Conservative admits smart people not Conservative

Page 3 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

16 Apr 2014, 1:43 pm

Wikipedia describes Santorum as a "devout, practicing Catholic" and if so, then he should listen to what several Popes have said since the 1950s.

My particular favorite quotation is from Pope John Paul II in 1996

Quote:
New knowledge has led to the recognition that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.


Most anti-evolution people don't know there are multiple independent lines of evidence all pointing to the same reality. Even if we had never found any fossils, none at all, once we discovered DNA and started comparing the DNA of different species we would have figured out evolution happens. The genetic evidence (and there are several different types of that) is the strongest of all and the least known by the general public.

But back to the subject of this thread, conservatives are known more for denying demonstrable reality than liberals are, although both parties will deny reality if it suits their agenda. Conservatives do seem to be a lot dumber than the average person when it comes to understanding how science works and what evidence actually exists about certain subjects, mainly because they are LIED to by sources such as Creationist websites (some of the most blatantly dishonest websites on the internet) and Fox News.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

21 Apr 2014, 10:20 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Actually, self identified Tea Party activists tend to have a higher rate of intelligent and educated people. It also has a higher concentration of wealthier people. Intelligent and wealthy people are much more likely to favor the elimination of business regulations, transparency, and government oversight as well as promoting religionover science. It is good for business.




Well actually, intelligent people who are:
A)not wealthy
B) not businessmen
C) A and B + understand economics
are far less likely to support teabagger political views because they understand that such things are not in their interests. You see, I maintain that the political views of sane, intelligent, and educated people are those that are in line with their actual needs(and wants) rather than what they might find intuitively appealing. There are more intelligent people statistically than there are wealthy people. I've even met intelligent people who live in poverty(a homeless PhD mathematician!). Business regulations protect consumers, employees, as well as those affected by what businesses actually do. Businessmen oppose taxes and regulations because those 2 things are not in their financial self-interest, but since I'm an employee I favor them because I recognize that employers have the following incentives: Milk as much labor from their employees as possible and pay them as little as they can get away with.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

21 Apr 2014, 10:46 am

Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
Well actually, intelligent people who are:
A)not wealthy
B) not businessmen
C) A and B + understand economics


Part C is the crux of the problem. There are plenty of well educated people who have a severe lack in understanding of economics.
In addition, the Tea Party also tends to attract the type of person who is certain that they are going to make it big no matter what.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 599

21 Apr 2014, 11:43 am

A quick question:

Why use one word - "regulation" - to refer to restrictions on market competition, and another - "conservatism" - to refer to restrictions on social competition?

True, most people will never beat out Elon Musk, but most men won't be Don Juans either. Most women won't find Prince Charming no matter how many times they roll the marital dice. Most of those people support sexual liberty and no-fault divorce.

Apply the same rational lens to all three - money, sex, relationships - and you might find the same things:

Deregulation opens up opportunity for a small number of people with sought-after qualities (useful or not), but it forces everyone else to compete harder. Regulation limits some opportunities, but it offers stability.

People like the same misconduct and the same fantasies, just in different places :D



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,339
Location: Aux Arcs

21 Apr 2014, 1:21 pm

[img][800:734]http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u660/2lucky4snuffy/1921f0a0fed91db3bed15e0e426e02fa_zps683ff4dc.jpg[/img]


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Apr 2014, 3:53 pm

Yet another myth disproven. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 599

21 Apr 2014, 4:05 pm

Oh, come off it :D

Democrats have plenty of their own dimwits. Sure, they're less likely to believe in Noah's Ark, but they're more likely to believe in astrology, UFOs and various brands of animism.

When I was working as a Democratic organizer, we had a heck of a time convincing our base that we needed to cut local government debt. We were five years into the post-bubble economy, four years into a nasty war, and we weren't slashing government. Most of it came from higher taxes. They'd talk about how awesome countries like Norway are, then fight tooth and nail against the fiscal policies needed to pay for government, let alone build up a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's.



jkrane
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 737
Location: 39uqlksdj3ujadlskd

15 Jun 2016, 11:11 am

The smartest people I know are conservative.

