Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say "what a twat" but doesn't necessarily reflect poor education.
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
Sometimes my friends laugh at me for how little I know about pop culture. I laugh back though. I wouldn't say I'm proud of it but it's just funny.
Being proudly ignorant of everything is bad. I will respect people who know they don't know things though, you can't know everything about everything. It's why people generally specialize in a field in an industry.
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
It’s in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
It’s sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I think it's more narcissism than education. People who are educated can still not care about the environment and preserving public spaces.
Thinking that someone without a formal education is somehow beneath you.
On the flipside, the belief that someone with a formal education is somehow beneath you or brainwashed for it.
Ten years ago I never would've believed that people like that exist, or that they think Science is evil for some reason
Science is neutral, but can be used for evil.
Science is not neutral. It is biased towards the truth.
Yeah, it's just a tool that has been used for so much good that it's bonkers to trash it altogether
Basically judging people in groups doesn't work, you have decent and shit always wrapped together.
Everyone is below someone else somehow, since you use that word. I’m beneath my friend in film knowledge. I’m above my friend in gardening skill. In this sense, one can clearly be beneath someone else in education. Or height. Or travel experience.
You meant that regardless of education, we all have the same human worth. That’s true. But yeah you can absolutely be beneath me somehow
Not being able to entertain ideas. "What would the world be like with 100% renewable energy?"
"Would basic healthcare for every person help our country?"
I tried to explain the 4 day work week to someone that gets paid by the hour. You make the same money but work 4 days a week instead of 5. Insisted he got paid less. Had to explain like a Bingo card with a Free Space, 1 day he is paid even if he stays home.
I don't know if that's necessarily wrong of them. There isn't any precedent for hourly workers to be paid when they're not working. The "four day workweek" as described simply means that any time over 32 hours a week is overtime. Hourly workers in general don't really have a "workweek" anyway because they will often have multiple jobs or will work whatever shift they can pick up that works with their schedule.
They understood how the 4-day workweek works based on how the 5-day workweek works. I think maybe you need to listen more to them and try to understand your own proposition better.
When companies voluntarily implement 4-day workweeks, they are literally either cutting 8 hours or doing 10-hour shifts. They do not pay for hours not worked.
I think it's good to note that while some of this is a failure to develop critical thinking, failure to entertain hypotheticals is OFTEN a trait for people with differing cognition. So don't assume they're poorly educated just from this, take it as a sign that the person thinks differently.
I've met and am friends with people who struggle with hypotheticals and education isn't the problem, just how their brain works.
Also, some hypotheticals don't consider the inherent problem of a situation or ignores context, and therefor aren't worth entertaining. Not all, just some. When that happens it's best to explain why the hypothetical doesn't work, which I suppose is entertaining it.
Because he's an hourly worker he's in the hourly mindset. You'd have to say your hourly rate would go up but only if you worked 32 hr/wk.
I like the idea of the 4 day workweek and would absolutely advocate for it, but I'm not sure how I personally would be affected by it. I do rotating 12 hour shift work to operate a power plant. I flip between 36 and 48 scheduled hours, 5 to 5 flipping between days and nights with a few days off between to flip my sleep schedule.
Would my OT start after 32 hours instead of 40? Would my company hire more people to schedule me between 24 and 36 hour weeks as a result? Because I'm not sure they'd be down with paying 4 hours OT on the cheapest weeks of my labor, and 16 hours OT every other week. So they probably have me work less, but does this result in a one time 25% raise and then fall off over time as no further raises come?
Idk, I would be fine either way because of how I budget, but I think these are valid questions that most hourly workers should be concerned about. I don't think it's such a simple concept, and companies will almost certainly find loopholes to exploit to fuck us like they did for the ACA.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
Could've stopped it there, the rest is implied.
I see you've met my neighbors.
The fuck?! Oh boy...
Oh boy...
That's what he said.
In my personal experience conservatives are more likely to be pedos, it's just they are all hypocrites.
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist...
That's unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren't scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
I would think it's more about knowing how to trust it. See some news article about "This study said X", don't take it as fact. See a study that has been done numerous times by different groups that corroborate a result and you can have a much higher degree of trust in it. There is a reason the scientific method is a continuous circle, it requires a feedback loop of verifying results and reproducibility. The current issue is clickbait headlines getting the attention, people see it's "Science" and blindly trust it and it becomes a religion like any other.
