The current limitation of possibilities doesn’t keep the focus on LessWrong away from politics. It focuses on certain types of politics.
Further, if you’re calling Labor or the Democrats leftist, or the Libertarian party anti-state, you’re just wrong by almost any metric worth caring about.
It wouldn’t have been hard to have one option for each of capitalist/pro-state, leftist/pro-state, capitalist/anti-state, and leftist/anti-state. That would have captured all modern political alignments, and anything more specific could be another option.
As it stands, that question is totally useless to me, and probably to most other leftists. So any conclusion like “women are more likely to be socialists” will be equally meaningless. Most socialists don’t even consider European social democracies to be socialist.
The current limitation of possibilities doesn’t keep the focus on LessWrong away from politics. It focuses on certain types of politics.
Further, if you’re calling Labor or the Democrats leftist, or the Libertarian party anti-state, you’re just wrong by almost any metric worth caring about.
It wouldn’t have been hard to have one option for each of capitalist/pro-state, leftist/pro-state, capitalist/anti-state, and leftist/anti-state. That would have captured all modern political alignments, and anything more specific could be another option.
As it stands, that question is totally useless to me, and probably to most other leftists. So any conclusion like “women are more likely to be socialists” will be equally meaningless. Most socialists don’t even consider European social democracies to be socialist.