Being poor and idolizing the rich.
That’s by design
Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
Coping mechanism for the poor, they can’t admit they’re at the bottom and so it feels good to put other people down for nonsense reasons
Or it can be a strategy. A white sharecropper is just as poor as a black sharecropper, but the white sharecropper has a higher place in society.
💀
Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say “what a twat” but doesn’t necessarily reflect poor education.
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
Sometimes my friends laugh at me for how little I know about pop culture. I laugh back though. I wouldn’t say I’m proud of it but it’s just funny.
Being proudly ignorant of everything is bad. I will respect people who know they don’t know things though, you can’t know everything about everything. It’s why people generally specialize in a field in an industry.
Right-wing politics
People judging people’s level of intelligence based on how they lean politically, for me.
You’re right. A right-winger doesn’t always adopt a right-wing ideology because of low intelligence. Sometimes, they adopt right-wing views just because they’re evil instead!
I guarantee you hold right wing views on certain things.
I can’t think of a single thing in which I hold right-wing views on, but do enlighten me; if you know enough to guarantee such a bold claim, I’d like to hear it.
How are you going to solve Afghanistan?
The US was trying to “solve” Afghanistan through violent means which not only have failed for 20 years, but the conflict of today has been stoked even earlier by the US financing the current terrorists and calling them “anti-Soviet freedom fighters”. So no, a right wing answer to the conflict has been proven by history to be utterly idiotic and only beneficial to american capital.
Did you really cite Afghanistan, of all issues, as the point that you’d be able to sell to me that I hold a right-wing view on? I knew the bar was going to be low, but not this low.
It should be a nice challenge for you. How are you going to solve Afghanistan? has a long, complicated history, with many parties from different political ideologies ruining the nation.
like?
Now I know why you don’t have any friends. People aren’t low iq or evil just because they have a different opinion man.
I’m so fed up with the “different opinion” justification. “It’s just my opinion” isn’t a defense. Nobody said you can’t have your own opinion. It’s just that, often times, the content of an opinion can indicate low intelligence or evil intentions. For this nuance to be lost on you, there is something seriously fucked with your capacity to reason and comprehend words, so I’m going to assume that you full well know this shit, but you just want to be bad faith.
It’s that their ‘opinions’ are of who should or should not have rights, for me. And the fiscally conservatives who are the exact same thing but with extra steps.
If you choose a perspective that outwardly chooses to harm people, and you are not of low intellect, then you are simply choosing to harm people. That is evil. Choosing to bring harm to people over other alternatives is wrong, bad, and as an ideology, evil.
You just gave me a new one: “people who refer to someone’s political opinion as “evil” just because they don’t personally agree”. It’s not like we’re discussing Nazis here man.
But we are? Right-wing ideology consists of Nazism, among other things. That’s where I generally make the distinction. People who are moderately right-wing are typically so out of ignorance, but those who go further to the right into things like Nazism and fascism, then that’s when they’re just outright evil.
So the same could be said about the left-wing ideology because it “consists” of Leninism? How is this making any sort of sense to you?
This response is a gross oversimplification, and it isn’t the point you think it is. It makes a lot more sense to me because the premise of left-wing ideology as a whole isn’t overwhelmingly abhorrent whereas right-wing ideology’s premise is. What you’re arguing is a logical sequence that is impossible for me to connect, as the problems I have with Leninism are not the same as the problems I have with Nazism. Yes, you could argue that both Leninists and Nazis take a more authoritarian approach to executing their ideology, but stay on focus here. I may not agree with the methodology that Marxists and Leninists use for their method of achieving communism, but that’s not the primary problem I have with right-wing ideology in the first place. I have the same goal as Marxists, Leninists, and Marxist-Leninists; there’s just a different approach on achieving it. The caveat here is that I don’t agree with right-wing ideology at all, to an extent where I find the goals of the right just as abhorrent as the means they’d operate under to achieve them.
