[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52213622]it's because the kind of people responsible for these tests are exactly those people who failed to actually replicate their scientific results or pretend to know how economies work
the idea of having a voting test written by intellectual idiots in order to vote /will/ make education worse and concentrate power in the hands of "intellectuals"
here's a better idea for anybody who wants there be to an exam so you can vote - if you're going to implement a test for voting, make it so you can only vote if you do deadlifts
the voter anti-intellectualism as of late isn't surprising when you consider that a lot of intellectuals are idiots[/QUOTE]
here's a shocker for you: smart people aren't dumb
dumb people might try to trick dumber people into thinking that they're smart, but this can usually be avoided if you aren't an idiot
if a quack doctor says that wiping your ass with sandpaper is good for your health he's not an intellectual, and your bleeding asshole as a result of taking his advice doesn't mean smart people are dumb either
[QUOTE=Winded;52211384]It's a good thing to keep in mind. Life can be kind of soft for a lot of people in western countries, and people take democracy for granted. But democracy does not work if people do not participate in the democratic system. People have fought and died in history for what we assume as "normal life" for our entire life so far. All we have to do is think before we vote.[/QUOTE]
Actively engaging is also a good idea - democracy is more than voting and shouldn't (but often does) end at the ballot box.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52212369]America does not have the best-designed democracy. It's easily excusable - it was one of, if not the first, modern democracy, and they were bound to get a few things wrong. Further, America now is larger than the founders could ever have envisioned - the current executive branch has as many employees as Washington's America had population.[/QUOTE]
this is what i believe the problem is, in such large countries you need to give the state governments more power. you can't get a party that represents the best interests of a nation that is like 10 million km in area, with a third a billion people.
well while you clever-sillies are busy signalling to the populace of FP just how much more [I]intelligent[/I] you are than everyone else and suggesting the peons be subjected to tests before they are allowed to vote, you seem to have forgotten that a large part of the reliable voting base for the democrats is 80-95 IQ and lacking in higher education, and would likely be barred on the grounds you are proposing.
No, screaming at me won't make this any less true.
I'm going to hazard a guess that the professional politicians understand politics and how to win better than you do no matter how obscene that suggestion seems because of one anomalous election.
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
furthermore, the test itself would become something to be [I]gamed[/I]. It wouldn't reflect your ability to vote intelligently per se, at all, but rather just become something you study [I]for[/I] just to be able to vote for the people you were going to vote for anyway
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52212369]America does not have the best-designed democracy. It's easily excusable - it was one of, if not the first, modern democracy, and they were bound to get a few things wrong. Further, America now is larger than the founders could ever have envisioned - the current executive branch has as many employees as Washington's America had population.
Unfortunately, one of the things they got wrong was making the system too hard to change. And American democracy is good [I]enough[/I] that nowhere near enough people are willing to throw out the entire thing and start over, which is really what you'd have to do to change the system (witness: replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was done outside the framework of the Confederation). Then there's the familiarity effect - a generation that fought a war to replace a distant monarchy with a representational democracy is of course more willing to throw that out and try again than a generation whose oldest living relatives never met anyone who was alive without America being a country.
There are mechanisms to change the system from within, but they require a very, very large effort to succeed. Granting the vote to non-white non-males took a huge effort. We need to put that same level of energy towards changing the vote system away from FPTP, to fixing our education systems, to bridging the wealth gap.
There's no magic-bullet solution here. It's going to take a lot of effort by a lot of people over a long period of time.[/QUOTE]
We have an [I]awful[/I] democracy, in part due to our origins as a confederation of states. The existence of the U.S. Senate is incredibly undemocratic. Every [I]state[/I] gets two senators, regardless of population, meaning that the nearly 40 million citizens in California have the [I]exact same[/I] Senate representation as less than half a million people in Wyoming. First-Past-the-Post locks us into a rigidly two-party system, making representation totally binary and meaningless. The two-party system incites partisanship, encourages gerrymandering, and actively discourages cooperation between parties. Voting for individual candidates, rather than party platforms, overemphasizes personal charisma and whittles primary competitions down to popularity contests.
