Oh? Kinda like how you stereotyped hicks and city folk?
Something I've noticed is that the hick people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but their outward attitude does not match their real feelings. City folk are honest. They let you know how they're feeling. Most of the time they are thinking "meh". I'd rather have people acting not so nice who are honest than people pretending.
So I'll just change a few words then, and see if this changes anything. Something I've noticed is that the black people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but the moment you have something they want, they'll back stab you. Is that any different?
Oh? Kinda like how you stereotyped hicks and city folk?
No, that's pretty much true.
Umm.. Emily, Pete, Wyatt, myself, and I am sure many of your listeners live/lived in rural areas. Are we hicks? You are stereotyping. Just like if rural folks stereotyped all city folks as rude, crass, violent, and self-centered. It is the same thing. Also, just because someone votes republican doesn't necessarily make them socially conservative. A lot of times they just have the wrongfully held opinion that the Republican party are fiscal conservatives.
So I'll just change a few words then, and see if this changes anything. Something I've noticed is that the black people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but the moment you have something they want, they'll back stab you. Is that any different?
Yeah, that would be a stereotype. The thing that keeps what Scott said from being a stereotype is that he is right.
So I'll just change a few words then, and see if this changes anything. Something I've noticed is that the black people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but the moment you have something they want, they'll back stab you. Is that any different?
Yeah, that would be wrong. The thing that keeps what Scott said from being a stereotype is that it is right.
HungryJoe, I normally agree with you; hoever, I think our experience of rural areas are vastly different. Can you honestly say that all or most of the people that you used to live around were hicks? There weren't good, decent, well meaning, intelligent, and even educated folks there (even if they did disagree with you politically)? EDIT: Also, how many of thr pro-city people have actually lived in an agrarian, rural area for more than a year and interacted in any way with the people in the town or village?
Yeah, that would be a stereotype. The thing that keeps what Scott said from being a stereotype is that he is right.
What makes him right, and not stereotyping, and my statement being incorrect? Both are based on observations, so how can my statement be incorrect?
Don't get angry. I'm just being silly.
What's stereotypical about that?
So I'll just change a few words then, and see if this changes anything. Something I've noticed is that the black people tend to act friendly on the surface. They have excellent manners, always smiling, acting friendly, but the moment you have something they want, they'll back stab you. Is that any different?
Yeah, that would be wrong. The thing that keeps what Scott said from being a stereotype is that it is right.
HungryJoe, I normally agree with you; hoever, I think our experience of rural areas are vastly different. Can you honestly say that all or most of the people that you used to live around were hicks? There weren't good, decent, well meaning, intelligent, and even educated folks there (even if they did disagree with you politically)? EDIT: Also, how many of thr pro-city people have actually lived in an agrarian, rural area for more than a year and interacted in any way with the people in the town or village?
Actually, when I first moved to Louisville, I thought it was a big city. It was certainly bigger than any city I had lived in before then, unless you count Chicago, but I was really too young to remember much about Chicago.
I'd have to honestly say that most of the people I knew or met in the rural areas of KY were not very nice to me. That really colors my perceptions of them. I probably would be okay living in the country with country people in another state, like PA or VT, but I'll always be suspicious of country people from KY. Also, most of the bad things that happened in my life happened while I was living in the country. Most of the good things that have happened in my life have happened when I was living in the city. As a result, I'm usually much happier in a city than in the country.
Also, just because someone votes republican doesn't necessarily make them socially conservative.
Well, they could also be stupid.
Anyone who voted Republican in a recent US presidential election for fiscally conservative reasons is ignorant to the point that I would consider the removal of their suffrage a viable option. ^_~
There weren't good, decent, well meaning, intelligent, and even educated folks there (even if they did disagree with you politically)?
While disagreement is healthy and fine, and I can respect the intelligence of someone with whom I disagree, there are certain political ideas that, in my opinion, disqualify someone from said respect or even from my acceptance of their general intelligence. Social conservatism, racist or sexist policies, anti-abortion and abstinence-only advocates, theocracy advocates, Iraqi war advocates (both pre and post war), and so forth: these positions all indicate either stupidity, malice, or extreme ignorance.
Also, just because someone votes republican doesn't necessarily make them socially conservative.
Well, they could also be stupid.
Anyone who voted Republican in a recent US presidential election for fiscally conservative reasons is ignorant to the point that I would consider the removal of their suffrage a viable option. ^_~
Sorry, nothing short of breaking the law should disqualify someone from the vote. It is the only way to maintain a free society. That being said, the elecroate has just as many above the average than it does below the average... and the average isn't so hot.
Sorry, nothing short of breaking the law should have disqualify someone from the vote. It is the only way to maintain a free society.
Who says you can't have a free society with democracy? Even if you have a dictatorship, they can dictate that everyone be guaranteed certain civil liberties.
Sorry, nothing short of breaking the law should have disqualify someone from the vote. It is the only way to maintain a free society.
Who says you can't have a free society with democracy? Even if you have a dictatorship, they can dictate that everyone be guaranteed certain civil liberties.
But the average rural resident votes on the wrong sides of these issues, while the average urban resident votes on the right side.
Sorry, nothing short of breaking the law should disqualify someone from the vote.
I'm less and less enchanted with the idea of universal and equivalent suffrage, let alone direct democracy, every single day. Too many people are too ill-informed to be making world-affecting decisions.