What do you mean by "trusting in science"? Science isn't meant to be trusted, it's meant to be verified.
Given the reproducibility crisis occurring right now, nobody should be "trusting" in science as a matter of course- we should be verifying the decades of unverified research and dismissing the unverifiable research.
We fucked up the entire field of Alzheimer's research for nearly a quarter century by "trusting in science". We still bias towards publishing new research in academia over reproducing existing research. Science has a big problem with credibility right now and saying "oh just trust in science" isn't the solution.
Trust in the process of Science, not its insitutions.
unfortunately my dad who has a diploma in engineering and is working in that field for probably 30y now is still prone to it.
Whoever spread those conspiracies should die a slow and painful death to experience a fraction of what they brought on to a lot of families and friends.
Or being confident about disliking reading in general, whether be it fiction or scientific literature.
Hey, if you're not proud of not owning a copy of mein kempf that's on you buddy.
It's "Kampf" ... I have tried to read a few pages... It's unreadable drivel.
Fun fact: The book wasn't available in Germany for decades, because upon Hitler's suicide the copyright fell to the State of Bavaria. That recently expired and now you can find some heavily annotated versions.
I prefer Mein Bamf, Nightcrawler's treatise on teleportation.
taking Ayn Rand's work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn't going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
What Objectivist is that moral?
That's actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn't be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I'm not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That's it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
It's not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of "dark triad" traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That's a hard problem to solve.
That's pretty much what I meant, or at least an aspect of it.
"Asshole" is an umbrella term for me that means every anti-social behavior or more general, behavior against the spirit (not the text!) of whatever ideology you're implementing.
Whether your system fails because one "dark" person can manipulate 100s to do bad things for him or 100s of persons do small bad things every day doesn't really matter at the end - the system failed.
So you have to find a way to reign this behavior in. Psychopaths react similar to every other person, just way more extreme.
💀
I think capitalism is the outlier there. Some atleast expect knobheads but the free hand of the market or something is supposed to take them out of business.
But it doesn't seem to expect "knobheads" manipulating the hand.
In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
How does that differ from the current way things are done? (especially in the US)
Largely it doesn't. There are some boundaries, like minimum wages and maximum working hours, etc. But according to the hypercapitalists, even those minimums are already undue influence by the government.
I see so many educated people not realising this. The maths involved is something we learnt in ~ 5th grade, and I distinctly remember doing exercises on marginal rates in primary school in maths class. It's even simpler than compound interest - which is a staple of maths class later on.
Yet so many people say there's a problem with the education system that it doesn't teach practical skills like these. It clearly does, kids just don't remember it. Maybe it's because they don't need to use this knowledge until almost a decade later.
I don't remember ever having done this in school. In any case, the math is easy, yes. The hard part is knowing the rule that the government put in place for taxing you, and that's something you just have to know. You can't logic your way to it.
Not using smooth functions for tax calculations.
They think opinions are facts.
Or the other way around.
Yeah, I hate it when people don't realize that only my opinions are facts.
Black/white thinking. Everything is either bad or good, the problem or the solution.
Thinking everything is gray is also an uneducated response to this kind of thinking. Too many people refuse to stand up for a point because they think that 'all sides are bad' or 'well the good side isn't perfect'.
Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol's role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
I like your example but it isn't exactly what I was pointing to. It'd be like someone calling arresting drunk drivers a "gray area" and choosing not to vote at all on a bill in favor of that. Which of course there are nuances there, but they are nuances that often are irrelevant to the overall conversation and should not inhibit decision making.
I get that, but those were the kind of nuances and perspectives that I was talking about. You can think that drunk driving is a bad thing that should be prevented, without resorting to black/white thinking like: drunk drivers are bad and they should be thrown in jail.
Maybe they should be, but what is the downsides of that policy? What is the reduction in drunk driving and drunk driving accidents expected to be? Who are the drunk drivers and when do they drive drunk? What do they do in other places/countries? Anything about our country/area in particular that causes people to drive drunk? Is there anything else we could do that is more effective and/or less expensive? Could an alternative solution be to run busses through the night? Involve parents? Require alcolocks to be installed in cars?
