Being poor and idolizing the rich.
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43340 readers
2067 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Thatβs by design
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
Coping mechanism for the poor, they can't admit they're at the bottom and so it feels good to put other people down for nonsense reasons
π
Cigarettes
Nah, addiction plagues the well and the poorly educated. I was acquainted with a couple of Nobel prize winners who smoked like chimneys.
Using terms like 'u', 'ur', etc when writing. No one charges by the letter, it's simply lazy.
Doesn't this depend on the stylistic environment of the text? Personally, I'd consider it alright given that the sender and the receiver are in a casual relationship. It only makes one seem uneducated if they are using it in a more formal, or perhaps a public context.
If I know someone personally and they text me with abbreviations and such like that. I do judge them for it.
Come on guyβs
Thinking that someone without a formal education is somehow beneath you.
People who are proud about their lack of knowledge on a topic as if that somehow means that they were not programmed prior to the encounter.
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
Itβs in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
Itβs sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I would say "not the grammar" since many users are not native English speakers and have learned it as a second (or third, fourth...) language. πββοΈπ
Not to mention a lot of native english speakers are garbage at the language too.
religion and the belief in the supernatural/paranormal. also the belief in conspiracy theories.
conspiracy theories i agree with, but religion? organized religion, definitely. joining a religion with a hierarchy signals that you want someone else to give you all the answers, which is very much a mark of poor education. but religious beliefs are not an automatic marker of poor education, as long as they're sincerely held, don't supersede science, and are frequently revisited and revised based on personal experience and knowledge. even basic, broad frameworks like animism or some parts of Buddhism can help you make sense of the world when science can't help you
π
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers...
Racists benefit from worker's rights too.
π
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn't really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
taking Ayn Rand's work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn't going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
What Objectivist is that moral?
π
That's actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn't be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I'm not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That's it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
It's not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of "dark triad" traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That's a hard problem to solve.
π
Being poor or lower middle class and voting for right wing/conservatives. You essentially give away your hard earned money and give it to ultra rich and worsen the quality of your life.. usually because the right wing scares people to be afraid of other people and new phenomena.
"People who don't support my party are stupid"
Is a pretty big "poorly educated" sign.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist...
Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
That's unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
The irony!
Believing that capitalism lifts people out of poverty.
oh but it does
why would you expose yourself like that
They think opinions are facts.
Thinking about different languages in the terms of "useful" or "useless" according to the number of speakers they have.
Edit: What I mean specifically is not for someone to want or not to personally learn a language, but if the existance in itself of a language is more or less valuable according to how many people speak it (per example and as I explained below, believing that Occitan's existance is useless because there's already French to talk to Occitan people with, who already understand it). Yes, this happens.
Why does this show lack of education over lack of interest in linguistics? Iβve studied linguistics, and I donβt categorize languages that way, but I could see how a pragmatist wouldnβt see value in learning Esperanto or Papiamento.
I think you misunderstand what I am referring to. I am not talking about a wish to learn a language, but to consider languages as useful or useless in regards to their entire existence.
This is unfortunately not very uncommon in people of European countries who look down upon regional languages, stating that their existence or that learning them is useless (not for them only, but for anyone) just because you can already do the task of communicating with others through the national language (per example, considering the existance of the Occitan language useless because the people of everywhere where it is spoken can already understand French). This is done by people who not understand (or even worse, who don't care about) the value that exists in language from a cultural perspective.
So interesting. Thank you for the perspective.
Thank you.
I know this all sounds like Mandarin to most of the userbase of this place (which I suppose to be mainly from the US and alien to the politics of places where big regional languages exist in the same space than even larger national languages), but it's not only the attitude of some regular people but also of some major political forces. Just a few months ago, a far-right party in Spain vowed to shut down the Academy of Valencian Language if they ever reached power (something I suppose a linguist like you would never approve), under the excuse of its existence being "a threat to national unity".
Nationalism: not even once.