[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1762099494914-0.png (18.06 KB, 420x344, 4-22-2016_01.png)

File: 1762099494914-2.png (147.61 KB, 980x580, 4.png)

 

What are the implications of research regularly showing that right-wingers are generally
a) less educated
b) disinclined to reading
c) low in traits like agreeableness and openness
d) lower in cultural capital and status. (though harder to show in a neat chart, it links to b. most readers will know what i mean if i just say they're uncool.)

and the frankly obvious-and-growing divide of political behavior by intelligence throughout the west, with better educated people voting for left/liberal parties and less educated people voting for nationalists and reactionaries.
in this sense, and only this sense, are the right correct to identify the left with liberals. both leftists and liberals are generally educated, enjoy reading, and high agreeableness/openness, the opposite of rightists.

what are the implications as relate to the idea that right-wing fake news and rage-bait are demand lead, with low-openness, low-agreeableness, poorly educated non-readers prefering to watch nonsense not because they're manipulated into it by outside forces, but because this is just what they like

what are the implications for left-wing organizing strategy, which tends to resist trying to appeal directly to the interests of educated knowledge workers (or, indeed, young proletarianized female service workers with degrees) because of the aesthetic pull of historical industrial mass-movements?

what are the implications in the longer run, given that higher education enrolment levels have generally been rising over time, such that more than 50% of British young people now go into further education by age 30? what are the implications of this trend reversing, as is apparently happening in the US?

a small sub-set of rightists like Richard Hanania are open about their own side's deficiencies (which is helpful, because the high-agreeability left would never say something as vulgar as "Our opponents are just plain stupid", so it's nice for a low-agreeability rightist to put the evidence up themselves)
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/coping-with-low-human-capital
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/listen-to-the-science-conservatives
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch
but even in his case, he now regrets voting for Trump because he thought that putting someone like Elon Musk in would raise the average intelligence of the administration, rather than the right successfully pulling Musk down to their level. in a certain sense, he's just a neoliberal with conservative aesthetic preferences.

>none of this matters, it's all just a proxy for class

graph 3:
>This graph shows the change in probability a voter supported each party when he or she has a university degree or is in the highest income segment. Points above zero indicate a higher probability, points below zero indicate a lower probability. Lines are smoothing lines meant to facilitate observing a pattern. (Authors provided)
note how degree voting is a very strong predictor of voting for canada's liberals (post neoliberal reform in the 1980s) or, more gently, the left-leaning NDP. note how in the early 1980s, having a degree made one weakly less likely to vote NDP, while now it makes one more likely. note how the NDP remains popular with poorer voters, while the Conservatives have completely and utterly bled support with degree holders since the 1980s.
>college SJWs will always betray the left, look at Corbyn and Bernie and how he was undermined by idpol!!
in the 2019 UK election, despite massive propaganda portraying Corbyn as an antisemite (and previous attempts to paint him as a sexist, etc), he won 42% of the vote with degree holders (against something like 20% for the Conservatives), while amongst the poorly educated something like 55% voted Conservative. if only degree holders could vote, Corbyn would've won a Tony Blair sized majority. on the flip side, if only the poorly educated could vote, the conservatives would've won something like a national-government tier majority.
>voting doesn't matter, we're revolutionaries!!
it is not that voting matters, it is what voting shows about the voters that is interesting. if you're trying to guess who'd jump over to your vanguard party, it's helpful to know that poorly educated people are running over to reactionaries at top speed while more educated people are moving the opposite direction. if you're a highly educated book-enjoying, highly agreeable, highly open, generally cool sort of person you're not going to win over a MAGA voter by pandering to one or two of their obsessions while all of their demographic traits are hostile to yours.

Forced gulag education

>what are the implications for left-wing organizing strategy, which tends to resist trying to appeal directly to the interests of educated knowledge workers (or, indeed, young proletarianized female service workers with degrees) because of the aesthetic pull of historical industrial mass-movements?
Well you spelled it out yourself.

>>2546215
Whatever right winger means

>>2546328
Rape this man

It’s genetic. Right wingers have higher threat detection centers in their brains while left wingers have underdeveloped threat detection centers. All politics stems from this genetic dichotomy.

>>2546391
given that we live in the most peaceful era in human history both in terms of large scale warfare and in terms of criminality, this would suggest rightoid psychology is a poor fit for the modern world.

would it be fair to say that all this just re-states the midwit meme?

>>2546391
i think thats a bit reductive
leftists sublimate all these things, like how language becomes violence.

>>2546215
>what are the implications for left-wing organizing strategy
I don't know about general strategy, but it is surely not tailism for the retarded reich or even apologa for reactionary positions and takes. That's just trying to appeal to rightists in a setting a lib/commie is always going to lose vs a conservative.

>high agreeableness/openness
If this was the case, Leftypol didn't get divided in some shit nobody cares about shit flinging every few weeks.

File: 1762119118962.png (29 KB, 1080x1266, 5e3.png)

>>2546584
>your average leftist when another leftist they support x over y when you support y over x

>>2546507
while it is more of a leftist phenomenon than a rightist one, that's better explained by technological changes than by individual psychology. when everyone spends their time permanently playing word games on twitter, of course words wind up defined as violence. it's not like people are still outside, at real risk of physical violence. this is why there's now an inversion and conservatives, who once posed as bastions of free speech, are now very worried that everything the left says is stochastic terrorism. they, too, spend all their time online. they, too, are psychologically threatened far more by words than by physical violence.
everyone is physically safe, everyone is mentally hooked up to the torment nexus.