It's not about whether you are a good or a bad person, or about what your beliefs or values are. In my experience, poorly educated people are just more likely to think in absolutes, which makes sense, because analytical thinking and the ability to view things through different "lenses" and from different perspectives, is something they try to teach you in school.
Believing that everything is nuanced, though, is absurd.
Yeah, everything is nuanced, that just doesn't mean that there are no right options.
Intelligence and maturity is holding a view while also recognizing that there are flaws in that viewpoint.
No matter what subject you're talking about, there are flaws in every stance. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a stance, but too many people act like they have to be 100% behind their stance in order for it to be valid
Yes, but the important part is understanding the flaws of what you are standing up for.
A Big Mouth Billy Bass that's been hacked with a recording of someone screaming "POORLY EDUCATED!"
C/angryupvote
Reckless driving, speeding, having a loud car, having a lifted pickup truck.
Truck balls
Tbh if i saw truck balls before they were popular, i would think they are pretty funny
Obligatory video making fun of lifted truck owners.
To be honest, I disagree. It'd be logical if that was true, because that's what you'd expect, but I've met plenty of counterexamples. People who were well educated in some subject and therefore assumed that they know everything better. I've found that for a certain group of people, having a bachelor's or master's degree makes them overestimate their ability massively. Some of them you could at least partially convince with facts, but I've also met a few of them who has gone completely off the deep end. Well educated doesn't always mean intelligent
Yeah I think a lot of people equate education with overall intelligence, and that’s just not how it works.
I’ve personally known an anti-vaxxer with a PhD, MDs who wrote at a middling grade 8 level, and a literal rocket scientist who never could figure out his email lol
Highly educated people can be brilliant in their specific fields of study, while being absolute morons in other areas. They just had all the right opportunities, money, and the time/skills/ability to study, memorize, and pass tests.
I actually know at least a couple high school grads whom I’d consider more broadly intelligent than some of the MD & PhD holders I’ve worked with over the years.
Racism.
Racist and intolerance to people different than them
Not wanting to tax the rich because "I might be rich one day".
This also screams "I am a selfish and self-centered person".
Yes, and it took awhile for us to recognize that in our friends and family.
Utter confidence in an area without expertise and without room for doubt or challenge.
Associating with arbitrary groups, such as football fans, nationalists, wearing certain clothing brands
That's a good one.
Trying to push mlm schemes like essential oils
Unfortunately I think MLMs trap plenty of educated people. It's just a blind spot.
I can't blame people for wanting to be their own boss or making some extra money. Sad to see that taken advantage of.
Being a republican. Sure there are some educated grifters who decide to label themselves as republican, but your average republican voter is a mouth-breathing fucking idiot.
I don't think evetybody, i think some rich white egoistic man might also be republican, but besides that, probably yes.
While I don't always agree, I can see how people can justify fiscally conservative policies. I tend to swing left, but arguing for small government isn't without merit. The problem is with socially conservative policies. The republican party is no longer the party of small government, but is instead the party of bigotry and hatred for their fellow Americans. I wish I had the option of voting for multiple parties, but unless I suddenly decide that I want to regress to 1920s social policies, Democrat is the only semi-sane option.
Depends on what the motivation is. There are fiscal conservatives that think it is a responsible thing to do and then there are the fiscal conservatives trying to pull the ladder up behind them. Fuck the latter. Agree to disagree with the former.
Not being curious. Education should never stop. You should constantly be seeking intriguing books, new ideas, different perspectives. Once you've lost your curiosity or pridefully believe in one opinion and one way of thinking, no matter your schooling, you have at that moment become poorly educated.
"Let's go Brandon!" Bumper stickers.
Oof, yes. I feel second hand embarrassment whenever I see someone sporting one of those. Maybe it worked at the time, but now it's just overplayed.
Same with "Fuck Trudeau" stickers and flags in Canada... ALWAYS on an oversized pavement princess truck, driven by a "but think of the children!" idiot who can't figure out the irony.
