Opinion Why are college educated people more liberal?

[PainIsLIfe]

Do you think it's due to liberal professors brainwashing students? Or that people with more knowledge tend to have more nuance and sympathy for others who are different from them?

Its multifaceted- liberal professors, the lack of challenging ideas in an effort to create safe spaces, success guilt.

You'll actually find that middle class blue collar conservatives donate a larger percentage of their wealth to charity so I cant buy that education creates sympathy - at least not when it comes to dollars and cents.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

They have developed better critical thinking skills.

If that were true then they wouldn't need safe spaces and to silence opposing views.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Its more likely one will meet different people at college and realize they are people as opposed to stereotypes. A right winger on the other hand has to travel to a city from their ethnically homogenized little redneck shitholes in order to see all the black, trans, lib people they hate online. They also have to travel somewhere else to even be in an area where the lib laws and policies they are frightened of and hate are applied. The right winger lives in fear of a place and situation they dont directly experience.

You do realize that we live in college towns as well as on farms or back in the sticks?

I also lived in section 8 housing for a time when there were on 2 or 3 white families living there.

Your stereotype of a conservative is piss poor and quite frankly shows that you're an example of what you described

 

[Jack V Savage]

You'll actually find that middle class blue collar conservatives donate a larger percentage of their wealth to charity so I cant buy that education creates sympathy - at least not when it comes to dollars and cents.

Questionable claim, but it's actually interesting in how it reflects differing values. Liberalism is about universal values. Right and wrong are based on circumstances, and everyone is equal. While rightism is more particularist. Right and wrong are based on relationships, and people's place in a hierarchy is significant to a judgment of their actions. That translates to a liberal belief that people should have legal rights and legal obligations, and a rightist belief that people should have legal privileges and social obligations.

 

[Deleted member 584792]

There is always a voluntary brainwash

 

[Denter]

Questionable claim, but it's actually interesting in how it reflects differing values. Liberalism is about universal values. Right and wrong are based on circumstances, and everyone is equal. While rightism is more particularist. Right and wrong are based on relationships, and people's place in a hierarchy is significant to a judgment of their actions. That translates to a liberal belief that people should have legal rights and legal obligations, and a rightist belief that people should have legal privileges and social obligations.

This is pretty well put, but liberals have been downplaying or minimizing the idea of obligations for some time in favor of more autonomy, which is itself a vacuous concept. Think about older liberal ideas like- mandatory military service, etc.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is pretty well put, but liberals have been downplaying or minimizing the idea of obligations for some time in favor of more autonomy, which is itself a vacuous concept. Think about older liberal ideas like- mandatory military service, etc.

There's still stuff like taxes and regulations instead of the rightist idea of counting on executives to be generous with their employees, not pollute, and give to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Denter]

There's still stuff like taxes and regulations instead of the rightist idea of counting on executives to be generous with their employees, not pollute, and give to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts.

Hey buddy, don't pin laissez faire capitalism on me, I voted to NOT behead King Charles.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Questionable claim, but it's actually interesting in how it reflects differing values. Liberalism is about universal values. Right and wrong are based on circumstances, and everyone is equal. While rightism is more particularist. Right and wrong are based on relationships, and people's place in a hierarchy is significant to a judgment of their actions. That translates to a liberal belief that people should have legal rights and legal obligations, and a rightist belief that people should have legal privileges and social obligations.

One could conclude this shows the Republican party is, despite the conventional wisdom, the party that cares about those in need and puts its money where its mouth is​

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/repu...han-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.”​

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar...republicans_dont_call_them_stingy_103479.html


And you lost me at legal privilege, we have rights, but I certainly agree that one has moral obligations as well as legal ones.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hey buddy, don't pin laissez faire capitalism on me, I voted to NOT behead King Charles.

No, but you can see the connection between it and a *functional* rightism. Legal power is all on the side of the rich, but that's theoretically balanced by social obligation. It's just that it doesn't work in practice. IMO, it's not really possible for rightism to "work" in the sense of producing a country that is as successful as modern liberal states, but to the extent that it works on any level, it can't be this liberalism light, where you have capitalism and theoretically equal rights, but minimal scope for democracy. Has to be where landowners' power is sanctioned by the Church and balanced against business owners' power, with both sides courting workers and the poor.

 

[Jack V Savage]

One could conclude this shows the Republican party is, despite the conventional wisdom, the party that cares about those in need and puts its money where its mouth is

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.”​

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar...republicans_dont_call_them_stingy_103479.html

That would be a wrong conclusion, though, for reasons I illustrated. Also kind of ironic that Christians would be on the right, when universal values are a core part of Christianity.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

That would be a wrong conclusion, though, for reasons I illustrated. Also kind of ironic that Christians would be on the right, when universal values are a core part of Christianity.

Because you have a preconceived notion of Christianity and paint with a broad brush.

 

[PoundForPound]

Young and indoctrination.
Let’s see the numbers 10, 20 years after graduation.

There “hero’s “ ie teachers say they should be.

Their*

Ironic... are you a high school dropout?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Because you have a preconceived notion of Christianity and paint with a broad brush.

No, it's post-conceived. Are you saying that Christianity does not promote universal values? I mean, I'm aware that Evangelicals are very tribalistic, but that contradicts the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Denter]

That would be a wrong conclusion, though, for reasons I illustrated. Also kind of ironic that Christians would be on the right, when universal values are a core part of Christianity.

The normative form of government during the development of Christianity was monarchy. Also, "who's face is on this coin?", etc.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No, it's post-conceived. Are you saying that Christianity does not promote universal values? I mean, I'm aware that Evangelicals are very tribalistic, but that contradicts the teachings of Jesus.

I'm saying your view of the right as an evil free for all and you disdain of Christianity is readily apparent.

I'm a member of Emmaus so I'm not sure how tribal you mean.

 

[Denter]

No, but you can see the connection between it and a *functional* rightism. Legal power is all on the side of the rich, but that's theoretically balanced by social obligation. It's just that it doesn't work in practice. IMO, it's not really possible for rightism to "work" in the sense of producing a country that is as successful as modern liberal states, but to the extent that it works on any level, it can't be this liberalism light, where you have capitalism and theoretically equal rights, but minimal scope for democracy. Has to be where landowners' power is sanctioned by the Church and balanced against business owners' power, with both sides courting workers and the poor.

There have been other developments in distribution of actual material power since the middle ages, but yes, obviously just relying on rich people doing the right thing probably won't work out well. I'm definitely in favor of mutual hierarchical obligations going all the way up. Where I depart from most monarchists is that I don't think any of this need be hereditary, and it should be ill defined and vague rather than explicit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The normative form of government during the development of Christianity was monarchy. Also, "who's face is on this coin?", etc.

But it was always a problem, as the seeds of the collapse of the order were planted (and the doctrinal adjustments needed to justify the system didn't stand up to scrutiny). Actually illustrates the challenge to stability faced by an order not based on or concordant with reason.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm saying your view of the right as an evil free for all and you disdain of Christianity is readily apparent.

I'm a member of Emmaus so I'm not sure how tribal you mean.

Well, my view of the right is that they're on the right. And actually I don't have disdain for Christianity as such. Certainly I do have it for pseudo-Christian organizations that exist to promote political goals that are at odds with Christianity.

 

[JDavis]

just a giant bummer of a thread filled with butthurt red pills clinging to each other