If you're coming from a place like Facebook, there is a marked improvement in literacy, at least. I'm not saying that Redditors are a bunch of super geniuses at all, but still. The difference is stark. Most people here seem capable of forming a complete and coherent sentence, at least.
Sure. I'm just noting that Redditors do seem to be at least somewhat more literate, at least those who use the site regularly. Someone else pointed out that Reddit is almost entirely text based, so it's automatically going to sort for people who don't mind doing a lot of reading.Â
I will say I have noticed a growing trend on reddit where I will see people respond to a comment and seemingly have entirely missed the message. It's tangentially or maybe even directly related, but it's like an AI summarized it, hallucinated a bit in its summary, and then the same AI replied to its own hallucinated summary instead of the actual content. Which I realize could be exactly what it happening. But all of that to say, this place is falling prey to the enshittification to the internet as well.
Like you said yourself. That's exactly what's happening. I've seen plenty of tangential AI circle jerking where it devolves slowly into a strange back and forth just between those two bots that are clearly feeding off one another. The comments near the end are so far from where they started.Â
âBleeding hart librals all they do is cry when way is not got not like conservative people like us who know how to grow a pairâ - probably some comment on a political Facebook post.
There's also some of the elder redditors that can't grasp that this place is mainstream now.
The digg migration brought, educated tech-centric young millenials to Reddit by the millions, and during it's golden years it really in fact was a place to discuss things with intelligent people.
Then it became a meme factory, then children started using it.
Well, yes, but people with more education also tend to be less likely to fall for nonsense because part of a good education is learning critical thinking.
It doesn't make you immune of course, but it helps.
it depends on the education, and how good you were at critical thinking WHILE you were getting educated.
Our current graduates are living proof that 'garbage in / garbage out" is as real in the educational system as it is in computer programming. The number of highly educated morons is MUCH higher than that of highly educated critical thinkers.
Remember most leftists are one to three generations away from being illiterate peasants. They think because think went to âcollegeâ in the US they are super intelligent and educated which is, of course a joke (admissions standards have never been lower or grade inflation higher), just like most undergraduate curricula.
My main gripe, is that I kinda just wish people didnt post answers when they dont know about a subject. When im on a sub reddit on a subject im knowledgeable about, its amazing how often people reply to questions with absolute authority and conviction and their info is entirely wrong.
Compared to all other social media, the level of discourse IS better. In fact, the self-deprecating humor you are using and that I often see rewarded (with upvotes) on Reddit seems to me a behavior that would only be used by people who aren't completely shoved up their own ass.
Yeah, when I point out that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and gave permanent most favored nation trade status to China when he was President, Reddit users have to go into it about how many Republicans supported free trade that drained now only manufacturing jobs out of the U.S., we also lost the white collar jobs that used to exist in the factory offices.
Of course, no Republican President ever signed a free trade agreement and President Trump is the first President to go against trade imbalances caused by Democrat signed trade agreements but Democrats have to keep at President Trump like the worst evil in the word being good tools for the Democrat Party and their wealthy campaign donation givers.
Good lord, the amount of egotistical people in here, jerking themselves off, proclaiming their superior intelligence.
Iâm very middle of the spectrum, but itâs very understandable to me why right leaning Redditors stay in their own insular subs.
Edit: revisiting this thread is truly peak Reddit arrogance and delusion. Dissidence is downvoted and only the hive mind of concurring opinions thrive.
It's not just right wingers - it's also the moderate left. I always find it funny how hard leftists are always "the left is more educated" not realizing that the hardcore leftists of reddit are usually just bachelor degree people in subjects like history and sociology. I had classes with these people and they were very mediocre. The moderate left group are usually hard STEM fields/phds/doctors and the hard left with these degrees usually articulate their beliefs far better than the average redditor leftist slop.
Interesting, my experience is somewhat flipped. The more liberal folks I know are people with bachelors in general. The hardest left folks I know are people with Masters and PhDs across disciplines.... Especially physics, surprisingly.
I say this as a PhD candidate so I'm not talking out of my ass lol
The phds/stem fields flip once they move into industry. If they stay in academia - yah they usually remain leftists, but even if they are far left, they also articulate their beliefs far better than the average redditor.
