Hmm... Well, I must say I did expect something of the sort. I haven't found that to be the case. That a Left-Libertarian ideology can be abused is a given, but such a statement can be applied to the other three orientations as well. But hey, I'm biased. You are not.
I don't know about the other 'left-libs' here but that sounds pretty far away from my ideology, and I don't know where you're getting that idea from.
Don't take him too seriously, TK. You're new, so you don't know this, but testyal likes to torture himself on a forum he hates.
I'm not gonna bother taking the test again, but on the chart I'm very far libertarian and slightly to the right. I'm a market anarchist. I believe in the abolishment of the federal government and the return of free markets. Basically I'm an extreme libertarian. However, I've more or less given up on hope for progress, so I'm fairly apathetic towards politics now.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.75&soc=-5.13 I approve of that in many ways. I'm a hardline socialist who believes in the freedom of the people. Not enough of the questions highlighted my opinions on the use of violence for important causes though. I'm always gonna be in favour of physical force Irish Republicanism.
Me and you would not get along politically. At all. And I mainly mean that I feel violence in those sorts of conflicts is abhorrent, disgusting and both sides should be thoroughly ashamed of their actions.
Violence is necessary. People who decide that is a good idea to simply keep their heads down and obey against rulers that they cannot stand appal me. The world cannot advance unless tyrants are slain. That is how it has always worked. That is how it always will work.
Violence is not necessary. And from what you're saying, it sounds like you think this world is stuck in the medieval period. Democracy is what empowers your state, and thus the people have the power to protest peacefully, vote for Sinn Fein, do whatever, not throw grenades at opposition and bomb hotels. Doing that makes that sound like YOU'RE the tyrant/lunatic, not the empowered party.
My friend, clearly you know nothing of Northern Irish politics. Some countries are more free than others.
Maybe so, maybe Ulster isn't the joyous land of opportunity. But either way, militancy is not the way to solve such situations as those. When has a militant operation ever been a success in today's world? The Bolskeviks took grasp of Russia by being voted in, the Nazis the same (the Beer Hall Putsch certainly didn't work). If anything, militancy will only work against you, as general civilians will only see your attempts at ruthless violence, hence bringing them against you.
If that were the case, the troubles wouldn't have had a massive surge in IRA recruitment straight through the 70's and 80's. Barricades were build specifically to keep the Brits out and the political party that figureheaded the most violent paramilitary group in the whole of the troubles is now the second largest political party in the whole country, with the first largest having had a paramilitary group for the first 10 years of its existence.
I know I'd rather be seen as an oppressed citizen rather than a demented terrorist, because that's what most of the world sees the Irish Freedom Fighters as. You all have your reasons, but many things with non-violent protest have worked in the past. It started in bloodshed, so let's just learn our lesson and not further it. It is good for nobody in the end.
The republic of Ireland was formed by the IRA. The rights of Catholics in Northern Ireland was ultimately won by the IRA. The Good Friday Agreement which allowed power sharing and equality in all of Northern Ireland would not have come true if not for the IRA's pressure on the British establishment. Also, the IRA have constantly generated massive amounts of support around the world. Numerous streets were named after Bobby Sands, an IRA hunger striker, memorials dedicated to the Hunger Strikers can be found in France, Australia and America, and finally, throughout the entirety of the armed struggle, many groups and even countries showed solidarity by staging mass protests and boycotting British ships. Obviously, there are a large number of people who disagree with the armed struggle, but the opinion is certainly not unanimous. The armed struggle is very divisive throughout the world.
I'm just going to throw this out there: non-violent protest is something that works. It's not easy because hey, most people who famously protested and advocated non-violence were murdered, but if you're dedicated enough to kill for your cause, then why not be dedicated enough to die for it without hurting anyone or doing anything wrong in the first place? Violence in self-defense if justified. Terrorism in the name of any cause is not. It's not that I disagree with these fellows in Northern Ireland wanting more freedom. That's not it at all. I just disagree with some of their methods.
I get what your saying. The issue is, we tried. It didn't work out. At first we tried to copy the NAACP by staging peaceful marches and protests. What happened was an event that would never be forgotten. On 30th January 1972, during a peaceful march in the Bogside of Derry, the British Army Parachute Regiment opened fire on the marchers, killing 14 innocent people. In subsequent inquests it was found that not only did the Brits plant evidence, but they also found that the troops had been carrying extra ammunition than had been allocated to them. Even now, nobody has been charged with the atrocity. Even after that, there were attacks by the police who were found to have tampered with their plastic bullets to make them more lethal. Then let's not forget Internment without trial, where thousands of innocent people had the Brits bust into their homes, tear up their furniture, attack them and arrest them. Out of the several thousand interned, only about 100 were found to be members of the IRA. The people interned also stated that they had been subjected to torture and abuse at the hands of their captors. Even the European court found that it classified as "Cruel and unusual punishment". So if you want explanation for why the armed campaign was considered necessary, I think that's about enough.
Yeah, it's not that I don't understand feeling like violence is necessary, but I'm just not often one of those people who make that jump from feeling violent to being violent. I just couldn't give up on peaceful protest.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why. If I could see peaceful protests as an effective way of achieving my goals, I'd be all for it. The only issue is that it has been proven time and time again that the political system here is corrupt and whenever anyone stands against it, there is either a police crackdown or a loyalist backlash. I'm still trying to make my decisions politically to be honest. I'm torn between the active and still violent 32 County Sovereignty Movement who have the Real IRA on their side, and the Irish Republican Socialist Party who used to be violent, but decommissioned their weapons in 2010. Both have the same kind of ideology but different opinions on how to go about it.
View attachment 7047 That sounds about right, I basically identify as a Socialist that is interested in civil liberties so this is about where I would have guessed.
The Political Compass is a bit crude in nature (serious political questions cannot always be boiled down to simple, multiple-choice answers), but here is where I stand on it: I have long identified as a Trotskyist.
While I got a "result" that I was happy with, I think in principal I agree with this - The questions were really specific on random issues, some of which I didn't find important. There was no way to rate which things were my priorities and there wasn't even a "neutral" option for each question.
