Democracy and Ignorance

Post Reply New Topic

I'll make my own arguments, thanks. I'll also leave the non-sequiturs to you. One such argument is that education comes in flavours other than "degree". Who is better positioned to inform you of the effects of the EU on the fishing industry in the UK of the following:

Person A: Holds a degree in Media Studies and is into their third month of an internship at a regional newspaper where they largely cover local sporting events.
Person B: Left school at 16 to work on a family owned fishing trawler, now has 30 years experience in the industry and is captain of their own vessel.

A formal education did not make me more knowledgeable about the form and mechanisms of the EU, nor has it influenced my voting choices in general elections.

In summary; 'Education' is the sum of experiential data your brain has collected over the years. One cannot judge the capacity for learning an individual has by examining a single point of data (e.g. whether or not they hold a degree). Targeted autodidactic learning will trump unrelated formal education every single time.



Then your contention must be supported by data that suggests a university education gives you a greater understanding of the democratic landscape within which you cast your vote excepting, of course, a degree in Politics, History or possibly Philosophy. You have provided no such supporting data.



It's assuming that you actually took the time to understand the subject you commented upon beyond repeating poorly constructed arguments made by a media that is in full propagandist damage control mode, and yet the questions apply to your own locale too.



They surveyed 1400 Americans and neglected to include demographic data. I don't believe that it's possible to be anywhere near representative with such a small sample size.



Ignorance is an indisputable fact of life for the ignorant - which accurately describes ~100% of people regarding ~99.9% of subjects. Linking voter apathy to ignorance, however, is something of a leap.



Failure to believe, aka skepticism, would be precisely the correct response to such a statement, sans evidence.



One does not require a university degree in order to be interested in a subject. Nor does one require a university degree to master the ability to locate pertinent information relating to said subject either online or within their local library.



And yet this is precisely what you have done. You are arguing for purity of formal education, above and beyond autodidactic experience. In my experience, and perhaps best exemplified by the likes of Leonardo da Vinci, curiosity is by far the most important factor in one's capacity to learn. By denigrating those without a high level of formal education as "ignorant", you merely demonstrate your own bias.



But a formal education is not.



Evidently. However, at least you acknowledge your ignorance.



Ignorance in general, or ignorance as you've chosen to redefine it?

So.. the straw-far right then?

I think it's past time we abolished the false dichotomy of left vs right. Nonsense such as the above has rendered the phrase 'far right' utterly meaningless.

So you're trying to say that there is not a far right movement in America that encompasses all those things I named off?

The far right tend not to hold strong views on economics, they are much more concerned with other things. Thanks to the Thatcher and Reagan years conservatism or "the Right" has gotten mixed up with economic liberalism, the two are not necessarily intertwined. Everyone's favourite far right bogeyman Hitler lead the National _Socialist_ party remember, that had a fairly anti-capitalist bent.

If you think the people you have described are the far Right, then I'm afraid to inform you the real thing is hiding in the shadows, nowhere near politics, probably arming for total war.

And yet the far right can - and does - encompass the things I rattled off. Just because there are other definitions of "far right" hardly means they aren't also economic and social right wing extremists catering to bigots.

I'm saying that, depending on how you interpret your wide range of definitions, you've created either:

1. A very narrow definition of "far right" or
2. A very loose definition of "far right" that can include whatever you deem expedient to your argument, based purely on having just a handful of the traits, or even only a single trait, that you associate with "far right".

If we assume #1, the "far right" constitutes an insignificant minority of Americans and a virtually non-existent minority everywhere else.

If we assume #2, you've alienated a vast swathe of moderate America.

Which leaves me with my conclusion that your definition is unfit for purpose, much like virtually every other time I hear the phrase "far right" applied to anything other than e.g. Nazis - usually with the contemptible goal of associating one's political opponents with such in order to promote oneself as morally superior.

So, which groups are you trying to imply are literally Hitler this time?

I've never accused anyone of being Hitler but Hitler.
There is a far right in America. They tend to have more power in certain regions than others. Characters like Louie Gohmert, Jack Pence, Sam Brownback, Those idiot Wise Use ranchers in Nevada, and the cast of Faux News tend to belong to that category of the far right. They are the sort who think poverty is a sign of weakness, talk about a "color blind" society without assuring equality for everyone, favor literalistic religious fundamentalism as opposed to science, and think the invisible hand of the free market (which they apparently take for God Almighty) is the cure all for societies ills, while government is a godless problem to be eliminated. That is the American far right.

