Opinion of educated Republicans?

[Continential]

Plenty of people are unaware that 47% of those with a Bachelor’a degree voted for Trump and 37% of Postgraduates voted for Trump.

[Ferguson97]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

[TheReckoning]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

I think you’re the one with hate in your heart, Ferguson97.

[Ferguson97]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

I think you’re the one with hate in your heart, Ferguson97.

I only hate those who espouse or enforce evil - bigotry, classism, nationalism, climate denial, etc.

[Vosem]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

I think you’re the one with hate in your heart, Ferguson97.

I only hate those who espouse or enforce evil - bigotry, classism, nationalism, climate denial, etc.

I think you're the one who wants to treat rich people and poor people differently, rather than the same. And don't you support affirmative action? (Also, I don't know what is meant by 'climate denial' here, but scientific understanding of how climate changes happen change all the time: in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically.)

More generally, if you think sincerely roughly half the people in your country are 'sickos', my guess is that you have a generalized hatred of humanity, though I think in actuality you're someone who often defaults to repeating cliches rather than putting thought into what you're saying.

[jojoju1998]

I actually know a lot of them.

Dentists, Engineers, Lawyers.

They're very um... classist.

[It’s so Joever]

You can have a college degree and be stupid.

[President Johnson]

Weird poll. Some good, some bad. You can't judge entire groups by a single FF/HP up or down vote.

[Ferguson97]

I think you're the one who wants to treat rich people and poor people differently, rather than the same.

Yes, of course I want to treat people with different needs differently.

And don't you support affirmative action?

Yes, because I support a level playing field for everyone regardless of race or gender.

(Also, I don't know what is meant by 'climate denial' here, but scientific understanding of how climate changes happen change all the time: in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically.)

You know very well what I'm talking about when I say climate denial, so let's just move on.

More generally, if you think sincerely roughly half the people in your country are 'sickos', my guess is that you have a generalized hatred of humanity, though I think in actuality you're someone who often defaults to repeating cliches rather than putting thought into what you're saying.

What's wrong with judging someone by the content of their character?

[Vosem]

I think you're the one who wants to treat rich people and poor people differently, rather than the same.

Yes, of course I want to treat people with different needs differently.

How do these people have different needs? (To quote a cliche/let someone else do my thinking for me, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?")

And don't you support affirmative action?

Yes, because I support a level playing field for everyone regardless of race or gender.

How is giving someone extra shots a level playing field? Your problem here seems to be that level playing fields do not result in draws. (And indeed, 'race and gender' correlate strongly with/provide advantages: in virtually any sport -- I believe with the curious exception of archery -- men perform much stronger than women. Professional athletes in a variety of US sports are disproportionately African-American, and for richly deserved reasons. And, were we to have a level playing field, the top universities at the US would have overwhelmingly Asian-American student bodies, and most or all prestigious white-collar professions would be staffed by many more Asian-Americans than they are now.)

(Also, I don't know what is meant by 'climate denial' here, but scientific understanding of how climate changes happen change all the time: in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically.)

You know very well what I'm talking about when I say climate denial, so let's just move on.

I sincerely don't and would like to hear you define it. If you mean 'denial of anthropogenic climate change altogether', then this position strikes me as merely ignorant rather than evil. If you mean denying that particular efforts to fight it are helpful, or fighting those efforts, then I think this position is also not evil and in fact has some merit to it. I think this even though I sometimes read papers about climate change, which is why I could cite a study from 2022 about aerosols off the top of my head. I like understanding the way that the world around me works.  

More generally, if you think sincerely roughly half the people in your country are 'sickos', my guess is that you have a generalized hatred of humanity, though I think in actuality you're someone who often defaults to repeating cliches rather than putting thought into what you're saying.

What's wrong with judging someone by the content of their character?

Oh, nothing. The issue here is that I suspect there are traits (like a sincere love for capitalism, the only thing keeping us all fed and warm) that I view strongly positively and you view at least somewhat negatively, such that we could see the same person, judge them by the true content of their character, and reach different conclusions. See, I like these characters.

[Steve from Lambeth]

in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically

With COVID-19 lockdowns and increased demand for remote working reducing the number of people in physical offices mingling with others, putting on deodorant and perfume got knocked out of many people's morning rituals. What's the point in smelling fancy if nobody else, not even Joe Biden, can smell you?

[Vosem]

in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically

With COVID-19 lockdowns and increased demand for remote working reducing the number of people in physical offices mingling with others, putting on deodorant and perfume got knocked out of many people's morning rituals. What's the point in smelling fancy if nobody else, not even Joe Biden, can smell you?

No, this has to do with emissions from container ships. To quote the relevant bit of the abstract:

Here we show that even when no ship tracks are visible in satellite images, aerosol emissions change cloud properties substantially. We develop a new method to quantify the effect of shipping on all clouds, showing a cloud droplet number increase and a more positive liquid water response when there are no visible tracks. We directly detect shipping-induced cloud property changes in the trade cumulus regions of the Atlantic, which are known to display almost no visible tracks. Our results indicate that previous studies of ship tracks were suffering from selection biases by focusing only on visible tracks from satellite imagery. The strong liquid water path response we find translates to a larger aerosol cooling effect on the climate, potentially masking a higher climate sensitivity than observed temperature trends would otherwise suggest.

Sulfate emissions from shipping are hypothesized here to have a net cooling effect on Earth's climate, not noticed earlier because of problems with measuring how aerosols interact with cloud cover, which combined with the observed warming both suggests greater sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions but also greater 'sensitivity' to any kind of emission generally, and further suggests (...an opinion I've had for a number of years) that shifting the climate in any particular direction would probably be easier for a motivated actor -- here thinking of rogue states or infrastructure decabillionaires -- than we think. For this reason a great deal of climate policy is probably a silly venture, because in a few decades it will be possible for virtually any government, many NGOs, and many private companies to radically alter Earth's climate if they feel like it. (That said, replacing nonrenewables with renewables is definitely good. But people worrying about their personal carbon footprint are demonstrating a poor understanding of the numbers and science involved.)

[Ferguson97]

How do these people have different needs? (To quote a cliche/let someone else do my thinking for me, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?")

.... You are seriously asking how rich and poor people have different needs?

Rich people never worry about being able to afford rent. Rich people never need to worry about what will happen if they lose their job. Rich people never need to worry about an unexpected medical bill. Rich people never need to worry about whether or not their kid will be able to have a future. Rich people never need to worry about their retirement.

How is giving someone extra shots a level playing field? Your problem here seems to be that level playing fields do not result in draws. (And indeed, 'race and gender' correlate strongly with/provide advantages: in virtually any sport -- I believe with the curious exception of archery -- men perform much stronger than women. Professional athletes in a variety of US sports are disproportionately African-American, and for richly deserved reasons. And, were we to have a level playing field, the top universities at the US would have overwhelmingly Asian-American student bodies, and most or all prestigious white-collar professions would be staffed by many more Asian-Americans than they are now.)

If you believe in the principles of meritocracy and that the races are inherently equal, then you must recognize that racial achievement gaps can only be explained by systemic discrimination and bias in the hiring/admissions process. Affirmative action seeks to close those gaps.

Oh, nothing. The issue here is that I suspect there are traits (like a sincere love for capitalism, the only thing keeping us all fed and warm) that I view strongly positively and you view at least somewhat negatively, such that we could see the same person, judge them by the true content of their character, and reach different conclusions. See, I like these characters.

Well no duh, it turns out that people with fundamentally incompatible worldviews tend to view people differently. Who could have thought?

[T'Chenka]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

[Suburbia]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

Educated staunch Republicans like Yankees general manager Brian Cashman, who yearly sleeps outside the cold winter months to spread awareness about homelessness is a blood sucker?

[Vosem]

How do these people have different needs? (To quote a cliche/let someone else do my thinking for me, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?")

.... You are seriously asking how rich and poor people have different needs?

Rich people never worry about being able to afford rent. Rich people never need to worry about what will happen if they lose their job. Rich people never need to worry about an unexpected medical bill. Rich people never need to worry about whether or not their kid will be able to have a future. Rich people never need to worry about their retirement.

(Rich people obviously do still need to worry about their kids having a future; heredity isn't that strong.)

This doesn't answer my question. You're mostly listing priorities that the rich and poor have in common, like housing and healthcare. Why should we be treating them differently, and trying to hurt one to help the other? (Even ignoring that history shows that this doesn't work, or that these are literally the same people at different points in their lives.) You can say that poor people deserve it more than rich people, but at that point it's hard to say you aren't being the 'classist' one -- which you decried.

How is giving someone extra shots a level playing field? Your problem here seems to be that level playing fields do not result in draws. (And indeed, 'race and gender' correlate strongly with/provide advantages: in virtually any sport -- I believe with the curious exception of archery -- men perform much stronger than women. Professional athletes in a variety of US sports are disproportionately African-American, and for richly deserved reasons. And, were we to have a level playing field, the top universities at the US would have overwhelmingly Asian-American student bodies, and most or all prestigious white-collar professions would be staffed by many more Asian-Americans than they are now.)

If you believe in the principles of meritocracy and that the races are inherently equal, then you must recognize that racial achievement gaps can only be explained by systemic discrimination and bias in the hiring/admissions process. Affirmative action seeks to close those gaps.