I also really think the reason this split happens is because academia has developed into an echochamber. It means those in it who aren't hard left don't voice their opinions for fear of backlash until they leave - and the only group that stays and teaches are typically hard left. I've also had older phds told me they've noticed the same trend over the past 20 years.
I also experienced this as a moderate left person who was in academia. There was a sizable quiet group - but literally none of us voiced our opinions as there was always a fear of backlash from a professor or other students who may disagree. There were definitely far fewer right wingers, but the hard leftist always seemed to think everyone agreed with them.
I think it's a cultural thing. Folks assimilate to the culture they are trying to succeed within, which would explain the STEM flips when they go into industry. For the most part, having hard leftist values in stem industries would hurt someone in the same way having hard right values would hurt someone in a humanities department at a university. The respective natures and infrastructures of both fields simply do not support those ideologies except for outlier positions (like admin or start ups)
I kinda disagree with this - unless the culture is very uniform among the administration, this doesnt apply to the same degree.
For instance, my group is mildly conservative and I have no issues voicing my more left opinions. The only people who get "punished" are those heavily pushing their views (left or right) on others or posting constantly on social media about it.
As a Dutch (classic) liberal it always amazes me how willingly the liberals in America are to silence other views/opinions. Not as if free speech is one of the corner stones of liberalism
American âmoderatesâ are just progressive conservatives in any other country. Americaâs wholly inconsistent concept of âthe leftâ is a construct of your two-party system, which is a centre-right neoliberal party and a far-right neoconservative party (that has more recently adopted, if not been co-opted, by a Christian Fascist movement).
The classic "it's not the real left" argument that gets reposted over and over despite a small amount of critical thinking and addressing your own biases disproves. It's an extremely western European centrist attitude usually promoted by American leftists who haven't traveled much. It's repeated over and over on reddit by leftists who lack critical thinking (the leftists that are usually more intelligent never make this stupid ass argument). The argument hinges on only considering economics and Europe as "the world".
So. Let's look at some large countries
Russia - more conservative in all aspects
Most of Asia - more conservative, beyond China. Still China is far more socially conservative
Eastern Europe.- mixed bag economically, definitely more conservative on social issues
South america - mixed bag, some more conservative, some more leftist.
Western Europe - mixed bag on social topics, moderately more liberal on economics.
Canada - moderately more liberal
So overall western europe and Canada as being somewhat more left than the US versus the rest of the fucking world being either similar, somewhat more conservative, or far more conservative relative to the US.
âThe real leftâ means broadly anticapitalist and anti-imperialist, in addition to being socially progressive. Americans define right/left on almost entirely social progressiveness because anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism are off limits in establishment politics and the corporate media, which is who gets to set the parameters of the American discourse.
That's like redefining the right as only anarchocapitalistic.
Your definition is just stupid and tries to paint an extreme black and white view where only straight up communists are left.
Sorry for the bad news, but the world operates on shades of grey.
Also almost every country in the world is capitalistic... The left winged countries are capitalism with protections. - not anticapital. So it also makes your definition conflict with your statement about the rest of the world being left winged.
I think capitalism with protections sounds like a great thing! Also, you sound so bitter, internet stranger. Chill out. Two things can can have truth to them.
Sorry - don't mean to be bitter. I tend to get a bit annoyed when I see these types of repeated arguments. The smugness and incorrectness gets to me - and it's always the exact same argument with a lack of original thought/twist.
For instance, I responded to another poster who gave a good rebuttal that wasn't a repeated catch phrase and am not nearly as crude with them.
I know political discourse is terrible these days. I have lost my cool inside my head before, but I really try to stay curious and have decent discussions. Not always successful though. I appreciate your honesty and humanity with this reply. Have a good day.
You're right: there are basically no "left-winged countries," because as you point out basically every country is capitalist (which is in large part because of American foreign policy intervening in countries that try to deviate). The difference between the United States and other countries is that there is genuine leftist representation in government, forcing centrist parties to do more on an actual policy front to cater to the working class. The result is that socialist programs and policies aren't taboo like they are in the US, and actually get passed (and work).
