Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Daily Mail Readers are Thick, Says Daily Mail.
2012-02-04 12:20:16
edited 2012-02-04 12:20:16 in IJAM
I am Dr. Ned who is totally not Dr. Zed in disguise.
Comments
The idea of a bunch of Daily Mail readers spluttering into their tea at this is pretty funny.
I seem to recall the Today programme doing a piece on research like this around last Christmas. They had Colin Firth as guest editor for the day, and I suppose he must think right-wingers are thick too.
Oh lawdy, guess dat beez troo.
It sure is!
I think that the fact that they equate racism and homophobia with "right wing" or "conservative" views says a lot about the neutrality of the study, or lack thereof.
Right wing is independant from conservative in some respects, but equating racism and homophobia with conservative is not far from the mark, nonetheless.
Peeze lern me da wayz of been taller-ant an' inteller-junt, mistah vander-o
Doz it b relating to da accumulation of power and funds by a strong central government, superseding my country's current Federalist system?
Essentially, conservative policy argues against the systematic alterations that would fight against racism, sexism and homophobia at a base level.
So please, tell me how you'd stop racism, sexism and homophobia. I'd be interested in hearing how you can stamp out beliefs through legislation.
EDIT: Also, you'll have to be able to tie it to fiscal conservatism, as that's a right-wing belief as well.
>Is offended that study correlates resistance to social change with conservatism
>Puts on mock black accent
Really helping your case there, bro.
I'm putting on a stereotypical Southern accent with elements of Cockney, you racist. Why, do you automatically assume that just because I'm using poor grammar and bad spelling, I must be imitating black people?
Grow up.
Socialism, in a word.
By redistributing wealth (or removing the concept of wealth entirely), economic barriers between races, creeds, genders and sexualities would be shattered. With the breaking down of economic barriers comes the breakdown of social barriers, too. Essentially, the white, straight male would no longer be more economically powerful on average than any other individual and their social position therefore would carry no inherent power.
There's no such thing as an instant solution, but I firmly believe that social change follows economic change, and equivalence in one will lead to equivalence in the other.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that most people in America would be opposed to all-out wealth redistribution.
I dunno. Last I heard, 53% of the population could be considered poor. I reckon that's 53% of the population that might be in favour of redistributing wealth.
They would be oposed to wealth redistribution because they are either rich people who don't want to lose their priviledges, or the indoctrinated masses that opose that because they fell for the promise that they can, with hard work and perseverance become the rich people.
53% also has some amount of pride. They don't want you handing them things that they can earn themselves. They don't want success handed to them on a silver platter.
If someone came up to me and told me that they'd take another guy's money so that I could live a comfortable middle-class life without having to work for it, I'd tell them to fuck off and die.
>Mammy accent, even up to using 'mistah'
>No, actually is Southern accent with elements of Cockney
Failed a Bluff check. If we have to choose between: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#Other_grammatical_characteristics
or dissect it into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English#Phonology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney#Cockney_speech
Which one would be the more obvious?
With that, I'm out. I have better things to do on a Saturday eve than linguistics.
Isn't pride the deadliest sin?
edit: critical refresh failure
^^^^ I don't think you telling us what 53% of the USA's population would do with the prospect of wealth redistribution is intellectually honest, Hatter.
Besides, it's not something that would ever happen on a singular basis. Redistribution would have to be systematic.
Plus, you seem to be working under the illusion that financial wealth is a measure of merit or validation. Which is pretty much what guys with a shitload of cash would really love people to believe, but money is a subjective human construct.
Thumped.
>I want independence
>Probably relies on parents to get through college, possibly worsened by choosing degree that isn't chosen out of job prospects
Also:
>why an utterance might be racist, with no implications about the overall persona
>responds with accusation of person being racist, which is a useless tactic since it can never effectively be proven
Money that I'm very grateful for, and that my PARENTS gave me. I also don't have direct control over it.
Also, I'm choosing the degree that helped my dad achieve his financial success, with the intent to care for my parents after they retire.
@Hatter ITT:
Why, why why?
So, why can't the state be a big parent and give to those who need it?
>Query into whether or not opponent in question has a job/does resumé building in free time instead of leisure activities
>Cliché response to concept of nanny state:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_Day_In_The_Life_of_Joe_Conservative
>Wonders where the hell the Hitler sockpuppet is after invocation of Godwin
Because my parents didn't give me a college education by taking my brother's hard-earned money and giving it to me.
^ If you're going to try to greentext, at least make your text green.
^^ Because I'm not a stranger. I'm their son. They love me. I love them. They've given me a lot, and I want to give back to them. If they don't want my help when they're old and decrepit, I won't give it to them.
Hatter, I think one of the issues you have is that you have an adversarial world view. You value things like "pride" and economic advantage and the like, but such things are obsolete under socialist economics. Because so much resource surplus is produced, there's no reason for competition to exist. Currently, world industry produces enough food to feed the entire human population a few times over. Why, then, do people starve, and why do we even pay significant money for food?
We currently have the economic and industrial power to create a world where no-one goes hungry and where everyone sleeps safely with a roof over their head, with clean water, medical supplies and access to advanced technology. It's the competition created by the capitalist system that slows progress towards a world of equivalence between all people, and it's conservative policy that ensures matters remain as they are.
That's essentially why conservative policy is discriminatory. Via the system it supports, the majority of white people live comfortable lives with ready access to most of their needs while people of other races commonly suffer under inferior social and economic conditions. When conservative policy dies, the dominance of capitalism will eventually follow. Once capitalism is disempowered, the combination of resource surplus and the lack of competition for financial reasons will mean that said resources can be much more evenly distributed.
>Implying you wouldn't wave their sentiments due to them being 'old and stubborn', and with your fear over their wellbeing overriding the respect for their independence
>Also, privileged peeps talking about having pride in hypothetical situations they've never been in