HOME | DD
JaliosWilinghart — Ideals Scale
by-nc
#stellaris #chart #ethics #morality #politics #scale
Published: 2017-03-24 21:52:53 +0000 UTC; Views: 8697; Favourites: 99; Downloads: 30
Redirect to original
Description
This is a small bit of a project I am working on, for reasons I cant explain other than "I'm weird". Vaguely Inspired by the Game "Stellaris", its clear that politics are more than simply "Left vs Right". This is a really short explained list of some broad subjects people can disagree on. Do give me critique though.Where do you land in the categories? I know where I am in all of them.
Related content
Comments: 151
Could you elaborate why you believe those things fits you best? :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just went category by category and picked what fits my opinions on said matter best. I don't identify as left or right. There are things on the left, even the far left, that I agree with, and other things I strongly disagree with. Same with the right and even the far right. I am not aware of any political party or ideology matching what I picked here. And all of that is subject to change, depending on what new information I receive. I may discover in the future that I had a misconception about this or that, and that will change my opinion.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Collectivism (even though I don't identify as a collectivist)
Liberty
Rule of Many
Acceptance
Naturalism
Somewhere between Ecology and Industry
Isolationism (but Expansionism once all internal problems have been solved and only by peaceful interaction)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Self identification is always a different thing to fitting definition. I am a white straight guy. Though none of those facts have any major input on how I identity myself. Same might count for you with the whole "the needs of the many" thing.
And I think you might enjoy my latest iteration of this Ideals scale. Since it does give the option to want peaceful interactions and stuff like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think my preferred choices would be
Collective
Liberty
Rule of Many
Radical Acceptance
Radical Naturalism
Radical Industry
No idea what to choose for interaction as the choice seems to be imperialism vs, well, isolationism, neither of which are palatable to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm. An interesting set. I'm curious of your choices of radical and "non radical" ones, and as to why you proffered those in particular.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The non-radical choices seem to correspond to a sort of social democracy-style government, which I consider to be the best, or least-worse option for many countries, at least for the moment.
The radical ones stem from my belief that the advancement of science and technology, besides being worthy goals in and of themselves, are one of humanities greatest advantages, without which we would have never gotten as far as we did. I consider any attempt to restrict scientific/technological progress outside of basic safety/morality reasons (no testing bio-weapons on civilians populations or releasing untested inventions with a lot of side effects for example) to be utter idiocy at best, and outright treason at worst, no matter how socially/economically/politically disruptive they may be. I find arguments like "we shouldn't play god", "this goes against the laws of nature" or "there are things we weren't meant to mess with" to be...lacking, to say the least. Radical industry grows from that, as while I do think we should take steps to curb climate change and preserve the environment for practical purposes, I firmly believe that we should not shy away from bending aspects of nature to our needs, so long as we can do so without sabotaging ourselves. Radical acceptance is just that, I think that us vs them thinking is detrimental, at least in regards to cultures. Competition between political entities may have its benefits, but that is something slightly different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting. Thank you for the insight.
We are all special little snowflakes in our own way. Unique when you look under a microscope. But when we come together, we can become a beautiful snowman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, that is interesting view on the ethos but it seems kinda biased to the left side. Descriptions should look more like there is right on both sides. Also it lacks a few important things like viewpoint of war etc. Also
Also Authority, control and interaction in some degree can be simply put into egalitarian - authoritarian ethos, which is right now implemented into stellaris. Culture can be easilly xenophobe - xenophile, Reality is materialist - spiritualist, environment is not a concern when there is TERRAFORMING.
I think the ethos in Stellaris are almost perfect and for sure They work best for the game like that.
EDIT: Oh, I read Your profile and I saw You are biased to the left. Well, all I can say is that's a little sad You can't see positive in other "ethos".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What exactly do you mean by "biased to the left side"?... The categories goes vertically. Am I misunderstanding you?
On your "lacks views of war". What would you think should be added in regards to that then? Expansionists could easily describe people who seek to spread themselves by means of war as well as diplomacy.
And to address your bias point... we all have them. Especially when it comes to ideals, ethics, and morality. Which is why I put a "give me critique" thingy down in the description. I know I'm flawed, so I welcome ideas on what other folks thinks.
And I honestly tried to see "the other perspective" in other ethos. As well as try to represent common arguments behind them. Are you referring to anything in particular?
