'Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers', says study

Dudess

You and others dismiss people who are miles to right of the Marxist left though, they're just not as blind right-wing as is your preference.

I see you've acknowledged though that white, hetero, middle-class, western males aren't actually oppressed.

Eric Cartman

Dudess wrote: »

You and others dismiss people who are miles to right of the Marxist left though, they're just not as blind right-wing as is your preference.

I see you've acknowledged though that white, hetero, middle-class, western males aren't actually oppressed.

please tell me who i have dismissed who would identify themselves as left leaning and why - honest question

and Ive never denied that being a white straight male is about as good as it gets really, and Im glad of it, but when you look to left wing media sources , blogs, newspapers - if theres somebody to blame its always the white straight male or rich people.

Dudess

Well if a person doesn't accept claims like "the blacks" get free houses and cars, it doesn't mean they're PC, it just means they'd prefer to dig deeper and consider individual circumstances. Ditto single mothers. Ditto people on the dole. And so on. Just putting thought into things, trying to be fair. You don't have to be in the least bit PC to look at things that way, you don't even have to be left-wing. The very same people who think along those lines might be concerned about immigration levels due to the state of the economy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

please tell me who i have dismissed who would identify themselves as left leaning and why - honest question

and Ive never denied that being a white straight male is about as good as it gets really, and Im glad of it, but when you look to left wing media sources , blogs, newspapers - if theres somebody to blame its always the white straight male or rich people.

I think you'll find it depends on how they got rich. i.e., via greed and corruption or hard work. No one (except the extreme left, maybe) begrudges hard workers, whereas the greedy and the corrupt get their fair share of criticism.

As far politcial leanings looking to appoint blame: how do you explain Fox News blaming the staight white male again. Only difference is, the straight white males in the case tend to do inconvenient things like protest or highlight greed and corruption.

K-9

Its a bit of a severely restrictive term, libertarians as a good example are even more economically right than Tories or Republicans, as in the US version, but extremely socially liberal, more so than SF or the old Labour parties of the 80's.

Then you've right wing economic posters who'd agree with "left wing" social policies but nowhere near Libertarians.

44leto

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I would imagine your father was satisfied, earning a wage, which entitled him to feed and clothe you, your mother, and your siblings, whilst also entitling you to an education. An aspiration, and achievement, of most mixed-economies in the OECD between the fifties and the seventies.

But, of course, you're right. Twin totalitarianism (much closer to capitalism) with communism, and by association with socialism.

I await your argument. I wonder will there be one of these :rolleyes: in it.

Most totalitarian despots, as in, the really vicious ones were more associated with socialism it is what Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all were in political parties with the word socialism attached. So no very few despots are capitalist, with the exception of modern China and Russia.

Capitalism works, western socialism works when an economy is wealthy, India was a prime example of what socialism achieves in a poor country, not much, but it has turned its back on that system and become more capitalist, it is now one of the emerging superpowers and a growing economy with a growing middle class.

Logical Fallacy

44leto wrote: »

Most totalitarian despots, as in, the really vicious ones were more associated with socialism it is what Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all were in political parties with the word socialism attached. So no very few despots are capitalist, with the exception of modern China and Russia.

Capitalism works, western socialism works when an economy is wealthy, India was a prime example of what socialism achieves in a poor country, not much, but it has turned its back on that system and become more capitalist, it is now one of the emerging superpowers and a growing economy with a growing middle class.

There is no point in judging a despot by the title they give themselves.

Plenty of "Communist" states have existed, yet none have actually practiced a true communist system. If anything most of them have engaged in a form of extreme capitalism but without assorted tenants that ensure the far treatment of the worker...which is grand as they are not a democracy so who gives a ****?

Personally i like capitalism as it's practiced in a democracy but it also has some major flaws. No real point in pretending it works just fine when the majority of capitalist countries have had their holes kicked for the last few years.

K-9

44leto wrote: »

Most totalitarian despots, as in, the really vicious ones were more associated with socialism it is what Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all were in political parties with the word socialism attached. So no very few despots are capitalist, with the exception of modern China and Russia.

Capitalism works, western socialism works when an economy is wealthy, India was a prime example of what socialism achieves in a poor country, not much, but it has turned its back on that system and become more capitalist, it is now one of the emerging superpowers and a growing economy with a growing middle class.

Yeah, India is a great example, as is China!

Posters have explained the Hitler, Stalin etc. thing to you on countless threads and yet, here you are, on a thread about right wingers being less intelligent that left wingers! Still arguing the same position as you did 6 or 12 months ago.

I love the irony.

It's parody right? One of those internet laws you want to prove? Right?

44leto

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, India is a great example, as is China!

Posters have explained the Hitler, Stalin etc. thing to you on countless threads and yet, here you are, on a thread about right wingers being less intelligent that left wingers! Still arguing the same position as you did 6 or 12 months ago.

I love the irony.

It's parody right? One of those internet laws you want to prove? Right?

