|
United States22883 Posts
On July 06 2010 00:26 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 00:19 Jibba wrote:On July 06 2010 00:12 D10 wrote:On July 06 2010 00:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2010 23:53 Klive5ive wrote:On July 05 2010 23:48 HnR)hT wrote:On July 05 2010 23:41 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote:
Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas. Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world. I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree... Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case. In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism. It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things. I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference, however. When I look at US politics, its really weird, because theres only 2 sides, but the right goes out of their way to look like a bunch of stupid rednecks making politics with the bible, while the left goes out of their way to look like they are actually the middle of everything and a place everyone would like to be, except most people will see it for what it really is, a bunch of cowards making the politics of pleasing everyone and leaving no one happy. Politics is a lot more than about what people say. I wish more people realized it. The institutional forces are often much more important than anything else. Most things are much more of secular, power calculations than you'd realize from just watching the news. What I find weird about US is that there isn't a true "liberal" party. Let me elaborate: On one side, Republican party advocates less intervention on economics, but supports war and tries to make laws against drugs, prostitution, homosexual unions and gambling. On the other hand, Democrats advocate for non-intervention on "moral issues" but would identify more with left wing in terms of economical intervention. All of the above in general terms, I understand there are exceptions. In my opinion, as I like to consider myself, a true liberal advocates for both a free market with a small government that promotes competition on market failures, and a government that doesnt interfere with what people do with their lives, as long as they don't harm others.
I'm going out to eat soon, but you can't really separate "moral" issues from economic ones that easily. It's more about the way the certain policies work. I can go into it more when I get back.
I think the answer to your post is that for the vast majority of people, when someone offers you money, you take it. Neither R or D are exempt from that, and they probably never have been. They just want money for the things that they want. This goes back to the increase in spending during the early half of the 20th century, including groups like Southern Democrats, which people have mythified (?) to make it seem like they wanted non-government intervention. When you look at voting records and look at logrolling, it becomes quite clear that they liked it too.
|
Like many people have said before, I think it is simply a matter of the OP being from the US, which is generally much more ''conservative'' (neoclassical econ/ ''old school'' values) than the rest of the western countries. The internet, being international, allows for the dissemination of mainstream viewpoints which are much more leftwing than the US mainstream even if they would not be particularly leftwing in the writer's country.
Also, the content of the site/video on which comments are being made is obviously a factor.
Besides, the words liberal and conservative are very misleading as somebody mentionned before, it is much simpler and accuate to use the left/right divide, even if it is not perfect.
|
Personally, I don't think that the Internet has become more liberal, but instead, I think that there is somewhat of an equal balance. The reason I say this is because I usually watch political videos from time to time, and most of the time, the comments below reflect the side of the political spectrum the video is. IE, if i watch a video from fox news, most of the comments have a conservative tone to them, and there are usually 1-2 liberal people arguing with all those conservative people.
Similarly with liberal videos, from MSNBC or whatnot, I see mostly liberal comments, with 1-2 conservative users arguing with those people.
If the Internet has truly more liberal, then it may cause some problems when it comes to topics such as welfare, (where imo, I think we should be a little more conservative) because there may be some topics where going the conservative method may work out better than the liberal method, but having a majority liberal mindset might not allow the conservative method to pass.
When it comes to the general view of TL members, I haven't really seen enough people with their views to make a decision on that. (AS for me, I'm not really liberal or conservative, I'm more of a pragmatist, as in I prefer to do what the times call for.)
|
On July 06 2010 00:07 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 23:53 Klive5ive wrote:On July 05 2010 23:48 HnR)hT wrote:On July 05 2010 23:41 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote:
Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas. Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world. I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree... Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case. In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism. It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things. Americans bastardized the terms first, and unfortunately it caught on so most people don't know what they're actually saying. I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference.
The point is the terms are ambiguous.
This debate should stop before it even starts. If you want to argue politics then find an issue with carefully defined stances and take a position; don't waste your time here.
|
On July 06 2010 00:30 Djzapz wrote:
I don't have a source saying that, it would probably be a biased one if I did. (Not that I'm not biased, I encourage you to look into it though)
Look at the prominent scientists, engineers, doctors and businessmen - the conservative/liberal ratio plummets when you reach a high level of education. As an example, Louisiana is very red for instance - it's packed with people who hate "socialism" but they get the most government help to pull through.
