5 ms·

> alongside the perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile to science and at war with the university. This seems like the main reason. Republ

by curun1r 10y ago

> alongside the perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile to science and at war with the university. This seems like the main reason. Republicans have attacked the importance of education, trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" instead of the traditional intellectual betters that the left would rather see running the country. Education is often a transformative experience that becomes part of your identity and when your identity is attacked, you react tribally and defend your tribe. The interesting thing is that I see both sides wanting to make their sides feel superior through what they value as important. Democrats view that every race, gender and life choice is equally valued means that the most intelligent and most educated will naturally rise to the top and feel most important. The Republicans message of anti-intellectualism, racism, sexism, homophobia and such will make a whole different group of less educated people feel superior. But both groups have an underlying need to feel superior to others. That seems endemic to our species. It's just that as access to education increases, the educated are now a large enough bloc to use that attribute to satisfy that deep-seated need.

splintercell 10y ago
> trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" Yeah and that's nothing but accidental properties of their candidates. It's like how almost all Presidents have good hair(ok after this election I should say 'not bald'). Is being not-bald an essential property of being the President? No, but if the other side keeps putting up candidates who are bald and your guys all have good hair, then you will talk about how your candidate appears more 'trustworthy'.
cr0sh 10y ago
Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"? I was born and grew up in Bakersfield, California - redneck central (well, oakie); while I don't have a real degree (due to bad choices as a younger individual, among other reasons), I don't consider myself unintelligent, and I hope that my posting history here also reflects this. Like many here, I'm a self-learner, and a software developer. I enjoy electronics and robotics as hobbies. I'm currently working on a Udacity nanodegree in self-driving car technology. I have past experience in ML/AI tech. I could go on but I won't. Yet - I enjoy wrenching on vehicles on occasion, visiting junkyards and pulling parts, plus having a beer and burger now and again. I'm not one for sports, but if a game is on and you want to watch it, I'll watch along with ya. Would I prefer reading something a bit more "intellectual" or pursuing similar things? Sure - but that's only one part of me. Why does it have to be one or the other? Let's go out shooting at the range, then afterward I'll help escort some women into PP (not that I've done either - but I am both for 2A rights and a woman's right to choose). Not every person is two dimensional, and while I am certain you understand that, for some reason such understanding is in the minority it seems.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  >Why does it have to be one or the other? Intellectual prowess helps you run the country. "Like to have a beer with," doesn't. And 'like to have a beer with' isn't' the same as charisma. The demographic of people one would 'like to have a beer with' overwhelmingly skews to people like oneself. In other words, it's a form of in-group signaling, and, ultimately, a soft word for prejudice.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Being the kind of person that "the other side" would like to have a beer with will definitely help with running the country - perhaps as much as being an intellectual will, and maybe more.
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      Not charisma. It's never the kind of person 'the other side would like to have a beer with'. It's always a white redneck who would say racist things when drunk.
- curun1r 10y ago
  > Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"? You're forgetting your 2000 election cycle. It was the GOP and pundits that made the distinction between the two as a way to cover for GWB's lackings in comparison with Gore, who was seen as more intelligent but too stiff (the kind of person you wouldn't want to have a beer with). While my quote marks may not have been an exact quote, I was using them to signal that it wasn't my terminology...it was all over the news at the time. Yes, the two are not mutually exclusive...that goes without saying. But that doesn't negate the fact that they've been played against each other in US politics for the past 17 years now as a way of undermining more intellectual candidates. You can see this in the ways that Obama carries himself. His mannerisms tend to signal basketball fan far more than they do constitutional law scholar. More so than any other President in recent times, he's tried to cultivate a sense of humor. It is, perhaps, the starkest difference you notice between him and Clinton, who was never really able to achieve that kind of down-to-earth image. This is not to suggest that Clinton is smarter or even that Obama isn't smart...quite the opposite. That while both are intelligent, it was Obama's ability to be seen as something more that allowed him to win. While I think he was every bit their equal or better intellectually, he won by out-beering McCain and Romney.

by curun1r 10y ago

splintercell 10y ago

> trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" Yeah and that's nothing but accidental properties of their candidates. It's like how almost all Presidents have good hair(ok after this election I should say 'not bald'). Is being not-bald an essential property of being the President? No, but if the other side keeps putting up candidates who are bald and your guys all have good hair, then you will talk about how your candidate appears more 'trustworthy'.

cr0sh 10y ago

Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"? I was born and grew up in Bakersfield, California - redneck central (well, oakie); while I don't have a real degree (due to bad choices as a younger individual, among other reasons), I don't consider myself unintelligent, and I hope that my posting history here also reflects this. Like many here, I'm a self-learner, and a software developer. I enjoy electronics and robotics as hobbies. I'm currently working on a Udacity nanodegree in self-driving car technology. I have past experience in ML/AI tech. I could go on but I won't. Yet - I enjoy wrenching on vehicles on occasion, visiting junkyards and pulling parts, plus having a beer and burger now and again. I'm not one for sports, but if a game is on and you want to watch it, I'll watch along with ya. Would I prefer reading something a bit more "intellectual" or pursuing similar things? Sure - but that's only one part of me. Why does it have to be one or the other? Let's go out shooting at the range, then afterward I'll help escort some women into PP (not that I've done either - but I am both for 2A rights and a woman's right to choose). Not every person is two dimensional, and while I am certain you understand that, for some reason such understanding is in the minority it seems.

WalterSear 10y ago
>Why does it have to be one or the other? Intellectual prowess helps you run the country. "Like to have a beer with," doesn't. And 'like to have a beer with' isn't' the same as charisma. The demographic of people one would 'like to have a beer with' overwhelmingly skews to people like oneself. In other words, it's a form of in-group signaling, and, ultimately, a soft word for prejudice.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Being the kind of person that "the other side" would like to have a beer with will definitely help with running the country - perhaps as much as being an intellectual will, and maybe more.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    Not charisma. It's never the kind of person 'the other side would like to have a beer with'. It's always a white redneck who would say racist things when drunk.
curun1r 10y ago
> Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"? You're forgetting your 2000 election cycle. It was the GOP and pundits that made the distinction between the two as a way to cover for GWB's lackings in comparison with Gore, who was seen as more intelligent but too stiff (the kind of person you wouldn't want to have a beer with). While my quote marks may not have been an exact quote, I was using them to signal that it wasn't my terminology...it was all over the news at the time. Yes, the two are not mutually exclusive...that goes without saying. But that doesn't negate the fact that they've been played against each other in US politics for the past 17 years now as a way of undermining more intellectual candidates. You can see this in the ways that Obama carries himself. His mannerisms tend to signal basketball fan far more than they do constitutional law scholar. More so than any other President in recent times, he's tried to cultivate a sense of humor. It is, perhaps, the starkest difference you notice between him and Clinton, who was never really able to achieve that kind of down-to-earth image. This is not to suggest that Clinton is smarter or even that Obama isn't smart...quite the opposite. That while both are intelligent, it was Obama's ability to be seen as something more that allowed him to win. While I think he was every bit their equal or better intellectually, he won by out-beering McCain and Romney.