The U.S. needs significant structural changes if it wants to continue to call itself a democratic state. There's some grounds-up efforts to fix structural issues in places like Maine, by implementing new voting systems that eliminate the spoiler effect and by eliminating the winner-takes-all horseshit on the federal level. But any actual, concrete change on the federal level requires massive cooperation between parties, and our system actively discourages that kind of cooperation. There isn't a chance in hell that we'll see a constitutional amendment change anything substantial unless the GOP or DNC folds and one party holds an absolute 2/3 majority.
[QUOTE=Jund;52213728]here's a shocker for you: smart people aren't dumb
dumb people might try to trick dumber people into thinking that they're smart, but this can usually be avoided if you aren't an idiot[/quote]
being an intellectual doesn't necessarily mean you are smart
if dumb people weren't allowed to vote (rather than just the uneducated), then this would already automatically exclude half the university population at least
[quote]if a quack doctor says that wiping your ass with sandpaper is good for your health he's not an intellectual, and your bleeding asshole as a result of taking his advice doesn't mean smart people are dumb either[/QUOTE]
if he manages to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal then he's usually held up to be one
the point is that I don't trust the academic establishment to produce the voting test - it would obviously be designed to benefit themselves
If voting was done by university degree then I couldn't vote.
If it was done by property ownership (as it was historically) then most of my generation could vote.
If you take away peoples rights to vote then don't be surprised when they turn all revolutionary... or in modern language terroristy.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52211383]Well, he's referring to "you" the people, not "you" the individual.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately the take away from that is that I don't matter and I have no control? What's the point in engaging your critical faculties in the end if it makes no fucking difference?
(I am [i]partially[/i] playing devils advocate here.)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52213823]being an intellectual doesn't necessarily mean you are smart
if dumb people weren't allowed to vote (rather than just the uneducated), then this would already automatically exclude half the university population at least
if he manages to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal then he's usually held up to be one
the point is that I don't trust the academic establishment to produce the voting test - it would obviously be designed to benefit themselves[/QUOTE]
no, being an intellectual necessarily means you have a high level of intellect, which means you are smart
there are people with PhDs who aren't intellectuals, just like how a frat boy who graduated college with all Cs isn't educated. again, it's easy to discern between the two if you use your brain instead of jumping to the conclusion that economics is on the same level as astrology and that science is fake news because some economists and scientists are wrong occasionally
i never said disenfranchising voters would solve anything anyway, i don't know why you keep bringing that up. i agree that a voting test is a bad idea, but not because smart people are dumb
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52211566]If only he was alive to see all the shit going on, he'll probably have a heart attack from how stupid it is though.[/QUOTE]
How do you think he died the first time.
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jund;52214970]no, being an intellectual necessarily means you have a high level of intellect, which means you are smart[/QUOTE]
That's not what he means by intellectual. You can call yourself an intellectual and have a hard-on for knowledge and still be a complete idiot.
[QUOTE=Jund;52214970]no, being an intellectual necessarily means you have a high level of intellect, which means you are smart[/quote]
an intellectual is somebody who thinks about society, makes up opinions, and talks in some kind of public capacity. they primarily give off the appearance of being "educated".
however it's certainly possible to be an intellectual who's a damned fool in many other aspects of life (such as relationship issues or is an alcoholic). much like the rest of us, they are fallible and have flaws - only that they have some kind of reach that allows them to convince people of the utility of their ideas (regardless of how right or wrong they are).
Neil the Grease Tycoon or Bill Nye are modern day intellectuals whose main goal is to promote science heavily in the belief this will somehow fix anti-intellectualism and the problems caused by it when they're missing the elephant in the room that's causing people to turn away from it in the first place.
