Our Dumb Electorate

[guido911]

Obviously a Fox News viewer:

As for the intelligence of the electorate, did anyone else read that 23% of Americans trying to join the military cannot pass the ASVAB?

[we vs us]

It is the responsibility of the consumer.  There are extremes on both sides.  Fox News represents an obviously conservative spin and MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, The Daily Show, MTV, CNN, PBS, and CNBC offer a more liberal spin.  It is the responsibility of the consumer to make their own decisions.  You cannot take that away.

The whole jist of your argument to point a finger and say "you're stupid because you watch FOX."  Unfortunately that is argumentum ad hominem.  All of the networks are cited in fallacy and slant on a daily basis.  Because it has now become FOX vs everyone else (there are no other conservative based news organizations), their inaccuracies are magnified. 

I admit Fox is very conservative, and I distrust all of the spin I hear there, but I also watch CBS, and MSNBC and the spin and fallacy is also very apparent there, it just only makes news on one network.

That's actually not quite my argument.  It's more that FOX is giving the you bad information and isn't a trustworthy place to get info.  Not that you're stupid for trusting them.  The study I cited actually points out that FOX is a standout among the cable news outlets in the level of misdirection it pushes.  The other networks (liberal, centrist, or neutral) at least mostly push the facts. 

(And a note on facts:  if we can't use the CBO as a place to turn to for reliable data, then who should we use?  If there's no authority to turn to -- and the CBO is as reliable an authority as we're going to find -- then why trust anyone anywhere?)

As a consumer, I choose not to "buy" FOX as a product.  Fair enough.  I can turn the channel and get my news from anywhere else. Unfortunately, its effect on the marketplace is far greater than simply being one amongst many choices.  As a civic participant, though, should I ignore the outsize role that it's playing on the shaping of my country? 

[Townsend]

As for the intelligence of the electorate, did anyone else read that 23% of Americans trying to join the military cannot pass the ASVAB?

Yes.  It made me a little nauseated.  The math and science sections kicked sand in their faces.

[heironymouspasparagus]

From Gaspar;
...So. . . to build wealth, someone must suffer?  Is that how it works?

No, not 'must' suffer.  But that IS how it works.  Look around you.  Why do YOU think 50% of the population doesn't make enough to pay tax on a 1040?  Nothing rings a bell there??

[TulsaMoon]

Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: "The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having 'Students Who Study The Least' and being the 'Best Party School' – given these fine academic distinctions, we'll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was 'researched' with."

[Conan71]

Actually no, not dumb.  I meant the title as a riff on an Onion coffee table book, "Our Dumb Century," not as an actual ding on the public.  My point was that there was a much-increased amount of disinformation in the air during our latest election, and that much of that disinformation informed voters choices.  This is bad, IMO, not because I disagree with conservative choices, but it's bad because people are making conservative choices based on bad data pushed by a couple of significant outlets. 

This study was the first good measure, post-election, of that bad data effect.  It also coincides with the new Citizens United verdict, which has allowed all that corporate money into our political debate. It's not a stretch to suggest that 2012 will be far worse in terms of finding fact.

Gaspar: IMO, consumer choice and factual reporting don't always coincide . . . doesn't Fox (and MSNBC for that matter) have a responsibility to be both an economic entity (to compete for customers and attend to their bottom lines) and a civic entity (to report the news for the edification of the citizenry)?  Or is the responsibility solely on the part of the consumer to judge whether the station is quality or not?

And the 2008 elections were won with bad ideas 

[Gaspar]

From Gaspar;
...So. . . to build wealth, someone must suffer?  Is that how it works?

No, not 'must' suffer.  But that IS how it works.  Look around you.  Why do YOU think 50% of the population doesn't make enough to pay tax on a 1040?  Nothing rings a bell there??

No, my friend.  They have learned to be dependent.  They have been taught that they can survive in relative comfort with minimal effort.  No one has used up a "finite" amount of opportunity. 

They have been socialized not to build wealth, brainwashed that they cannot achieve success, and have surrendered to those who perpetuate those lies.

For the able bodied, "poor" is not a terminal condition, like smoking, alcoholism, and obesity, it can be cured only if the person wants be be cured.  It is an addiction to certain decisions, ideas, and a lifestyles that are easily identified at the root. 