The original point I was making is that right-wing ideology stems from ignorance and/or a lack of human decency. In no way does me saying this contradict with the notion that Leninism isn’t on the same degree as right-wing ideology in this sense. The reasons why right-wing ideology, in my view, stems from ignorance and or evilness are not applicable to left-wing ideology whatsoever.
In simple terms, right-wing ideology is not strictly evil because of its approach, but its entire premise is fucked in my worldview. Left-wing ideology, no matter what methods it undergoes to achieve its logical conclusion, doesn’t align with the premise of right-wing ideology because, otherwise, it obviously wouldn’t be left-wing at that point anymore.
So, let me point the question back at you: how is this making any sort of sense to YOU?
Just because Leninism is an extreme ideology, doesn’t mean the point that you’re trying to sell makes any sense. My fundamental issue with right-wing ideology isn’t extremism or authoritarianism.
Don’t bother arguing with them, they’re from sh.itjust.works. Probably a right-wing douche.
Well said! Although I doubt the the guy has enough critical thinking to understand what you’re saying.
Leninism is good, actually.
Come to Lemmygrad, we can teach you a thing or too. Just adhere to the rules.
just because they don’t personally agree
I hate this cowardly bullshit right wingers use to make themselves feel oppressed. If I say you’re a wretched animal who doesn’t deserve human dignity, and you say I’m wrong, I could point it right back at you. Fuck off with that. What are the disagreements? This isnt a water cooler talk about a TV show, this is the life, suffering and death of millions. Yeah I don’t personally agree that the poor and hungry should die on the street while rich fucks hoard houses, and if you think otherwise, I’m completely comfortable calling you evil, because you are.
The face of right-wing politics is wedge issues and conspiracy theories. It’s not as if people are being judged for believing in a smart conservative fiscal policy because that is no longer something the modern Republican party represents.
That’s a gross blanketing.
Yeah, no it’s pretty fair assessment of the party. You as an individual may have different beliefs, but your differing beliefs don’t represent the party and their rhetoric.
FFS the ex president convinced a mob of people that the election was rigged and they stormed the Capitol Building looking to capture/kill the legislators who were confirming the results. If a republican president of the United States doesn’t represent the republican party then who does?
Oh, American Conservatives.
Americans, pleeeeease, say if it’s America or not before making such statements.
You can probably actually do this reliably in cases where those political views work against the persons interests. It’s not like people voting against their own interests is an uncommon phenomenon.
It’s very possible to vote against your own interests for the good of society though- a billionaire might vote to increase taxes on himself, for example.
One of the many issues with the majority of right-wing voters in the US is that the votes they cast are against both their best interests and the interests of society, and that’s what makes them evil and/or stupid.
The irony.
What’s the irony here?
Thinking that someone without a formal education is somehow beneath you.
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
It’s in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
It’s sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I think it’s more narcissism than education. People who are educated can still not care about the environment and preserving public spaces.
Hmm, I can see what you mean. “I just don’t care”
“That’s why cleaners exist right?” “We are giving the cleaners something to do” “This is not my public space”
The sort of thing people would say when you ask why do they do this.
I’ve seen all sorts of people. People who throw rubbish out from their Mercedes sedan. People who throw their plastic containers onto the sidewalk from the motorbike while waiting for the green light.
Funny true story. A colleague of mine was having a smoke with a Japanese guy who was visiting our country on a business trip.
My colleague threw the cigarette butt onto the floor after finishing. The Japanese guy went to pick up the cigarette butt that my colleague threw on the ground, and threw it into the dustbin nearby. My colleague never felt so embarrassed seeing him do that.
That’s why I think it’s education and upbringing.
Not being able to entertain ideas. “What would the world be like with 100% renewable energy?” “Would basic healthcare for every person help our country?”
I tried to explain the 4 day work week to someone that gets paid by the hour. You make the same money but work 4 days a week instead of 5. Insisted he got paid less. Had to explain like a Bingo card with a Free Space, 1 day he is paid even if he stays home.