Then educate me what is socialism. Define it if you can, show me this socialist high IQ.

later12

44leto wrote: »

Then educate me what is socialism. Define it if you can, show me this socialist high IQ.

There is no single definition of socialisim, obviously; no more than there is a single definition of the predominantly capitalist model.

Asking for a blanket definition is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string.

Dudess

From what I know, it's about half and half when it has come to capitalist/socialist tyrannies. I use the terms loosely because these are not the sum totals of the ideologies on which they have been built.

K-9

44leto wrote: »

Then educate me what is socialism. Define it if you can, show me this socialist high IQ.

You've been educated before on this, so I'm sorry 44leto, no disrespect meant at all, you've been told this sooooooo many times, it really is up to you to go and read about it. You wont catch the ghey, you'll be grand!

Maybe stop reading conservipedia for a start!

I'm going to ask a question here, what is your definition of right wing?

44leto

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

There is no point in judging a despot by the title they give themselves.

Plenty of "Communist" states have existed, yet none have actually practiced a true communist system. If anything most of them have engaged in a form of extreme capitalism but without assorted tenants that ensure the far treatment of the worker...which is grand as they are not a democracy so who gives a ****?

Personally i like capitalism as it's practiced in a democracy but it also has some major flaws. No real point in pretending it works just fine when the majority of capitalist countries have had their holes kicked for the last few years.

Capitalism is not perfect but neither is democracy both systems only work because they are dynamic and they can adjust to situations, they are not absolutely rigid, they can change. Social capitalism as practiced in Western Europe was a response to communism, even holidays, the closer a country was to the old Iron curtain the more holidays the workers enjoy. Its why Germany have the most and "perhaps" why the USA have the least.

The capitalism practiced in China and Russia is a pure form and to be frank it sucks, its almost anti human just like extreme socialism or communism. It was Victor Havel the Czech dissident who went on to be the countries first post communist leader who said Communism is against human nature,,as I believe extreme capitalism is.

But I know I have benefited from the capitalist system as all us in the wealthy west has, we owe that wealth to that system. We borrow, we get stuff, we work, we pay it back with interest. Any spare capital we invest for pensions ETC. But the thing about free markets is they have to be regulated and controlled, because of our nature, the regulation is were it failed. But I have little doubt it will rise again, there are no alternatives.

44leto

K-9 wrote: »

You've been educated before on this, so I'm sorry 44leto, no disrespect meant at all, you've been told this sooooooo many times, it really is up to you to go and read about it. You wont catch the ghey, you'll be grand!

Maybe stop reading conservipedia for a start!

I'm going to ask a question here, what is your definition of right wing?

So you don't know...OK,,as I suspected.

K-9

44leto wrote: »

So you don't know...OK,,as I suspected.

And I could deduce you don't know what right wing is, or a rather afraid of defining it.

Put it this way, the more and more I look at left and right wing economic policies, the more I see they end up at the same, roughly the same place, still blaming the other on how it got there!

Socialism to me is Labour of the 80's, in both the UK and here. Been rejected here and the UK. Right wing would be the Tories and Maggie, since rejected as both sides move to the centre.

44leto

K-9 wrote: »

And I could deduce you don't know what right wing is, or a rather afraid of defining it.

Put it this way, the more and more I look at left and right wing economic policies, the more I see they end up at the same, roughly the same place, still blaming the other on how it got there!

Socialism to me is Labour of the 80's, in both the UK and here. Been rejected here and the UK. Right wing would be the Tories and Maggie, since rejected as both sides move to the centre.

After the French revolution the right wing use to sit on the right of that short live parliament to try stop all the Utopian ideas of the left wing who sat on the left. And there it began (John Grey Loosely quoted).

Even today the right wingers tend not to believe in any type of fairness achieved through what they perceive as Utopian societal loaded ideas. They believe largely in your own effort. So it is individual rights over societal rights. But off course you have to have a bit of both for a functional society, so we are all really pragmatists, but on the left or right of that.

Maggie was also quite a Utopian she believed in creating an entrepreneurial Britain of which people could buy in to the private market for health, pensions etc.

Labour in the 80s was a disaster, to spite Maggies unpopular policies she still got 3 terms.

K-9

44leto wrote: »

Even today the right wingers tend not to believe in any type of fairness achieved through what they perceive as Utopian societal loaded ideas. They believe largely in your own effort. So it is individual rights over societal rights. But off course you have to have a bit of both for a functional society, so we are all really pragmatists, but on the left or right of that.

Nothing wrong with individual rights, combine it with say Romney and his activities, it's all about huge profits and if none are seen, close it down. Or maybe outsource to China and moan about American uncompetitive policies and blame Obama, handy out for greed.

Maggie was also quite a Utopian she believed in creating an entrepreneurial Britain of which people could buy in to the private market for health, pensions etc.

Indeed, privatising will solve all ills.

Labour in the 80s was a disaster, to spite Maggies unpopular policies she still got 3 terms.

Sure I already said it was.