• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

17 Reasons Not To Slit Your Wrists by Michael Moore

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tritroid

Member
Nerevar said:
Or factual truth. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat. This is an established fact.
Hmm gee, I tend to think the party that's claiming the opposing party is 'stupid' simply because they won is the more ignorant of the two.

'Let's revert back to preschool tactics, that'll show em how educated we are!'

Seriously though, by trying to claim that more than half of America is 'stupid', you're only making yourselves look even worse.
 
Tritroid said:
Hmm gee, I tend to think the party that's claiming the opposing party is 'stupid' simply because they won is the more ignorant of the two.

'Let's revert back to preschool tactics, that'll show em how educated we are!'

Seriously though, by trying to claim that more than half of America is 'stupid', you're only making yourselves look even worse.
You're really stupid if you think even half the people that voted for either Kerry or Bush knew where either candidate stands, thus making both liberal and conservative America stupid.
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
No the reason why people think bush voters are stupid is the reason most of them gave for voting for him.
 

Dilbert

Member
Nerevar said:
Or factual truth. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat. This is an established fact.
This is the source I found the most quickly...feel free to go find more. Before anyone starts pointing out that this data is from the 2000 election...yes, I know. Analysis of the 2004 elections will take some time to generate, and in a lot of ways, this year's race was VERY much like 2000. Just look at that red/blue map...

The Washington Post said:
In the process, some of the nation's best educated and highest income communities have become Democratic bastions, and some of the nation's poorest white counties -- especially in southern border states -- have turned into GOP strongholds.

In 2000, the voters in 17 out of 25 of the nation's most affluent counties -- all with high percentages of people with advanced degrees -- cast majorities for Al Gore, sometimes by more than 70 percent.

In nine out of the 10 poorest counties in Kentucky, for example, places where the Democratic Party of Harry S. Truman ran roughshod over Republican adversaries, George W. Bush won, frequently by margins the mirror image of Gore's in the nation's richest and best educated counties.

These new voting patterns are changing the composition of the House. According to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress of the 88 congressional districts that shifted from Democrat to Republican from 1994 to 2000, 59 had average incomes below the national norm, and in 68, the percentage of residents with college degrees was below the national average.

Conversely, of the 46 seats that went from Republican to Democratic, 29 were districts that had higher than average incomes.

The changes have not produced a full-scale reversal of the two parties' traditional constituencies. In the bottom half of the income levels, the Democratic Party remains strong among African Americans, Hispanics and white union members, while GOP support has swelled among nonunion whites. In the top half, there has been a realignment of white, well-educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics), now one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies. But Republican loyalties have strengthened among small-business men, managers and corporate executives.
 

Tritroid

Member
Doc Holliday said:
No the reason why people think bush voters are stupid is the reason most of them gave for voting for him.
Right, so if you don't agree with the majority of peoples' reasoning behind voting for a certain candidate, they = stupid.

Great logic.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Tritroid said:
Right, so if you don't agree with the majority of peoples' reasoning behind voting for a certain candidate, they = stupid.

Great logic.

I don't think they're stupid. I think they have priorities that are severely out of whack, but not necessarily "stupid."
 

DarkAngyl

Member
Doc Holliday said:
Xsarien, agreed.

Maybe they arent that stupid :)

Just horribly mislead.


Ahhhh...thank you. Now that is a crit that I can accept. :) There are a lot of antiquated veiws and irrational fears, especially about gay people. It's become part of the public perception that giving gays the right to marriage is going to destroy the instition. I'm really not sure how that leap in logic got made, but it is all too prevelant down here.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Spike Spiegel said:
Your source?

Umm, you can google it if you want. I had to do a project on it for statistics in last year, it's one of the most common statistical correlations in the US. Just a quick search, couldn't find this guys source but the data is here:

At the risk of sounding both academic and liberal, let's consider some data. Analysis of the Bush-Gore National Election Survey once again shows the strong correlation between education and ideology. Of the population with less than a high school diploma, there are none who identify themselves as liberal (much less extremely liberal). On the other hand, 26 percent of high school dropouts see themselves as conservative.

