My intention is not to strawman: it’s to narrow focus, not to “hit target and offend to end discussion”.
There are many tools with which to divide up humanity into groups, each with various degrees of validity and silliness. I’m primarily pragmatic.
You have a vagueness to your argumentation which is why I am compelled to be broad. It is useful to know: are you closer to right or center (center).
Are you Joe Rogan centrist (I just wanna grill man, what’s with the SJWs today am i right / triggered lol) or Bill Maher centrist (not going there) or beyond standard political classifications centrist / big brain centrist or something else.
The tropes help me because of my own bias: According to these test things, I’m way off in hippe-land left, so the center and right and far right can look indistinguishable from my vantage point.
If I see someone is generally anti-authoritarian, that at least helps me know we’re in the same ballpark there, and then it’s a matter of figuring out where left/center/right we are from each other.
Hidden tribes is a useful US metric and of course none are excellent; I’m pragmatic and it sometimes takes a number of ways to look at a thing to even begin to reach preliminary conclusions. It can be a messy process along the way.
Single? no no. I use the political compass as a general basis although it’s also inadequate. The left/center/right thing is even more excessively simplified.
Nevertheless, they are in common parlance so I use them as a starting point, not as a final destination.
Clear communication is difficult in technology (thank you Claude Shannon for helping) but even more difficult among humans. So I strive for transparency on my end as much as I can.
Until 2014, I found politics ignorable as much as possible. I took a damn test – this political compass thing. Turned out to be very valuable over the next 7 years.
Took it two more times. So with this, which you should be able to read if you’ve been online doing political stuff at least a little, gives you some notion of “where this random Kenneth Udut guy” may be coming from.
The tools we have are inadequate but not ineffective. I don’t believe it is necessary to act as if we have no tools whatsoever to work with. There are some and they help.
So using that as a basis, according to this strange gigantic chart someone made of online my 2018 testing fits in the Donna Haraway, Cyborg Manifesto (1980s cyberfeminism), with Pacifism my 2014 self and near the Anarchist Cookbook in my 2020 self (probably back to Donna Haraway or Pacifism again by now).
As ridiculous as that gigantic chart thing is, I’m actually ok with that.
Knowing my bias, I can compensate and be aware that: No, I do not hold an objective opinion about thing and I know which areas have to clarify in communication in order for clear communication to take place in conflict.
Well, I’ve been online forever (since 1989) and I love it. I believe most people, unless they are scoring points for some reason, are generally reasonable and willing to have rational discussion once hurdles are overcome.
’til 2014 I’d leave political discussions if they came up. As far as I was concerned, I was just a rational objective scientific mind with a heart and could weigh everything out with an unbiased view.
Oops. Turned out I’m biased politically.
I’ve had discussions with people who used the hooded person’s points a lot of times in the last bunch of years, particularly as the people who hung out on the various chans started joining mainstream online spaces.
After a while, I started to identify where things are going before they get there.
But sometimes I’m wrong too of course.