We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

IQ tests don't ask questions about certain knowledge, e.g., that iron bed legs are better because rats can't climb them, and so people who know those things are less "intelligent" even if they are no less intelligent.

Because my kids all have learning disabilities, I know a fair bit (and my wife knows way more) about what a wretched proxy IQ tests are for intelligence, and what their real uses really are (there are ways in which, for example, they can identify processing speed disorders that affect learning style).

But in a broad demographic study, they're also about all we have to use as a proxy for intelligence, so you kind of have to use them and then try to adjust for their failings. Or, you can just say, we don't have a meaningful measure for intelligence so we can't answer the question, which is also ok. My point just is to the extent there are measures they indicate dems are more intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's one article I found quickly summarizing some of the findings. You can google and find more.

No, this says if you're racist you tend to be dumb. That's just saying there are lots of dumb Rs. There is an underclass of poorly educated in our cities, and in rural areas. The cities seems to be heavily D, the rural seems heavily R.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Because my kids all have learning disabilities, I know a fair bit (and my wife knows way more) about what a wretched proxy IQ tests are for intelligence, and what their real uses really are (there are ways in which, for example, they can identify processing speed disorders that affect learning style).

But in a broad demographic study, they're also about all we have to use as a proxy for intelligence, so you kind of have to use them and then try to adjust for their failings. Or, you can just say, we don't have a meaningful measure for intelligence so we can't answer the question, which is also ok. My point just is to the extent there are measures they indicate dems are more intelligent.

I don't think we have a meaningful measure to measure intelligence across large populations. To the extent that there are measures that indicate the Democrats are more intelligent, I think it is likelier that those are a function of the measurements, not Democrats' inherent qualities.

OTOH, If IQ correlates strongly with something else that correlates strongly with party ID (age is the one that jumps to mind) then I could believe that.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Does this mean Uber/Lyft? Why is that good? I just heard last night Austin banned Uber. Seems a bad idea.

Yes. Austin banned Uber due to the fact they weren't doing the background checks that everyone else was required to do. (Houston banned Lyft for similar reasons.) There were a lot of other rideshare companies that sprung up, to fill the gaps that were happy to take the place of Uber and Lyft AND comply. Uber and Lyft got the legislature to prohibit the cities from regulating rideshare.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

No, those days aren't passing. Sure, most Dems in Massachusetts are in safe seats. But the seats that make the margins are ones where moderates count. You may not know moderates in SF (and there are very few here in Boston), but there are plenty in places like Virginia, Indiana, and Colorado, and if you're going to convert Republican voters you're going to convert them to a moderate dem identity more than a Ty or GGG dem identity. Realize a lot of minority voters in the south count as moderates compared to SF and Boston dems.

We also have plenty of examples around here - BnB, Hank, others who now vote D who used to vote R and who think of themselves as more middle of the road than you and I.

If people play this like moderates don't count, Dems will find that Blue Wave start slipping away.

I think this is the concern that the DCCC had in the district down here when they went after a Democratic candidate in a swing district. They don't want to scare away any moderates thinking about flipping from R to D.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Tyler Cowen says polarization isn't mainly about ideology. Sounds right!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tyler Cowen says polarization isn't mainly about ideology. Sounds right!

isn't this the guy who told you about good restaurants?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tyler Cowen says polarization isn't mainly about ideology. Sounds right!

That seems to be a quote of George Hawley, fwiw.

I don't think there's any question that the right is more motivated by defeating the liberals than anything else. I'm not sure I see it on the left, but I'm obviously biased.

I guess you see some broad language about the evils of "corporations" and "banks" but I don't see policy priorities or even candidates whose support is derived only from sticking it to the right. Bernie uses some of that language but, in fact, ran on doing things, not retribution.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well, you've no future here, sorry. Ty believes strongly that Israel should exist, but he thinks the reasons it was able to start are war crimes, and basically that everything it chooses to do is wrong. Maybe read adder's posts and take a hint? Blindly agree and then you'll be in the cool kids' group.

I know I'm way behind. But you sound fucking crazy.

If you believe the United States should exist (and I hope you are against the crimes Europeans committed against Native Americans) how do you reconcile that with what you're saying above?

Putting Ty aside, you are really weird when it comes to this issue.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But I'm done here, because there is no answer, only getting to calling each other racists.

You sound like a fucking clown.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

When you say it, you own it.

This, all day.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Umm, well obvious lies might not be obvious to the dumb and hopeful. Just like "i'm going to return coal to the top" requires dumb + hopeful to believe. I can't say how many Dem voters believe the particular promise, but it has been the lead promise here for decades. If no dem voters believe it, wouldn't there be some feedback from media consultants?

I don't believe very many people voted for Trump because they thought he'd return coal to it's rightful place atop the energy chain. I think they voted for him because they're terrified of the status they're losing. With that comes the "He'll take care of us before he takes care of those lazy blacks and shifty Mexicans and awful Muslims," but the primary reason was a return to the principle of White People First--not just Rich People First.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't believe very many people voted for Trump because they thought he'd return coal to it's rightful place atop the energy chain. I think they voted for him because they're terrified of the status they're losing. With that comes the "He'll take care of us before he takes care of those lazy blacks and shifty Mexicans and awful Muslims," but the primary reason was a return to the principle of White People First--not just Rich People First.

TM

You don't think there was an economic aspect to it for many of that sort people? "I'm poor because of blacks and Mexicans being given all the good jobs I'd otherwise have."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You don't think there was an economic aspect to it for many of that sort people? "I'm poor because of blacks and Mexicans being given all the good jobs I'd otherwise have."

I do. I think that's mixed into the question of status. The perception is that all of these "others" (non-whites, foreigners, etc.) are making gains. With those gains come economic benefits that the Trump voters we're referring to believe are coming at their expense. But the shorthand for all of their problems is "America First" and if you don't think that's thinly-veiled hate speech, then we disagree on everything. It's a message that we need to get back to what we were when Whites dominated everything (as if they don't now). You get to turn your brain off and just support because it doesn't matter what he says, how offensive he gets, whether he understands the issues, if he's crooked, or whether he colluded with Russia, because he's for you. And if he's for you and will stick it to everyone in Washington who is okay with this trend of accommodating The Other, then he's your guy.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I do. I think that's mixed into the question of status. The perception is that all of these "others" (non-whites, foreigners, etc.) are making gains. With those gains come economic benefits that the Trump voters we're referring to believe are coming at their expense. But the shorthand for all of their problems is "America First" and if you don't think that's thinly-veiled hate speech, then we disagree on everything. It's a message that we need to get back to what we were when Whites dominated everything (as if they don't now). You get to turn your brain off and just support because it doesn't matter what he says, how offensive he gets, whether he understands the issues, if he's crooked, or whether he colluded with Russia, because he's for you. And if he's for you and will stick it to everyone in Washington who is okay with this trend of accommodating The Other, then he's your guy.

TM

The message sometimes get put in economic policy terms ('we're going to bring back coal jobs'), but the real message is not that Trump is about resurrecting that part of the economy -- it's an expression of who should have status and what should matter, aimed at people who care more about making a statement than about making sure those statements are implemented as a matter of policy. Bringing back coal jobs is a big FU to people who talk about new-economy service jobs as a replacement for the well-paid, manly work that Trump voters grew up thinking were their entitlement.