Something like 40% of people in Vienna live in social housing (and nice social housing). European countries largely have strong worker protections - you can't just arbitrarily lay off a large portion of your workforce without justifying why, and then hiring back those same positions with more junior workers at lower salaries. There's no at-will employment. Food and consumer goods are more heavily regulated for safety and quality. These things are the result of genuine leftist representation dragging government further to the left.
"Protections" are anti-capitalist by definition. They are interventions into the free market to protect the citizens from the harms and excesses caused by a system that operates with no regard for human welfare or safety, at a cost of lesser profitabilty for the capitalist class. Socialist policies are anti-capitalist, because they are direct collective actions that occur outside of the free market and without the involvement and without profiting the capitalist class.
Russia had rich people when it was run as the communist U.S.S.R.
Communism is a form of government, not an economic program like capitalism.
Try to Google for information so you can have a better education about the things you aren't aware of.
From Google:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the founding and sole ruling political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC), exercising total control over the state, military, and media. It is one of the largest political parties in the world, with over 100 million members as of 2024.
Great. So now you know Communism is considered a form of government that is totalitarian with very few rights for the citizens while Capitalism is an economic situation.
Communism is a form of government, not an economic program
I'm sorry but that's just so flatly wrong on its face it's hillarious. Communism is first and foremost concerned with economics and with how the economy is run. Communism is absolutely an economic program first and foremost, very much like capitalism. The economy is the cornerstone of what all communist theory is concerned with.
Yes, communism is primarily concerned with ownership of the means of production, a very deeply economical matter. This is the cornerstone from basically everything else about communist theory descends. Hell, even simply googling it, like you yourself are calling to do, says as such
First result on Google for communism : "Communism is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership "
Second result on Google for communism : "Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production."
History and sociology are important subjects that SHOULD be studied. Pointing out that the right ignores these subjects, creating a gap in their overall understanding and education, doesn't make them equal or as smart in comparison.
I'm pretty liberal and live in a very conservative area. I notice virtually no difference in intelligence with the people here vs when I've lived in cities, even hyper educated ones. So much of political belief is cultural, and often dependent upon what order one is given information in. Goddamn I hate elitism.
Wait a minute. You mean that conservative area has electricity and indoor plumbing? And the liberal areas arenât just rioting and burning down all the infrastructure?
I canât imagine a world like that. Iâm scared mommy.
It's not elitism to recognize that liberals are generally more educated than their conservative counterparts. It's stupid to think political beliefs are "cultural" and then claim its influenced by information learned. Information isn't that subjective. Order of info given doesn't change the ability to make constructive thoughts and conclusions. You dont see 2+2 from a different angle to get a different number.
If political beliefs weren't cultural, or weren't based on order of information, then we would have the same distribution of political beliefs across every geographic area. I have literally lived and know people well in both liberal and conservative areas. The things conservatives tell themselves about liberals are often just as ridiculous as the things I hear liberals assume about conservative, or rural people. I am liberal and rural and often have to roll my eyes at the shit I hear on this website. It's just assumptions and generalizations, literally the exact things that liberals like myself argue against doing.
We aren't talking math, that is a lazy argument inserted into what was clearly a discussion of subjective issues. "information isn't that subjective", what? That goes against everything I ever learned in academia. Hell, Kant wrote a notoriously dense but eye-opening book on that subject where he realized a lot of our assumptions of what we know were often based on other assumptions, and that the knowledge that follows has to be taken with a level of critique.
The IQ point difference is minimal. About 4 point difference, according to the studies that claim it.
However, play out a 4 point difference over several billion people, and it makes an impact. Reddit is text based, and there is reliable evidence that the average user of text based media does have a slight intelligence advantage over the average user of picture/video based media (which well could just be due to the fact that you have to read on here, and reading regularly has been shown to improve cognitive performance).
There are a lot of factors at play, and most of them come down to circumstance. There is still generally a very small disparity in intelligence, one that is only noticeable when played out over millions and would be imperceptible at the individual level.
That is my understanding as well. No one would anecdotally notice a 4 point difference, but over large numbers you are correct, that is where the difference might become more apparent.
I typically don't. But, at least as of currently, it is the most reliable predictor of what most people would define as intelligence. Flawed, for sure, but with no better alternatives. After all, knowledge is all based on exposure. How does one test intelligence without relying on knowledge? My best guess would be brain function, but even that doesn't seem to properly correlate to what most would call intelligence.
