there are many people who dont know anything about politics or are just plain retarded.

I hate this argument. Whilst I find this more common from the political left than the right, I find it extremely arrogant nevertheless.

It illustrates the concept of illusory superiority, where studies show overwhelming numbers of people tend to overestimate their own IQ or deem themselves as 'above average intelligence' relative to everyone else.

I see it in the media, which likes to parade the 'college degree' or 'educated' vote, as if that matters. Sorry, but I don't accept that because you spent a few extra years in a notoriously liberal environment, your opinion suddenly increases in value over the opinion of say a common labourer, who works on the frontline of the economy.

If I had the option to vote, I too would lean Trump rather than Hillary, but I would 100% accept that there are people much cleverer than I with valid reasons to support either candidate.

TLDR : Don't assume people are 'uneducated' or 'racist' or 'don't know anything' or even 'retarded' simply because they don't vote your way. Your electorate is full of people just like you, people with their individual lives, and probably all thinking they are smarter than 90% of their peers too. People have different perspectives and priorities, that is all.

Rant over.

I guess everyone's a low information voter except you, then?

And arguments you don't like hold no weight too?

Epitome of my argument - arrogance. Nothing more annoying but also satisfying than watching people cry and complain when they lose because of other 'low information voters'.

Edited 7/3/2016 13:44:58

What, you call my argument 'no weight' and you want to be taken seriously?

And now, the clan I am in affects my political opinion too? Haha, you and your superiority complexes!

Edited 7/3/2016 13:49:09

I hate this argument. Whilst I find this more common from the political left than the right, I find it extremely arrogant nevertheless.
It illustrates the concept of illusory superiority, where studies show overwhelming numbers of people tend to overestimate their own IQ or deem themselves as 'above average intelligence' relative to everyone else.
I see it in the media, which likes to parade the 'college degree' or 'educated' vote, as if that matters. Sorry, but I don't accept that because you spent a few extra years in a notoriously liberal environment, your opinion suddenly increases in value over the opinion of say a common labourer, who works on the frontline of the economy.
If I had the option to vote, I too would lean Trump rather than Hillary, but I would 100% accept that there are people much cleverer than I with valid reasons to support either candidate.
TLDR : Don't assume people are 'uneducated' or 'racist' or 'don't know anything' or even 'retarded' simply because they don't vote your way. Your electorate is full of people just like you, people with their individual lives, and probably all thinking they are smarter than 90% of their peers too. People have different perspectives and priorities, that is all.
Rant over.

The guy says 1 sentence and based on that you immediatly assume that he's a lefty liberal and feels superior to everyone else and whatnot. Cut a bit back on the preconceptions dude. It makes you look like you have some low-education issues.

most voters are low information voters

+1.

you immediatly assume that he's a lefty liberal

Where have I ever assumed he is a lefty liberal?

and feels superior to everyone else and whatnot

Seems very apparent to me when he makes a blanket statements like 'many people who dont know anything about politics or are just plain retarded'

Cut a bit back on the preconceptions dude. It makes you look like you have some low-education issues.

Not a single preconception made. I think you are the one making preconceptions for me. You are the one struggling here.

Edited 7/3/2016 13:52:53

What, so its not arrogant to say that most people in an electorate are 'low information' or 'retarded'?

Your copy and paste from wikipedia does not at all support a majority or even abundance of 'low information voters', as you seem to be claiming.

But since we are trading wikipedia articles...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Edited 7/3/2016 14:11:59

Also Pulsey you have no respect for higher education or expertise. A person who studies economics has an opinion that is most likely worth more than a factoryworker and it is the same with philosophy, science, politics etc.

Completely disagree. In an electoral sense, all opinions are equally valuable. You are right that they may be more knowledgable about the effects of the issue, but as I have said that is irrelevant. Most people vote in their self-interest, policies they deem important to them and will have the biggest impact on their lives. Of course they may not be as knowledgable as an Economist on the general effects of a budget, but does that make all voters without Economics degrees 'low information people' with worthless opinions? Just because they don't make the so called 'best choice' for you or the economy doesn't automatically reduce them to retarded or low information.