I don't have a single liberal in our family.

Except my grandmother, but she wasn't really liberal, rather she'd say,"I vote liberal, because the devil you know, is better than the devil you don't."



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,338
Location: Long Island, New York

15 Jun 2016, 12:50 pm

Looking down on non progressives as inferoir intellectually and morally seems to be the center of the progressive world view. I am not saying every progressive feels this way many don't but from reading columns, comments sections and forums in the last 20 years it has been rare to see this idea not expressed often. At one time liberals actually looked up to working class people, wanted to help them, logically try convince them to change the views instead of name calling.

People have figured out they are bieng looked down upon and politicians have used that to get elected and pass laws that are an anathema to progressives. Trump is only an extreme example of the consequences of making people feel looked down upon. Even if the American people decide Trump has gone too far and do not elect him the resentment won't go away. I can defintly see a scenario where the progressives feel validated in their feeling of superiority and double down fueling more resentment and trouble later because people will be hurt. And if Trump is elected the elitists can curse the stupidity of the American public while the agenda is now the exact opposite to what they want and people get hurt. While they might be at least partially right, despite how smart they think are they will not understand how they were as factor in creating this situation.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

15 Jun 2016, 1:06 pm

At one time, 'working class' generally meant progressive. But that was a very different time. Unions existed in substantial numbers and balanced the power of the investor class. Now it's not unheard of for unions to be managed by...the same law firm that is retained by the corporation or corporate owners. Also, while working class people were afraid of an outside enemy (ie USSR & their nukes) , they actually led fairly cushy lives. Home + 2-car ownership was in reach and even expected, as was a good salary and a guaranteed pension when they grew too old to work.

Definitions & words change over time, though. "Working class" once meant anyone who lives off wages or salary. "Capital" class meant those who lived off invested money. Over the last generation, people have been trained to believe that "working class" is the same as "menial labor" or "service industry"; Working class has been equated to "lower class". Middle class has been sort of redefined as "almost investor class" and Upper Class as the capitalists. A side effect of this created an assumption that "progressive" values should only be held by the working class, which came to mean lower class only. It was a nifty slight of hand worthy of any good street grifter, as now the upper working class has allied themselves with the capitalists and will vote against their own interests.

Oh, and while "conservative" vs "liberal" thinking does appear to have some biological components (but mostly learned values), intelligence does not appear to correlate with either. Then again "intelligence" can be seen as a very narrow measure of privilege, so the numbers are not all that useful either way.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,338
Location: Long Island, New York

15 Jun 2016, 2:31 pm

Edenthiel wrote:
At one time, 'working class' generally meant progressive. But that was a very different time. Unions existed in substantial numbers and balanced the power of the investor class. Now it's not unheard of for unions to be managed by...the same law firm that is retained by the corporation or corporate owners. Also, while working class people were afraid of an outside enemy (ie USSR & their nukes) , they actually led fairly cushy lives. Home + 2-car ownership was in reach and even expected, as was a good salary and a guaranteed pension when they grew too old to work.

Definitions & words change over time, though. "Working class" once meant anyone who lives off wages or salary. "Capital" class meant those who lived off invested money. Over the last generation, people have been trained to believe that "working class" is the same as "menial labor" or "service industry"; Working class has been equated to "lower class". Middle class has been sort of redefined as "almost investor class" and Upper Class as the capitalists. A side effect of this created an assumption that "progressive" values should only be held by the working class, which came to mean lower class only. It was a nifty slight of hand worthy of any good street grifter, as now the upper working class has allied themselves with the capitalists and will vote against their own interests.

Oh, and while "conservative" vs "liberal" thinking does appear to have some biological components (but mostly learned values), intelligence does not appear to correlate with either. Then again "intelligence" can be seen as a very narrow measure of privilege, so the numbers are not all that useful either way.