[quote]there are people with PhDs who aren't intellectuals, just like how a frat boy who graduated college with all Cs isn't educated. again, it's easy to discern between the two if you use your brain instead of jumping to the conclusion that economics is on the same level as astrology and that science is fake news because some economists and scientists are wrong occasionally[/quote]
they aren't wrong occasionally
they're wrong [b]most of the time.[/b] Most scientific papers these days /cannot/ be replicated and the problem is getting worse and worse
i'm putting economics on the same level of astrology (not so much in that i disparage studying economics, moreso the fact that economists are proposing terrible ideas with real world consequences) because it precisely fails to do what is expected of something claimed to be "scientific"
most economists make predictions that are utterly wrong, and they rarely go on to incorporate this knowledge into new predictions but instead remain wedded to dumb old ideas (humans are rational, markets are perfect, etc)
[quote]i never said disenfranchising voters would solve anything anyway, i don't know why you keep bringing that up. i agree that a voting test is a bad idea, but not because smart people are dumb[/QUOTE]
but a lot of smart people are dumb (domain dependence). if you've ever been in a streetfight or done any deadlifts or talked to a taxi driver you'd know this
[QUOTE=kevinspacey;52213803]well while you clever-sillies are busy signalling to the populace of FP just how much more [I]intelligent[/I] you are than everyone else and suggesting the peons be subjected to tests before they are allowed to vote, you seem to have forgotten that a large part of the reliable voting base for the democrats is 80-95 IQ and lacking in higher education, and would likely be barred on the grounds you are proposing.
No, screaming at me won't make this any less true.
I'm going to hazard a guess that the professional politicians understand politics and how to win better than you do no matter how obscene that suggestion seems because of one anomalous election.
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
furthermore, the test itself would become something to be [I]gamed[/I]. It wouldn't reflect your ability to vote intelligently per se, at all, but rather just become something you study [I]for[/I] just to be able to vote for the people you were going to vote for anyway[/QUOTE]
And hell. A lot of Bernie voters would be left off because of a test on basic government and economics because many are in it because "I want free college/healthcare/etc. my dude," not because they've written a dissertation on why they think single-payer will maximize outcomes and efficiency. Just like on the flip-side many trump supporters had the fantasy of "trump will throw up the tariffs, kick out the illegals/sjws and everything will be alright."
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52214975]How do you think he died the first time.
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
That's not what he means by intellectual. You can call yourself an intellectual and have a hard-on for knowledge and still be a complete idiot.[/QUOTE]
then that person is pretending to be an intellectual and is not actually one
saying i'm 8 feet tall doesn't make me 8 feet tall, and that doesn't make people who actually are 8 feet tall liars who are short
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52215228]
but a lot of smart people are dumb (domain dependence). if you've ever been in a streetfight or done any deadlifts or talked to a taxi driver you'd know this[/QUOTE]
the average economist knows more about economics than the average person. the average scientist knows more about science than the average person
here's a novel thought: you don't get smarter the dumber you are. the fact that you can tell me that being less educated on a subject actually means you know more about that subject speaks volumes about modern anti-intellectualism
if you're going to base your argument that credible scientists are wrong most of the time i want to see a source. not that most scientific papers can't be replicated these days, i want a [B]hard source saying that scientists widely respected by the community are wrong the vast majority of the time
[/B]
also no one cares about your two plate bench
[QUOTE=Jund;52215903]then that person is pretending to be an intellectual and is not actually one
saying i'm 8 feet tall doesn't make me 8 feet tall, and that doesn't make people who actually are 8 feet tall liars who are short
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
the average economist knows more about economics than the average person. the average scientist knows more about science than the average person
here's a novel thought: you don't get smarter the dumber you are. the fact that you can tell me that being less educated on a subject actually means you know more about that subject speaks volumes about modern anti-intellectualism
if you're going to base your argument that credible scientists are wrong most of the time i want to see a source. not that most scientific papers can't be replicated these days, i want a [B]hard source saying that scientists widely respected by the community are wrong the vast majority of the time
[/B]
also no one cares about your two plate bench[/QUOTE]
I really don't think you're getting what he's saying.
Scientific studies, in the last few decades, have suffered from low reproducibility, meaning the studies themselves become questionable, because the methodology is questionable, so therefore just assuming scientists are smart, and thusly correct, is a logical fallacy.