Edited 7/3/2016 14:09:51

Yeah it does lol

Going by your logic, people obviously don't deserve to have any money. Better let Economists with their wise degrees spend that money for you, they know how to maximize your utility whilst have the best effect on the economy after all.

You seem to be arguing against the notion of choice itself, or that you are either an expert or a complete illiterate.

Edited 7/3/2016 14:21:23

I have to go anyway, we are moving in rhetorical circles.

strawman, never said anything about economic freedom.

!? This whole argument is about economic and political freedom, which you undermine when you generalize large chunks of your electorate as 'uneducated' or 'retarded.'

I merely said that people who lack knowledge shouldn't make important decisions on which they lack knowledge.

And thats my point. They don't lack knowledge. They understand well, and they vote according to their own self interest, not the interest of others or the faceless economy.

To buy something at the store doesn't require a knowledge of any sort.

How absurd. Of course it does, why do you think firms spend billions on advertising if it was a knowledge free industry? Consumers are always in a position of asymmetric information and make irrational choices all the time, according to you, should all their spending be controlled then when the government and Economists can make the so called 'better' choice for them?

Edited 7/3/2016 14:32:16

nope, just discussing politics.

You were the one that mentioned economists....

No citation.

Playing the 'no citation' card, huh? Where are your citations along with your posts? Conveniently you get to ignore my entire point with a 'no citation' of course, as I am not surprised you did.

Not what I would classify as knowledge, a 30 second commercial about an interracial family eating cereal tells me nothing about the product and even if it did the average person wouldn't understand it.

So I guess firms are just willingly throwing their money into the drain then? Why does Nike pay billions of dollars for Ronaldo and Bolt to wear their sports shoes?

This is getting ridiculous.... I really have to go.

Edited 7/3/2016 14:40:29

Again you're a joke tbh, I mean what can we expect from someone who is in a clan entitled Maximus Trollitus.

You just lost all respect I had for you :(

How about this compromise: There are some people in the electorate that are low information/don't pay attention to politics.

I merely said that people who lack knowledge shouldn't make important decisions on which they lack knowledge.

However, anyone should be allowed to vote, low information or not, because censoring the votes of "low information" voters is a slippery slope that could lead to censoring of certain minorities or parties. This is assuming in this case that Prussian means "shouldn't vote" when he says "shouldn't make important decisions". If that's not what he meant then disregard everything I just said. Sound like a fair agreement to everything you two were arguing about?

They have to make political discussions like this illegal.

They have to make political discussions like this illegal.

But discussions like this, they encourage, uh, they encourage...
...
...
something good maybe?

Princes are addicted to conquest and glory, and will eventually bring the state into a failing war against a republic with masses of citizens who are invested in the republic. The monarchal/aristocratic state will not be able to mass arm peasants to fight the republic, because if they do, they won't be a aristocratic/monarchal state for long, and the republic will always have a numbers advantage and be able to replenish soldiers often.

This is less of a problem for modern monarchies, but they are less aristocratic in nature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levée_en_masse

Mass conscription of the masses by a republic/non-aristocratic state, that ended in the defeat of around a dozen aristocratic states for around two decades and only ended because the non-aristocratic state got itself into a guerrilla war and blundered a invasion of a country.

Edited 7/3/2016 18:37:45

States are led by groups of folk, with the most notable person in a monarchy being the figurehead who is selected by virtue of birth. The other folk in these groups are often folk who have gotten to advisor status by ruthlessness and cunning, and thus are more violent than normal humans. They also have a large influence on the lives of these figureheads lives prior to them being powerful in any capacity, often reducing the autonomy of the figurehead, and allowing violent folk to simply turn the figureheads will in one direction , often violent.

If you need a example of how conscripted armies in aristocratic countries cause the downfall of the state, see the Russian Civil War.

But discussions like this, they encourage, uh, they encourage...

They encourage brain cancer.

Is that how you operate, Prussian? Claiming things like 'cherrypicking', 'no citations' at every opportunity you get?