Your political Ideology

Crow: None of that means it need be self-destructive.

admin: Yet it always ends up being self-destructive.

Do you believe it is the role of government to protect people from hardship?

If so, then you believe in a world in which humans operate as machines. Do you not already recognize how analytical we have already become? We deal in words and not in compassion. None of it is natural, and it is all perpetuated by the system which aims to protect us from makes us human.

Crow: What I advocate has not been tried.

I believe it is compassionate to protect people from hardship.

admin: That isn't compassion. It is treating men as children.

Compassion is being supportive and a living reminder of what is worth living for.

I resent the society that teaches its members to forget and move on. I resent the society that chooses ease over action, security over spirit, and methodic practices over naive feats of passion.

My happiest moments were the ones in which I was least in control. I don't forget that.

Crow: Sure you resent it, doesn't mean it would collapse.

Sometimes the support you give others can help them overcome hardship.

admin: It absolutely does. Look at the world, it is being destroyed by greed and apathy. The system that robs us of our emotions, is what has led to this destruction. There could be no clearer example of self-destruction.

I agree that assisting others in overcoming hardship is important. We still all need to fight our own battles, but being supportive is a good way to ensure we do not repeat our mistakes.

Let's be clear though, there is a fundamental difference between supporting and bailing out.

Humans have an innate will to provide support. The machine system of conformity bails people out, most often at the expense of its "gentry."

In almost every thread made since Stag is active ends up in an argument with admin and Stag. If there is disagreement, then an argument comes.

Crow: Personally I see a world that is flourishing.

Assistance in overcoming is a form of protection.

admin: You are blind. Do you really not see the immediate disintegration of our society, and the environmental toll that our society is enacting upon the world?

It is all connected. This is a future that everyone can predict.

Crow: Nope, not at all.

admin: Suit yourself, profligate.

So, where would you fit on this chart?

From left to right, this is your view on how good or evil you believe the state is(left being state as evil and right being the state as good). From top to bottom, this is your view on how rational human beings are(bottom being irrational, top being rational).

Bi0Hazard: Seriously, that chart classifies ideologies as being either rational or irrational. Who gave them the authority?

Also the state worship vs state hatred is retarded, but not as dumb as the rational vs irrational.

Crow: Seriously, that chart classifies ideologies as being either rational or irrational. Who gave them the authority?
Not ideologies but if social problems can be solved by reason. If your at the top, you believe that social problems can be solved by human reason, if at the bottom, you reject this.
This has nothing to do with ranking ideologies.

Bi0Hazard: The chart doesn't seem to think radical ideologies base themselves on reason. I know the definition of irrational.

Crow: You don't understand this chart, here is an explanation from wikipedia:
The two axes are as follows:

The x-axis, "Attitude toward the State" (labeled statism), refers to a political philosophy's attitude toward the state and centralized government. The farthest right is "state worship," and the farthest left represents the state as the "ultimate evil," preferring individual freedom.
The y-axis, "Attitude toward planned social progress" (labeled rationalism), refers to the extent which a political philosophy is compatible with the idea that social problems can be solved by use of reason. The top indicates complete confidence in planned social progress; the bottom represents skepticism of such methods, often considering them as naively utopian. Those at the top of this axis would tend to discard a traditional custom if they do not understand what purpose it serves (considering it antiquated and probably useless), while those at the bottom would tend to keep the custom (considering it time-tested and probably useful).
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart

Do you understand it now?

Bi0Hazard: Went to the page, instantly noted that half of it was a subsection on criticism of the model.

Crow: You were looking at it completely differently than it is. I am not a fan of the chart myself, but I was wondering where you people would fit on it.
It is not too hard to understand what this chart means.