[QUOTE=Jund;52215903]the average economist knows more about economics than the average person. the average scientist knows more about science than the average person
here's a novel thought: you don't get smarter the dumber you are. the fact that you can tell me that being less educated on a subject actually means you know more about that subject speaks volumes about modern anti-intellectualism[/quote]
the point isn't that at all. domain dependence means that people who are incredibly intelligent in one field will not extrapolate their thinking to another field or aspect of life.
good (real life exercise) examples of this is seeing a rich guy who has his bags carried into a hotel for him, and then starts lifting weights for exercise. or people who drive cars to the gym instead of walking.
a lot of intellectual-yet-idiots fall into this trap where they cannot perceive ideas but presented in different contexts. they are dumb precisely because they do not transfer their thinking and knowledge to other areas, and do not understand how life actually is.
why is this relevant? because the more you specialise in one field and become deeply wedded to the ideas and the field, the more domain-specific you become and increasingly unable to transfer your thinking to other areas. people in such a condition are smart but also dumb at the same time
[quote]if you're going to base your argument that credible scientists are wrong most of the time i want to see a source. not that most scientific papers can't be replicated these days, i want a [B]hard source saying that scientists widely respected by the community are wrong the vast majority of the time
[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124[/url]
if most papers can't be replicated (most effort seems to go into making positive assertions and then finding evidence to back it), then this speaks volumes about the kind of work that scientists are doing and the scientists themselves (if they produce work of poor quality that's getting worse with time, what does this tell you?)
[quote]also no one cares about your two plate bench[/quote]
well i think it's a better criterion for voting (i'm going back to govna and his nerdism here). it looks like it's mostly nerds who like the idea of an exam to be able to vote. if we want to make it fair, add a deadlifting requirement too
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52215993]I really don't think you're getting what he's saying.
Scientific studies, in the last few decades, have suffered from low reproducibility, meaning the studies themselves become questionable, because the methodology is questionable, so therefore just assuming scientists are smart, and thusly correct, is a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE]
he's not saying that some scientists are untrustworthy. he's saying that he knows more about what are good scientific policies are than the scientific community because he's less scientifically educated than they are
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211845]
retesting isn't worth it when the people producing these papers in the first place aren't even doing the work properly. if half of the papers can't replicate, this means half of all the scientific output in any given year could be wrong. dietary advice keeps changing, exercise and healthy living advice keeps changing, new drugs are approved or shitcanned - but all of these things happen long after their damage has already been dealt by scientists that supposedly demonstrated "positive" results and it took a long time for somebody to actually falsify it (due to the sheer scale of the science industry now).
when scientists are getting worse and worse at their job, can you blame ordinary people for distrusting them?[/QUOTE]
"we're tired of experts etc etc"
going from "you shouldn't implicitly trust every scientist or economist" to "scientific and economic policies should be decided by people who have no education in either fields because being dumb is smart" is yao ming levels of reach
[QUOTE=Jund;52216100]he's not saying that some scientists are untrustworthy. he's saying that he knows more about what are good scientific policies are than the scientific community because he's less scientifically educated than they are[/quote]
don't make up shit like neil degrasse tyson does. i literally did not say that anywhere
[quote]"we're tired of experts etc etc"
going from "you shouldn't implicitly trust every scientist or economist" to "scientific and economic policies should be decided by people who have no education in either fields because being dumb is smart" is yao ming levels of reach[/quote]
i'm a scientist. i've seen data being fabricated. this is a massive problem and mocking me with that "we're tired of experts" isn't going to fix the fucking thing
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52216018]the point isn't that at all. domain dependence means that people who are incredibly intelligent in one field will not extrapolate their thinking to another field or aspect of life.
good (real life exercise) examples of this is seeing a rich guy who has his bags carried into a hotel for him, and then starts lifting weights for exercise. or people who drive cars to the gym instead of walking.
a lot of intellectual-yet-idiots fall into this trap where they cannot perceive ideas but presented in different contexts. they are dumb precisely because they do not transfer their thinking and knowledge to other areas, and do not understand how life actually is.
why is this relevant? because the more you specialise in one field and become deeply wedded to the ideas and the field, the more domain-specific you become and increasingly unable to transfer your thinking to other areas. people in such a condition are smart but also dumb at the same time
[url]http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124[/url]
if most papers can't be replicated (most effort seems to go into making positive assertions and then finding evidence to back it), then this speaks volumes about the kind of work that scientists are doing and the scientists themselves (if they produce work of poor quality that's getting worse with time, what does this tell you?)
