>>90612

I don't think this test is thorough enough or nuanced enough to be accurate, but it's not far off.

Fair enough.

I loathe the term 'woke'.

I wonder if this makes me a cunt. I am a bit confused.

Also, the questions seemed geared towards communism.

It seems a bit too far off, because I'm mostly in the middle, maybe a bit to the left.

Does this mean like a European or something out of a videogame?

>>90617

Would it make a difference?

>>90616

The questions leaned on leftism, but you answered them in a way that indicates leftist values instead of disagreeing with the statements. Welcome comrade.

And don't feel bad, there's nothing wrong with having more traditional social beliefs. I tend to find people who are too far down the socially liberal scale often can come off as if they only act that way to offset the fact they're an intolerable dickhead on a personal level.

You're one square more conservative than me, though, so maybe have a word with yourself about the transphobia.

>>90617
Answer the question, heretic.

>>90618

I would imagine so, yes. Maybe not to everyone.

NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR

I think this test is badly designed for a number of reasons. Principally, there's no way to assign weight to your decisions, for example by giving a score out of ten about how strongly you feel about it, or choosing "strongly agree/disagree". Some are moral questions, rather than political ones - boycotting goods from sweatshops is a moral position, a political view would be that we should ban such imports or place higher tariffs on them. A couple of questions are rather silly. The one about allowing advertising on the moon is presumably meant to identify how capitalist you are, but it's an extreme example - there's no collectivist corollary like "Should all private property be banned?".

>>90623

>Some are moral questions, rather than political ones

That's because it has a moral axis as well as a political axis, genius.

You're just bumsore because it's basically told you you're a Blairite.

>>90624
I'm not upset about my results, and I imagine a Blairite would score lower on the Conservative axis. I suppose we could argue for hours over the semantics of what 'moral' and 'political' mean in the context of these sorts of surveys, but I would have preferred one that was rather more explicit. For example "Boycotting imports from sweatshops should be government policy, not a choice for consumers".

>>90617
I said yes. Hopefully they are Asari.

>>90619
Impressive. How did you pin-point the Trans stuff? Presumably, you must have said "yes" to letting them compete in female only athletics. Which I disagreed with.

>>90627
I had to look that up. According to the Mass Effect wiki;
>Asari have navels as well as breasts that continue to grow with age.
This summons some alarming images.

>>90629

>>90628

Actually I probably answered those the same as you. Transphobia is just a good .gs bet.

Maybe I had a couple more "don't care" rather than disagrees for the social questions, because really that's my stance on the lot of it. I just don't care. People can do whatever they bloody well please with their own genitals and sex lives, it's no business of mine or anyone else's- but the rest of the world shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards to accommodate it. And I say that as the resident deviant furfag.

>>90631
So Asari get more surprised with age?

>>90632
The questions I found interesting were whether I would be open to sending my child to a religious or same-sex school. Even as an atheist I'd probably be disappointed if they didn't get the school assembly sing-song about how 'he's got the whole world in his hands'. It just seems a part of our culture that everyone would recognise.

Obviously whatever is closer would probably be the option I'd pick unless it's a proper swivel-eyed loony bin.

>>90633
It's another question that lacks a lot of detail. Some religious schools are just like what you described - an ordinary school that happens to have the occasional singsong. At least my primary and secondary schools were like that, we sometimes had services but never felt compelled to actually believe anything, and we had no complaints about it despite being a very multi-faith school for mid-nineties Britain. Some religious schools however really do take that aspect seriously, and I wouldn't feel comfortable sending my kids there.

I eagerly await our resident furious-alt-right lad to accuse me of being a tranny lover or something.

>>90636
I don't trust anyone who would go to either extreme.

A few questions were a "depends" so for those I put "don't know"
I find myself agreeing more with the right than left and yet the chart told me this so who knows.

>>90638
The chart may have worked? Conservative when it comes to social policies, and leftie when it comes to economic issues?

>>90624
The boycott question doesn't actually seem to affect your positioning if I've tested it right.
I tested it because I put disagree, which is notionally the evil capitalist answer but actually comes about because I don't believe boycotts against mass-market goods are effective and I believe moral force comes from results, not intentions. These tests generally seem to read off your answer to the question through their own lens rather than the underlying reasoning you use to get there. (Although to repeat: in this case, unless I've messed up, the answer apparently does nothing.)

>>90612
Next door to OP

>>90637
I wouldn't even call myself extreme. This is just a biased test.

almost half questions answered 'don't know'.
Why does it say 'Woke' instead of liberal or whatever the opposite of conservative is.

