his investment it wouldn't be there, but all he did was move some money around X years ago and has gotten an exponential return on investment, sponsored by the underpaid labor of the business' employees.
>>709727530
>blame poor people for being poor.
When these people are never given the opportunities those with money have then yeah, there's not a great deal they can do.
am i doing it right?
Got this from an older thread in /pol/
>>709715694
Not down to different work choices?
>>709714018
Basically same
Lived the first 22 years out of 22 years and 3 months of my life in Vietnam
>>709727840
Again, being an entrepreneur isn't as simple as moving money around. You need an idea, you need a spot in the market, and you need the capital necessary to realize your goal.
I fully agree that there is a problem with CEO greed, however the solution to that is obviously not to drastically redistribute it to employees.
>>709728006
Noice
>>709727530
That's reality mate. Sure there are cases where brilliant minds are left at the bottom because they lack access to opportunities, but there are never cases of those who work hard getting left at the bottom.
Yeah, some people have it easier, that's life. A perfect egalitarian society will never exist. The sooner you make peace with that the better.
I would've voted for trump
I think I did this wrong
ok
>>709728266
>but there are never cases of those who work hard getting left at the bottom.
You've clearly never worked for a large corporation. There are all sorts of motherfuckers that work way too hard and try embarrassingly too hard and they never get anywhere. Not even so much as a wage increase.
For reference
It's a bit surprising how liberal /b/ is compared to the rest of 4chan.Perhaps the newfags jump ship here first?
How is it being liberal on 4chan,if I may ask?
>>709728470
RARE
A
R
E
>>709728504
>center-left extreme libertarian
>molotovs
Sure.
>>709728510
I don't even think I'm liberal yet I got
>>709728406
I guess it's because I hate big business but for the most part I said fuck other races, religion, gays, retards, etc
>>709728681
>im-fucking-plying it isn't to be funny
>taking it this seriously
Get the FUCK off /b/ you autistic unhumurous shitdick
>>709712028
Fuck dude
>>709728504
kek'd
>>709728472
And there's not a single rebuttal
Probably don't belong on /b/.
>>709729483
>>709728836
>>709728649>>709728470
>>709728406
>>709727907
>>709727674
>>709726868
>>709725935
>>709725624
>>709724644
>>709724422
>>709722283
>>709722199
>>709721425
>>709720078
>>709719180
>>709718797
>>709718065
>>709717815
>>709717764
>>709717658
>>709717186
>>709716494
>>709716325
>>709716092
>>709715128
>>709714939
>>709713908
>>709713786
>>709713676
>>709713603
>>709713556
>>709713510
>>709713042
>>709712891
>>709712541
>>709712457
>>709712028
ITT: people who found the Chan in the last two years and don't fucking belong here and effectively ruined it
>>709729832
Mein nigger, I've been here since '07
Bad troll is bad
>>709722450
A lot did. Not all, but more than should have.
alright
>>709729832
Tfw you're retarded and don't realize that most of the shit you see on /b/ is satire and you're actually insane because you actually feel that way and believe that shit.
>>709729832
>implying 4chan was never fucking terrible
>>709729832
Been here since 2010 motherfucker. I'm just not a fucking teenager.
Ayy
>>709712028
Political Scientist chiming in.
This test is kind of sort of poorly worded. To be honest it looks like someone reverse engineered profiles of typical Conservatives and typical Liberals and assigned point values to their responses for what they find important.
That's no way to make a truly accurate political affiliation test.
For instance comparing the Businessman and the Manufacturer to the Artist and the Writer, while it is a general question determining if you find more value and import with the people who "run" or "manage" the economy. And that works to a degree, but it's not asking how you feel about the economy it's just implying that you either support business or you're an unemployed starbucks barista/liberal hippy.
It's a pretty flawed test in a lot of ways so don't take it too much to heart, you may feel you've aligned pretty well with your answers, as was my case, but I wouldn't put this up as the "end all be all" political affiliation tests.
>>709730029
>tfw you're retarded and think this place was for normies to pretend they were flowing against normal society when it originally actually was people that flowed against normal society and that's why this place was attractive
You think there's no reason for the lack of OC and raids? It's because of you're kind
>tfw I have no face
>>709712028
These charts are vastly oversimplified. I went full authoritarian left/globalist/big government
>Because fuck you, I have an education, that's why
on economic issues and libertarian on social issues. I think there should be multiple charts on each segment of questions, and then a big chart that's an average of them all.
>>709731041
>education
>>709729832
Mine was blue in a sea of green...?
>>709731041
>(((education)))
>>709731163
I probably quoted you on accident sorry m8
>>709713556
Centrist
>>709713510
Johnson?
So many goddamn commies.
about what i expected
>>709732054
Better Red than dead
I lean further to the right than this, but the questions about large corporations put me in the left.
>>709733232
Join us... One of us... One of us...
Can we get some reason in here?
voting for trump, and usually a republican what the fuck?
>>709733579
>>709735215
hello brother
>>709729832
nigga. at least '08 here
get fucking real or kill yourself
>green
master race reporting in
and i honestly hate liberal cunts. at least anyone nonsensical
>>709735786
fek
A woman cant run the country.
>709729832
>Guaranteed replies.
>>709736009
>Zero replies
>>709734570
My nigga
