Page 1 of 3

The evidence shows

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:03 pm
by Phatscotty
This article with some new studies on who is stupid was in my Star Tribune this morning. Very interesting, because the Star Trib is very left, compared to our Pioneer press which is just left.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 42335.html


Liberals, take a long look in the mirror

The evidence shows you're more poorly informed and less tolerant.

We've got a vivid picture of the Republicans and conservatives in our midst. They're a sour, dour lot -- close-minded, tight-fisted and intolerant. Some are businesspeople, greedy and self-interested. Others are rednecks, poorly informed, clinging to their guns and religion.

If only these folks understood political issues better and cared more about their fellow man, they'd be liberals, right?

Think again. A growing body of research is shattering this conventional wisdom.

Survey data make clear that Republicans, on average, are better informed than Democrats about political issues. Data from the American National Election Study has confirmed this over the years, and an April 2012 Pew Research Center survey -- "What the Public Knows about the Political Parties" -- is the latest to document it.

On eight of the survey's 13 questions about politics, Republicans outperformed Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points. "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge," according to the study.

The widest gap -- 30 points -- came on a question about which political party is "generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government." Seventy-six percent of Republicans, but only 46 percent of Democrats, correctly named the GOP.

Republicans even know more about Democratic leaders: 75 percent of Republicans identified Nancy Pelosi as a Democrat, vs. 59 percent of Democrats. And while 73 percent of Republicans knew Franklin Roosevelt was a Democrat, only 58 percent of Democrats did.

But surely liberals, widely praised for tolerance, are more open-minded than conservatives toward people with different views? Whoops.

A March 2012 Pew report, entitled "Social Networking Sites and Politics," found that 28 percent of liberals have "blocked, unfriended or hidden someone" on social-networking sites because of their political postings, compared with 16 percent of conservatives.

Come to think of it, that shouldn't surprise anyone who's spent time on a college campus. We're used to hearing that left-wing students have shouted down a conservative speaker. But when did you last hear about conservative students silencing a liberal speaker?


OK, OK. So maybe conservatives as a group are more knowledgeable about politics and more open-minded than liberals. But liberals' signature quality is their "bleeding hearts." They must be more caring and generous than conservatives, right?

It turns out willingness to use government money to improve others' condition doesn't guarantee personal generosity. Social scientist Arthur Brooks documented this in his 2006 book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism."

According to Brooks, conservative-headed households give 30 percent more to charity than liberal-headed households, on average, although liberal families' incomes are higher. Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Two primary factors account for the conservative-liberal charity divide, says Brooks. One is religiosity. Brooks found that religious people -- who are disproportionately conservative -- donate far more to charity each year than secularists, holding incomes constant.

The other is attitudes toward big government. People who don't believe that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more to charity than people who do hold this view of government's role.

Another important difference may contribute to conservatives' greater open-mindedness. It's this: Liberals tend to explain policy disagreements by imputing evil motives like selfishness to conservatives, while conservatives (more charitably) tend to view liberals as well-meaning but misguided.

Why? Liberals tend to evaluate public policies by focusing on the intentions behind them, says economist Thomas Sowell.

For centuries, liberal thinkers have placed great value on words related to intentions -- "sincerity, commitment, dedication" -- describing policies in terms of intended goals: "liberty, equality, fraternity" or "social justice."

Conservatives, however, place greater value on real-world consequences. In their view, the world is too complex for any human plan to achieve its intended goal without producing potentially harmful unintended consequences. A cradle-to-grave welfare state, for example, may be intended to help the poor, but it may foster a culture of dependence that will lock future generations into poverty.

So, my liberal friends, the next time you meet one of these strange characters, a conservative, don't jump to conclusions about his or her ignorance or greed. It's just possible that the real closed-minded person may be the one in the mirror.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:43 pm
by Frigidus
Phatscotty wrote:
Come to think of it, that shouldn't surprise anyone who's spent time on a college campus. We're used to hearing that left-wing students have shouted down a conservative speaker. But when did you last hear about conservative students silencing a liberal speaker?


