• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    397
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If “Vote for Educated Leaders” is truly a controversial statement, then we’re all fucked.

    Your leaders absolutely should be educated, not even necessarily in politics, but Bob next door who’s only got two neurons in his head fighting for third place shouldn’t be leading any country

  • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    193
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean if he chose to communicate his preference, that’s a problem. But “Vote for educated leaders” shouldn’t be exactly controversial. If you’re angry, is it because you know the ppl that you voted for are uneducated?

    • MarigoldPuppyFlavors@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well that is where societies get to. Being educated or uneducated becomes equivalent to a political stance. There are plenty of examples of educators getting murdered by governments, sometimes en masse.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pol Pot took it a step further and murdered anyone who wore glasses, because wearing glasses was seen as being educated.

        Authoritarians of every type hate the educated, because the educated often hate authoritarianism.

      • Offlein@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s more concerning is when a society is populated by people who have take the most facile understanding of a position, and then go about confidently as if they understand it. Like, say, if a news article has a rage porn headline and then people don’t read it to understand what actually was going on but make comments on websites as if there was no nuance to the subject whatsoever. … Very concerning.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          sigh the massacres were in side streets, not the square. The students themselves left under the threat of being removed violently once it became clear that the hardline faction in the CCP had won out over the reformists.

          Saying things like “Students were massacred on the square” only gives the CCP ammunition for their “see what kind of vile propaganda the west spreads, they’re making shit up” narrative.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because of what I already said. Also even if the CCP wasn’t using that kind of talk for internal propaganda it’s still nice to be accurate, you know?

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s a thing that every Chinese knows, that the students weren’t massacred. They were the main force behind the whole thing, it’s not a minor detail. The collective memory, the meaning of the whole thing would be vastly different had they been massacred. It’s more or less a symbol and reminder that you’ll be “invited for a tea” before anything actually bad happens, that shit is oppressive yes but it’s not cultural revolution times where it was nigh impossible to know how you’re even supposed to act, where the limits are. They’re still fuzzy but they’ll be explained to you over a stern cup of tea nowadays.

                  It may be a small detail from your POV, it isn’t from the Chinese one.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He said, “Next time vote for someone who is well-educated so you don’t have to go through this again.” I agree with him, and moreover I think teachers should be allowed to express themselves because everything is political. But I can’t in good conscience argue that this was a politically-neutral statement. In particular, the words “Next time” are saying very plainly that he doesn’t think it went well this time. This is a political argument against the current ruling government.

  • SpezCanLigmaBalls@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s so incredibly sad how adults need to be reminded and told to vote for people that have a background with real education. I can’t believe people don’t care about education when it comes to voting for someone to be put in your government. I feel sorry for those people who don’t. You know it’s the people who don’t that have lives that revolve around politics and consume it everyday

    • Hypersapien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Religion and education are two things that violate the law of supply and demand. The less of either that you have, the less you want.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It turns out that the more you know about the world, the more you tend to lean left.

        It’s no wonder the right wants to keep people as ignorant as possible.

        • jampacked@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Identifying left and right is also ignorant. There is no balance to the thought process.

            • jampacked@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m a centrist, I think about problems and the nuance involved without using identity politics to form my decision.

              • colon_capital_D@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.

                • jampacked@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There is no identity bc centrists have an infinite amount of variations in beliefs while the left and right require a strict adherence that is often not even in line with the dichotomy that they have created.

              • GladiusB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Most people are centerists. My thesis is Poli-Sci was centered around the two party system being a downfall for democracy. However saying it’s ignorant to identify is not going to help the situation. At least for now where at least 40 percent give or take are on one end of the extremes.

      • TheWonderfool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?

        And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).

          • NoRezervationz@lemmy.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            You seem to be hung up on the whole “education is a leftist ideology” mentality. It might be true, but the facts tend to have a left bias.

            A good education doesn’t mean going to a very exclusive or expensive university. A well-educated person can come out of the local university or college. It really depends on the person. Being from Texas and having traveled to and lived in other states, I’ve met plenty of well-educated people on the right, left, and center. The problem is, people who disparage education either have something to gain from uneducated folks or those who’ve been convinced by those who have something to gain (and from what I can tell tend to be lacking in education themselves). It’s a long-known fact that educated people are harder to manipulate. Don’t get me wrong, very smart people can do dumb things too, but being manipulated is much harder.

            As far as book burning, the last one of note in the US was in 2022 and reported here. Also, if child protection was a thing on the right, they’d really keep them out of church, although the Bible has been banned for being inappropriate reading material for children.

        • Spike@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I seen a couple of these typical youtube commenters. “Left-leaning university”, shut the fuck up jeez. They are either completely lost here, or intentionally trolling, or pursuing their victim complex by venturing into enemy territory.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’ve uniformly spent no time in or around academics. Most went to no school except “school of the hard knocks” as they like to say (not accredited).