To address your edit... I made this before Utopia came out xD... and this thing was inspired by Stellaris. I tried to separate some things that were implied in the ethics, and add other ones as well as some descriptions I found fitting. And this does not only apply to space age empires with terramforing xD... It was meant as a more general thing. Though it does change if you imagine your empire as a deeply polluted industrial production center, or a lush green something xD... And besides, it IS a well debated topic currently as well as in many forms of fiction anyway, so I felt like adding it xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I think when it comes to private it not comes down to "greed is good" especially for those who think private property, free market, free trade etc. is quite important or even necessary when it comes to our species at least.
You could describe it as: Private: Individual should not be hold down to achieve it true potential to benefit the whole. Radical Private: Individual is power, We should not restrict the indivudal by any means and let it do what it see is right.
Authority and controll are basically the same thing, let's just as I said make it "egalitarian - authoritarian": Authoritarian: Strong leader is strong group! Radical Authoritarian: THe leaders word is above everything else. We must trust our leader to lead all of us without doubt.
Culture, Purity: Our culture is the most succesfull one and history will prove us right. We can't rely on others cultures, other cultures should see the benefits of ours. Radical Purity: All other cultures are should be left on the garbage dump of history, our culture is the future!
Industry: Improving our means of production will improve our progress on all levels, our progress will even let us be the master of nature!
Something like that. Just try to make it unbiased becouse every political view has some right even when You disagree with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Private v Collective
... Well its the "Radical" option for a reason. I used the example of radical capitalists and people like Ayn Rand, saying that they thought that greed was a virtue keeping society together.
And not all thinks that its necessary. Which is why we have disagreement. Same reason why the "Radical Collective" argues for the complete abolition of poverty with the use of collectivizing resources. And you can be a right winger economically, as well as be against individual freedoms. Not all right wing places are meritocracies, and not all leftist places are stalinist dictatorships. Hence why I separated Authority form Economy.
I thought of using common terminology when regarding the arguments against things like welfare programs. 'It restricts and punishes those of wealth' is often more or less a common argument against leftist economic policies. And regardless, the category is only referring to how the economy is run. Collective economy, or a private economy. Does society lift as a whole, or does each individual lift on their own?
------------------------------------------------------
Authority:
I thought of using a more neutral word for both. "Order" seems less like I am slapping a 'this guy is an ass'. I dont want to simply rip off Stellaris. This was meant to be at least slightly my own thing.
------------------------------------------------------
Culture:
... I dont honestly get how your descriptions fit better than mine. Often times, groups go ahead and shun and shut out other cultures in order to keep theirs 'pure'. I tried to look up common nationalist arguments, and this seemed to fit the bill.
------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
Environmentalists aren't against expanding production per se. They just dont want it to damage the environment. Along with Industrialists seem to see it as a recourse, rather than something 'special'. I am honestly getting what you are saying here though. But not to be a prick, are you sure that you arent being biased in your descriptions either? Because just like you, to me they seem rather biased xD. Not that they are unwelcome.
------------------------------------------------------
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the point, all of these should be wrote like it would be said by somene who believes in those ethos. All of these seems like beeing written by someone who is left leaning.
If You want to be totally unbaised then just make it :
Radical collectivist: Collective is most important.
Collectivist: Collective is important.
Private: Individual is important
Radical Private: Individual is most important.
What I meant Is You should portrait all of the ethos from the good side unless You want to show ethos from Your perspective which I realize that it might have been a goal of Your image here and what I'm asking for is for You to do something You did not intended to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Making it completely dry and completely neutral makes it boring, now doesn't it?
And honestly, you yourself said that you believe that if one 'restricts the individual' economically, you get an unhealthy society. And that you should 'look out for yourself first'. How is my description of "Private" wrong then?
And I get that I'm biased, but so are you from the looks of things. Seemingly equally so.
And if you think I am really super duper wrong, you can potentially try making your own perhaps? I'm not trying to be mocking, I'm just encouraging you to try to make 'yours' if you dont think mine fits you. Because just as much as me, you seem to have very specific grypes about this. So why not make your own you can be proud of?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not telling You are wrong, My point is that I thought You wanted tocreate an alternative ethics tree to Stellaris. Then I realize You are deeply left leaning and it made sense for You to make it biased becouse You are showing How You see it. That was My bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did not make it to "show that I was correct". Like I have tried to explain, I looked up common arguments from various sides of each disagreement on the chart, and addressed it accordingly. Purity, looked up nationalist arguments, Pius, looked up religious arguments, and so on. I seriously did not just try to plaster my views onto this. I seriously tried my best to reflect the arguments I saw for specific ideas.
And I was 'merely' inspired by Stellaris. Thought this was a fun project to do, so I tried to. Though I get how you could think this was meant to be an alternative to the game's ethics xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, I see it as very left biased. there are right to the "right" side as well and flaws to the "left". You as a left leaning person preffer to think like that and dismiss the good arguments the "other side" provides.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... When you dont see something as 'good arguments' then there is not a lot to the things you just said. Ethics is not about being neutral in all things. Neither are you.