Wow. That's amazing. You've met idiots who went to college. So what? As a result you hate education? As a result you dispute the thoughtful quotes in my OP. You have yet to respond to my OP. Why? Are you a coward? My OP has nothing to do with Google. You seem disinterested in discussing anything else. That makes you really, really boring. Older = no importance. Less educated = more ignorant. That's my opinion and nothing you have said changes that. Google doesn't prove that, but it's still my unscientific opinion that ignorant people flooded Google after Brexit and no unscientific opinions from you will ever change my opinion. I do not expect my unscientific opinion to ever change yours.

OK? Try reading the OP. Try actually responding to this thread. This thread is about whether informed participation is necessary for the effective operation of democracy. This thread is about whether or not ignorance is good for democracy. Are you capable of understanding that? If not, our conversation is at an end.

I feel like I've turned over a rock and seen some pretty ugly thing crawl out. Yes Virginia, there is a far right in the US. Yes, dear Virginia, there are champions of ignorance. I don't think these replies should engender debate, just bug spray. No one has chosen to dispute Jefferson and FDR, for obvious reasons. All the ignorant can do is obfuscate. Is FDR wrong? Is education in America producing informed, engaged citizens? Say yes or no and explain why.

No. In school I was taught American Government for a few weeks in 8th grade and once again for a semester when I was a sophomore in high school and it was very watered down at that. It was basically as educational as school house rock. We were never taught what our local governments responsibilities were and we were never shown just how important it was to get involved in all levels of our government and community. Studies show that the younger generations education on history I abysmal. Therefore many people lack the proper context to judge the quality of our representatives and our government.

Education needs to be reformed to focus more on history and civics.

This is a tiny baby-step in the right direction:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge ... ight-track

We should mandate these kinds of tests and put some real rigor in the requirements.

You're right, that is a tiny part of it. I think the bigger issue is restoring trust in the institutions of government.

"Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting." Franklin D. Roosevelt
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... evelt.html

Now please note there was nothing said about education at all; I wonder why? Maybe he wasn't a racist....??

You obviously like to put words in other's mouths. This great man, who you can not comprehend, thought more about peoples rights and how to preserve them, unlike you who only wish to take Constitutional Rights away from people for insane reasons.

Your style is to cherry pick quotes, then mis-interpret them, and then hide behind your mis-interpretation. It really is the lowest of argumentative techniques.

NOT that it hasn't happened in the past (maybe where you got your inspiration???):

From an online source...there are many):Other Jim Crow laws did not specifically mention race, but were written and applied in ways that discriminated against blacks. Literacy tests and poll taxes, administered with informal loopholes and trick questions, barred nearly all blacks from voting. For example, though more than 130,000 blacks were registered to vote in Louisiana in 1896, only 1,342 were on the rolls in 1904.

So it's easy to see which camp you fall into. You would have us discriminate against blacks and other people of color because they have less education:....."Well they just didn't do well enough in school to be allowed a full vote."
Those pits they call separate but equal schooling.

Isn't this exactly what you are saying? Nice work "discriminator"; you'd like to set our country back about 50-100 years to wallow in segregation again???? Please think before you put your foot in your mouth next time.

Don't they teach you about this where you live(?)...apparently not.

Damn straight. Look at the media. The media itself has destroyed America's faith in this most important institution. They are responsible for their own demise. It will require radical reform in order to restore the faith of the people in the media.

Yes, autodidacts exist. You can provide no proof of how many there are, so get off your mosquito. Those who choose to self-educate are educated, so they're on my side, against ignorance. Once again, read the OP and either agree or provide proof that IGNORANCE, which you are free to provide your own definition thereof, is good for democracy. What's wrong with you? Refute the OP or go away. Refute Jefferson and FDR on democracy. FWIW I have provided no definition of ignorance for you to respond to. If you wish to know my definition, ask. I may provide one, AFTER you have responded to the quotes in the OP.

Sure enough I identified the connection behind people wanting to make it harder for the "under educated" to vote...I knew the source of such discriminatory ideas would be easily found:

In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.

Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.

The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.

Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”

Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”

While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”

In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.

Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.

In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.

The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”

WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?

I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.

And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.