I don't think it is remotely true that achievement gaps can only be explained by systemic discrimination. (Frankly, I think this explanation is a totally absurd and non-serious one which can safely be laughed out of the room, and which was invented to keep certain ethnicities, like Asian-Americans, down. Suggesting a secret phenomenon that no one can see, but that everybody in society should be fighting, is similar to alleging witchcraft, and broadly it is a quite normal phenomenon that minorities that society discriminates against are wealthier and have more educational success -- consider Jews in Weimar Germany, or Armenians in pre-WW1 Turkey, or Indians in colonial central Africa, or for that matter Asian-Americans today.) College admissions boards and human resources directors are strongly incentivized to promote underrepresented minorities, who (because they get a boost and are held to a lower standard) virtually always have lower test scores in American universities and professional schools. The lower test scores precede contact with admissions/hiring, and need explanation.

I think there is substantial evidence that cultural factors play a large role (as you can sometimes see in individuals converting religions, or otherwise wholly remaking their lives, and even sometimes in entire communities) for many people. Vox notes the existence of a gap in learning capability -- in their conclusion the authors sort of suggest that studying why such a difference exists is inappropriate because it could be used to strengthen prejudices, but in general we can say that the scientific consensus in psychology since the 1990s has been that personality traits are caused by a mixture of heredity and non-shared environment.

In any case, even if achievement gaps were wholly caused by injustice (though this is really, really not the case), wouldn't it still make more sense to let the highest-achieving people become surgeons and lawyers and financiers and whatever, instead of people who would do worse jobs and are qualified only because of suffering? Don't poor people also benefit if society hires the best surgeons (and stock-pickers and office managers and whatever), and suffer if people are less good at their jobs?

What's wrong with judging someone by the content of their character?

Oh, nothing. The issue here is that I suspect there are traits (like a sincere love for capitalism, the only thing keeping us all fed and warm) that I view strongly positively and you view at least somewhat negatively, such that we could see the same person, judge them by the true content of their character, and reach different conclusions. See, I like these characters.

Well no duh, it turns out that people with fundamentally incompatible worldviews tend to view people differently. Who could have thought?

You asked the question!

[Alben Barkley]

Weird poll. Some good, some bad. You can't judge entire groups by a single FF/HP up or down vote.

I'd argue you can't even judge most individuals by a single FF/HP up or down vote, but that's hardly how Atlas works!

[Benjamin Frank]

Oxymorons.

[dead0man]

Weird poll. Some good, some bad. You can't judge entire groups by a single FF/HP up or down vote.

welllll, you shouldn't judge any specific individual who is part of that group, but you can still judge groups of people for the collective positions they must hold (or are extremely more likely to hold that position than the average person not part of the group) to be part of said group.

88% of Egyptians think apostates should be killed, that's bad.  But you shouldn't think less of any specific Egyptian because of it.  Most Russians (supposedly) support the war special military operation, but we shouldn't think poorly of any specific Russian.  Most Republicans support Trump (or worse), but we should still give the benefit of the doubt to any random Republican you run into.  In my experience, most horrible people don't waste much time letting you know they are horrible people.  Some of them even advertise for us!


(of course there are some groups of people who are 100% "bad people" by definition of their group.  Nazis, being an obvious example.)

[ProudModerate2]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

Even worse, would be those who are "educated" and who voted for trump in 2016 and/or 2020 (and yes, I even mean those who voted for him in the general).
And God forbid we have any "educated" who would vote for him in 2024.

[MarkD]

George F. Will is FF. (Is he still a Republican, though?)

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

Educated staunch Republicans like Yankees general manager Brian Cashman, who yearly sleeps outside the cold winter months to spread awareness about homelessness is a blood sucker?

Brian Cashman is a blood sucking leech, but that's not the reason.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This thread drives home the point that republicans don’t understand the difference between punching up and punching down

[Continential]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

Even worse, would be those who are "educated" and who voted for trump in 2016 and/or 2020 (and yes, I even mean those who voted for him in the general).
And God forbid we have any "educated" who would vote for him in 2024.

45% of “educated voters” voted for Trump in 2020 and presumably 40% would vote for him again.

[Torie]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

Even worse, would be those who are "educated" and who voted for trump in 2016 and/or 2020 (and yes, I even mean those who voted for him in the general).
And God forbid we have any "educated" who would vote for him in 2024.

45% of “educated Republicans” voted for Trump in 2020 and presumably 40% would vote for him again.

45% of “educated Republicans [voters]” voted for Trump in 2020 and presumably 40% would vote for him again.

Would what you actually typed have been so. 

I wonder what percentage of "educated" Pubs ceased to be Pub when the party went hard to the protectionist populist isolationist culture warrior side of the ledger. Let's call it the Torie phenomenon, to pick a voter at random.