well i think it's a better criterion for voting (i'm going back to govna and his nerdism here). it looks like it's mostly nerds who like the idea of an exam to be able to vote. if we want to make it fair, add a deadlifting requirement too[/QUOTE]
domain dependence would apply here if we asked scientists to determine our economic policies and economists to determine our scientific policies and lawyers to determine our defense policies but we don't
i thought calling people nerds to cover up for your own academic inadequacies was limited to children but i suppose i was wrong
and here comes the one-two punch of claiming your weaknesses don't matter and inflating your strengths to the point of absurdity. knowing how to deadlift means you're more qualified to talk about scientific and economic policies within the political process? here's some domain dependence for you
[QUOTE=Jund;52216138]domain dependence would apply here if we asked scientists to determine our economic policies and economists to determine our scientific policies and lawyers to determine our defense policies but we don't
i thought calling people nerds to cover up for your own academic inadequacies was limited to children but i suppose i was wrong
and here comes the one-two punch of claiming your weaknesses don't matter and inflating your strengths to the point of absurdity. knowing how to deadlift means you're more qualified to talk about scientific and economic policies within the political process? here's some domain dependence for you[/QUOTE]
It's like you're intentionally refusing to see any validity to his point.
Look at psychology. The data that has been put out by psychologists in the last 50 years is more or less useless because it cannot be replicated.
You can continue to act like he's being high and mighty, he isn't. He's simply pointing out a problem with the community at large and you're reacting like he's calling them lesser than him. I do not believe he is.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52216147]It's like you're intentionally refusing to see any validity to his point.
Look at psychology. The data that has been put out by psychologists in the last 50 years is more or less useless because it cannot be replicated.
You can continue to act like he's being high and mighty, he isn't. He's simply pointing out a problem with the community at large and you're reacting like he's calling them lesser than him. I do not believe he is.[/QUOTE]
i don't have any problem with him calling out the community for the high rate of fabricated data
i have a problem with him claiming that we should decentralize the government because the average person knows better than scientists who push for federal policies, as well as him justifying voter apathy on the issues they're voting on because some people who are educated in those fields can't be trusted
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
are you actually reading my posts or are you just letting your eyes glaze over before hitting that reply button because i have never denied that a lot of scientific data can't be replicated
[QUOTE=Jund;52216138]domain dependence would apply here if we asked scientists to determine our economic policies and economists to determine our scientific policies and lawyers to determine our defense policies but we don't
i thought calling people nerds to cover up for your own academic inadequacies was limited to children but i suppose i was wrong
and here comes the one-two punch of claiming your weaknesses don't matter and inflating your strengths to the point of absurdity. knowing how to deadlift means you're more qualified to talk about scientific and economic policies within the political process? here's some domain dependence for you[/QUOTE]
arguments like these were made towards the people in rustbelt towns and impoverished farms when they criticised various economists and politicians and got the response of "these people are experts, they know what's right and what works."
years later, these towns got poorer and angrier. they were ignored, and called stupid and ignorant and mocked in the media and by people on the internet.
these people, angry and ignored, turned to trump. no surprise when intellectual scientists and economists (who are these days very often wrong and unwilling to admit it) are mocking them.
[quote]i have a problem with him claiming that we should decentralize the government because the average person knows better than scientists who push for federal policies, as well as him justifying voter apathy on the issues they're voting on because some people who are educated in those fields can't be trusted[/quote]
i propose it because historically that's something which has worked. when your "experts" have a failure rate that's worse than random, don't trust them to craft effective public policy
[QUOTE=Jund;52216190]i don't have any problem with him calling out the community for the high rate of fabricated data
i have a problem with him claiming that we should decentralize the government because the average person knows better than scientists who push for federal policies, as well as him justifying voter apathy on the issues they're voting on because some people who are educated in those fields can't be trusted
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
are you actually reading my posts or are you just letting your eyes glaze over before hitting that reply button because i have never denied that a lot of scientific data can't be replicated[/QUOTE]
No you didn't deny it outright you just acted very snarky and dismissive towards sobotnik without any real perceived reason as to why you did that. The context of that combined with what you actually said leads me to believe you didn't believe that or regard that as a reality. If you do admit that's real, then why are you arguing with Sobotnik in such a way? You're in agreement on something.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52216208]arguments like these were made towards the people in rustbelt towns and impoverished farms when they criticised various economists and politicians and got the response of "these people are experts, they know what's right and what works."
years later, these towns got poorer and angrier. they were ignored, and called stupid and ignorant and mocked in the media and by people on the internet.
