It’s really difficult to put two fine a point on this, because there are multiple tools that are basically vital to my job. I would say that most of my job can be done with a simple Phillips screwdriver, however the impact gets it done like 10 times faster and without fucking up my rotator cuff.

I have this really Kick-Ass flashlight which is helpful, I could probably go on for a while. I need to drill things so,… Hmm

Did you seriously hyuk’in generate an image of a soldier turning off an AI with a big button to make an AI meme thus completely missing the Goddamn point?

I’m hoping that he gets more than beaten myself. Of natural causes.

Any site that let you set a forum signature. It didn’t really tell the person who had it what your IP is but it’d be a little emoji guy holding a sign that says like “I see you! Your IP is so and so on browser in country”

Idk if this is just me but at my job everyone says “Correct” in this really weird way that pisses me off in a way I can’t explain. Clients, workers, everyone and it’s like, the same tonality consistently, nobody’s ever like “uh huh” or “yeah” they say Correct" now, do they think it makes them sound smart or something?!

Call me crazy but I think that computers volunteer way too much fuggin information when connecting to websites. User agents as we know them shouldn’t exist, the website should have no DAMN clue what kind of device I’m using.

I’ve always been creeped out by stuff like that old form signature that would show what your IP is and stuff, i always hated how the facepunch forum would expose your OS for no real reason and you cant choose not to display it.

I understood some of those words.

My Healthcare was 5 a month and shifted to 400 a month as of next year. Who could’ve thought an 8000% increase in cost causes trouble?

I defy you (Ghost energy Swedish fish flavor)

I’ll get my mace I suppose.

I’ve watched the newer Star Wars movies and honestly? I thought the old ones were like kind of all right, nothing I’m absolutely batshit insane in love with but i hate all the ones that came out under disney. I should watch the shows sometime, I haven’t watched any of the newer Star Wars shows

This triggered a memory of my father for me, the man was always asking if I noticed this or that , the answer was almost unequivocally no nearly every time. For one I don’t tend to notice things unless they are virtually impossible to ignore, and second off many of these things were in rooms that I never had any reason to visit. Have you seen what I’ve done in the Attic he would say, no you moron i had to bite my tongue to avoid saying.

I feel you should be punished in some way for this.

I feel like the more nuanced version of the question should be used tbh

We are all but dogs in God’s hot car.

It’s about freedom and deserves protection.

That’s a weird way to say innocent people?

It’s a tricky quiz because my answers to a lot of these questions aren’t simple enough. This quiz makes sparks when you bump it against nuance. I’ll just highlight a few of these, a lot of them didn’t sit well with me. A lot of these questions feel like they’re “baiting” you for a specific view you don’t actually hold. Several questions on the quiz strike me as abstract and half-baked. Honestly screw this test tbh… Too much “Only”, too much “Must”, this quiz deals in ludicrous absolutes.

“Some small scale destruction of nature is acceptable if it notably benefits humanity.”

This question, it is a nothingburger, it’s too vague to have any value to the test whatsoever. It could mean literally anything depending on how its framed. Cutting down a hedge that spoils my view is a “small scale destruction of nature”. The same argument could be used to justify building a Walmart over a protected wetland. This question compresses trivial gardening and corporate ecological devastation into the same moral bucket. My REAL answer, in real ethics language, is:

“Sometimes limited ecological modification may be necessary but the framing ‘acceptable if it benefits humanity’ is dangerous, underspecified, and historically abused.”

“Foreign officials have no right to dictate policy in another country.”?

I reject foreign control over domestic policy, but support external pressure when human rights are violated. Where does that put me? Neutral would understate my conviction, strongly agree implies that foreign officials should NEVER influence another country. Disagree would imply support for dominance, coercive intervention, or global governance overriding nations

“Socialist organizations are generally better off when organized loosely and decentrally.”

Loose & decentralized organizations protect values better, but tight & centralized organizations win fights better. There are tradeoffs.

“Revolutionary violence is acceptable as long as the final outcome is positive.”

This is a toughie, the problem is this part: “…as long as the final outcome is positive”. The problem is that this assumes three things that do not exist in reality:

1. Completely reliable foresight

2. Objective agreement on “positive”

3. Controlled causality between violence and outcome

History shows that everyone who commits political violence believes the outcome will be positive. Many of the most catastrophic regimes in history have justified their violence with “The final outcome will be good.”. I feel this question is a trick, my key issue is that I believe the question is not asking:

“Is violence ever justified under extreme circumstances?”

It is asking something much more dangerous and much broader:

“Is revolutionary violence acceptable as long as someone believes the final outcome will be positive?” This is blank-check consequentialism which could be used to justify Mass violence, Terror campaigns, Political purges, Civilian casualties and Authoritarian crackdowns to name a few. I hit disagree on this because I will explicitly state that sometimes violence may be tragically necessary, but it is never automatically justified by promised futures or ideological certainty. This rules out “Strongly Disagree” but I also don’t necessarily agree either.

“Mass spontaneous actions are more effective than carefully planned actions.”

I reject the forced comparison. Treating this as an either/or is bad systems thinking. Spontaneous mass action and careful planning are complementary, not competitors.