By no means is my little research proof of anything but there's an obvious, apparent trend. On the other hand, a conservative person may not view intelligence the way I see it. I value science and education. Somehow it seems that many conservative people don't value science as much as they should and that's very sad. In fact the lack of interest for science is pretty much a conservative trademark in the US. Very big issue.
One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress...
On July 06 2010 00:32 HnR)hT wrote:
"Of course it's completely unrealistic and nigh impossible to uproot and deport the millions of illegal immigrants already in this country, but...."
Wait, why is it unrealistic? It's been done many, many times before, most famously (or infamously) by the German and the Russians during the war. Even Americans under Eisenhower could do it (search "operation wetback"). But now it is suddenly unrealistic?
The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA. Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation? Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans nor is it a problem limited to Arizona, Texas, and California. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities all across the nation.
You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something?
|
Old people tend to be more conservative
Young people tend to be more liberal
Old people, even if they use the internet, likely aren't contributing (i.e. comments / forum posts / etc).
Young people tend to actively contribute more often than their old counterparts
Hence the internet is liberal.
|
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
A quote often said and to an extent, I believe it holds true.
|
On July 06 2010 00:56 SiNiquity wrote:
Old people tend to be more conservative
Young people tend to be more liberal
Old people, even if they use the internet, likely aren't contributing (i.e. comments / forum posts / etc).
Young people tend to actively contribute more often than their old counterparts
Hence the internet is liberal.
I think, for the most part, the internet's (apparent) liberal bias boils down to this. Well, either this or every nation that isn't the United States having users online.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA.
I have trouble following your logic. One could give plenty of other examples of mass deportations of "undesirable populations" in recent history. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey after World War I, the mass expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, the mass population exchange between India and Pakistan along religious lines when Pakistan was formed. The point is, where there's a will there's a way...
Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation?
Is your argument that such measures would be too unpopular and therefore politically unfeasible, or that they just wouldn't work? I thought it was the latter.
Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities. You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something?
I'm not sure what your point is, but it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans...
|
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote:
Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote.
First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition?
Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to
a)not relying on critical thinking
b)complete idiocy as such
|
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress...
It doesn't seem very plausible to me that the prominent "smart" people of our time are more prone to be liberal solely because they've been taught by teachers which overstepped their boundaries. It may play a role in it though, but it didn't happen for no reason. Highly educated people didn't suddenly decide to be liberals. I would argue that people with the mental capability of getting a PhD in biology for instance are more likely to be able to make the right deductions in their mind and I sincerely do believe that liberalism is a system which is better for our species as a whole.
That's not to say the government should "take over banks". Naturally it's easy for me to say conservatives all want to nuke Iran and it's easy to say all liberals want to be legally allowed to marry goats... The fact of the matter is, the healthy middle isn't exactly in the middle (which is subjective either way).
And of course a discussion as a conservative would degenerate into religion (which is a sign of what I'm explaining btw =P) and Bush or at the very least his administration if you're talking to a liberal. Currently, so many people have those ridiculous neo-con ideas which are quite literally dangerous.
I think it's ridiculous to think the reason behind it all is just because the teachers are liberal. Actual academics are packed with liberals for a reason.
|
On July 06 2010 00:56 SiNiquity wrote:
Old people tend to be more conservative
Young people tend to be more liberal
Old people, even if they use the internet, likely aren't contributing (i.e. comments / forum posts / etc).
Young people tend to actively contribute more often than their old counterparts
Hence the internet is liberal.
"If you're young and Republican, you have no heart. If you're old and Republican, you have no brain."
|
On July 06 2010 01:09 cemlions wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote:
Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising. That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously.
2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields.
3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
|
In my experience, conservatives are usually older people who arent tech savvy.
|
Internet is a huge force for the liberal/left ideology, but is a huge danger to conservative/right winged minds.
|
On July 06 2010 01:06 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA. I have trouble following your logic. One could give plenty of other examples of mass deportations of "undesirable populations" in recent history. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey after World War I, the mass expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, the mass population exchange between India and Pakistan along religious lines when Pakistan was formed. The point is, where there's a will there's a way... Show nested quote +Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation? Is your argument that such measures would be too unpopular and therefore politically unfeasible, or that they just wouldn't work? I thought it was the latter. Show nested quote +Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities. You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something? I'm not sure what your point is, but it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans...