>>2546584
that's in the nature of imageboards, and it's by no-means certain that imageboard users fit the general psychological profile of normal leftists. (having everyone here do the big 5 test would be a fun data-mining exercise, actually… it's a shame any thread on the matter would have ridiculous selection bias, since some people just post in generals etc.)

Leftism is an elitist world view

>>2546584
I mean the disagreement is more often than not between the high openeness leftists and low openess /pol/ converts.

>>2546215
>what are the implications for left-wing organizing strategy, which tends to resist trying to appeal directly to the interests of educated knowledge workers (or, indeed, young proletarianized female service workers with degrees) because of the aesthetic pull of historical industrial mass-movements?
I dunno. I think leftists can get in a bad habit of putting theory over people, so when people don't match the theory, it's the people who are wrong. People can get things wrong or make bad decisions, but don't talk down to people or treat people like they're stupid. Don't lie to them either, and don't pander to the prejudices that people have. Don't exploit people.

File: 1762169245499.jpeg (14.1 KB, 576x270, images.jpeg)

>>2547152
youre making a mistake by trying to rationalise the irrational. leftists generally consider bad words (blasphemy) worse than bad actions. this is because of coding and status, not physical or mental safety.
>>2547157
yes, marx defines communists as the elite members of proletarian parties (internationalists) and lenin understands the vanguard as an intellectual elite.
>>2546215
right-wingers which have come to the same conclusion are curtis yarvin, richard spencer, BAP, nick fuentes, richard hanania and neema parvini, who have all made gambits to the left, since they find the human capital of the right an unworthy investment. as yarvin says, "everyone is reactionary in their own field of expertise" and so he basically puts his faith in competency and markets, which (as per his previous comments) "swim left", despite many climbers seeking entryism into institutions, facilitating incompetent managerial structures (e.g. "cthulhu"). as it stands, there is "elite overproduction" (university graduates) which endangers competence in this way, since a population becomes over-qualified while simultaneously being inexperienced. high I.Q. individuals are typically specialists, and so a society of nerds is a dysfunctional society. potential "proletarianisation" marx even discusses in the manifesto, where he sees that competition causes the educated bourgeois to descend in the ranks, thus bringing illumination to the working class in the process. so, elite education is different from having elite skill. the more educated i become, the more useless i become.

richard spencer has made more interesting comments, that elitism itself can be dulling for a society, since it just makes everyone "asian" (e.g. nick land on "the I.Q. shredder"), and so you need bio-diversity to make things interesting, rather than simply gentile and efficient. he has said for example that affirmative action is good, not because it levels the playing field out of pity, but because "diversity is our strength" in analogical terms. you'll notice for example that societies with clustered I.Q.s like in scandanavia, there is the poverty of mediocrity, while in wider I.Q. fields you get a vital sample. a high-trust, low-crime society is a dead society, and equally "asian" in its standardised teleology. thus, leftist pity and rightist outrage both miss the mark.

>>2547173
What a nonsensical babble.

>>2547184
>t. low-status

>>2546215
>the high-agreeability left would never say something as vulgar as "Our opponents are just plain stupid"

You taking the piss mate?

>>2547173
>you'll notice for example that societies with clustered I.Q.s like in scandanavia, there is the poverty of mediocrity, while in wider I.Q. fields you get a vital sample. a high-trust, low-crime society is a dead society, and equally "asian" in its standardised teleology.

To me, it sounds like vaguely Nietzschean-sounding, ad hoc cope to deal with the fact that the US has a massive economic inequality problem that translates into a hardcore homeless/drug addict problem in some of the richest cities of the world like S.F., L.A., Seattle, NYC, Philadelphia, Portland…
Singapore and Shanghai are also rich as fuck, are Old Nick's favorite cities, and you will never see such problems accelerated to such a degree there. Even in Hanoi which is poorer, you will never see 50 bended-like-an-U drug addicts on a sidewalk full of trash.
It's really cope for a declining elite of venture capitalists and skilled workers living in SF or NYC who want to keep their huge revenues within an highly US inflated market causing a sharp decline of standards of living for everyone else.
The real mediocrity is the practical solution provided by the Dork Enlightenment: live in gated communities like in South Africa. NYC lost its cultural influence in the world for a reason during the last couple of decades.

>>2547267
there is an inevitability of a well-regulated chaos within a hellenic cosmopolitanism however - if we permit the cosmopolis ("society of the world") then we will create wealth inequality and also wealth opportunity. eroding borders would mean doing away with the artificial stratification of the north/south and so a new way of living would exist. nietzsche for example, expressly promotes race-mixing as a strategy for eugenics (not by preserving purity, but by the process of purification, in combining many aspects into one), which is entirely contrary to current right-wing myopia, which wants to end history altogether. the consciousness of the "radical right" (t. jonathan bowden) is not "conservative", but is a revaluation of all values, and particularly, socratism and christianity. i would say that new thinking can also be old thinking, without of course, spoilation through a "platonism for the masses".


Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]