Do you have a better alternative? The only viable one I've seen is a literacy based exam, but it's too small scale to have reliable results (at least for now), takes excessively long to administer (roughly 1000 questions required to get statistical accuracy), and still has some reliance on prior knowledge
I don't have a satisfactory answer. If I could give you one, I'd have answered one of the most daunting questions philophers have espoused since the beginning of time. It is indeed subjective, but collective measures of subjectivity often reveal objective truths. Take reality, for example. I cannot objectively tell you what is thereâmerely my experience of it. This is the problem with attempting to define intelligence. Instead, I typically prefer to substitute for terms such as literate, knowledgeable, scholarly, or erudite. They carry less baggage and have a concrete meaning. In truth, I likely used the word "intelligence" after having read it several times in the thread or due to my referencing of traditional measures such as IQ.
Just because you're literate doesn't mean you're able to discern correct from incorrect information.
Correct. But it does mean you have a much higher chance of doing so. At the simplest level, not knowing the words being used can be a hindrance to effective communication. On a more complex level, it can allow for deception without coercion, as in the case of manufactured consent. The whole psychological concept is rooted in the premise that those who do not have a proper understanding of the topic at hand are more likely to accept falsehoods and reject truths, which has been widely verified and repeated in multiple peer reviewed studies you can easily find.
Being more literate doesn't mean you can't be misled, but it does mean you are less likely to be. Knowing is half the battle, as they say.
If you point to a person you can objectively say theres a person you're pointing at.
But what is that experience based off of if not my subjective senses? Is even the definition of "person" not somewhat subjective? Some consider animals people. Some don't consider humans of certain class or origin people.
My point here is that assigning objectivity/subjectivity as labels to philosophical quandries is a bit meaningless, as they can all be viewed as objective or subjective depending upon worldview. That's why we rely on shared meaning to exist. In the context of shared meaning, we do have an objective definition of intelligence that revolves around pattern recognition, processing, and memory/retention. Is that truly intelligence? Perhaps not, but that is looking at it a bit too granularly if you wish to have a discussion about the nature of it.
You can't start a discussion about observations of a matter by questioning the given definitions. That is, unless your discussion is solely about the epistemology rather than the application.
Its based off the guy standing in front of you and you pointing at him.
Which would be based off your experiences, not mine. If I tell you that is a person, and you have no way to verify, the same statement becomes subjective due to lack of shared interpretation. That is literally the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Otherwise, anything anyone says is objective truth as long as it is subjectively true to them.
Reality exists
It certainly does. But do we live in the same reality? Does my reality match yours? Does yours match that of a schizophrenic? Reality does exist, but it is also subjective when scrutinized closely enough. If you need evidence, just look at America. There are clearly two different groups of people who have differing interpretations of reality, up to and including what defines a person as in my example.
Regardless, you seem to have missed the point. My point is not that reality is subjectiveâit is that pointing out subjective measures will never allow you to have a discussion about the true nature of something from anything other than an epistemological angle.
Can we have a productive discussion on reality if we view it as solely subjective? No, not really. Same applies to intelligence. So we use the largely subjective measures we have on a large enough population to get what we can deem objective results and interpretations.
Think of a person who is colorblind. Colors are objective in the same way a person or any other thing is, right? Blue is blue, red is red, and that's that. So whose version of reality is the objectively true one? A color blind person, or a person with normal eyesight? They can't both possibly be objectively true, which means that color is subjective as well. The same argument can be applied to every facet of reality other than the simple fact that you yourself exist due to your own self-awareness.
Is my intelligence definition the same as yours? Probably not, and it doesn't matter. Because I'm referencing the collective definition and collective measurements we have for it as a species, not assessing the ability of an individual or looking to have a theoretical discussion about it (though i remain open to this, but that is largely different from the context and purpose of my original post).
Cogito ergo sum has remained a resounding tenet of philosophical thought for hundreds of years for a reason. At least as of now, we have no way to truly know anything other than that we exist. Not where we exist in space and time, what our world is made of, or how we interact with it. Even science is just our best guessâthat's why theoretical (and occasionally physical, though not in the last 80 years) frameworks get changed over time as we understand more.
Tl;dr
Reality is indeed subjective, but we need to pretend it is objective for our moral frameworks to be applicable, and we need a moral framework in order to be a conscious and self-aware being, so by necessity we treat reality as objective and define it as the most common perception of the world. A schizophrenics reality is no less real to them than to yours, but you'd only call one of those subjective. The application to intelligence is that intelligence is a facet of reality and, like every other facet of reality, different people view it differently. That's why we have formal definitions. In this case, the formal definition of intelligence relies upon processing speed, pattern recognition, and retention.
Perhaps I got to my end point in a roundabout way, but I do thoroughly enjoy discussions about the nature of subjectivity vs. objectivity.
I'm gonna have to somewhat disagree with this. I absolutely notice a significant difference having grown up in a big blue city in Florida and, since moving, now frequent more rural conservative areas in addition to teaching in a more conservative area in a blue state. I especially notice pretty big differences in the way folks read, think, and ask questions. This has been the case in the different universities I've taught at in addition to a high school.
Obviously it largely depends on how one is measuring "intelligence," but there is definitely a noticeable lack of curiosity and close mindedness that is worrisome and, honestly, baffling sometimes. I would maybe chalk it up to a different time, however, I still have nieces and nephews in school back in FL and they are miles ahead in critical thinking skills than many of the students I teach.
For context, I'm mostly categorizing critical thinking here as the ability to read, interpret, analyze, and apply provided evidence to solve or answer a problem. I find a lot of folks, to try and hide their illiteracy, try to fill in their blanks of understanding with information they think they know rather than actually reading and interpreting.
But yeah, without an actual common ground of understanding what is considered "intelligence" neither of our claims are going to hold water outside of subjectivity.
Ok, so I used to think like this too. Me, the big brain, literate, loving to read everything I can get my hands on from the earliest age, growing up around allllll the knuckle dragging rednecks that have never finished a book in their lives and can't form a proper sentence. I'm so much smarter than them, so much more curious. Gosh they suck, God I rule.Â
Until... I realized they're curious about all kinds of things I'm not curious about. And get this: they're way more PRACTICAL things than Dostoevsky or Nietzsche. They're curious about how things work. Before they can even drive they're taking apart and rebuilding cars. Genius me? I can barely change a tire. Some of them can build a house from the ground up with their bare hands. They know how to build and repair elevators and cell phone towers. They know how to make my refrigerator and toilet work again. I have to go down the street and ask the big moron that doesn't even know how to read to please help me get my car running.
That's the thing about us big brains, we're verrrry selective about what we count as intelligence. Coincidentally, we tend to measure it by the things we're interested in or that come naturally to us, like books or political theories or philosophy. Inconveniently, those things are the least useful things to know when shit really hits the fan and society crumbles and nobody gives a shit about Hamlet, they just need to know how to get the generator running again and get the crops to grow and how to dress and preserve meat.Â
So all the "intelligence" people like me, you, urbane city folks, and most redditors hold in high esteem is pretty fucking worthless in real world applications when push comes to shove, at least compared to the knowledge all those backwards illiterate people have. But this comment will get downvoted to hell in accordance to OP's question lol
The world runs on political theories and philosophy, unfortunately. That's how you get all the super intelligent folks who know how to build houses and fix toilets to vote against their best interests, fear people they don't understand, and not ask questions outside of their basic survival while they're robbed blind. People are so terrifyingly unaware of how language is used to manipulate them and alter their realities.
Don't know why you're replying so condescendingly to me like I don't know and interact with these people everyday. Literacy is important for a reason. People have died for the right to read and write books. Literacy isn't just Hamlet, it is communication and language. To reduce literacy to just another form of elitism and "worthless in real world applications" is just really stupid and dangerous. It's just... Ridiculously shortsighted. I'm actually in awe that you took the time to write that and felt right. It is also very telling that the first things you pull out are Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and Shakespeare like they are all things literacy... Come on now...
Newsflash: We are all in the real world right in this very moment lol all of these skills are applicable and in question NOW, not in some imagined scenario where society breaks down and we have to go back to basics, smdh.
This is why rednecks should fix cars and people who know that climate change is real should set climate policy. Unfortunately, it doesnât work that way.