My point is that it's unrealistic and impossible not because it's physically impossible, but it's a completely impractical measure that would never pass. Despite the fact that it's technically possible, if it's impractical to apply, it's meaningless. That's like saying that you could theoretically just have world peace by telling everyone to get along. It's also why I feel communism is a stupid ideal and doesn't solve anything (because it requires all of humanity to look beyond itself as individuals).
But even beyond the practicality of such a measure passing, the amount of resources it would take to pull off a mass-purging of illegal immigrants from the entirety of the USA would be absurd...
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 06 2010 01:13 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress... It doesn't seem very plausible to me that the prominent "smart" people of our time are more prone to be liberal solely because they've been taught by teachers which overstepped their boundaries. It may play a role in it though, but it didn't happen for no reason. Highly educated people didn't suddenly decide to be liberals. I would argue that people with the mental capability of getting a PhD in biology for instance are more likely to be able to make the right deductions in their mind and I sincerely do believe that liberalism is a system which is better for our species as a whole.
Another explanation (admittedly not the most idealistic) is that leftwing propaganda and rightwing propaganda respectively target people of different cultural backgrounds. In the Soviet Union, for a long time, the "smartest" people (those with the most education and culture, and also the highest IQs) were the most likely to be fanatical Bolsheviks. And when Hitler came to power on a wave of massive popular support, Germans were the most educated and cultured people in the world.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 06 2010 01:23 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 01:06 HnR)hT wrote:On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:
The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA. I have trouble following your logic. One could give plenty of other examples of mass deportations of "undesirable populations" in recent history. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey after World War I, the mass expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, the mass population exchange between India and Pakistan along religious lines when Pakistan was formed. The point is, where there's a will there's a way... Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation? Is your argument that such measures would be too unpopular and therefore politically unfeasible, or that they just wouldn't work? I thought it was the latter. Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities. You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something? I'm not sure what your point is, but it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans... My point is that it's unrealistic and impossible not because it's physically impossible, but it's a completely impractical measure that would never pass. Despite the fact that it's technically possible, if it's impractical to apply, it's meaningless. That's like saying that you could theoretically just have world peace by telling everyone to get along. It's also why I feel communism is a stupid ideal and doesn't solve anything (because it requires all of humanity to look beyond itself as individuals). But even beyond the practicality of such a measure passing, the amount of resources it would take to pull off a mass-purging of illegal immigrants from the entirety of the USA would be absurd...
That's your view. I just hope you can back at up with reason and facts (I'm not going to ask you to do it here). Personally, I'm not convinced.
edit: The thought also occurs that your reasoning implies that, in a democracy, having unpopular positions is "meaningless" because they would never win the support they would need to get enacted. I think Tocqueville had something to say about these matters 
|
On July 06 2010 01:24 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 01:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress... It doesn't seem very plausible to me that the prominent "smart" people of our time are more prone to be liberal solely because they've been taught by teachers which overstepped their boundaries. It may play a role in it though, but it didn't happen for no reason. Highly educated people didn't suddenly decide to be liberals. I would argue that people with the mental capability of getting a PhD in biology for instance are more likely to be able to make the right deductions in their mind and I sincerely do believe that liberalism is a system which is better for our species as a whole. Another explanation (admittedly not the most idealistic) is that leftwing propaganda and rightwing propaganda respectively target people of different cultural backgrounds. In the Soviet Union, for a long time, the "smartest" people (those with the most education and culture, and also the highest IQs) were the most likely to be fanatical Bolsheviks. And when Hitler was democratically elected, Germans were the most educated and cultured people in the world.
Interesting connection but we both know that, yeah =P it's kind of a funny one
|
On July 06 2010 01:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 01:09 cemlions wrote:On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote:
Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising. That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such 1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded. I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities. I don't think it's correct to assume that just because these people are academics, that their political stance is a result of their education. The majority of teachers in NYC are Democratic and it has little to do with anything other than the size of their paycheck and their benefits...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