Look at how democracy has destroyed Digg, yet Slashdot's meritocracy survives. Look at American voting patterns. Ignorance reigns supreme when the barrier to entry is eliminated.
So you are saying China has it right? (Civil Rights violations aside) By that system, the farmer in the countryside does not vote, gets ignored, and basically gets screwed over and lives in abject poverty.
Think of it this way: Okay, say the rural people are not educated as well as the white collar city people. Say that made the government take away their right to vote. Most of the white collar voters would live in the cities. That would make the gap between rural and urban just keep widening, like in India and China.
Also, as education in this country is tied so strongly to wealth rather than merit (example: the price of college, the rich school districts vs. the poor ones) you would essentially be forming a new aristocracy.
Think of it this way: Okay, say the rural people are not educated as well as the white collar city people.
Please back up this statement. A lot of people are throwing around the world ignorant to portray people in rural areas, but I sincerely doubt that they are any more or less ignorant than people in urban areas. A lot of this has to do with social pressure and what information is consumed and believed and what information isn't consumed or believed.
Think of it this way: Okay, say the rural people are not educated as well as the white collar city people. Say that made the government take away their right to vote.
How about a very low barrier to entry? Say, the equivalent of "1+1=?" and "Spell your name?"
Eliminating the bottom 1% of voters, ignorance-wise, would go a long way.
Think of it this way: Okay, say the rural people are not educated as well as the white collar city people. Say that made the government take away their right to vote.
How about a very low barrier to entry? Say, the equivalent of "1+1=?" and "Spell your name?"
Eliminating the bottom 1% of voters, ignorance-wise, would go a long way.
But can the ignorant be blamed for their ignorance? I would argue that they cannot always be blamed. Unfortunately, the US's literacy rate is quite low. Is it necessarily that those that are illiterate are to blame for the illiteracy if their educational system failed them and they are so poor that they have to focus on doing manual labor rather than getting a decent education when they are out of high school? I am not saying that all who are ignorant are blameless, but I would think that enough are that this would again create an aristocracy equating in the poor not being able to vote.
Think of it this way: Okay, say the rural people are not educated as well as the white collar city people.
Pleas eback up this statement. A lot of people are throwing around teh word ignorant to portray people in rural areas, but I sincerely doubt that they are any more or less ignorant than people in urban areas. A lot of this has to di with social pressure and what information is consumed and believed and what information isn't consumed or believed.
This is a good point. As an example, Hanover, New Hampshire, home to Dartmouth College (and in theory a great many intelligent people) has a population of 10,850.
What are they basing that on and what is being defined as literacy? In college I worked on a project regarding global literacy and we found most statistics quoting the US in the 70 - 80 percent range. I doubt it has changed that drastically in 4 years.
Rym, the fact that you are even considering endorsing a reinvention of the Jim Crow laws forfeits the respect I had for you.
Those laws were clearly designed to disenfranchise a race of people at a time when there was furthermore a society which would not support their education and assimilation.
So long as adequate educational opportunities were provided to all who failed, for free, I'd be fine with the disenfranchisement of said failures. Essentially, if we fixed our educational system, we could hold our voters to a higher standard. Until we fix our system, we can't easily or fairly do so.
Comments
You are stereotyping. Just like if rural folks stereotyped all city folks as rude, crass, violent, and self-centered. It is the same thing. Also, just because someone votes republican doesn't necessarily make them socially conservative. A lot of times they just have the wrongfully held opinion that the Republican party are fiscal conservatives.
EDIT: Also, how many of thr pro-city people have actually lived in an agrarian, rural area for more than a year and interacted in any way with the people in the town or village?
I'd have to honestly say that most of the people I knew or met in the rural areas of KY were not very nice to me. That really colors my perceptions of them. I probably would be okay living in the country with country people in another state, like PA or VT, but I'll always be suspicious of country people from KY. Also, most of the bad things that happened in my life happened while I was living in the country. Most of the good things that have happened in my life have happened when I was living in the city. As a result, I'm usually much happier in a city than in the country.
Anyone who voted Republican in a recent US presidential election for fiscally conservative reasons is ignorant to the point that I would consider the removal of their suffrage a viable option. ^_~
Bernie Sanders - Progressive
Joe Lieberman - Former Democrat
Look at how democracy has destroyed Digg, yet Slashdot's meritocracy survives. Look at American voting patterns. Ignorance reigns supreme when the barrier to entry is eliminated.
Think of it this way: Okay, say the rural people are not educated as well as the white collar city people. Say that made the government take away their right to vote. Most of the white collar voters would live in the cities. That would make the gap between rural and urban just keep widening, like in India and China.
Also, as education in this country is tied so strongly to wealth rather than merit (example: the price of college, the rich school districts vs. the poor ones) you would essentially be forming a new aristocracy.
Eliminating the bottom 1% of voters, ignorance-wise, would go a long way.
Rym, the fact that you are even considering endorsing a reinvention of the Jim Crow laws forfeits the respect I had for you.
So long as adequate educational opportunities were provided to all who failed, for free, I'd be fine with the disenfranchisement of said failures. Essentially, if we fixed our educational system, we could hold our voters to a higher standard. Until we fix our system, we can't easily or fairly do so.