I don’t know if that’s necessarily wrong of them. There isn’t any precedent for hourly workers to be paid when they’re not working. The “four day workweek” as described simply means that any time over 32 hours a week is overtime. Hourly workers in general don’t really have a “workweek” anyway because they will often have multiple jobs or will work whatever shift they can pick up that works with their schedule.
They understood how the 4-day workweek works based on how the 5-day workweek works. I think maybe you need to listen more to them and try to understand your own proposition better.
When companies voluntarily implement 4-day workweeks, they are literally either cutting 8 hours or doing 10-hour shifts. They do not pay for hours not worked.
If you can’t understand that 40 hours a week can be accomplished in 4 days instead of 5 days, than you are an idiot. It has nothing to do with your life experience. Its simple math.
So here’s what I’m talking about, we have a legally mandated 8-hour workday. It’s not implied that you’re changing that to a 10-hour workday.
Also, if you’ve never worked a 10-hour day, maybe you don’t quite understand how much harder than 8 hours it is for most people- because fatigue compounds faster than a linear rate.
So someone who is paid hourly and assumes you’re retaining the 8-hour workday isn’t likely to understand how they’re getting paid for 40 hours while working 32.
And literally everything has to do with lived experience. Listen to people and try to understand their position. Being educated isn’t the same thing as being intelligent and knowing how to understand different perspectives.
One of the main ideas behind the 4 day work week is that workers have become much more efficient, but with no compensation for that increase in efficiency. A worker in 2023 is going to get a lot more work done in the sane 8 hours than someone in the 70s/80s due to increases in technology, automation, software, etc.
Pair that with the fact that the lions share of profits head upwards in business (ie, CEO/management compensation has increase way more than hourly workers), then it stands to reason that we can afford to pay those workers that extra day if we equalize the pay increases across the board instead of concentrating it in the ownership.
That doesn’t explain at all how a waiter who is being told to work 32 hours instead of 40, or 10 hour shifts instead of 8, is making more money or is otherwise better off.
If there’s another policy like raising the minimum wage or UBI that’s required to make this work, it should be stated.
I think it’s good to note that while some of this is a failure to develop critical thinking, failure to entertain hypotheticals is OFTEN a trait for people with differing cognition. So don’t assume they’re poorly educated just from this, take it as a sign that the person thinks differently.
I’ve met and am friends with people who struggle with hypotheticals and education isn’t the problem, just how their brain works.
Also, some hypotheticals don’t consider the inherent problem of a situation or ignores context, and therefor aren’t worth entertaining. Not all, just some. When that happens it’s best to explain why the hypothetical doesn’t work, which I suppose is entertaining it.
Because he’s an hourly worker he’s in the hourly mindset. You’d have to say your hourly rate would go up but only if you worked 32 hr/wk.
I like the idea of the 4 day workweek and would absolutely advocate for it, but I’m not sure how I personally would be affected by it. I do rotating 12 hour shift work to operate a power plant. I flip between 36 and 48 scheduled hours, 5 to 5 flipping between days and nights with a few days off between to flip my sleep schedule.
Would my OT start after 32 hours instead of 40? Would my company hire more people to schedule me between 24 and 36 hour weeks as a result? Because I’m not sure they’d be down with paying 4 hours OT on the cheapest weeks of my labor, and 16 hours OT every other week. So they probably have me work less, but does this result in a one time 25% raise and then fall off over time as no further raises come?
Idk, I would be fine either way because of how I budget, but I think these are valid questions that most hourly workers should be concerned about. I don’t think it’s such a simple concept, and companies will almost certainly find loopholes to exploit to fuck us like they did for the ACA.
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist…
That’s unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren’t scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
I would think it’s more about knowing how to trust it. See some news article about “This study said X”, don’t take it as fact. See a study that has been done numerous times by different groups that corroborate a result and you can have a much higher degree of trust in it. There is a reason the scientific method is a continuous circle, it requires a feedback loop of verifying results and reproducibility. The current issue is clickbait headlines getting the attention, people see it’s “Science” and blindly trust it and it becomes a religion like any other.
What do you mean by “trusting in science”? Science isn’t meant to be trusted, it’s meant to be verified.
Given the reproducibility crisis occurring right now, nobody should be “trusting” in science as a matter of course- we should be verifying the decades of unverified research and dismissing the unverifiable research.
We fucked up the entire field of Alzheimer’s research for nearly a quarter century by “trusting in science”. We still bias towards publishing new research in academia over reproducing existing research. Science has a big problem with credibility right now and saying “oh just trust in science” isn’t the solution.
Ok, but I do not have access to labratories or ways to run my proper experiments. Am I supposed to just stay on the fence about everything that I can’t personally test, or should I trust in the consensus from the scientific community regarding stuff like climate change, virology, etc.?
The proper scientific answer to that question is not to trust or not trust. You should absolutely do your own testing, whether that means asking good questions of the experts, reading the existing research carefully, up to and including reproducing the experiment yourself where practicable.
If an experiment is impossible to reproduce, then you should be asking yourself what good its results are.
That is an impossible standard for folks to live by. I can’t do that, and neither can you.
When I say I “trust in science” I’m talking about the process and the method. Which means I trust the results when people follow that process. i also trust that the answers may change if there’s new information, because that’s part of the process.
I don’t have the equipment to perform all those experiments. Even if I did, I wouldn’t trust the results because I don’t have the education to set up, run, and interpret an experiment more complicated than improving my chili recipe.
So, in much the same way that I trust a mechanic to fix my transmission and a.plumber to fix my pipes, I trust a scientist to follow the scientific method.
That’s what “trusting science” means.
I trust a scientist to follow the scientific method.
The scientific method isn’t an epistemological framework, it’s a framework for practicing science.
And what part of what I said made you think I don’t know that?
I’m aspedantic as anyone, but at this point you’re being antagonistic. Either you legitimately don’t know you’re doing it, or you’re intentionally trying to make people feel stupid. But you definitely know what people mean when they say they “trust” science.
Please stop. You’re making pedants like me look bad.
Why assume I’m being pedantic? The social media landscape is littered with “I fucking love science” clickbait, “amazing nature” accounts that are literally AI generated photos, hell, the entire fields of evolutionary psychology and nutrition ought to be a wholesale indictment of our contemporary scientific establishment.
This isn’t pedantry, I am serious as a heart attack.
Trust in the process of Science, not its insitutions.
The irony!
unfortunately my dad who has a diploma in engineering and is working in that field for probably 30y now is still prone to it.
Whoever spread those conspiracies should die a slow and painful death to experience a fraction of what they brought on to a lot of families and friends.
Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
^ this right here
How…
Scientists don’t have opposing views on thats specific thing*. It’s an example used right up there with thinking the earth is flat.
One completely discredited study linked the combined MMR vaccine to a new, made up gastrointestinal disorder. That disorder was supposedly linked to autism. The guy who ran the study had financial ties to a company that manufactured a measles vaccine separate from MMR. He had a financial motive. He paid children for blood samples at his kid’s party and bragged about it. He’s a monster responsible for every death caused by the measles since his evil, fake, completely made up study came out.
You want to know what makes a person seem ignorant? Being anti-vax or buying into the abject nonsense that ASD is caused by vaccines.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
Being a conservative
and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.Could’ve stopped it there, the rest is implied.
I see you’ve met my neighbors.
The fuck?! Oh boy…
Oh boy…
That’s what he said.
In my personal experience conservatives are more likely to be pedos, it’s just they are all hypocrites.
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers…
Racists benefit from worker’s rights too.
Not when they vote for parties that fight against workers’ rights
Priorities, right?
Which party shut down the rail union strike?
Fair enough.
Which party supports Right to Work laws?
Yeah yeah, Republicans are objectively worse for workers.
Don’t pretend like the other party is pro-worker, though.
A toolbox generally belongs to one person. I see it on people’s lockers too.
💀
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn’t really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
Since we are rating if a person is racist or not based on the actions/words of the person they voted for, isn’t everyone who voted for Biden racist as well?