I actually laughed here, that's a rarity for me. Funny stuff. Either way, I would say that intelligence is entirely unrelated to political leanings. I mean, shit, I think roughly the same number of people vote exclusively for the Democrats or Republicans so we've both got our fair share of complete morons.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:21 am
by Phatscotty
Frigidus wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Come to think of it, that shouldn't surprise anyone who's spent time on a college campus. We're used to hearing that left-wing students have shouted down a conservative speaker. But when did you last hear about conservative students silencing a liberal speaker?


I actually laughed here, that's a rarity for me. Funny stuff. Either way, I would say that intelligence is entirely unrelated to political leanings. I mean, shit, I think roughly the same number of people vote exclusively for the Democrats or Republicans so we've both got our fair share of complete morons.


It's informed, not intelligence.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:29 am
by MeDeFe
which political party is "generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government"

Would that be the USA Green party that never gets elected into anything?

I question the validity of the survey if the survey treats as valid questions like that.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:20 am
by natty dread
Ok, so I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican because those are not things that exist or anything where I'm from.

Which side should I root for on this thread? Let's see...

A March 2012 Pew report, entitled "Social Networking Sites and Politics," found that 28 percent of liberals have "blocked, unfriended or hidden someone" on social-networking sites because of their political postings, compared with 16 percent of conservatives.


Oh really. So... some American Democrats block obnoxious people on Facespace or whatever and this is apparently "evidence" that liberals are "intolerant"?

Oh wow.

Pretty weak, Phats.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:09 am
by AAFitz
natty dread wrote:Ok, so I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican because those are not things that exist or anything where I'm from.

Which side should I root for on this thread? Let's see...

A March 2012 Pew report, entitled "Social Networking Sites and Politics," found that 28 percent of liberals have "blocked, unfriended or hidden someone" on social-networking sites because of their political postings, compared with 16 percent of conservatives.


Oh really. So... some American Democrats block obnoxious people on Facespace or whatever and this is apparently "evidence" that liberals are "intolerant"?

Oh wow.

Pretty weak, Phats.


The conservatives havent caught on to that whole "science" thing yet...They're too worried about the "real world consequences" of it, so they spend a lot to discount it.

I suppose it follows that more liberals watch Fox news too, since Fox News viewers are typically less informed as well.

Nice find on the parody Phatty.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:29 am
by thegreekdog
MeDeFe wrote:
which political party is "generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government"

Would that be the USA Green party that never gets elected into anything?

I question the validity of the survey if the survey treats as valid questions like that.


I question the validity of the US media and US electoral system, not the validity of the survey, when the Green Party (Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, etc.) are ignored. But that's just me.

Considering that Republicans are not generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government, that's my major beef with that question.

I've found that you can find people on both sides of the political spectrum who are both poorly informed and less tolerant. Frankly, most people vote on specific issues. For example, my friend (a teacher) votes Democrat because she sees Democrats as more supportive of teachers (salaries and benefits, snark). My grandfather voted Republican for years and years until he retired. Then he voted Democrat because he thinks the Democrats are less likely to do away with social security. Are they misinformed?

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:50 am
by Night Strike
AAFitz wrote:I suppose it follows that more liberals watch Fox news too, since Fox News viewers are typically less informed as well.


It's amazing that line continues to be used when it has been thoroughly refuted.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:02 am
by Symmetry
Night Strike wrote:
AAFitz wrote:I suppose it follows that more liberals watch Fox news too, since Fox News viewers are typically less informed as well.


It's amazing that line continues to be used when it has been thoroughly refuted.


Hmm, I've got to agree with NS on this one. This is a talking point that'e been thoroughly disproven.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:55 am
by BigBallinStalin
thegreekdog wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
which political party is "generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government"

Would that be the USA Green party that never gets elected into anything?

I question the validity of the survey if the survey treats as valid questions like that.