And dont apologize for seeing it different than I.
And yes, there are 'right' things with the 'right' and 'wrong' things with the 'left. Easy. But many capitalist thinkers argue that self interests drives civilization forward. Several right-economic thinkers as well as political parties state this themselves. Hence my example. I'm sorry if you dont like that, but I dont really see how its my fault they themselves stand in front of a microphones and say the words "greed is good" in all sincerity. I cant see how that is my fault. I am simply representing them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, in a way humanity is a greedy race. Even altruism is somehow driven by greed, just not by materialist greed. So yes, greed in some way drives humanity forward though this is a huge understatement.
You seem to not acknowledge basic human flaws that makes creating Your anarchist utopia impossible and that made capitalist, liberal societies the most succesfull ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Several studies show that we are naturally selfless and cooperative. Greed and selfishness is taught. Not inherent in a tightly nit group species as we are.
And if you think freely giving, to help others, is greedy, you got a few screws loose. "Black is white, and squares are round, and fish can fly!"
I not an anarchist. I have just read several of their political theories along with socialist, capitalist, fascist, communist, and many others. Because I care. Unlike you. Blankly stating that "I'm right and you are wrong, because self evident reasons" oozes of an arrogance that is ill fitting for you, let alone anyone.
Do you really care so much because you disagree with a piece of art I made for fun?... Seriously.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your reply in a nutshell: "You are an ignorant"
ok...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And your reply in a nutshell "Dont say that capitalism is based on greed! Now let me tell you how selflessness is a lie and greed literally drives everything forward".
You are indeed ignorant. Of history. Political theory. Psychology. And I find no malice in saying that. Saying that you can be wrong, does not mean that you are wrong. But denying flat out every single possibility that you could ever be wrong about your views, bars your vision. Like blinders on a horse. I wont blame you for that, nor do I expect you to agree with me. You likely think the same of me. Wont blame you for that either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, capitalism is not about greed. Yes, human is self centered creature, You can call that greed or anyway else but You for sue can't change that.
I think You live in an echo bubble of Your own ideology which makes You arrogant about Your believes.
I always take into consideration that I might be wrong, the fact is I can see the facts. You probably take facts from Marxist books, the problem is Marxist ideology was false. Why it was false? Becouse it did not succed. Mostly becouse Marxist ideology is not taking facts into consideration. Only Utopian fantasies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... When you say that capitalism is not about greed, but human nature, then say that humans are selfish by nature... You.......... can you even hear how you sound at this point? I'm seriously asking... and then you think that its me who lives in an ideological echo chamber... projection much?
... Have you even read Marx's works? And regardless, what kind of logic is that? "People who got shot cant be right about anything"... most socialist systems of government, were either killed by fascists, or simply used as retoric to hide a dictator's wishes against their populace. Stalin hunted out Trotsky, and implemented himself as supreme leader of the nation... rather than democratically elected worker councils... like Marx, and Trotsky wanted. If you knew anything about Marxist theory, you would know this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, what I'm saying is perfectly logical, You just thinking in the categories of Marxism about it and You can't comprehend that humans are natural indivisualists. Yes, I read Marx works, I was a hardcore communist before, then I realise the facts and Marxism does not adding up. It simply cannot work in real life becouse humans do not work like that unless You will make authoritarian superstate that will enforce it onto people like is Soviet Union.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Individualism does not equal capitalism. Get that through your skull please.
... You never just do anything to make other's lives better? I do that all the time personally. Even if its just small things. Comforting strangers, giving to charity, helping my friends, family and colleagues. Trying to provide for those around me... you never just do that?... I dont need to be forced into helping others. Why do you think others are incapable of simply helping folks out without a gun to their heads?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but people do that becouse that's Their decisions, They can feel pleasure by helping others, humans as very varied species work different from one another which why humans are highly individualistic.
Capitalism is the only economy system where individualists can prosper. It's like democracy, the best ideas are most profitable.
have You ever realized most f the people need to help themselves before They can help others? Or They simply don't want to help anyone? Should They be forced to help others? That is what Marxists want.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are so cynical that you think that humans simply cant help others out without getting a high from it, or gain a reward... the fuck kind of person are you?
The best ideas?... So I guess poisoned rivers, children's toys, and sweat shops are "freedom" to you?
Yes. But does that mean that we should only act whenever it benefits ourselves? Nope. Should we help one another? Yes. By force? Nope.