>>90643
A fucking cunt made it, a fucking cunt linked to it.

Someone post a better one. This one is absolutely rubbish.

Would the lads who are saying it's biased and/or shit please post their own result or point out the post containing it?

I bet you're all just salty because you thought you were good little progressives but you ended up in the purple.

>>90646
Lads, I explicitly said in bold font that the important thing is for us all do the same quiz. Otherwise we can't compare or draw wild conclusions on the political consensus here.

All political compass tests are bullshit. It's another nerd horoscope.

>>90647

>>90649

I was right then lololol

>>90647
I don't know about "progressive," but I came out a bit further left than I thought I was.

>>90648
Does that mean you have a better one hidden away under your bed, and you posted this because you want to shock people into thinking what they are not?

>>90612
Nearer the middle than anyone so far, which is I guess reassuring, but nobody ever calls me a woke leftie, so thats weird. I expected to be more or less the same as the OP.

>>90653

If you're that near the middle you can hardly really be described as either of those things. It's the very slightest of leanings. You're the Michael McIntyre of political stances.

>>90654
>You're the Michael McIntyre of political stances.

Well, that is a) making me laugh and b) seems very kind, so I'm grateful for your analysis and accept it fully.

>>90655
>b) seems very kind
It's not.

>>90656
Well, that's just like your opinion man.

I like being neutral - there are already enough extremes on either edge, however you define them.

>>90657
In terms of "how good a comedian are you?", being Michael McIntyre is not neutral.

>>90647
>g**d little progressives
Let's not assume ethical judgements on the bizarre political positions that are largely destroying our society.
Kiss kiss xx.

>>90658

As the lad who made that assessment, McIntyre is about as neutral as you can get. He's the blandest, least offensive, technically competent and acceptably likeable comedian I can think of. I hate him precisely because if these things, but I can't call him shit. He's just a margherita pizza. Ready Salted crisps. Egg fried rice.

He's a middle class Peter Kay (who I think is quite good- But the point stands, he's very plain.)

>>90660
You're wrong, he a terrible comedian.

>>90661

He's objectively successful, much like tap water or plain crisps. Compared to proper food like a curry or proper comedians like (insert festival favourite here), they are poor, yet they remain comforting to the masses.

That a large number of people like him shouldn't be surprising, it's representative of our society.

>>90661

You might not like him, you might not find him funny, but he's a technically brilliant comedian who can kill any room. Literally nobody in the comedy industry has a story about the time they saw him die on his arse, which, given the level of professional jealousy involved, really is saying something. Most comedians of his age have a story about the sheer terror of having to follow him or that time he miraculously turned around a hostile room full of stags and hens. You don't get to his position by being shit.

>>90665
I've also heard his act is toned down a fair bit for TV; there's a lot more swearing and blue jokes in his stand-up gigs.

>>90664
Plain crisps are terrible too.

>>90668
Depends on the brand.

Got this, but I did answer don't know to the trans sport question. It's probably the one place we necessarily have to fuck trans people over. I've seen some arguments and statistics from some trans athletes that there is basically no issue because performance variation is so low, which I find difficult to believe, and some studies that argue men are always always the best the best at all the sportings but always turn out to be published by TERFs. So I'm not sure what to think.

>>90670

Even if you believe that, it seems stupid to ban trans men from men's competitions.

>>90670
Transwomen shouldn't be able to compete in professional sports against other women. There's a clear physical advantage.

>>90670
At the risk of turning this thread into a discussion about that sort of thing: I've always thought the ideal solution would be to totally revamp the way society and sport interact so that it isn't really a problem anymore. Completely impractical, but it's the only answer I can think of that wouldn't be fucking someone over for semi-arbitrary reasons and if you did it right, you might actually get the general public playing sports and improving their health which would be a nice bonus.
Wildly impractical, sure, but neither of us are Jimmy Huddleston so it doesn't matter what we think anyway. Might as well make it something nice.

>>90672
Usain Bolt has definitively proven himself to have a clear physical advantage at running over everyone else, should he not be allowed to compete?