I question the validity of the US media and US electoral system, not the validity of the survey, when the Green Party (Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, etc.) are ignored. But that's just me.

Considering that Republicans are not generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government, that's my major beef with that question.

I've found that you can find people on both sides of the political spectrum who are both poorly informed and less tolerant. Frankly, most people vote on specific issues. For example, my friend (a teacher) votes Democrat because she sees Democrats as more supportive of teachers (salaries and benefits, snark). My grandfather voted Republican for years and years until he retired. Then he voted Democrat because he thinks the Democrats are less likely to do away with social security. Are they misinformed?


Of course not. They're rent-seeking. :P

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:01 am
by thegreekdog
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
which political party is "generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government"

Would that be the USA Green party that never gets elected into anything?

I question the validity of the survey if the survey treats as valid questions like that.


I question the validity of the US media and US electoral system, not the validity of the survey, when the Green Party (Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, etc.) are ignored. But that's just me.

Considering that Republicans are not generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government, that's my major beef with that question.

I've found that you can find people on both sides of the political spectrum who are both poorly informed and less tolerant. Frankly, most people vote on specific issues. For example, my friend (a teacher) votes Democrat because she sees Democrats as more supportive of teachers (salaries and benefits, snark). My grandfather voted Republican for years and years until he retired. Then he voted Democrat because he thinks the Democrats are less likely to do away with social security. Are they misinformed?


Of course not. They're rent-seeking. :P


I do the same thing. Unfortunately, neither party seems to be seeking my vote.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:28 pm
by Phatscotty
natty dread wrote:Ok, so I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican because those are not things that exist or anything where I'm from.

Which side should I root for on this thread? Let's see...

A March 2012 Pew report, entitled "Social Networking Sites and Politics," found that 28 percent of liberals have "blocked, unfriended or hidden someone" on social-networking sites because of their political postings, compared with 16 percent of conservatives.


Oh really. So... some American Democrats block obnoxious people on Facespace or whatever and this is apparently "evidence" that liberals are "intolerant"?

Oh wow.

Pretty weak, Phats.


just less tolerant, like in the title.

Conservatives are now the official champions of tolerance, and still undisputed champions of charity. Shows who is greedy too.

Image

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:32 pm
by The Bison King
A March 2012 Pew report, entitled "Social Networking Sites and Politics," found that 28 percent of liberals have "blocked, unfriended or hidden someone" on social-networking sites because of their political postings, compared with 16 percent of conservatives.


If anything that just proves that Conservatives are more obnoxious and prone to constantly posting about their political ideals... but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you Scotty?

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:54 pm
by natty dread
The Bison King wrote:
A March 2012 Pew report, entitled "Social Networking Sites and Politics," found that 28 percent of liberals have "blocked, unfriended or hidden someone" on social-networking sites because of their political postings, compared with 16 percent of conservatives.


If anything that just proves that Conservatives are more obnoxious and prone to constantly posting about their political ideals... but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you Scotty?


ZING

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:52 am
by Maugena
Phatscotty wrote:Conservatives are now the official champions of tolerance, and still undisputed champions of charity.

They are not and you are not the "champions of tolerance". This whole, "I'm a friend of homosexuals" thing is a facade that you have put on to convince people that don't even really care one way or the other about your opinions.
Google "define: conservative".
In the section that defines it as a noun, please take note that it says:
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

Being tolerant is not a "traditional" type of thing. Especially becoming the "official champions" of tolerance.

Now, moving on to the whole, "undisputed champions of charity" thing.
I'm pretty sure you're 100% correct on this, as the government would define charity.
There are a few things to take into consideration though.
#1. If there weren't tax incentives for giving away things/money to charity, you can bet your ass that the majority of those conservatives that do give to charity would end up not giving anything to charity. (They typically end up keeping more money than they would lose had they not contributed to a charity. Not really motivated by good-will, here. Utterly out of selfishness.)
#2. These supposed charities are not all for feeding starving children or clothing those that cannot clothe themselves. There are even a few that are entirely fake and the ones giving to said charities know this and use it.

I really question whether or not you are a troll and whether or not you're trying to raise people's ire.
Your blatant hypocrisy in combination will all the bullshit you spew in these forums is enough to make a rational person irrational.

All you've done in these forums is pointing fingers and demonizing anything that you disagree with - without even so much as attempting to understand the other side.
Also, I hope you know you're a sheep because you've hopped on a bandwagon. The bandwagon called: "Anything but Obama". I wonder if you can even acknowledge that. It would be nothing short of a miracle if you reflected upon that. That being said, I know you won't. You would simply reinforce your false conceptions of what is with more bullshit. I cannot even begin to comprehend how a mind becomes so irreversibly lost to it's own delusions. Actually, I take that back, I know that it can. The mind is a very powerful thing. I suppose I said that just for dramatic effect. In any case, somewhere along the lines, you lost an idea of what fundamentals are good and bad. Honestly it shouldn't even be so black and white. All things should be taken into consideration, but not entirely discounted. You learn from foolishness. That's why it's good. But its use ends there. Okay, I'm officially ranting...

Here's my advice to you.
#1. Take notice of the bandwagoning that you're participating in. You've become a sheep.
#2. Think of the perspective that is being spun onto something. (Regarding the right-winged media that you apparently subscribe to.)
#3. Listen to the entire story. Find different perspectives. Listen to everything word-for-word. (You tend to put your own spin on things for your own agenda... which has no effect on any of us here at CC because people just can't be persuaded across the internets.)
#4. Reflect upon your own views. Why are you a conservative? What benefits are there for you? What, specifically, do you believe in? Is this just a label that you've taken upon yourself because your parents had it? Etc.
#5. Take notice of the fact that no one here on the ConquerClub forums have really taken a stance against conservative views. It seems like you're declaring your own personal war on liberals. (Which, I might add, is completely illegitimate because of all these skewed perspectives you keep spinning.)

Can anyone else add what I am lacking?

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:59 am
by Haggis_McMutton
Maugena wrote: well reasoned argument


taking bets on wether scotty responds:
1. Not at all
2. With a one-liner
3. WIth a picture/video
4. By sticking hard and fast to his "us vs. them" propaganda

My money's on 4.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:12 am
by Army of GOD
>mfw this thread
>mfw I have no face

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 8:45 am
by Baron Von PWN
does giving to a church count as charity? If so that may be another explanation for the high "charity" number for conservatives.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 9:34 am
by AAFitz
Symmetry wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
AAFitz wrote:I suppose it follows that more liberals watch Fox news too, since Fox News viewers are typically less informed as well.


It's amazing that line continues to be used when it has been thoroughly refuted.


Hmm, I've got to agree with NS on this one. This is a talking point that'e been thoroughly disproven.


That was actually kind of the point. Ridiculous polling and unscientific information used to make a stupid statement: this thread.

I think its great you think doing that is a bad idea NS...maybe now youll consider doing it less yourself....and by maybe i mean :lol:

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 1:48 pm
by Frigidus
Maugena wrote:#5. Take notice of the fact that no one here on the ConquerClub forums have really taken a stance against conservative views. It seems like you're declaring your own personal war on liberals. (Which, I might add, is completely illegitimate because of all these skewed perspectives you keep spinning.)


I'd like to point out here that there is a world of difference between disagreeing with conservative principles and attacking people that hold conservative principles. PhatScotty routinely fights over the character of individuals he disagrees with rather than the issue itself. It is easy to attack the character of the opposing side, but it is pointless and counter-productive. The bullshit dick measuring that occurs in discussions like this is ultimately why the world is so fucked up right now. Both sides are so busy pointing at each other and yelling angrily that they can't see the piss poor job that their own party is doing.

My point is, arguing over which side has the biggest douchebags or which side knows more about trivial shit is a waste of time. Nobody's keeping score. All it does is stroke your own ego.

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:16 pm
by 2dimes
Baron Von PWN wrote:does giving to a church count as charity? If so that may be another explanation for the high "charity" number for conservatives.

This ends up being pretty grey. I'd say the straight answer to your question is Yes.

Over time even the same church most likely will change what they do with revenues. Some are very active in running various operations that feed and house people in need. Others support missions, typically missionaries will be attempting to do things intended to improve things for the locals. Most often, schools and medical centers of some sort, up to full hospitals.

Sometimes the amount of people and how much they donate to a specific church changes drasticly over a year. I've heard of some churches growing huge in a very short period of time and many collapse. When a church grows financially very quick it might choose to re-donate to an existing ministry.

Some churches are just plain corrupt. I believe there are more that do good, even though people outside of their membership probably never know anything about. However the one that ends up having an issue with leaders doing something wrong, especially if it's larger, ends up being talked about all over the region.

The gross generalisation is that Conservatives tend to attend more high end charitable events. Funny thing is the first one that comes to mind for me as an example would be the Bill Clinton dinners.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:49 am
by Phatscotty
Frigidus wrote:
Maugena wrote:#5. Take notice of the fact that no one here on the ConquerClub forums have really taken a stance against conservative views. It seems like you're declaring your own personal war on liberals. (Which, I might add, is completely illegitimate because of all these skewed perspectives you keep spinning.)


I'd like to point out here that there is a world of difference between disagreeing with conservative principles and attacking people that hold conservative principles. PhatScotty routinely fights over the character of individuals he disagrees with rather than the issue itself. It is easy to attack the character of the opposing side, but it is pointless and counter-productive. The bullshit dick measuring that occurs in discussions like this is ultimately why the world is so fucked up right now. Both sides are so busy pointing at each other and yelling angrily that they can't see the piss poor job that their own party is doing.

My point is, arguing over which side has the biggest douchebags or which side knows more about trivial shit is a waste of time. Nobody's keeping score. All it does is stroke your own ego.


oh, that is such bullshit. I routinely demand people stop smearing my character on focus on the issues.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:52 am
by Phatscotty
Maugena wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Conservatives are now the official champions of tolerance, and still undisputed champions of charity.

They are not and you are not...


We are too, even if only defacto concerning the daily display of intolerance concerning Christianity, conservatism, people who think marriage is between one man and one woman, racism, and class warfare.

smearing Phatscotty while mentioning nothing of the topic at hand is a CC pastime.

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 1:03 am
by Symmetry
Phatscotty wrote:
Maugena wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Conservatives are now the official champions of tolerance, and still undisputed champions of charity.

They are not and you are not...


We are too, even if only defacto concerning the daily display of intolerance concerning Christianity, conservatism, people who think marriage is between one man and one woman, racism, and class warfare.

smearing Phatscotty while mentioning nothing of the topic at hand is a CC pastime.


You're not seriously referring to yourself in the third person now?

Re: The evidence shows you're poorly informed and less toler

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:27 am
by Frigidus
Phatscotty wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Maugena wrote:#5. Take notice of the fact that no one here on the ConquerClub forums have really taken a stance against conservative views. It seems like you're declaring your own personal war on liberals. (Which, I might add, is completely illegitimate because of all these skewed perspectives you keep spinning.)


I'd like to point out here that there is a world of difference between disagreeing with conservative principles and attacking people that hold conservative principles. PhatScotty routinely fights over the character of individuals he disagrees with rather than the issue itself. It is easy to attack the character of the opposing side, but it is pointless and counter-productive. The bullshit dick measuring that occurs in discussions like this is ultimately why the world is so fucked up right now. Both sides are so busy pointing at each other and yelling angrily that they can't see the piss poor job that their own party is doing.

My point is, arguing over which side has the biggest douchebags or which side knows more about trivial shit is a waste of time. Nobody's keeping score. All it does is stroke your own ego.


oh, that is such bullshit. I routinely demand people stop smearing my character on focus on the issues.


Yet you still engage in character assassination.