"Working Class" become poor. Why did this happen?. Conservatives for the most were always anti union although they did make alliences with conservative unions such as the teamsters. What changed was that most wings of the Democratic Party began to see them as the problem, the Clinton wing as greedy for not wanting to make concessions to compete with other countries and the progressives as greedy, privileged, racist neanderthals standing in the way of progress.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Jun 2016, 3:37 pm

To apply the term progressive to the working class I don't think is correct, while these people might be in favor of unions and government assistance and other stuff progressives support they never accepted "progressive" social values and have remain personally quite conservative. Progressive social values have gone completely wacko cuckoo, political correctness is suffocating this country and the people naturally are resisting. Most normal people are not ideologues, they vote based on economic or social/cultural self-interest so they are malleable in terms of how to accomplish this. Democrats have moved away from the working class to the corporate donor class, environmentalists, and divisive identity politics all of which pretty much directly oppose the interests of American working class. They have become the dominant party of capital, the party of Wall Street.

This is why Trump scares Democrats so much since economic nationalism is good for the working class while globalism is how these big huge corporations how screwed the working class for decades now, Trump is not an ideologue on social issues and is rebelling against this totalitarian political correctness. Trump wins with your pocketbook, he wins at foreign policy, he promises to be a warrior for the American people which the special interests are at war with. There will be a realignment, American political parties have always shifted in terms of internal factions but the reality is that GOP electorate liked what Trump had to say and his stances on the issues more than what the GOP was offering. Trump essentially ran as an independent in the GOP primary, they rejected the party platform straight up because there is no way Trump would have survived all that he has survived without that.



Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

15 Jun 2016, 5:02 pm

Over time, the specific grievances or needs of the progressives have changed depending on the era. But the progressive label itself has historically been associated with those who do not possess as much wealth or power. Specifically, because they were more apt to want change in the way things were done. The "have nots" if you will (specifically compared to those who owned the corporations/companies/means of production). The "haves" - Capitalists, generally, in our culture - held power and so wanted as little change in that respect as they could get away with.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Jun 2016, 5:59 pm

Jacoby wrote:
To apply the term progressive to the working class I don't think is correct, while these people might be in favor of unions and government assistance and other stuff progressives support they never accepted "progressive" social values and have remain personally quite conservative. Progressive social values have gone completely wacko cuckoo, political correctness is suffocating this country and the people naturally are resisting. Most normal people are not ideologues, they vote based on economic or social/cultural self-interest so they are malleable in terms of how to accomplish this. Democrats have moved away from the working class to the corporate donor class, environmentalists, and divisive identity politics all of which pretty much directly oppose the interests of American working class. They have become the dominant party of capital, the party of Wall Street.

This is why Trump scares Democrats so much since economic nationalism is good for the working class while globalism is how these big huge corporations how screwed the working class for decades now, Trump is not an ideologue on social issues and is rebelling against this totalitarian political correctness. Trump wins with your pocketbook, he wins at foreign policy, he promises to be a warrior for the American people which the special interests are at war with. There will be a realignment, American political parties have always shifted in terms of internal factions but the reality is that GOP electorate liked what Trump had to say and his stances on the issues more than what the GOP was offering. Trump essentially ran as an independent in the GOP primary, they rejected the party platform straight up because there is no way Trump would have survived all that he has survived without that.


I dunno... I think it's a mistake to assume that a whole swath of the population holds one or another particular set of social values based solely on social class. My dad was a working class guy, and union member, and he was for the most part a social liberal, as were friends he worked with, but there were others my dad knew who were conservative Republicans.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,048
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

15 Jun 2016, 8:15 pm

Was William F. Buckley Jr. smart or not?


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Jun 2016, 8:37 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Was William F. Buckley Jr. smart or not?


Oh, he was. But he could also be a jackass.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer