>>2477973I'm open, in an academic sort of way, to conceding some of the I.Q. Obsessives points while retaining a general left-wing political outlook. A lot of things are explained by these people simply being stupid. Not just uneducated, but actively stupid. (Fortunately, that doesn't mean the same thing as conceding "they're worthless", "they're entitled to fewer resources", etc. If anything, I apply a great lump of paternalist "therefore it's not their fault and we need a better system…")
Richard Hanania is a right-wing "former" nazi turned neoliberal anti-Trump type, but he makes interesting points about the US which would seem to generalize to the UK. For example: "Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV" (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch ) or "Elite human capital is always liberal" (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/listen-to-the-science-conservatives - specifically, that economic and social conservatism are only loosely correlated worldwide. Smart people tend to be economic and social liberals. ) or, how modern conservatism is a low-status oppositional culture (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/conservatism-as-an-oppositional-culture )
His best part, and perhaps his most generalisable lesson, is what happened at the last election: High I.Q. tech-bro types went over to Trump, and he thought they'd drag Trump in a smarter direction… nope, Trump and his idiot base dragged them down to their level. (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-only-censor-musk-seeks-to ) This is what happens in the UK: An Oxford educated cunt probably doesn't have a below-average I.Q., but he'll act as though he does because that's the direction his coalition is pulled to pander to. On the flip side, Labour is made up of at-least-midwit academic types. Dressing things up in outdated class-based stereotypes (he went to uni, he must be a lib-dem or Tory!! the real working class can't read!) is just one more right-wing strategy to play on the neuroticism of the left.
You can proxy I.Q. to education for the most part (this is more comfortable for lefties provided they can remind themselves that going to university nowadays just means you're young, not that you're middle class) and another chunk of it goes to age, but as that picture shows, there are a lot of young-ish wankers out there. If you're thinking "how can we win them over" instead of "How can we build a coalition of everyone who thinks they're a gaggle of wanker idiots", you're probably going down a sub-par track. (You can't win them over, you're on an imageboard where we swap walls of text, you're precisely the wrong type to do it.)
tl;dr look at party vote by education level, remember we've massively expanded access to uni for younger people of all incomes, and note how uneducated people vote for bad parties. then remember that since uni access has been expanded, the ratio of "doesn't go to uni because they're too poor" to "doesn't go to uni because they're too thick", which used to be tilted all the way to the former, is now much more to the latter.
>>2479435The 'dogpiling' is what really offends their sensibilities. Don't you know they're a famous British comedian? You should be kissing the ground the walk on, celebrating all those brilliant bits they came up with when they were avant-garde, not reminding them that their best work is older than the average MP and that every day they continue to live tarnishes their legacy further.
>>2479458The media establishment is a challenge any good comedian would set themselves up against. Half the fun of a risque joke is "how did they get away with that?!", being a big crybaby about it is just embarrassing. It would be embarrassing to cry that you couldn't show sweary-shagging on BBC1 in 1982 and it's embarrassing to cry that you can't poke fun at contemporary social norms in 2025. It's your job! Get to it! If you couldn't come up with Sneed's Feed and Seed, you shouldn't be hoovering up license payer money!