spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Pretty much the latter.
Exactly how and why did you establish that all those people are all below average when it comes to their intelligence level?
Pretty much the latter.
I would say educate them, but they don't want facts and reality. They just want to live in their cult of the orange thing. I don't know how you get through to them when they don't want to hear the truth.OK. So 77 million people are below normal intelligence. What, to coin a phrase, is to be done?
Well I was trying to establish what breadandcircuse meant by the term, so I offered that as an option and they said “pretty much [that]”. So I have to assume that is what’s meant.Not necessarily stupid need not be a relative term.
They worship the thing. Enough said on their intelligence levels.Exactly how and why did you establish that all those people are all below average when it comes to their intelligence level?
Not much you can do if you write off a sizable chunk of humanity as dumbells. If the argument was about people's ignorance or being duped, I'd have a bit more sympathy with it. Capitalism breeds and encourages ignorance, and relative ignorance (especially of our own class interests) is what keeps the machine ticking over. Some parts of the US have developed the cultivation of ignorance into a fine art but no country's working class is immune either.OK. So 77 million people are below normal intelligence. What, to coin a phrase, is to be done?
I hear the tinkling of broken glass. Are you experiencing a sudden draft?They worship the thing. Enough said on their intelligence levels.
There is certainly something that needs to be looked at to explain why people vote for Trump. If for the sake of argument we just go with they are dumb, it doesn't automatically follow from that that they would support Trump but understanding why they do support Trump is part of getting them to stop.Well I was trying to establish what breadandcircuse meant by the term, so I offered that as an option and they said “pretty much [that]”. So I have to assume that is what’s meant.
If it isn’t, then as Bernie might say, I am asking again, what?
I work in HE so pretty typical at the momentWhat are they doing to make things worse for you all (if that won't identify who you actually work for)?
How does that show I'm wrong? Doesn't it agree with my point that the rise in inequality preceded Trump?It depends how you measure it but these people basically say (for various reasons) you'd be wrong.
As Trump and Harris Tout Their Economic Records, What Do the Numbers Say?
Wealth inequality cannot be attributed to either a Biden or Trump presidency — it is an endemic problem in the US.truthout.org
Both make the point that,
The issue cannot be attributed to neither a Biden nor Trump presidency; wealth inequality is an endemic problem in the U.S. Since 1979, household income growth has skewed heavily toward the top.
By the way, do you think Spoonamore is a reliable source, and if so, what is your estimation of his trustworthiness based on? Do you think he's right about the 2004 election being rigged?I would say educate them, but they don't want facts and reality. They just want to live in their cult of the orange thing. I don't know how you get through to them when they don't want to hear the truth.
There's a communication problem here. I'm saying that politics is not about parties, voting and similar chaff, that politics is about people interacting with each other, the relationships of labour, capital and state and you're telling me that lower voter turnout indicates that people are not engaged with politics. I'm suggesting that voting isn't politics.Voter turnout is not fantastically high in the UK and not really on the increase. What's further key is how engaged they are beyond the headlines and punchy slogans. We're busier than ever, and our attentions spans in this increasingly fast moving western lives, not exactly growing. I think you're at odds with reality here slightly, if, you are suggesting there's perfectly enough engagement of the public in politics, in the detail, in voting. I would equally challenge that apathy is not a big issue in the UK. It most certainly is, and it also isn't on the decline, therefore de facto it's an issue needing addressing.
Yeah - that is the point. The huge damage done to society over the past 40 years hasn't been carried out by the hard right it has been Neo-liberalism that has created such increase in inequality.As for making an argument that Labour and the Tories are worse for delivering inequality than Reform. At that point I again question your good faith here. Reform have obviously never been in power. The vast majority of the time Labour or Conservatives have run the country. So of course only they can have been the worst for inequality, because they are the only ones to have been able to have done it.
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here.I'm not up here saying Labour are the solution, but we're not going to make headway by telling people they are all bad, all exactly the same, there's no levels, are only hope whatsoever is PR and X party or X party. That's a) too complicated a message, b) depressing, c) unrealistic a target, and d) trying to achieve step 37 in your aims when steps 3+4 aren't even remotely close to being achieved.
Indeed, it’s a conundrum alright.I would say educate them, but they don't want facts and reality. They just want to live in their cult of the orange thing. I don't know how you get through to them when they don't want to hear the truth.
It's not really possible to be educated out of being unintelligent, so if stupidity is the problem, education wouldn't be any kind of solution.I would say educate them, but they don't want facts and reality. They just want to live in their cult of the orange thing. I don't know how you get through to them when they don't want to hear the truth.
Exactly.It's not really possible to be educated out of being unintelligent, so if stupidity is the problem, education wouldn't be any kind of solution.