If your interest is to avoid liberals or simply maintain conservative beliefs, your safest bet is to drop out of high school. That's because completing the 12th year of schooling has a demonstrably liberalizing effect on the population. Through, perhaps, self selection or as a result of exposure to new ideas, 20 percent of those who finish the 12th grade see themselves as either slightly or moderately liberal (though well less than 1 percent identify as "extremely liberal"). But conservatism still reigns at this level; 37 percent of those with only 12 years of schooling are among the ranks of the conservative.

Thus, apparently, high school teachers merit a measure of suspicion as well, for college simply furthers high school's effect on the attitudinal distribution. It is only among the college educated, however, that we identify a significant liberal population. Of those with a college diploma, 25 percent self-locate left of center. While 7 percent of high school grads see themselves as extremely conservative, only 3 percent of college grads do.

Interestingly, the percentage of liberals falls slightly at the post-graduate level. This is largely explained, however, by the incomes associated with the variation in post-graduate education. If you account for income -- for example, the difference between Ph.D.s who teach and MBAs or M.D.s who earn comparatively enormous sums in the private sector -- the strong positive relationship between education and liberalism reappears.

The problem lies, therefore, not with university hiring practices and certainly not with the evil machinations of liberals bent on ruining our youth. In fact, there is no problem here. The absence of larger numbers of conservative faculty members is, to a great extent, explained by the very correlation between education and ideology. Other explanations might relate to the different choices that liberals and conservatives, especially those with advanced degrees, make about education, careers and income.

Once again, same source as Jinx. But anyway, this also explains the "smarter = more conservative, because you're richer" misconception that many people have
 

Azih

Member
really the trend goes:

The more educated you are, the more Liberal you are. UNLESS you are also extremely wealthy.

What's the breakdown if you just look at extremely wealthy well educated Americans?
 

Cool

Member
DarkAngyl said:
Generalizing an entire area of the country as “Country Bumpkins” is not only asinine, it’s insulting. Oh sure, there are hicks, and rednecks that live in the south. I’m willing to bet you can find them in the north as well. Writing off that many people as a bunch of stupid hicks because a majority of them in the area disagree with you reeks of arrogance coupled with blindness. If you’ve ever been in the South, you know that’s not the way the entire area is. If you haven’t been down here, well then you truly are talking out of your ass.

Speaking of “Country Bumpkins”, have you ever had an extended conversation with any? Some of them just might surprise you. College degrees and high paying jobs in an urban center is not the only signs of intelligence. Some people choose to live in the country because the simply like it better. I grew up in a small town, but live in Atlanta now. I really wish I was back in the small town. Shades of John Cougar, I know. ;)

I live in Pennsylvania in a rather rural area, yes, it is a Kerry state. However going by what these people are saying their stereotypes are not true. Even though Pennsylvania is obviously a liberal Northern state, there are plenty of hicks to go around, in fact they dominate the area I live in.
 
7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan.

This one gave me a chuckle.

The rest....eh.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Cool said:
I live in Pennsylvania in a rather rural area, yes, it is a Kerry state. However going by what these people are saying their stereotypes are not true. Even though Pennsylvania is obviously a liberal Northern state, there are plenty of hicks to go around, in fact they dominate the area I live in.

Pennsylvania was widely considered a swing state though, mostly because the rural population was expected (and did) swing Republican, whereas the urban centers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would be heavily Democrat.
 

Cool

Member
I was talking in correlation to what the one user was saying about North = non-hicks, South = hicks. But, yeah, I see what you're saying. But, a Democrat has won Pennsylvania I believe since 1992 Clinton. Maybe even before that.
 
Cool said:
I live in Pennsylvania in a rather rural area, yes, it is a Kerry state. However going by what these people are saying their stereotypes are not true. Even though Pennsylvania is obviously a liberal Northern state, there are plenty of hicks to go around, in fact they dominate the area I live in.
I believe this. I remember going to camp in the Poconos area, around Wilkes-Barre (maybe? I used to live in a suburb of Pittsburgh), and the area was festering with hicks I haven't even seen the likes of here in Texas. They were that bad.
 

Raven.

Banned
It really is a brilliant move, and hopefully Democrats are paying more attention. I pretty believe this tactic was how my current govenor (Georgia) got in--if the state flag hadn't been an issue I think Roy Barnes would've easily been re-elected.

Maybe there's another reason... :D
Georgia... 159 out of 159 counties... Diebold AccuVote-TS... No voter-verifiable paper with DRE(direct record entry).

30% of all votes
Actually, from what I've read, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote republican, since the more educated you are the more wealthy you're likely to be.

hmmm.... I wonder...

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing"
- Karl Rove, George W. Bush's Senior Advisor and chief political strategist .
LMAO ;) ... Now seriously, ACTIONS DO SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, and when you vote for someone who can barely speak english((Let's ignore the high % who favor creationism, the high % who believe saddam was directly involved in 9 11, the small % who actually believe in REAL evolution, and the like)... your actions speak for ye, and so have the actions of a large number of americans(I don't know the exact figure, lots of imaginary-negative number- voters like to vote on diebold machines :D )

ed
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Divus Masterei said:
Maybe there's another reason... :D


30% of all votes

New York better not ever switch from the old, mechanical booths. There's no computer to screw up, there's no paper ballot to mess up with marks or hanging chads, and the psychology of hearing the click of the innards as you pick your candidates makes you feel as if something, yes, is being counted.

Plus, the Giant Lever of Doom is awesome.
 
-jinx- said:
This is the source I found the most quickly...feel free to go find more.
No, no need. I would like to point out, however, that A) this source mentions that church attendance and religious beliefs are a better indicator of party affiliation than income and education, and B) this source indicates that the modern Democratic party has lost touch with the average American, and the values they hold dear.

Neverar said:
Umm, you can google it if you want. I had to do a project on it for statistics in last year, it's one of the most common statistical correlations in the US. Just a quick search, couldn't find this guys source but the data is here:
I did, perhaps you missed it the first time.
 

Dilbert

Member
Spike Spiegel said:
A) this source mentions that church attendance and religious beliefs are a better indicator of party affiliation than income and education
True. That still doesn't negate the original point, which is that more highly educated people tend to be Democrats.

B) this source indicates that the modern Democratic party has lost touch with the average American, and the values they hold dear.
No, it does not -- you are inserting your own editorializing.

From the article: "Piecing together a majority in this new climate is a difficult task that neither party has mastered. Also, since in that particular election Al Gore won the popular vote, it would not make sense for that article to make that claim.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Spike Spiegel said:
No, no need. I would like to point out, however, that A) this source mentions that church attendance and religious beliefs are a better indicator of party affiliation than income and education, and B) this source indicates that the modern Democratic party has lost touch with the average American, and the values they hold dear.

I did, perhaps you missed it the first time.

I hate to piggy-back on -Jinx-, but what are you talking about? The best indicator of your political affiliation is the political affiliation of your parents, if you want to go there, but that's entirely unrelated to the basic point that the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote democrat. And, as -Jinx- pointed out, you're doing plenty of editorializing to make the data fit your own agenda. Then you quote an article from usconservatives.com? Give me a break. I was merely stating a fact, you're pulling opinion out of nowhere to try and formulate some counter-argument to that.
 
The poorer you get, the more important religion becomes to you.

That said, I don't think urban Democrats are more intelligent, per se; they're just more experienced and knowledgable about the world around them due to exposure to a diversity of lifestyles and opinions.
 
-jinx- said:
No, it does not -- you are inserting your own editorializing.

From the article: "Piecing together a majority in this new climate is a difficult task that neither party has mastered. Also, since in that particular election Al Gore won the popular vote, it would not make sense for that article to make that claim.
Assessing the consequences of these trends for Democrats, Greenberg said: "We lost it downscale and gained it upscale. Progressives need to ask: What is the character of a progressive movement without the aspiration to represent working-class voters?"
At the same time, Democratic gains among upscale and well-educated white professionals are changing the party's political base and its legislative priorities, altering the outlook of many elected Democrats.
A political party caters to its constituents. As the Democratic Party's constituency shifts more towards the upper class members of society, its priorities in legislation shift towards pleasing these individuals, and away from those who do not support them. In this case, that would be the lower- and middle- class American with strong moral values. By courting the elite, the Democratic Party is losing the image as champions of the "common man" that it's held up for decades.

Not to worry, though; Democrats are still highly adept at pulling wool over the eyes of lower-class minority voters. That should help delay the inevitable.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Spike Spiegel said:
By courting the elite, the Democratic Party is losing the image as champions of the "common man" that it's held up for decades.

What is this "elite" that people keep shrieking about? The people who *gasp* actually care about foreign affairs? If there's one political party that is definitely not courting the wealthy in this country, it's the Democrats. They're the ones who want to tax them, and I, for one, agree with that sentiment.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Spike Spiegel said:
Not to worry, though; Democrats are still highly adept at pulling wool over the eyes of lower-class minority voters. That should help delay the inevitable.

Is that a joke, or are you really that ignorant of the policies of the major American political parties?
 

ShadowRed

Banned
xsarien said:
Hey, can we stick to real arguments, not "MICHAEL MORE IS FAT OMG LOLERSKATES!!@!!~!~"?

Please?



Dude you know the answer to this. Can these people ever stick to the real argument?
 
Nerevar said:
I hate to piggy-back on -Jinx-, but what are you talking about? The best indicator of your political affiliation is the political affiliation of your parents, if you want to go there, but that's entirely unrelated to the basic point that the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote democrat. And, as -Jinx- pointed out, you're doing plenty of editorializing to make the data fit your own agenda. Then you quote an article from usconservatives.com? Give me a break. I was merely stating a fact, you're pulling opinion out of nowhere to try and formulate some counter-argument to that.
Oh, you don't like my source? Then what about their source?
 

fennec fox

ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
When will the "I hate middle America" crowd realize that you cannot elect a Democratic candidate without their support? These are not fundies or trailer trash I'm talking about here, and they are not stupid fucktards, but if it makes you feel better to call them names like that, go ahead.

BTW, as one other poster mentioned, this is the sort of Moore writing I like.
 

3kuSaS

Unconfirmed Member
Bush won because sadly America's majority is not the smart, free thinking, compassionate freedom loving induviduals...its the gun nuts,the racists,the selfish and the blind patriots who trust our President no matter what he does.
 

FightyF

Banned
Tritroid, I can easily use YOU as proof of that statement.

And when I say stupid, I don't mean to be offensive, and a better word would be "less-educated" and in many cases "ignorant".
 

Dilbert

Member
Spike Spiegel said:
A political party caters to its constituents. As the Democratic Party's constituency shifts more towards the upper class members of society, its priorities in legislation shift towards pleasing these individuals, and away from those who do not support them. In this case, that would be the lower- and middle- class American with strong moral values. By courting the elite, the Democratic Party is losing the image as champions of the "common man" that it's held up for decades.

Not to worry, though; Democrats are still highly adept at pulling wool over the eyes of lower-class minority voters. That should help delay the inevitable.
The argument you're making can also be levied against the changing Republican base. It used to be that Republicans were interested in keeping government small and fiscally responsible. Now, it seems that they are pulling the "evangelical card" and increasingly supporting an agenda based on the Christian right.

As for the "elite" versus "common man" thing, I'm going to stay away since I don't feel like getting into an argument about how empty those terms are. At least in my experience, the "common" American just wants to have security -- both economic and physical -- and do a little better each year than the year before. The fact the religion has been sold as the most important thing to some of the poorest sectors of America only reinforces Marx's famous dictum on religion.

Finally, I absolutely resent the implication about Democrats moving away from strong moral values...and I'm not even a Democrat. Since when does "strong moral values" equal one PARTICULAR GROUP'S interpretation of what "moral values" ought to mean?
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
002.jpg


Hey, Texas might suck, but 70% of its capital doesnt.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
-jinx- said:
Wow, StoOgE...you're kind of cute, and I like the way you vote!

So, uh, hey baby. ;)

Sorry to disapoint.. but if it makes you feel better Ive printed that photo and am about to embark on a quest to find this woman.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Spike Spiegel said:
Oh, you don't like my source? Then what about their source?