“Nationalism and patriotism are impulses that are unacceptable in a socialist society.”

This lumps things that are NOT THE SAME together. I reject the idea that all nationalism and patriotism is inherently unacceptable in a socialist society. Blind flag-worship and authoritarian nationalism are toxic, but a critical, value-based patriotism rooted in equality, equity, liberty, and holding a nation accountable to its own best ideals is not only acceptable, it’s often necessary for meaningful change. Loving a country enough to challenge its failures is not the same as excusing its power.

Revolution is the best way of achieving a socialist society.

Three huge problems:

“Revolution” is undefined. Do you mean:

Violent uprising? Mass general strike? Electoral rupture? Legal-constitutional overthrow? Elite collapse under pressure?

These are not the same thing at all.

“Measures to address environmental issues are unacceptable if they result in significant decreases in production and quality of life.”

This question is built on fear-framing and absolutism.!

Here are my test results:

Reformist (60.3%) vs Revolutionary (39.7%)

This is Accurate, but for the wrong reasons. I believe this test badly compresses reality.

This one is numerically close, but it misunderstands why. I’m not anti-revolution because I think the system will gently fix itself if we ask nicely. I don’t believe that for a second. I’m skeptical of revolution as a romantic default because history shows over and over that violent rupture is just as likely to midwife a new tyranny as a just society. What I actually believe in is coercive reform via strikes, mass disruption, taxation, seizure through statute, regulatory clamps, and public force that is structural rather than chaotic. This axis treats “revolution” as passion and “reform” as politeness, which is just inaccurate. I don’t want polite. I want effective without becoming monstrous.

Scientific (57.8%) vs Utopian (42.2%)

Accurate

I don’t believe in destiny narratives or historical inevitability. I believe in thermodynamics, logistics, climate models, infrastructure bottlenecks, and failure modes. I don’t think history has a moral arc that saves us by default. If anything, systems rot quietly when they aren’t constrained. My politics are grounded in constraint, not prophecy. I care about what works under pressure, not what sounds righteous on a poster. So many of these damn questions are “ALWAYS” this and “MUST” that.

Decentralist (65%) vs Centralist (35%)

Basically correct. I deeply distrust monoculture power; single spines of authority, single ideologies, single parties, single command centers. They’re fragile, corruptible, and catastrophic when they fail. At the same time, I’m not an anarchist who thinks we can coordinate climate engineering and continental power grids with vibes and community meetings alone. I believe in layered systems: local where possible, centralized where necessary, never unified where it becomes unaccountable.

International (57.1%) vs National (42.9%)

This one is technically right and emotionally wrong. I reject ethno-nationalism and imperial supremacy completely. I also believe planetary ecological coordination is non-negotiable. But I don’t believe belonging, culture, and civic identity should be erased in the name of abstract globalism. I believe in international responsibility and local moral inheritance at the same time. The test treats those as opposites. They’re not.

Party (53.8%) vs Union (46.2%)

This one reads me as “torn,” which is true only if you assume purity is the goal. I don’t trust any single institution to carry the entire weight of social transformation. Parties drift. Unions fracture. Movements exhaust themselves. Dipshits who are part of a union voted for Trump even though he makes actively destructive choices for their way of life at every turn. This test can’t distinguish strategic pluralism from indecision.

Ecological (72.2%) vs Productivist (27.8%)

If anything, this undershoots me. I don’t treat the biosphere as one interest among many. It’s the substrate everything else runs on. Production that destroys the future is a high crime. We need to safeguard our habitable biosphere at any and all costs. I accept that output may fall. I accept that comfort may shrink. Infinite growth is not sustainable in any natural system.

Progressive (85.3%) vs Conservative (14.7%)

This one is obvious and almost too easy to include. Equity, minority protections, gender freedom, movement across borders, disability access, and dismantling inherited hierarchy aren’t “trendy politics” to me—they’re baseline justice in a world that can absolutely afford it even if it pretends it doesn’t.

Overall, the label “Democratic Socialism” is not wrong, but it is far too small for what I actually believe. Structurally, this test has a deep problem: it constantly confuses values with mechanisms and mechanisms with outcomes. It uses a constant barrage of absolutist language “must”, “only”, “always”, “inevitable” as if the whole of human history were a simple logic puzzle. It treats ideology like a form of astrology instead of something that has to survive contact with physics, ecology, corruption, human fear, greed, and institutional decay. It cannot represent someone who believes in equality of dignity, equity of outcome, coercion through law rather than violence, decentralization without fragmentation, and global coordination without global absolutism.

And don’t get me wrong, I fucking LOVE a good violent fantasy game/movie/etc, it’s just rare that such a thing actually goes super well in reality.

But yeah here’s my god damn “Here’s my facebook personality quiz results :o!” Sorry, this made me weirdly super mad for some reason I’m off my meds today.

When this news first reached me I was like “There’s no such thing as a FIFA peace prize, is there…?”

I left reddit because they’re pro Nazi, no, I’m not kidding. They will perma ban you for saying “I should be allowed to punch nazis” you know, in an Indiana Jones/Captain America kind of way