>>90671
There was a case a few years back of an FtM teenager completely levering his opponents because the competition rules made him compete in the women's event. Cue conservative outrage without understanding that an exclusionary policy that caused the situation.
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/after-winning-state-title-transgender-wrestler-finally-allowed-to-compete-against-boys

I think the easy solution would be to make adult men's events open to all in most sports (the opposite in figure skating). If a woman can compete then it's silly, anachronistic, not to use them so long as they understand the risks.* For the opposite then I imagine it would be case-by-case but I put agree because it would be open for piss-taking and I think even the hardest PC-Baby wouldn't take offence if there's no hormone treatment involved.

*natch this is different for schools given the much greater risk of injury.

>>90674
Presumably he wouldn't be able to compete in a lower-tier or would at least be harshly sanctioned by society.

>>90674
In 2017 the American women's football team lost 5 - 2 to the FC Dallas under 15 boy's team. The year before that the Australia women's football team lost 7 - 0 to the Newcastle Jets under 16 boy's team.

The mismatch between male and female tennis players is also well known. The male physical peak is a lot higher than the female physical peak, to the point that the best women in the world can't compete with teenage boys in some sports.

>>90676
That "Presumably" is doing a lot of work, and that work is just being wrong.

>>90677
So what? Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world, clearly it's not fair for other people to allow him to compete.
The same goes for the second fastest man to compete with anyone slower, and the third, fourth. It goes all the way down. What you're saying is that it's unfair for anyone to compete with or against anyone who's worse than them at the thing they're doing.

>>90679
Has Usain Bolt won every single race he has competed in?

Allowing transwomen to compete professionally against women is akin to putting a featherweight in the ring against Tyson Fury. It's not a level playing field.

>>90680
>It's not a level playing field.

We could invent a special Olympics where all the people who have modified bodies, for whatever reason, compete in special classes that levels them up. Oh.

>>90680
Have trans people won every single contest they've competed in?
I agree there's a sort of instinctive sense that it's unfair to let trans women compete against cis women but the reasoning you keep repeating, without being able to give a good reason why it's different to the example I'm giving, just doesn't support it.

>>90682
Men are at a significant physical advantage to women. This physical advantage remains after gender reassignment surgery, which is why the female powerlifting records were being smashed by transwomen until they were banned and the records stripped.

>>90683
Yes mate, you've said that three or four times now. You're ultimately saying that people shouldn't be allowed to compete with people who are worse at things than them, which is obviously an absurd notion.

>>90684
>You're ultimately saying that people shouldn't be allowed to compete with people who are worse at things than them, which is obviously an absurd notion.

Why bother with women's sports at all then?

>>90684
>You're ultimately saying that people shouldn't be allowed to compete with people who are worse at things than them

They really aren't.

>>90685
Why stop there, why any form of competition at all? There's almost always going to be a winner, one player or participant or competitor is going to turn out to have an advantage over the others. Better to just ban it all in advance.

>>90686
If they aren't then why do they keep repeating it instead of explaining why it's different?

>>90684
That's literally all there is to it. I don't think transwomen should compete professionally against women in sport because men physically peak higher than women, which is why the male junior world records for track events are faster than those for adult females.

Likewise, I don't think anyone banned for performance enhancing drugs should be able to compete again because of the long-term lasting effects it has on their muscles.

Let's just agree to disagree. We've managed to derail yet another thread talkies about trannies.

>>90689

It's not that I fundamentally disagree, I just think the logic used to reach it isn't particularly sound.

>>90689

There's one person who's always bringing up transphobia and trans topics in general. Presumably as they're woke to the nines in this area, they can't help but steer the conversation back to it and bask in their moral superiority.

>>90691
You're trying to bask in the moral superiority of not being that person right now.

>>90692
Cracking post, old thing. You nailed me proper.

>>90693
Nice virtue-signalling.

>>90694
The important thing is you both found away to feel superior to each other.

>>90674

We could make a compelling case that athletics should be racially segregated, and I'm sure we'd find plenty of young racially aware progressives on liberal American college campuses who would enthusiastically back the idea, as long as we framed it as benefiting the blacks and not protecting the whites. That particular horseshoe has joined itself up into a full circle at this point.

Frankly though I think if you want to argue based on the premise that athletics is all built on a combination of genetic and trained physical advantage in the first place, therefore drawing the line at gender is arbitrary, it's equally absurd to stop there. If that's your line of argument then you're surely arguing that the gender division is itself absurd and that all athletics should be unisex- Again, a premise any right thinking fisherperson should be able to get behind. Let everyone compete on an "equal" playing field.

Morally I can't think of any reason that should be disagreeable, but the fact remains: If we did it, men (and trans men) would win everything. And most of them would be black.