For liberals the term "poor" is a label used to identify a class of people.  They view the fight against poverty as shifting wealth from one person to another.  This does nothing to cure the addiction.  This is enabling. 

The root source of wealth is human ingenuity. This has no known bounds, so the amount of wealth in existence can always be increased. That's why capitalism is called "making money". – Marc Geddes

Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless. – P. J. O'Rourke

Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence. – Abraham Lincoln

Liberalism:  The art of obtaining money from the rich and votes from the poor on the pretext of protecting each from the other.

[RecycleMichael]

For liberals the term "poor" is a label used to identify a class of people. 

Why do you think you know what liberals think? You don't, instead try to use the word as an insult for people who disagree with you politically.

Most students in college are poor. They are focused on learning not earning with the hope that the knowledge they obtain will get them a better job and a better future.

By my online dictionary, poor is defined first as "having little or no money, goods, or other means of support". It also lists poor as being "lacking in skill, ability, or training", as an example of being a poor cook or in your case, making a poor argument.

[we vs us]

As is true for most conservatives, Gaspar seems to be fighting liberal (communist?) ideology circa 1965. Over and over and over again.

One day you'll catch up with us and we can have a real discussion . . . I know you can do it!

[Gaspar]

Why do you think you know what liberals think? You don't, instead try to use the word as an insult for people who disagree with you politically.

Most students in college are poor. They are focused on learning not earning with the hope that the knowledge they obtain will get them a better job and a better future.

By my online dictionary, poor is defined first as "having little or no money, goods, or other means of support". It also lists poor as being "lacking in skill, ability, or training", as an example of being a poor cook or in your case, making a poor argument.

I don't disagree, but "poor" is a temporary state, not a class of people.  Your example of college students is the perfect example.  My argument was against the concept that the accumulation of wealth is finite and somehow linked to the creation of poverty.

[Gaspar]

As is true for most conservatives, Gaspar seems to be fighting liberal (communist?) ideology circa 1965. Over and over and over again.

One day you'll catch up with us and we can have a real discussion . . . I know you can do it!

I'm trying really hard but every time I get close, someone like heiron brings the discussion back to collective ideology.

[RecycleMichael]

No...it is a class of people. They may be temporarily poor, but they can still be defined as a subset of any population.

Poor is a description, not a penalty.

In your argument above, you used two different descriptions of people..."able bodied" and "liberal" as a class of people. You also implied (rather poorly) that they have opposite views.

My dictionary says "liberal" means open-minded, tolerant, free of bigotry and predjudice.

You just wish you were a liberal.

[we vs us]

I'm trying really hard but every time I get close, someone like heiron brings the discussion back to collective ideology.

Heiron's just some dude on the internet (nothing personal, Heiron), not a policy maker. He's entitled to his opinion but may or may not be within the mainstream of liberal thought.

If you're interested in a punching bag, by all means use Heiron.  If you're interested in actually comparing and contrasting policy positions -- and therefore understanding what modern liberals do and do not prioritize -- you might cast a little further afield for your sources.

[Conan71]

You know why wealth redistribution doesn't work?

The middleman keeps too much of the proceeds for himself.

[Gaspar]

My dictionary says "liberal" means open-minded, tolerant, free of bigotry and predjudice.

You just wish you were a liberal.

You know, you're right.  I think that we (I included) have seriously twisted the definition of "liberal."  I think perhaps what we consider as the modern day liberal deserves some different classification.  

By the definition above, it would follow that liberalism would promote individual freedom. Because liberalism is free of bigotry and prejudice, class warfare could not exist within the liberal mind (social classification requires prejudice).  The liberal would view all people as equal.  Because this ideology would promote individual freedom, it must therefore recognize individual responsibility.  The last thing one of a liberal mindset would do is recognize people according to some group or classification because these would require assumptions made about the individual before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy (prejudice).

So now we have a problem, because the term "liberal" is used incorrectly to describe the modern a modern philosophy that applies to people who believe in the liberal application of power (more accurately government) to enforce some interpretation of equality.  This is without a doubt contrary to the definition of "liberal".  This modern definition requires prejudice in order to establish group identities.  The rights of these groups are recognized over and above individual rights.  The modern definition also requires bigotry because certain groups or races of people must be judged as incapable of advancement or success without some form of aid.  The promotion of "race based hiring" is even prevalent.

My apology, I seem to be using the wrong term.  Modern liberals are not "liberal" at all.