Daily Mail: Right wingers are less intelligent and more racist than Left wingers

[HannibalBarka]

I've heard this before. Thieves who live off taxes claim that, because some small fraction of their ill-gotten gains go back to the state, this somehow means that they actually aren't thieves!!

No. You don't pay taxes. You live off them. Full stop. State payrolls are theft. And the "vocations" state theft supports are still more theft.

I don't work for the State, but in a private company in finance
I am however happy to pay my taxes, I'd do it willingly. I am happy to live in a secure country, where i can use decent roads and get my kids a good education. I am also happy that those basic needs are available to all my countrymen. Do i consider the "publuic" servants 'thieves"? not really, they are paid for a job they are doing the same as me. Are there civil servants that do not crrectly do their job and abuse the system? sure, but that is not specific to civil servants

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think right-wingers are more stupid because they are right-wingers. I rather think it's the other way round: Stupid people are more open to right-wing talking points like damn-foreigners-got-your-jobs and they-evil!-we-good!-let's-make-war! and education==elitism.

So the right-winger faction doesn't necessarily start out as stupid ... but they are fishing in stupid waters and they have good bait for stupid fish.

Such red-herring is necessary when only a few people personally profit from such policies, but isn't necessarily unique to the right - but definitely most common to the right.

I don't work for the State, but in a private company in finance
I am however happy to pay my taxes, I'd do it willingly. I am happy to live in a secure country, where i can use decent roads and get my kids a good education. I am also happy that those basic needs are available to all my countrymen. Do i consider the "publuic" servants 'thieves"? not really, they are paid for a job they are doing the same as me. Are there civil servants that do not crrectly do their job and abuse the system? sure, but that is not specific to civil servants

I don't think most Libertarians would consider civil servants thieves, but rather, that they have a profession that is sustained on well... "evil". Civil servants make sure regulations are enforced and when you realize everyone here must certainly have come across at least one piece of ridiculous regulation in their lifetimes, you may understand why the Libertarian position gets support.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

So you are saying ridiculous regulation leads to ridiculous political views? Interesting.

 

[Tahuti]

So you are saying ridiculous regulation leads to ridiculous political views? Interesting.

Well, extreme actions lead to extreme reactions, right?

 

[Crezth]

Isn't this [the OP article] just a great example of wishful thinking?

So what's your problem with the actual study?

Also, it shows how much more balanced right-wing newspapers are - could you imagine the huff post or the guardian publishing an article claiming that lefties weren't intelligent? Of course not, because freedom of speech and giving the opposing side a platform is something they don't understand.

mmk, really what makes you think this article serves the liberal agenda in any way?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My "education" has done nothing for my life.

I'm going to agree with Abe here.

Also, it shows how much more balanced right-wing newspapers are - could you imagine the huff post or the guardian publishing an article claiming that lefties weren't intelligent? Of course not, because freedom of speech and giving the opposing side a platform is something they don't understand.

It merely shows all papers bias towards sensationalist articles. It fits the Daily Mail's objective publishing articles that make people go: Harumph! Not unlike the Political Correctness/European Rules/Health and Safety gone wild! articles.

 

[Mise]

In all fairness, I think the Daily Mail Online reporters have reported this study with commendable honesty and impartiality.

It makes a stark contrast with the day's other headlines:

 

[Tee Kay]

Mise, emigrate now.

Even our press isn't that bad.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That had a very Day of the Triffids feel to it.

 

[Artifis]

So... Basically... What is this thread supposed to stand for? Is it saying that:

a) Right wingers really do tend to be stupider than lefties, and
b) Despite using it to back up the above statement, The Daily Mail is a terrible newspaper.

 

[Mise]

Ok, I apologise - making fun of the Daily Mail is really too easy.

