> Your whole argument is "my side is right about everything so it's not biased to just program everything to agree with me"?
That's not my argument, at all, and it's annoying that you're making a deliberate caricature of what I said.
I'm not saying "my side is right about everything". And perhaps "valid" was a poor word choice from me - I don't mean to imply some choices are correct by a manna from heaven or something.
But if you look through the dustbin of history, you see, at the very least, that there are political movements from history that we now see nearly universally as "bad": fascism, Nazism, pro-slavery parties, etc. Even defenders of those ideologies usually defend them with falsehoods ("the Holocaust never happened"), but nearly nobody defends some of the actual consequences of some of those ideologies.
So I'm arguing that this methodology treats all political viewpoints as "deserving of equal validity", when our own human history shows that to largely be a bad idea.
Long before you made this argument Asimov had already seen the same thing
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’"
Unfortunately when a person buys into an ideology they become blind to its ignorance and end up arguing on discussion forums.
the problem with the US political compass is that this is so far right that even the US left is right of centre. If you aim to build an unbiased model it will therefore seem to preference the party closer to centre.
Like 99% of political viewpoints don't have objectively right answers. If there were, there would typically not be disagreement.