I was referring to a source that adjusted based on personal income, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The source you reference doesn't do that. Based purely on wealth, there is a slight skew towards Republicanism, but it's a much smaller statistical correlation than numerous other factors (like race, religion, or parental party affiliation). When you adjust for income, the more education you receive, the more liberal you are. Your sources don't do that, which is why I was criticizing them.
 
and somehow Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh aren't obnoxious? Give me a break. Moore is much less nasty than many conservative 'commentators".
 

Zaptruder

Banned
IMO.. they should teach some of psychology in highschool, as part of standard curriculum. Scratch the current social studies in favour of *real* social studies. It would give people a much better understanding of how each other work, and also give them a deeper way of thinking about how conflicts occur and how things effect masses of population, rather than... just themselves and those around them I guess.
 

Eminem

goddamit, Griese!
i know it's already been said, but i want to say it again: posts like "Bush won because sadly America's majority is not the smart" are just plain dumb. They didn't vote for your candidate, so they're stupid. Right. Good logic there.

That's the same as a Bush supporter coming in here and saying "Kerry lost because gladly America's majority is very intelligent."

what kind of response would that get out of the posters here? Exactly.
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
Eminem said:
i know it's already been said, but i want to say it again: posts like "Bush won because sadly America's majority is not the smart" are just plain dumb. They didn't vote for your candidate, so they're stupid. Right. Good logic there.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the great majority of American's are indeed of lesser intelligence. George Carlin said it best: "Think about how stupid the average person is; now realise half of them are dumber than that."


The real crime is that the Bush Administration actively courts these people with fear mongering and the questioning of any dissenter's patriotism. Stupid people eat that shit up.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Eminem said:
i know it's already been said, but i want to say it again: posts like "Bush won because sadly America's majority is not the smart" are just plain dumb. They didn't vote for your candidate, so they're stupid. Right. Good logic there.

That's the same as a Bush supporter coming in here and saying "Kerry lost because gladly America's majority is very intelligent."

what kind of response would that get out of the posters here? Exactly.

Look. That's not what we're saying.

We're not calling people dumb for voting for Bush; whatever reasons they might have, religious, financial, etc, etc.

What we ARE saying is that the people, or areas rather that have voted for Bush tend to have lower education standards - reasonably extrapolated to - lower critical understanding as well as informativeness about the government.

I'm sure given half a chance, those people would be as the people in higher urban density areas... but thats just how things are; less people in a larger area; more difficulty providing services to those people, not least including world class education. Hell, even the smart rural people are likely to flock towards major urban centers to make a living as well as recieve better government services.

What is true is that it demonstrates, in the face of overwhelming evidence against Bush as an appropriate leader for the free world (and while this may be a inflammatory statement, it's the simple truth; the evidence is easy enough to find), that a large amount of people don't concern themselves with that, but rather their idea of how their presidential candidate supports or conforms to their chosen values in life; i.e. religion for the most part. Ignoring the fact that the government is best for ALL people when not heavily controlled by religion and that the ability of a candidate to lead correlates very little, or weakly at best with their religious fervour!
Alot of people like to say that liberals are elitist and aren't concerned with the values of the common person; I say to concern yourself with the needs, wants and indeed values of ALL people in the country, you CANNOT be biased towards one group of people (i.e. white male protestant).
Simply put, the baseline of voters in america either do not have the information or care to avail themselves of the information (often both), such that they can make a fair assessment of government policies without a heavy bias for what amounts to 'barracking for their own camp (i.e. their own religious camp). Moreover, just because a certain view may be popular; it's often far from right. Case in point - the flatness of the world in the early 2nd millenia A.D.
While more nebulous than the simple flatness of the world, ultimately some positions are flat-out quantifiably better than others for all concerned, even though it may be difficult to see!
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
You can't gauge intelligence on this kind of scale without it being extremely flawed and skewed towards whomever is adapting it to make their point.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Willco said:
You can't gauge intelligence on this kind of scale without it being extremely flawed and skewed towards whomever is adapting it to make their point.

But you CAN gauge intelligence seperately just as a function of data collection.

And at a later date someone else can come along and use that data and pair it with another set of data to prove a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom