I wasn't the only one that thought it was saying that those with opposite views of yours were less educated. The statement highlighted is just another example of condescending tone. As a critique I would say that you should be more careful of how you word things.
If that offends you, I doubt if you'd last five minutes on certain other forums I frequent. This is the Internet. A thin skin is not an asset. That said, I'll make every effort to tone down my condescension going forward to protect the fragile flowers among us. (And calling a cheeky suggestion a 'critique' doesn't change it any.)
That might be hard to support with evidence. Intelligence and education are not the same things. The problem is taking into account socioeconomic factors. Socioeconomic Status, Intelligence, and the Attainment of Higher Education David Horowitz fan? Kind of ironic claiming people with college degrees are dupes of the campus propaganda. If they are more intelligent, more educated yet not Libertarians, are you dismissing them as brainwashed while you are not? Educational Differences between Self-Identified Democrats and Republicans 2013 I don't necessarily buy the "apparent intelligence" without seeing what the "correct" political questions were. Heaven knows how slanted that kind of measurement can be. I had read previously that Republicans had higher degrees on average than Democrats. Many of the more recent election surveys show a trend toward college educated voters favoring Democratic Party candidates and persons with high school education or less favor Republican candidates. Obama was very popular on many college campuses in 2008. But I'd be reluctant to start declaring Horowitz's paranoia was validated on that basis alone. The fact is universities reflect the populations their students are from. There are plenty of conservative university students. Think about it, every rich Republican is most likely going to send their kids to college. You don't go to college a blank slate and come out a liberal clone. One thing colleges have had in common throughout history and around the world is they can be bastions of change during times of cultural and social upheaval. Rebellions often find outward expression on college campuses. That's the nature of the generation gaps and except for the fact 'conservative' often means resisting change, I don't think the politics on college campuses is as homogeneous as you seem to believe.
Same here. This reminds me of a discussion on a different forum about the meaning of the word "liberal", which went on for a couple of hundred posts.
If they signed up and then dipped out without getting caught, then yes. If they got banned, then no, it doesn't include them. The graphs available to me only ever include open accounts.
I'm 17, high school student from Finland. I'm devout christian and libertarian. I think USA constitution is the best basis for a nation I have seen. I'm at school especially in history. I like telling stories and here you also learn English.
What I found interesting about @Wreybies graph, is how many of our forum members come from the eastern half of the North (and presumably South) American continents. A far bigger number than in the Midwest (Chicago time zone, which is also fairly large.) And the numbers drop even more, the farther west we go. Because this is an English-speaking forum, it stands to reason that the members will largely be drawn from English-speaking regions. But I was surprised at how many come from the Eastern Standard Time zone. I probably skew the demographics a bit. I'm female, and probably one of the oldest members at age 65. I spent the first 37 years of my life in Michigan, and the last 28-plus in Scotland, in the Greater Glasgow area. So I straddle cultures. I have a BA in English from a Michigan university. I have always been 'left wing,' in my political and social views, and I am not—and never have been—the least bit religious. However I don't classify myself as a radical either. Just the kind of person who keeps trucking along. In general, I find my political and social views are more compatible with modern European ones than they ever were with American ones. So I guess I'm in the right place—although I do get terribly nostalgic for the Great Lakes and other physical locations from my previous life. And of course I miss my friends ...a lot! And by gum, I'd kill for a hunk of liverwurst.... One of the things I enjoy most about this forum is the ability to interact with people of all ages, from all over the world. Many with language skills that certainly put mine to shame.
I have come into contact with more 20 somethings and a few 30 somethings here. I haven't come across too many "youngin's" unless they are lying about their age, LOL.
Hmm... is there anyone here at all who's on the right wing of politics? It seems that I've read "left-wing" in every post mentioning politics so far... And, by the way, include me in the left-wing group.
Well, I guess it depends on how fine a line you wish to draw, and if you (the greater 'you', not the you-you) demand that if anything from List A is chosen that all subsequent choices must be from List A and the same for List B. I'm 100% pro marriage equality for my country (which only has partial marriage equality) I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but when it turns into open carry of AR15's into you local residential supermarket, that's not an exercise of a right, but a completely unnecessary uncalled for display of aggression. I am anti plutocracy and anti oligarchy. I support a very strong military. The police is not the military and should neither look nor be tasked as such. Where do I lie on the leftie/rightie line, I ask you?
I don't exactly know what Komposten means with left/right but aren't they traditionally separated by economical opinions.
The Left/Right divide in politics can be summarised as being Socialist Economics/Capitalist Economics, but there is generally a whole bucket-load of optional extras that are typically obligatory, depending upon which side of the Economics fence you sit. Wreybies has demonstrated how misleading it can be to lump all of those attributes into one category or another. Typical items for the Left bucket are usually about personal rights, as compared to the rights of big business. I'm guessing that Wreybies' support of marriage equality fits here, along with his anti-plutocracy, anti-oligarchy stance. Typical items for the Right bucket are usually about the rights of the wealthy to choose what to spend their money on. I'm guessing that Wreybies' support of gun ownership fits here, along with support of a strong military. If I've misrepresented anything or anyone, please correct me. .
Maybe I should have formulated my post a bit differently, so it didn't sound so black and white (like you either are a leftie or a rightie). My point was that it seemed a lot of people around here said they mostly belonged on the left side of the scale, and I wanted to see if we had any people from other parts of it (including mixes between different parts of the scale). And no, I can't say where you fit on the line. And it is only partly due to my not knowing what plutocracy, oligarchy and the 2nd Amendment are. The other part is that I believe no one has a single place on the line, but various spots for all different aspects/points that can be distributed along the political spectrum.
I have the nice median age of 30. I have my degrees, both B.A. and M.A. in English and Creative Writing. I grew up in the rural, upper Midwest near the Mississippi. Went to school along its banks, and there I still reside. I hate politics, love history, outside of American post-civil war into the modern era, and believe people should be free to marry were they will. My grandmother calls me an old soul, the modern era holds no allure for me. I don't tweet, I don't skype, I don't have a smart phone, I have never taken a selfie. I enjoy the slower way of life of my old river town and the history it holds. I read almost constantly to get away from the insanity that is the political areana right now. I didn't have a niche, so I made my own.
A plutocracy means that a small group of the most rich rule the land. A plutocracy has the power to silently wrest the governmental power from the the de jure government and become the de facto government. I try to stay away from terms like free market or capitalism or socialism (though I'm discovering I'm a pretty strong socialist) when talking about this topic because there is a tendency to believe that plutocracy is inextricably tied to a capitalist system, that it's only seen in that kind of economy, but this is not true. In the last decades of the Soviet Union, the holotype for communism, there was an undisputed plutocracy, a soviet "1%", while the rest of the people kept getting poorer and poorer on the whole. The plutocracy of the Soviet Union is usually referred to as an oligarchy, but in this case both words apply. Any economic system can give rise to a plutocracy if it's allowed to happen. An oligarchy is kinda' the same, but it's not necessarily tied to money. The prime example of an oligarchy is a rule by royals and nobility, but a police or military state can also serve as a good example of an oligarchy. Brazil is a good example.
@KaTrian and I fall somewhere in the middle. E.g. our beliefs about the issues @Wreybies listed are very similar to his except we're even more pro 2nd amendment: we wouldn't carry AR15s to grocery stores, but we definitely wouldn't mind if someone else chose to do so since we don't see it as a show of aggression or anything else fundamentally bad, only as flawed tactics. If it had more tactical benefits than faults, we'd do it too. That is, if we lived in the States in a shall issue state instead of the fake democracy that is Finland. Some of our beliefs in no particular order: -we appreciate social security, a safety net especially for the young disabled who haven't worked long enough to gather a disability pension large enough to support them -we hate the whole culture of banning everything that the ruling class deems potentially dangerous or harmful, like private ownership of firearms (especially concealed carry for personal protection), cannabis, violent or erotic entertainment (movies, video games etc) etc. -we believe in "free" education, including university studies, meaning school shouldn't cost anything beyond what you pay in taxes (plus study materials of course, but those costs will drop once computer-based study models become more widespread) -we want harsher prison sentences for violent and sex criminals and at least no better conditions for them than they already have whereas tax evasion and such (i.e. stealing from the government) shouldn't have worse sentences than murder (yes, in Finland, stealing from the government will likely get you a harsher sentence than murdering someone or e.g. raping a child) -we are individualists and root for as much individual freedom as possible, i.e. anything should be legal and allowed as long as you don't harm or actively bother other beings -we think armed service should be compulsory for all men and women over 18yo -we believe in complete equality among sexes, races, sexualities etc. -we support free enterpreneurship And so on. I think we both agree on all of the above, but of course Kat can and will correct me if she disagrees on one point or another.
I joined this site last week. About me: 37 Male White Master's degree Unemployed (just left 14-year career in education) Married (open relationship and straight) No children (against children, actually) Agnostic (leaning towards atheism) Libertarian (though generally unconcerned about politics) City dweller (Philadelphian) Hermit (no car, no mobile phone, no credit card, no facebook/twitter, rarely seen out of my apartment) I haven't paid attention to the age, gender, or race of other members. I've just been interested in what they've written, and what they'll have to say about my writing.
I agree with most of your points but this one I strongly disagree with. This is a subject for a whole new thread but let's just say that I'll be wearing foot collar in few years.