            Sure. Some of them went to college, but went in with pre-existing authoritarian sympathy, and learned next to nothing, doubting the evidence before their own eyes every day. These people call everything they disagree with fake news, having been educated only in ignoring evidence before their own eyes and ears, masters of cognitive dissonance.

            Some of them are definitely trolling. They went to ivy leagues and know they are lying not just about why education trends leftward but about everything else too. Such as Tucker Carlson and Trump, who knows Trump lost and who are both vaccinated, for example. They know climate change is anthropogenic and they don’t care because it won’t affect their lifestyles.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is the dumbest comment I’ve seen on lemmy yet.

          Well the first part is spot on…

          Actually, there are numerous trades and other careers where you dont go to college and do very well.

          The second part, not so much…

          But please keep voting for people with degrees in History because thats working out awesomely.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, more like you want law makers to prove they’re smart enough to understand how the law works. Honestly, a high school education doesn’t prove that. It’s not that someone with only a highschool education can’t teach themselves law, only that they’ll have to find a different way to prove they have the ability to be a good administrator. Even just a college degree doesn’t guarantee the person is all that competent, but it’s better than no degree. It sucks that the world is that way, but any other education system just changes exactly where the lines in the sand are for quickly judging people.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d rather they are educated in facts and not feelings.

        The facts they teach in school have been rigorously tested for centuries. They aren’t just some opinion of an angry Youtuber. If you don’t agree with them feel free to debunk them using science and receive your Nobel price.

        That you don’t get how most facts support left leaning policies says more about you than about the left.

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?

        You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.

        Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Medicine has a clear goal - politics do not. “

            This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.

              • rusticus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think politician has a goal of health of a nation. FTFY.

                Your argument is stupid. Stop making yourself look the same.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why does health of a nation matter? I don’t agree. And what does health of a nation mean?

                  I’d prefer a politician who let’s a nation collapse but greatly improves the quality of life of many. (Like what Gorbachev could’ve been.)

      • rhsJack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tell me you don’t know what the work “educated” means in a truly demented political rant without admitting you don’t know what the word means.

      • ferralcat@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plumbers. He’s talking about people who’ve done plumbing appreticeships. It seems pretty obvious.

    • kboy101222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I definitely read the headline and thought “please don’t be my state again”

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Funny thing: in early years of Russian Federation “red state” meant southern pro-communism pro-education/healthcare/pension/science funding state.

      • beertoagunfight@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Around 40% of Indian politicians are only educated up to school (stat might have changed), and the ruling party is quite dystopian in silencing narratives that go against it.

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sorry, but what does “up to school” mean? (I am American, and many of our education groups are schools.) Is that school prior to college, ending near age 18, or something else?

          Edit: thank you, I now understand

        • ferralcat@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would guess that most republicans politicians are actually pretty highly educated. Trump even went to ivy league schools. They value it, just not for their voters.

          • FadoraNinja@lemmy.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not really. They use Ivy League schools more for making connections with other wealthy people and getting jobs through those connections than actually learning anything.

      • zaphod@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Majority of users on lemmy are probably americans by now and they assume everything is about their country.

  • Alex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Quirk of a polarized political system thanks to FPTP-voting. Sooner or later even the lamest, most basic stuff suddenly turns political and “controversial” while billionaires laugh all the way to the bank. It’s by design and what happens when groups of individuals are allowed to hoard obscene wealth and use it to rule the masses.

    • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean - I dislike financial inequality as much as the next person, but attributing the failing education system and polarization to “billionaires” will get us nowhere.

      The vast majority of politicians, educators, propagandists and just insecure people are not billionaires. Don’t take away their responsibility, they are not mindless babies.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except that the money flowing to the top 1% are the result of politics. The tax cuts which funnel money out of the public coffers and into billionaires’ pockets also require cuts to services, like education. Polarization is what’s required to motivate voters to continue to vote against their own interests. They’re very much connected.

        • InformalTrifle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The question then is why the 1% have such influence. Why is lobbying even legal when politicians are supposed to represent the people. Why are politicians allowed to trade stocks with inside information on policy. Why do we allow money to corrupt democracy.

          Other countries have the problems of first past the post (and I’m it’s biggest critic) but I don’t think politics is as polarising like a team sport as in the USA, and monetary incentives like lobbying are illegal in most countries

          • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I agree. In general, lobbying is a much bigger issue than the “billionaires”. Lobbying exists at all levels. You can have a dinner with a local politician for a very affordable fee ($3-5K), and meet the former or the future president (maybe even the current) for $200-300K. Lobbying is everywhere, it’s not limited to billionaires.

          • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Being in 1% by income makes one barely a millionaire. Most likely not even that if they live in an expensive city and have a family.

              • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not the same. Blaming a group of people without understanding who is in that group is not very thoughtful. This reeks of “kill the rich” or, more accurately, “kill whoever is more rich than me”. If you want to target someone with your frustration, understand at minimum who you are targeting.

        • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everything is connected if you look deep enough. People who drive rolling coal cars and hate “the libs” are responsible for their action. Choosing an ideology, watching propaganda, immersing oneself in hate are all actions. Sure, billionaires are having an outsized impact on the world. That’s power. In general - power does corrupt. We, the people, have to take responsibility for our actions, not expect billionaires to stop growing and exercising their influence. It’s easy to blame “the billionaires” for making someone a shitty person.

          • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except the billionaires are the ones lobbying for cuts to education, buying up all the housing, lobbying against increasing minimum wage keeping people desperate, buying up all the media and turning it into propaganda, are responsible for dumping chemicals that impact growth and development in our water system, etc. Etc. Every failing in our society has billionaires behind it. Yes people are responsible for their actions, but just like you would blame Kim Jong Un for the beliefs of one of his brainwashed citizens rather than blame them, you should also be blaming billionaires and oil execs for people ‘rolling coal to piss off the libs’. They’ve been just as thoroughly brainwashed and propagandised, and just as intentionally.

            • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, I wouldn’t solely blame Kim Jong Un if a soldier from NK kills a member of my family. The ultimate goal of a totalitarian regime is to convince people that they are powerless, that they need a leader to guide them. This takes away all agency and responsibility (where it matters).

              Don’t fall into the same trap. Everyone is an individual, everyone can and should learn. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their life (excluding situations where people are physically constrained by an abuser).

              Blaming the “billionaires” is a fruitless endeavor. Do you think if we get rid of billionaires we will automatically live in a just society? There will always be people with more power, billionaires or not.

              Worldwide, I am in the 1%. You are most likely too. For a lower class family in Pakistan you are a billionaire.

                • Pontishmonti@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The highest data point referenced in the article you link to is Monaco with $12.4M. Not sure where you are getting the $30M number.

                  Anyway, as I said, globally you and I most likely are in the 1%. Not in the US, a very wealthy country.

                  Edit: here is an interesting data point for you: Kenya is listed last on that graph with just $20K. Do you know how wealthy Kenya is overall? It’s at the 59th place globally. Out of 173 countries.

                  So yes, you and the majority of people posturing in these comments are the 1% globally. Enjoy this realization, fellow onepercenter.

    • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s absolutely a trend/coordinated effort among the global right wing to basically turn every country into Russia, strong dictator, highly nationalistic, one religion forced on everybody, and much much more. It’s happening in America, Europe, Canada, and all of their media and influencers are working together to push the same “values” on everyone, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist, and anti-intellectual, anything “woke”.

      It’s time for us to unite globally against the Right wing and their allies, that’s the real world war we’re going to have to go through in order to stop them from holding us back and to fix this world’s problems.

      • ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s time for us to unite globally against the Right wing and their allies

        Democrats 🤝I.N.D.I.A alliance

        • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          None of that makes DeSantis and Trump and co. Simp Putin any less, the same with Marine LePen in France and various others.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You are almost correct. But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be USSR, he wants to be in power entire his life and after death. He wants personal autocracy or dictatorship where KGB helps keep him and his oligarchs in power. Even war he started is a mean to throw a wall on people’s heads.

          People who want Russia to be USSR do it not because they want to be “powerful and feared”, but because in USSR there was decent healthcare outside of Moscow, school near their home wasn’t closed by Sobyanin and there was no war with Ukraine. Because in USSR there was “peace to world” instead of “we will turn world to radioactive ash”(AFAIR Kiselev’s quote, Putin’s propagandist), “glory to science and production” instead of warmongering and destruction.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are telling me how he wants to be perceived, not who he is - old KGB dictator who forgot to take his medications. The only things he competing in with Stalin: cult of personality and political assasinations.

              Interesting article…

              exposed to the fallout between 1949 and 1956

              1956 is 3 years after Stalin’s death.

  • Rawdogg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It feels like we’ve been devolving as a species for the last 20 years or so, I’m pretty tired of living in interesting times.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Stop voting for fascists just because they blame all your problems on marginalized people, already.

  • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a real shame but it says a lot about the motivations of politicians and the fear they have of education. If I ran my own school, I’d be reaching out to him to hire him.

  • Niello@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d love to see those who disagree with his statement answer the question “when is a good time to not vote for educated leaders?” that applies more than 0.01% of the time.

    Even religious people shouldn’t disagree with it. If you want someone with religious background in then you want them to be educated in matters to do with that religion. That they themselves don’t consider that education is telling.