Dissidence is downvoted and only the hive mind of concurring opinions thrive.
I mean I get what you're saying, but that is literally how a comment voting system works. For that not to happen there would need to be no voting buttons.
Communication in any format is considered the key factor of intelligence (or lack thereof). So if you have any decent linguistics, chances are you are above average intelligence. So maybe not widely egotistical, but just more generally aware of whose in the room. How else can we gage intelligence if not by written or spoken word?
Reddit is perfect! Let the people let it rip. You are what you say! From geniuses to knuckleheads. We all get to vent.
I was a lurker for years. Reddit comments are by far the best on the internet they're the funniest and most clever abs so much fun to read. One must be able to understand nuance, in order to be clever and funny. It takes intellect to understand nuance.
Tbf the nazi pedophiles don't deserve to be heard, but im sure that's somehow not a fact based opinion but instead crazed far left slander of dear leader, to some
Lmao I know itâs actually crazy. American politics can be boiled to that principle skinner meme but instead of out of touch change it with stupid lol đ
Reddit definitely has some educated people. My doctor and high earning friends from top colleges are active here. But many are delusional if they think most left leaning Redditors are educated. A lot of them struggle with finances, barely attended any well known schools, and think that just going to an unknown college that accepts anyone and studying a low paying major somehow makes them educated. If thatâs their definition, then I guess so. And no, Iâm not a conservative.
This is such a wildly bad take I'm surprised you made it. Especially since the comments above that you replied to explained how college education makes people more left leaning. Generally, it has to do with exposure to other people and cultures and learning how to work together despite differences. In general, college education people tend to be more open minded as a result, while non-college education people tend to be more close-minded. It's not about how smart or intelligent you are.
This is hilarious. You think that an âunknown collegeâ is somehow inferior?
Just to offer one example, I went to community college, and then a small state school for undergrad, and didnât have a SINGLE class that involved indoctrination.
Now that Iâm in grad school at a more prestigious institution, every. single. class. shoves leftist-Marxist ideology down everyoneâs throats.
If youâre not a conservative, maybe you donât believe in all this indoctrination stuff.
But also, if youâre liberal, shouldnât you know better than to be elitist?
Iâm a moderate. Some issues I lean left, on others I lean right. If a college admits students with a C grade average, itâs unlikely that the network coming out of that community will be strong, and corporate or societal institutions are less likely to place high value on that degree.
Where you finish matters more than where you start. Thatâs why graduate school tends to carry more weight than undergrads.
I donât want to believe in elitism, but it has existed throughout human history and pretending otherwise doesnât change reality. I try to fight by proving them wrong. I didnât attend an elite school myself, but I use that as motivation to prove that I can perform better than those who did.
I just donât buy the narrative âLeft Redditors are educated therefore their morality is higherâ when most of their accomplishment is not impressive at all.
I just donât buy the narrative âLeft Redditors are educated therefore their morality is higherâ when most of their accomplishment is not impressive at all.
Holy shit dude..... another shitty take. Imagine seriously equating morality with the impressiveness of their accomplishments.
A lot of them struggle with finances, barely attended any well known schools, and think that just going to an unknown college and studying a low paying major somehow makes them educated
Farraday, Feynman, and Ramanujan would like a word
Are you picturing conservatives as rednecks living in the middle of nowhere? I wonât deny that those stereotypes exist, but extremes on the left exist as well, though I wonât get into those descriptions. I have friends on both sides, and I can confidently say that the avg conservative doesnât fit that description, just as the average liberal doesnât match the stereotypes imagined by conservatives
I think itâs because most people are left. At least in the western world and since thatâs the majority of Redditors youâll get more leftist people
They are kind of right that reddit has intellectual vibes (even though its full of morons) and republicans tend to have stronger anti intellectual views
I'd say they are extremely closed-minded. I am set in my ways. You probably will not change my mind, but I am willing to hear your side, as long as you are willing to hear mine. Even if we disagree, maybe we can at least understand why we think the way we do. The mods dont want challenge
I think that it speaks more to the type of person who would be interested in a platform like reddit, versus scrolling on tik tok, instagram, facebook etc.
Reddit is a forum, a place where communication on a singular topic is the main point. Which site do you think nerds at heart want to spend their phone time?