The threat, Artifis, is supposed to be about the study as reported in the OP. The study, by the way, doesn't say that right wingers tend to be stupider than left wingers; rather that stupidity causes people to become more right wing. Now the latter may imply the former (given a roughly equal number of left and right wingers, and assuming no bias at the other end), but that's not what the study is about.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So... Basically... What is this thread supposed to stand for? Is it saying that:

a) Right wingers really do tend to be stupider than lefties, and
b) Despite using it to back up the above statement, The Daily Mail is a terrible newspaper.

No, the Daily Mail is reporting a study, which is used to back up the above statement.

a) Right-wingers tend to be stupider than lefties. (As observed directly by the right-wingers resorting to the word "lefties" because they can't get their brain around using one more syllable to write "left-wingers")
b) They base this on a study.
c) A study which is reported by the Daily Mail, which is a terrible newspaper.

edit: And Mise ruins my party and should be listened to while I should be ignored completely

 

[Artifis]

The threat, Artifis, is supposed to be about the study as reported in the.........

This was deliberate, wasn't it?

And yes, I can totally get that stupider people tend to be on the right.

No, the Daily Mail is reporting a study, which is used to back up the above statement.

a) Right-wingers tend to be stupider than lefties. (As observed directly by the right-wingers resorting to the word "lefties" because they can't get their brain around using one more syllable to write "left-wingers")
b) They base this on a study.
c) A study which is reported by the Daily Mail, which is a terrible newspaper.

edit: And Mise ruins my party and should be listened to while I should be ignored completely

Don't worry, your well-intentioned post was read and appreciated. I have cookies if you want them.

 

[Mise]

Not deliberate

 

[Ayn Rand]

So what's your problem with the actual study?

Ah... where to begin? Suffice to say, I have no time for this kind of nonsense from either side of the political spectrum. If someone created a "study" claiming that left-wingers were less intelligent, I wouldn't give it the time of day - it's intellectually beneath me to fall into such a vanity trap.

mmk, really what makes you think this article serves the liberal agenda in any way?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Haseri]

Maybe the Princess Diana news was a bit slow this week.

You're thinking of the Express.

 

[luiz]

Ok, I apologise - making fun of the Daily Mail is really too easy.

The threat, Artifis, is supposed to be about the study as reported in the OP. The study, by the way, doesn't say that right wingers tend to be stupider than left wingers; rather that stupidity causes people to become more right wing. Now the latter may imply the former (given a roughly equal number of left and right wingers, and assuming no bias at the other end), but that's not what the study is about.

How did they measure "right-wing", though? Apparently they are equating being right-winger with espousing authoritarian/bigoted views. From the article:

In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'
They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'
The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals.

So the study would consider me a left-winger, even though I am quite firmly in the right.

I agree that frequently authoritarian and bigoted politics have been associated with the political right, but that's not a rule and not a definition. There are racist and homophobic commies out there too.

 

[Crezth]

Ah... where to begin? Suffice to say, I have no time for this kind of nonsense from either side of the political spectrum. If someone created a "study" claiming that left-wingers were less intelligent, I wouldn't give it the time of day - it's intellectually beneath me to fall into such a vanity trap.

But it's not nonsense, because there's a scientific study backing it up. So, I mean, there ya go.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What I'm saying is how do you think that reporting on this study is analogous to something like the Huffington Post reporting on a study that said liberals were stupid?

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah... where to begin? Suffice to say, I have no time for this kind of nonsense from either side of the political spectrum. If someone created a "study" claiming that left-wingers were less intelligent, I wouldn't give it the time of day - it's intellectually beneath me to fall into such a vanity trap.

And yet you've read Atlas Shrugged all the way through...

 

[Hygro]

The definition of conservative and liberal have changed more than a little since JSM's day. Back then a liberal was a believer in liberty, which of course is where the word came from. And a conservative (in Britain at least) was someone who supported the entrenched power structure and class divisions. In that world, anyone who was a conservative and wasn't a member of the elite had to be pretty stupid.

It's funny how some things just don't change, eh?