If "Vote for Educated Leaders" is truly a controversial statement, then we're all fucked.
Your leaders absolutely should be educated, not even necessarily in politics, but Bob next door who's only got two neurons in his head fighting for third place shouldn't be leading any country
The indian PM has a controversial masters degree ( mostly a fake one), so when someone says vote for educated people , he feels its an personal attack on him and his party !
Yea, I agree with his statement but it was implied who he was talking about and when you add his social media posts showing a bias to a specific political party it was a no brainer and why would ask your students in a class to not vote for a particular political party.
It’s so incredibly sad how adults need to be reminded and told to vote for people that have a background with real education. I can’t believe people don’t care about education when it comes to voting for someone to be put in your government. I feel sorry for those people who don’t. You know it’s the people who don’t that have lives that revolve around politics and consume it everyday
I seen a couple of these typical youtube commenters. “Left-leaning university”, shut the fuck up jeez. They are either completely lost here, or intentionally trolling, or pursuing their victim complex by venturing into enemy territory.
They’ve uniformly spent no time in or around academics. Most went to no school except “school of the hard knocks” as they like to say (not accredited).
Sure. Some of them went to college, but went in with pre-existing authoritarian sympathy, and learned next to nothing, doubting the evidence before their own eyes every day. These people call everything they disagree with fake news, having been educated only in ignoring evidence before their own eyes and ears, masters of cognitive dissonance.
Some of them are definitely trolling. They went to ivy leagues and know they are lying not just about why education trends leftward but about everything else too. Such as Tucker Carlson and Trump, who knows Trump lost and who are both vaccinated, for example. They know climate change is anthropogenic and they don’t care because it won’t affect their lifestyles.
I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.
There is no identity bc centrists have an infinite amount of variations in beliefs while the left and right require a strict adherence that is often not even in line with the dichotomy that they have created.
Ok, i’ll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You’re making a statement, so I’ll ask you to prove it. What’s the centrist take on, oh I don’t know, climate change?
If you want a hot take I was looking at the supercola borehole and everything turns to lava at 14 miles down. This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball. I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit. I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time. Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?
I will try to understand the point you’re trying to make here, but I’d like to interject with some questions and propositions of my own.
“…everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.”
-I would like some source on the claim that everything turns to lava at 14 miles down, where are you getting that information from? From what I’ve, briefly, read - the answer is more nuanced. The Earth’s crust is fairly thin at parts, like at the bottom of the ocean, but also denser. The mantle isn’t fully magma either, so I don’t think it’s fair to claim “everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.” The more nuanced take would be to say it depends on the material, temperature, depth, etc. before something may or may not turn into lava (actually magma, lava is when it comes out of the surface of the Earth).
“This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball.”
-For a bit of levity: Objection! Relevance?
“I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit.”
-Ah, got it. It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you do not believe in man made climate change at all? Not even as an addition to your proposed superheating core proposal? Hence your point above about small livable zone, correct?
-But also, like @ZodiacSF1969 asked, what about climate data seems bullshit to you? And how would you justify that? You made a claim, and I will now ask you for data for that claim. Seeing as you see things in a nuanced way, this shouldn’t be an issue.
“I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time”
-Might be a bit of a tangent since it’s not directly about climate change, but are you then proposing we don’t try to lower pollution even for health and safety reasons because solving it does not actually solve climate change, according to your claims?
“Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?”
-Specifically, what do you mean by progress? Societal? Technological? Scientific? And why would backtracking mean we live more in tune with nature and that progressing won’t? Is wind or hydro or solar power not more environmentally friendly than coal? Isn’t deriving insulin in a synthetic way kinder to animals, and nature, rather than having to harvest tons of organs from cows and pigs?
-Why is having “actual green energy” leading us to a dystopian future? Is that not an overt claim as opposed to a nuanced one?
That’s rather simplistic, though to be fair reducing politics to left and right is oversimplifying anyway. There are many variations of right and left ideology. For example, people on this site tend to identify left wing politics as anti-capitalist when leftism can definitely include capitalism in a multitude of ways.
Politics is complicated, because people are complicated. There will be some left and right ideologies that require or demand strict adherence, but that’s not true of everything.
Most people are centerists. My thesis is Poli-Sci was centered around the two party system being a downfall for democracy. However saying it’s ignorant to identify is not going to help the situation. At least for now where at least 40 percent give or take are on one end of the extremes.
I’m open to carrying a conversation that has freedom rather than backing someone into a corner in what you believe you said. What you said was that calling out the current state of politics as ignorant. I think it’s equally as ignorant to just put blinders on and say it’s a bad idea. I give you the premise that it is in fact a bad idea, but denying it just leads to more problems.
Leaning anyway is already an admittance that one must behave a certain way to be considered as apart of, creating a precedence of behavior they feel socially obliged to in a very simplistic give and keep format. Current state politics is ignorant and what makes me form these conclusions and compare them to cults.