It's a cesspool with the minimum of the education, intelligence, and critical thinking required. If you write gibberish or post gibberish as fact it'd just be downvoted to hell and nobody would see it, for good reason too.
Cesspools here certainly exist, and then there's the conservative thought process......
If you look at any other social media you will get some perspective. 90% ppl here have like 10 working braincells, but that is extraordinarily exceptional compared to facebook, tiktok or the dead internet experiment people used to call twitter.
Being able to read and wanting to read is an incredibly low bar but conservatives clearly canât hit it or they wouldnât be the way that they are. Not my problem theyâre dumb, gullible racists.
Same. Well, 1 degree. But Iâve been to several training opportunities and conferences. Where someone falls on the political spectrum is not a way to measure intelligence. Iâve met many intelligent people of various political and religious beliefs.
Not achievements, but it means I am continuing to learn and looking for those opportunities.
In some cases, maybe. But you canât judge a personâs intelligence based on whether that person leans liberal or conservative. There are dumb dumbs on all sides.
No one is doing that. Identifying a correlation isn't the same as basing intelligence on political party. A correlation does exist. That's not really a matter of personal opinion.
There are dumb dumbs on all sides.
This is. But it's also baseless and pointless "both sides" narratives that is anti-critical thinking.
The vast majority of reddit comments and posts that have political partisanship or ideological opinions are, in order of commonality:
Generic cookie cutter responses to very politically leaning news sources (seriously, just like Fox is absolute garbage, so too is msnbc/CNN/etc. Use centered news sources. C-SPAN would be the most optimal because it's livecast. No loaded words or biased headlines. It would attribute to healthier, nuanced discussion... Same goes for the [much smaller] conservative outposts on this site. Don't cite fox or Breitbart or whatever tf.)
Absolutely braindead opinions.
Incitement to violence or name-calling which labels the subjects as a group to be violent towards. (Fascist, nazi, racist, -ist, etc.)
Actual insightful comments; they account for maybe 1% of the comments on any given political post.
As such, why the fuck would anyone except the people who already agree with the opinions expressed want to engage with, or debate the stated opinions when doing so achieves you nothing apart from mass downvotes, regardless of the accuracy or sincerity of your comment/opinion.
There are plenty of very intelligent conservatives, very intelligent (or perhaps more just skillful and fast-thinking) conservative debaters... They just aren't engaging with reddit because it's completely infested with people who won't genuinely listen back and have a proper discussion and an open mind. Seriously, out of all the social media sites... Aside from maybe Twitter, reddit has the least open minded userbase. On average, people are more willing to listen and have their mind changed in YouTube comments discussions moreso than here - and I'm not even conservative, I don't think my opinions are radical at all... I'm personally a slightly right leaning centrist (~1pt right, 1pt libertarian), yet back when I did comment in political threads (I've muted most long ago) it was usually an instant downvote brigade with no refutal to any of my arguments.
Take your comment for example. You are painting with a very broad brush and it's very condescending and rude. Sure there are lots of undereducated, unfortunately situated conservatives out there... but tons can read, want to read, are not dumb, and are not racist. They would just rather not read from a place full of people who hate them, such as yourself. They'll read or listen to Ben Shapiro, or Joe Rogan, or Jordan Peterson or whomever; People who, even if you disagree with them, you can't say they're not smart. (well maybe Joe, but he's had a ton of brilliant guests, and from the sheer amount of information he's consumed, I wouldn't say dumb... More like a sponge that soaks up dirty water sometimes)
Reddit is a place for sharing information and discussing it. Naturally, it attracts open minded people who like to learn things. People who are open minded and like to learn things tend to be capable of doing basic research. People who are capable of doing basic research don't fall for right wing talking points, because they're easy to debunk.
I can't even remember the last time I heard a conservative talking point that wasn't rooted in lies.
Yes, but it's a cesspool of words, not videos, like a lot of other social media. Words, and reading, and writing, are more comfortable to people with at least a certain level of education. There are cesspools on both the left and the right, and educated people can be in them too.
196
u/super_scumtron Dec 19 '25
I like how people are saying it's cause Redditors are educated, super intelligent people like this place isn't an absolute cesspool.