Political compass in general seems simultaneously reductionist and not nuanced enough at the same time. If we were going to simplify the current world, I think it'd be more accurate to simply say there is the western empire and its exploitation (and those allied with it) and then there is anybody who opposes that. Within that, you can start getting into nuance like "do they just preach vague stuff about anti-war but cling to the white supremacy dynamic developed over hundreds of years" (e.g. US patsoc, if I'm not mistaken). But even then, if we're understanding imperialism in the right definition, it's like, ok, is somebody opposing imperialism or just opposing, vaguely speaking, some of the international decisions that the US makes. Are they siding with decolonization processes and mindset behind them or are they just wanting to call it quits on the looting and pillaging for now and sit on their hoard.

I have some concern that overthinking the distinctions just empowers a divide and conquer strategy. That it has its place when we are talking about combined theory and practice in an organized manner making sure your developing movement is not being derailed or taken over by opportunists. But if we're talking about personality test style aesthetics, it only waters things down and draws confusing lines.