No, you tell me. Educated can mean a lot of things. To YOU and your buddies it means the standard path through some progressive institution which has produced a large population of weak, victim-driven babies that need crayons and safe spaces. Look up the brilliant Jordan Peterson and he’ll lay it out for you how badly the higher education system has failed kids. Warning: He uses facts and doesnt care about your touchy-feely crap.
Actually, there are numerous trades and other careers where you dont go to college and do very well. But please keep voting for people with degrees in History because thats working out awesomely.
I’d rather they are educated in facts and not feelings.
The facts they teach in school have been rigorously tested for centuries. They aren’t just some opinion of an angry Youtuber. If you don’t agree with them feel free to debunk them using science and receive your Nobel price.
That you don’t get how most facts support left leaning policies says more about you than about the left.
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
How did we get on colon cancer? LOL. How does a heavily progressive eh hem “education” which is infused big time with propaganda make someone better at being a politician? I didnt say replace doctors with landscape guys. C’mon. I simply stated that alls you people want is more social studies majors running the country and quite a few of us do not. Dont make statements that are false.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.
I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia.
To get back to the point of this discussion, your contention is literally the dumbest point I’ve heard in a long time. Politicians are professionals just like doctors. Education is important.
Eh, more like you want law makers to prove they’re smart enough to understand how the law works. Honestly, a high school education doesn’t prove that. It’s not that someone with only a highschool education can’t teach themselves law, only that they’ll have to find a different way to prove they have the ability to be a good administrator. Even just a college degree doesn’t guarantee the person is all that competent, but it’s better than no degree. It sucks that the world is that way, but any other education system just changes exactly where the lines in the sand are for quickly judging people.
Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?
And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).
So - as I expected: Must be “educated” at a specific university that only caters to the aggressive left. Sorry but our Govt. is loaded with many such folks and they suck at what they do.
And, nicely done too on the derogatory comments towards business owners. Another typical play of the whiny, “victim-riddled” left. Of course, never mind that without business owners no one has a job and there is no economy. "Stepped on everyone’s heads’. Yeah, great. Did you sign up for the wrong Lemmy? There is a communist/socialist version where you can go play.
Book burning? Got a link for that? Oh, you mean limiting or restricting access to very inappropriate material for underage kids? Because, you know, protecting kids is also bad policy. Sure, Jan.
You seem to be hung up on the whole “education is a leftist ideology” mentality. It might be true, but the facts tend to have a left bias.
A good education doesn’t mean going to a very exclusive or expensive university. A well-educated person can come out of the local university or college. It really depends on the person. Being from Texas and having traveled to and lived in other states, I’ve met plenty of well-educated people on the right, left, and center. The problem is, people who disparage education either have something to gain from uneducated folks or those who’ve been convinced by those who have something to gain (and from what I can tell tend to be lacking in education themselves). It’s a long-known fact that educated people are harder to manipulate. Don’t get me wrong, very smart people can do dumb things too, but being manipulated is much harder.
As far as book burning, the last one of note in the US was in 2022 and reported here. Also, if child protection was a thing on the right, they’d really keep them out of church, although the Bible has been banned for being inappropriate reading material for children.
Can you get education through life experience too? Thats kind of what I was getting at. Wisdom and experience are NOT part of any college study. I think you’re over generalizing and stereotyping non-college grads as if they are lesser people than those who did go to college. No way they could possibly think for themselves or see whats actually going on out there without some college professor leading them by hand. C’mon. I only disparage higher education because of what it has become, not the idea behind it. You dont think safe spaces, feelings mattering more than facts, ragging on capitalism, etc. which are all big things at colleges are preparing kids for the real world? Oh and these warm-hearted colleges dont mind sticking these kids with $200K in loans for their degree in Dandelion Botany. Classy move. Talk about “manipulation”. Damned right.
There are a ton of super successful, happy people whom are very intelligent that didnt step foot in any University. Sorry they didnt follow your prescribed path.
For the 800th time: Religion does not belong in public schools and it isnt any longer.
Yeah no the whole “Universities are leftist brainwashing stations” is the most bullshit take I’ve heard and almost always comes from people who haven’t been within 15 feet of a college.
Literally most of the shit I was taught was literally neoliberal capitalist-friendly stuff mandated by the states requirements for the degree. A ton of it was helpful in terms of building effective critical thinking skills but if anything the only instructors that ever introduced any sort of political slant was usually the right wingers or religious people. Literally had an instructor intentionally frame parts of our philosophy class in a way that made more pro-religious philosophy appear to be the correct answer. Students that spoke out and tried to say they favored things like determinism for instance were often shut down by the instructor trying to make us look at things like free will in a way that was more favorable to religion. Later found out after the class the dude was a former pastor.
And even the few openly left-leaning instructors were usually just generic neoliberal democrat voting cut-outs that for some reason Republicans and other fringe lunatics pretend are leftist-communist-extremist-goblins.
The vast majority of instructors just simply didn’t even make their politics affiliation apparent. There’s tons I couldn’t even remotely gauge just simply because they only taught and talked about class material.