People who voted for Biden, yes. Establishment liberals are almost unanimously racist. However, most of Biden’s votes were actually votes against the overt, unapologetic racist, rapist, and pedophile on the other side.
Maybe it’s a sticker war? Unions vs Trump?
Being a baby. What do they even know?
Parents feeding their baby cola in bottles and smoking while pregnant are two things that usually cause me to make assumptions
Smoking in general. An expensive habit of self-harm for short term “feels good.”
You’d be surprised how many PhD-holders do coke/meth.
And to get rid of the craving for a bit. I say this while smoking a fag (glad I can say this without risk of admins banning me). I should probably quit l.
If you knew saying that word could cause pain in others, why would you say it and further celebrate it? OP may not have meant their question this way, but your comment is how I identify people with poor emotional intelligence.
Because it’s not a slur, it’s literally the word for a cigarette and that’s it. I’m not celebrating anything I’m just glad I don’t have to go back and edit my comments to avoid a completely unwarranted ban.
In the English speaking world, it is a slur regardless of whether or not you use it as slang for a cigarette. Do you really believe that using a word is more important than making sure others don’t feel marginalized? Emotional intelligence is partly about empathy and using that to recognize harmful behavior. A sign of maturity and positive personal growth is realizing that your behavior causes others to feel unwelcome and correcting that behavior. It’s fortuitous that, in a thread about signs of poor education, we are having this discussion. Criticisms are learning experiences, not made with malice; malice is purposefully saying something harmful and celebrating it. Will your life truly be ruined by substituting that word so you don’t accidentally hurt someone?
In England it is literally the word for a cigarette. I don’t know what to tell you, most people call it that here. It has no relation to the slur and has different origins. Next you’re going to tell me I can’t have faggots and mash for dinner tonight because you might cry.
Also how inconsiderate of the bbc for using the word faggot on one of their own YouTube channels https://youtu.be/pVHbWHGVYaU
Do you see this often?
My cousin was taken off her mother because of the cola thing.
More times than I can recollect
My baby likes it though, and smoking is better than me injecting. What more do you want?
taking Ayn Rand’s work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn’t going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
What Objectivist is that moral?
That’s actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn’t be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I’m not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That’s it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
It’s not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of “dark triad” traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That’s a hard problem to solve.
That’s pretty much what I meant, or at least an aspect of it.
“Asshole” is an umbrella term for me that means every anti-social behavior or more general, behavior against the spirit (not the text!) of whatever ideology you’re implementing.
Whether your system fails because one “dark” person can manipulate 100s to do bad things for him or 100s of persons do small bad things every day doesn’t really matter at the end - the system failed.
So you have to find a way to reign this behavior in. Psychopaths react similar to every other person, just way more extreme.
💀
In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
How does that differ from the current way things are done? (especially in the US)
Largely it doesn’t. There are some boundaries, like minimum wages and maximum working hours, etc. But according to the hypercapitalists, even those minimums are already undue influence by the government.
I think capitalism is the outlier there. Some atleast expect knobheads but the free hand of the market or something is supposed to take them out of business.
But it doesn’t seem to expect “knobheads” manipulating the hand.
💀
Not understanding the marginal tax rate.
I see so many educated people not realising this. The maths involved is something we learnt in ~ 5th grade, and I distinctly remember doing exercises on marginal rates in primary school in maths class. It’s even simpler than compound interest - which is a staple of maths class later on.
Yet so many people say there’s a problem with the education system that it doesn’t teach practical skills like these. It clearly does, kids just don’t remember it. Maybe it’s because they don’t need to use this knowledge until almost a decade later.
I don’t remember ever having done this in school. In any case, the math is easy, yes. The hard part is knowing the rule that the government put in place for taxing you, and that’s something you just have to know. You can’t logic your way to it.
Not using smooth functions for tax calculations.
deleted by creator
In the words of System of a Down, should’ve been, could’ve been, would’ve been, would’ve been you!
I know I’ve found a great community here if this is the top answer.
Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve
You wouldn’t’ve.
💀