>>90696

I think it would make the most sense to organise sports leagues by some measure of build; height or muscle mass. It's not a completely alien concept, just a different approach to "weight class" that means you're really competing to see who has the most skill at a given sport, rather than who happens to have the most physical advantages at it. No need to bring race or gender into it (though you would end up with some weight classes of sports dominated by one or the other).
Could get a bit complicated when it comes to team sports where different builds suit different roles but it's not unworkable.

>>90696
>If that's your line of argument then you're surely arguing that the gender division is itself absurd and that all athletics should be unisex

The main reason it isn't is because women would get fed up of losing all the time.

We've really got to the core of the issue by now, good work lads. I think perhaps the most logical conclusion is that we, as a species and society, need to step away from primitive sports like running in a straight line the fastest, or chucking a stick the farthest, and so on.

There are plenty of sports that require much more measurable skill, where there's an asymmetrical role for small and nimble as well as big and strong within the same game. Sports that require true hand-eye co-ordination, tactical acuity, and dedication to honing one's talents. Sports that provide an opportunity for everyone to shine regardless of inherent physical advantages like height and muscle mass, these are the noble pursuits all future athletes should strive towards.

Sports like darts.

>>90699
Isn't darts technically a game rather than a sport?

>>90700
>617 posts and 182 images omitted

>>90699
Couldn't agree more. We also need sports that actively encourage substance abuse as so many people are into it. Would save all the drug testing and hand-wringing for a start. I'd like to see Usain Bolt run 100m after eight Stella.

Why the fuck are there no prominent female snooker players?

I don't think I'm "woke" in any way, shape or form but maybe I'm in denial.

>>90703
You're probably the closest in the thread toe (>>90615) and we've both posted a similar response. Bit weird, that.

>>90704
POLITICAL BUMMERS

>>90702

>Why the fuck are there no prominent female snooker players?

I've often wondered this too. I remember I used to watch a fair bit of 9-ball pool when I still lived at home and my dad had Sky Sports, and there were a couple of lasses who were really good at that, but I've never even seen a lass play snooker.

I think snooker is just a very particular sport for a very particular kind of bloke. The sort of person who's intolerably boring but has no clue how boring they are. Wears polo neck shirts a lot and probably has at least one silver chain necklace or bracelet. My uncle Stephen who still collects glasses at the local WMC.

STOP TAKING THIS QUIZ YOU BLOODY MOOKS!

>>90706
Snooker is more tactical and lasts for hours. Imagine having a woman bent over a table for hours on end. It's obscene and doesn't bear thinking about.

>There’s been a lot of chat on social media too, mostly about Question 33 — which, like the rest, is a statement to which one may express agreement or disagreement. It is: “I would have sex with an attractive alien”.

>Obviously, it’s a hypothetical question and, some might say, a silly one. And yet it’s really quite clever. It collapses, into one lurid scenario, an important ideological divide — between those who base their ethical judgements on liberal morality alone and those who still heed older, deeper moral instincts.
I based my answer on the assumption that I don't know what the risks of sex with an alien are, maybe shut the fuck up about morality?

>>90707

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but that's mainly because I was distracted by Kate Andrews. She could privatise my vital infrastructure IYKWIM.

>>90709
I said no because I'm asexual but I bet it doesn't account for that at all.

>Transgender women will still be allowed to play women’s rugby at all non-international levels of the game in England for the foreseeable future, the Guardian can reveal, after the Rugby Football Union decided that more evidence was needed before implementing any ban.

>The RFU’s position is sharply at odds with World Rugby, which last week ruled that trans women could no longer play elite women’s rugby after a major review of the latest science concluded that the risk of “significant injury” was “too great’”. However, the RFU’s view, which is understood to be supported by several other countries, is that more work is needed to assess whether there are safe ways to allow trans women to keep playing the sport they love.

>Last week World Rugby became the first international sports body to ban trans women from the women’s game following an eight-month review. It concluded that it was not possible to balance inclusivity with safety and fairness ‘in light of growing evidence that the testosterone suppression required by previous transgender regulations did not significantly impact muscle mass, strength or power”. World Rugby said that biological males, whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone, are “stronger by 25% to 50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than biological females. That combination of mass, strength, power and speed means that in a direct physical contest, cis women in all these domains will be at significant risk of injury.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/14/rfu-clears-trans-women-to-play-womens-rugby-at-all-levels-in-england

>>90762
Fuck off, this is not 'the trans thread' now.

>>90763
Most of the thread being about transport says otherwise.