This is what happened to Ontario, we have a high school dropout whose wealth came from operating strip clubs and his crack head brother managed to become mayor of Toronto… I fucking hate Onterrible
Around 40% of Indian politicians are only educated up to school (stat might have changed), and the ruling party is quite dystopian in silencing narratives that go against it.
Sorry, but what does “up to school” mean? (I am American, and many of our education groups are schools.) Is that school prior to college, ending near age 18, or something else?
I would guess that most republicans politicians are actually pretty highly educated. Trump even went to ivy league schools. They value it, just not for their voters.
Not really. They use Ivy League schools more for making connections with other wealthy people and getting jobs through those connections than actually learning anything.
Quirk of a polarized political system thanks to FPTP-voting. Sooner or later even the lamest, most basic stuff suddenly turns political and “controversial” while billionaires laugh all the way to the bank. It’s by design and what happens when groups of individuals are allowed to hoard obscene wealth and use it to rule the masses.
I mean - I dislike financial inequality as much as the next person, but attributing the failing education system and polarization to “billionaires” will get us nowhere.
The vast majority of politicians, educators, propagandists and just insecure people are not billionaires. Don’t take away their responsibility, they are not mindless babies.
Except that the money flowing to the top 1% are the result of politics. The tax cuts which funnel money out of the public coffers and into billionaires’ pockets also require cuts to services, like education. Polarization is what’s required to motivate voters to continue to vote against their own interests. They’re very much connected.
It’s not the same. Blaming a group of people without understanding who is in that group is not very thoughtful. This reeks of “kill the rich” or, more accurately, “kill whoever is more rich than me”. If you want to target someone with your frustration, understand at minimum who you are targeting.
Everything is connected if you look deep enough. People who drive rolling coal cars and hate “the libs” are responsible for their action. Choosing an ideology, watching propaganda, immersing oneself in hate are all actions. Sure, billionaires are having an outsized impact on the world. That’s power. In general - power does corrupt. We, the people, have to take responsibility for our actions, not expect billionaires to stop growing and exercising their influence. It’s easy to blame “the billionaires” for making someone a shitty person.
Except the billionaires are the ones lobbying for cuts to education, buying up all the housing, lobbying against increasing minimum wage keeping people desperate, buying up all the media and turning it into propaganda, are responsible for dumping chemicals that impact growth and development in our water system, etc. Etc. Every failing in our society has billionaires behind it. Yes people are responsible for their actions, but just like you would blame Kim Jong Un for the beliefs of one of his brainwashed citizens rather than blame them, you should also be blaming billionaires and oil execs for people ‘rolling coal to piss off the libs’. They’ve been just as thoroughly brainwashed and propagandised, and just as intentionally.
No, I wouldn’t solely blame Kim Jong Un if a soldier from NK kills a member of my family. The ultimate goal of a totalitarian regime is to convince people that they are powerless, that they need a leader to guide them. This takes away all agency and responsibility (where it matters).
Don’t fall into the same trap. Everyone is an individual, everyone can and should learn. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their life (excluding situations where people are physically constrained by an abuser).
Blaming the “billionaires” is a fruitless endeavor. Do you think if we get rid of billionaires we will automatically live in a just society? There will always be people with more power, billionaires or not.
Worldwide, I am in the 1%. You are most likely too. For a lower class family in Pakistan you are a billionaire.
The highest data point referenced in the article you link to is Monaco with $12.4M. Not sure where you are getting the $30M number.
Anyway, as I said, globally you and I most likely are in the 1%. Not in the US, a very wealthy country.
Edit: here is an interesting data point for you: Kenya is listed last on that graph with just $20K. Do you know how wealthy Kenya is overall? It’s at the 59th place globally. Out of 173 countries.
So yes, you and the majority of people posturing in these comments are the 1% globally. Enjoy this realization, fellow onepercenter.
The question then is why the 1% have such influence. Why is lobbying even legal when politicians are supposed to represent the people. Why are politicians allowed to trade stocks with inside information on policy. Why do we allow money to corrupt democracy.
Other countries have the problems of first past the post (and I’m it’s biggest critic) but I don’t think politics is as polarising like a team sport as in the USA, and monetary incentives like lobbying are illegal in most countries
I agree. In general, lobbying is a much bigger issue than the “billionaires”. Lobbying exists at all levels. You can have a dinner with a local politician for a very affordable fee ($3-5K), and meet the former or the future president (maybe even the current) for $200-300K. Lobbying is everywhere, it’s not limited to billionaires.
Brother, he’s not saying he’s going to avoid that teacher, he’s saying he’s going to avoid the place that fired him for saying “Vote for educted leaders”. Don’t be a buffoon.
I'd love to see those who disagree with his statement answer the question "when is a good time to not vote for educated leaders?" that applies more than 0.01% of the time.
Even religious people shouldn't disagree with it. If you want someone with religious background in then you want them to be educated in matters to do with that religion. That they themselves don't consider that education is telling.
Add comment