And dont try to tell me to not generalize capitalists, when you are literally generalizing all Marxists. You really are just a hypocrisy magnet aren't you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I said, You work on Marxist ideology, Youa re doomed to repate the soviet Union then, oh well.
If that's such a big issue for You then You haven't even scratched big issues yet.
Yeah, it's hypocrisy for You becouse You simply don't understand How individualism works and to what horrors can collectivism leads.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... I dont work on Marxist ideology. And seriously... what has scared you so, to think that all who want to help others, only want to shoot all who disagree with them? Why do you think that 'people like me' only want to purge their way to paradise?
Big issues? I literally mentioned poverty, lack of healthcare, lack of education, and labor conditions... But I guess none of them are "big issues"... You cant be serious.
... And you dont seem to understand the basic definitions of either individualism and collectivism. Collectivism can be vertical as well as horisontal. You are complaining about vertical collectivism. And I agree there. But you blame me for that too.... that would literally be like me blaming you for fascism, even though you are clearly not an authoritarian... "But they are all the same"... Look in the mirror for once. Look up what the labels you use mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm tired of this conversation, You keep misunderstanding Me and telling Me model Marxist responses for the arguments of freedom of the individual, free market and republic ideas (not republican party, just republican like the political system).
I'm scared? Wow.
All I can tell You is that conversation with You is playing chess with the duck. Duck will mess up board, throw away all the figures and claim victory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It took you this long to get tired of a conversation, complain about another mans artwork? Oh how come? Its always so fun to complain about useless things.
You have called me an ignorant, frankly idiotic, arrogant, blind dreamer, believing blindly in fairy tales and ideas that according to you I did not understand a word off, wanting nothing more than to murder all who disagree, because wanting to help people, equals nazi... and you get triggered because I asked if you were scared in some fashion to make you who you are. You just keep proving me right about you constantly being a hypocrite, dont you?
And its you who completely ignored all my arguments, and moved on to personal attacks... and then you have the gaul to claim that it is me who "messes up the board and proclaims victory"... after you yourself bail on the conversation.... do you even know what the words "self reflection" mean?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I called Your ideas childish and unrealistic, guess that means for You "You are idiot".
You think what I say proves You right becouse You misunderstood the terms like capitalism, individualism and liberalism.
Well, You don't like Sargon so I am not suprised You don't really like the ideas of others having other ideas.
Your arguments are? You mostly were all the time disproving My arguments with "read Marx, read Marx" and some Marxist dogma like If You are not capitalist You are selfish prick, when You are collectivist You care about the poor and disabled, which is bullshit in real life.
I have enough of You turning My arguments upside down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... Do I even need to go back to literally all your personal insults directed at me because reasons in order to tell you that you have no point in doing so?
... Says the guy who thinks everyone else outside his bubble are authoritarian psychopaths, and thinks helping people, means that you think they are children or robots...
I said you should read Marx because you seem to not even have a basic understanding of Marxist theory. If you do, you have done a very poor job of showing it. And it is not I who said you were a selfish prick first. I quoted others, and you said I accused you of being selfish... you the proceeded to argue that greed is the only thing holding society together, not to mention the natural state of literally everything in human existence.... And you think I am the one arguing the most for you being selfish... Again with the echo chamber.
And I have had enough with your complete incapability of being self contentious, not to mention your lack of understanding of even basic political theory. You think you are clever because you watch a youtuber regularly... Right... of course.
And you have had enough? Then why do you stay? Nobody is forcing you to stay here. You came 'here', and started a word sword fight for reasons that are beyond me. You know you can just leave, right? Oh I'm sorry, you think I'm a compete nutter... so I guess I should say "Grr, how dare you, go die in a gulag"... did I fit your brainless narrative yet, you self absorbed hack?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
boo hoo,"Someone disagrees with Me. I will claim Him to be selfish bastard not caring for others and hypocritical asshole and whenever He says something to me I will cry wolves for beeing attacked."
Learn to debate people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. People should. Potentially even you will learn to do so some day. But I guess only an idealist like me can ever even dream of a dullard such as you may ever improve.
Keep going. You are at the stage of anger. Will you rage out because you dont like that someone disagrees, or will you simply try to pretend that you have the high road, and arrogantly state that you cant sully your liberal hands on such a filthy piece of lowlife socialist as myself?
Go on. You are the only one who has anything to lose here. I find this endlessly entertaining.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hmmm.
Here's where I land on each category.
Collective
Liberty
Rule of Many
Acceptance
Radical Naturalism
Industry
Expansionist
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Would you wish to try to elaborate on why you think your initial choices fit you the best?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aww, thank you for the lovely sentiment! It would make sense though xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Private.