these people, angry and ignored, turned to trump. no surprise when intellectual scientists and economists (who are these days very often wrong and unwilling to admit it) are mocking them.[/QUOTE]
if we let some bumfuck redneck make all our environmental policies then we would really be in the shits
have you ever talked to a trump supporter about economic policies? their crackpot ideas are so far removed from reality that they're barely coherent. invade the middle east for oil? close trade with china? trade war with mexico?
the reason i don't mock them publicly isn't because they aren't stupid, it's because stupid people don't like being called stupid and tend to double down on their stupidity if you do
"you never know, maybe it'll work!!" maybe if you shoot yourself in the dick it wouldn't hurt. i mean, you've never shot yourself in the dick before so who knows
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52216233]No you didn't deny it outright you just acted very snarky and dismissive towards sobotnik without any real perceived reason as to why you did that. The context of that combined with what you actually said leads me to believe you didn't believe that or regard that as a reality. If you do admit that's real, then why are you arguing with Sobotnik in such a way? You're in agreement on something.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jund;52216190]
i have a problem with him claiming that we should decentralize the government because the average person knows better than scientists who push for federal policies, as well as him justifying voter apathy on the issues they're voting on because some people who are educated in those fields can't be trusted[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jund;52216190]
are you actually reading my posts or are you just letting your eyes glaze over before hitting that reply button[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jund;52216242]if we let some bumfuck redneck make all our environmental policies then we would really be in the shits
have you ever talked to a trump supporter about economic policies? their crackpot ideas are so far removed from reality that they're barely coherent. invade the middle east for oil? close trade with china? trade war with mexico?
the reason i don't mock them publicly isn't because they aren't stupid, it's because stupid people don't like being called stupid and tend to double down on their stupidity if you do
"you never know, maybe it'll work!!" maybe if you shoot yourself in the dick it wouldn't hurt. i mean, you've never shot yourself in the dick before so who knows[/QUOTE]
So what's your answer to those people feeling un-represented by the system? You acknowledge calling it stupid does nothing, so what do you think will help reconnect these people with the actual facts?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52216288]So what's your answer to those people feeling un-represented by the system? You acknowledge calling it stupid does nothing, so what do you think will help reconnect these people with the actual facts?[/QUOTE]
Maybe better representation? Them being neglected doesn't mean they should be put in control as compensation. Trump's government is showing us what happens when unqualified people are put in position.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52216288]So what's your answer to those people feeling un-represented by the system? You acknowledge calling it stupid does nothing, so what do you think will help reconnect these people with the actual facts?[/QUOTE]
you tell them that their ideas are bad and they'll think you're mocking them and that you're stupid so they go ahead with it anyway. or they lash out. so the obvious answer would be to let them go ahead with it until it blows up in their face, but the resulting damage will everyone else in the room as well, including yourself
but understanding [I]why[/I] someone makes bad decisions and [I]how[/I] to prevent them from doing it in the future are two very different games
some people are stubborn and would rather dig their own graves before admitting that they were wrong. this applies to the voting population and sobotnik's "intellectual-idiots"
[editline]11th May 2017[/editline]
i'm not a psychologist so i can't give a clear-cut answer on how to solve this problem
there probably isn't one anyway
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52211566]If only he was alive to see all the shit going on, he'll probably have a heart attack from how stupid it is though.[/QUOTE]
if it wasn't for people like him preaching apathy towards politics, maybe we wouldn't be in this shit
[QUOTE=artDecor;52216441]if it wasn't for people like him preaching apathy towards politics, maybe we wouldn't be in this shit[/QUOTE]
Carlin didn't preach apathy dude
Fake smart people (or smart selfish people) grabbing political power is a real problem.
The masses starting to reject experts due to underrepresentation is a real problem.
These aren't mutually exclusive at all. I think the best compromise is to educate the general public.
[QUOTE=artDecor;52216441]if it wasn't for people like him preaching apathy towards politics, maybe we wouldn't be in this shit[/QUOTE]
"Preaching" is a stretch. Carlin wasn't apathetic to politics, he was apathetic to the voting system. And i'd hardly say he or anybody else pioneered hard enough to create a surplus of anti establishment vote tossers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.