Liberty.
Rule of many.
Purity.
Piety.
Radical industry.
Expantionist.
=
Slavic Federation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is this your beliefs, or is this your idea of what would be the ideological foundation to "The Slavic Federation"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ideological foundation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So are they not your beliefs? Or are they the same as this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I may, would you wish to share your thoughts behind those beliefs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Private = I dotn know why?. I just like it.
Libetry = All people decide who they are and what they do in ther lifes.
Rule of many = Democracy is better then evrythink.
Purity = Europeans are europeans. Muslims are muslims. Azians are Azians.
Radical industry = If we destroy earth we can go into space.
Expantionist = Evryone should drink vodka and wear adidas tracksuits, speak Russian, Polish and other slavic langues.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Private:
A thing that usually follows with arguments for 'Private', are opposition to welfare programs and market regulation. Are you also against measures like these?
Purity:
You are aware that there are many Asian, African, and many other non middle eastern muslims, right?
And if I may your reasoning behind Liberty seems to go against your Purity argument. How are the people to decide, if they are not allowed to become citizens where they want to, if that very thing is denied based on where they were born or their personal faith?
You forgot your reasoning for picking Piety
Radical Industry:
Space travel is quite expensive. It's not hard to assume that not everyone can afford to leave on a space colony. Aka, billions of people are very likely to die with the earth, when we have not managed to land a person on mars yet. Does the immediate protection of the environment, in some capacity, not even come close as important for you? I'm mostly curious.
Expansionist:
If I may, the most likely languages to become 'the global one' at this rate, seems to be English, Mandarin, or Spanish. Simply due to the amount of people speaking it, along with how wise spread their hold is. Russian, Polish, and other Slavic languages, as you put it, are few in number and cultural weight seems to be less than the current potential candidates. Does this deter you in your views on this subject?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I kinda agree with PolandMaster.
Welfare programs and market regulations is something destructible for economy. Welfare program is not that bad thing the problem is:
1. We should not make it mandatory to help others. It's robbery to take away people's money to give others that may not necessairly spend it well.
2You should firstly help Yourself, then You can think of aiding th private charity fundation.
I think purity can go perfectly with liberty. I think western European culture is the best becouse it's most liberal and muslims should adjust to it if They want to live in the countries with that culture.
Radical Industry is expensive but when You also follow private and liberty ethos then people when They want will invest in it not the whol;e state. Private ethos is all about: You can risk and gain or loose. Industry is not necessairly equal to environment destruction when You know how to do it also progress that comes out of the industry may show us new clean way to progress and restore what We've previously destoryed.
Polish guy create espranto, easy language that had chance to spread into entire world but after some time lost in popularity mostly becouse there is no country that speaks espranto. Though it can still become popular someday or someone will have similar idea to create uni9versal language. Though when it comes to imagining the fictional "Slavic federation" then one can let imagination loose, isn't it? : P
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And just like that, you showed how you are biased as well. I have a trillion arguments against what you just said, just as you have a trillion arguments against my personal views on economy, but that is neither for here nor there. And this is why I say my argument fits. Regardless of who is right, which of course we think ourselves are, these are common narratives and arguments for either side of that question. That question being how to organize an economy.
Fascists want a private economy, but they are hardly for individual rights. Just like most Anarchists like Anarcho Syndicalists want a collective economy, but they do not wish to do so through an all observing and all consuming government like for example Stalinists do. Which is why I separated Authority form Economy.
------------------
"Purity goes well with Liberty for me"
Which is why they can both be picked? The non radical purity specifically mentions that it 'only' shuns those who does not conform. Aka, the way you still seem capable of accepting those from "outside" if they do not radically oppose 'the other' established beliefs and so on. This is why I separated these things. People can easily form a mish mash of opinions across these categories, which is why it makes sense to have these.
------------------
There are rightists who are environmentalists. And there are leftists who are industrialists. You know that, which is why they are separated.
And as for the "industrialist does not equal environment destroyer". Well... you dont see a lot of pollution from environmentalist nations or communities, now do you?... Unrestricted industry leads to China being incapable of seeing stars at night. You can be for or against industry all you want, but fact is fact. Just like environmentalism does often result in less variety of consumer goods, and some business do get regulated in order to restrict their pollution output.
------------------
On the topic of language, we are already going towards a single universal language. If you simply count the amount of languages that has practically died over simply 300 years, you can see that we are rapidly moving towards a single unified language as it is. The current 'best contenders' for that are English, Spanish, and Mandarin. So I dont think we need to worry much on that front.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>