Not listening to other people's opinions and ideas
That's probably the reason the person in question isn't educated in the first place lol
"Whataboutism", or if you are unfamiliar with the term:
"The act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse"
People that use this mechanism are "poorly educated" and unable to hold a conversation and they should just be mocked by whatabouting even harder, so they can maybe understand that they're dumb and that's not how you should debate.
Example of the last argument I had recently with my dumb c*nt father:
Me: You shouldn't idolize that politician, he evaded literally billions in taxes and that befalls on citizens like you
Dumb c*nt father: Yeah? And what about that other politician?
Me: What about the disappearing middle class?!
D.C.F.: What...?
Me: WHAT ABOUT THE BEES!?!
Honestly, in your example, you sound like, as you put it, a dumb cunt. The purpose of "whataboutism" is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent's position. Your dad pointed out that a politician on your side did something equally deplorable to the one you'd called out on his side. Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation about the nuance and differences between your chosen politicians, perhaps coming to better understand each other, you chose to devolve to nonsense, intentionally killing the conversation.
That screams poorly educated (but possibly with an expensive education that makes you feel superior enough that you don't bother to question yourself and your ideals).
The purpose of "whataboutism" is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent's position.
No, it is not. It would be if the argument was, for example, "which candidate is better" or "who should I vote for". But that wouldn't be "whataboutism" either, it would be just "point out hypocrisy".
If we are talking about just that single person (not even in a political way) and you bring up someone else just to deviate the attention, that is whataboutism and it's poison for the mind.
Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation...
People that use this mechanism don't whant to have a "reasonable conversation", they just want to be right at all cost, even by sabotaging the debate. If you want to engage with them feel free to waste your time. I value mine more than that.
Plus keeping the argument going will make relationships worse: I voluntarely crash arguments like that with my father because yes, I do think that he's a dumb cunt, but at the end of the day I still want to say him "I love you nonetheless".
Sounds like this is more of a debate about semantics. "Whataboutism" is a recently-popularized term that doesn't have a concrete definition yet. You see it as a tool to escape a debate by diverting attention, but I see it as a tool to highlight hypocrisy while continuing a debate. Really, I guess what matters is context - specifically, whether one is attempting to debate "in good faith" (another recently-popularized, inconsistently-defined term).
I certainly don't know you or your personal relationship with your dad. He doesn't sound like a great debate opponent, but to be fair, neither do you. Most people aren't nowadays, sad to say. Somewhere between Trump and Biden, people forgot how to wait their turn and debate the idea, rather than the person. It takes two to tango, they say, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find two individuals who are able to set aside their egos and listen in earnest to opposing beliefs.
I guess I'm a bit biased. 2020 turned me into a misanthrope. 🤷
Whataboutism as an argument is about chasing the lowest possible ethical standard. You'll always find someone worse. That doesn't mean it's ok.
Even worse, they're always exaggerated comparisons, such as "zomg, hunter Biden was using drugs". Well, did you vote for hunter? And almost consistently, the sources being used aren't reliable sources. And once those claims are fully rebuked, they move on to the latest nonsense (there are a lot of scared whistleblowers out there who the allegedly mentally weak "sleepy Joe" Biden is apparently threatening lol).
And this seems to be mostly a Right wing attitude
this seems to be mostly a Right wing attitude
Let's not make this political. Right wing and left wing are still part of the same bird. They used to move in harmony, balancing each other, but for the past few years, those wings have been either attacking or ignoring each other. The eagle is in free-fall, and it's mindsets like this that keep it from course-correcting.
But what about the children? Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Any reference to "common sense", which really means "what I believe". Violating it is used as a universal rebuttal for any intellectually sophisticated argument.
Which sucks because it's diluting the meaning of the phrase, and there are still many situations where it does/should apply.
I’ll take “poorly educated” over “educated and unwilling to learn or grow.”
Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you're referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it's a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
I wouldn't say it shows a lack of education. If anything it's more prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of unhelpful "executive" education.
Everyone educated on the topic understands that it’s a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
The irony of this is that those who aren’t “educated on the topic” do not realize that by describing the Dunning-Kruger effect as the law of “overconfident stupid people”, they themselves have become subjects of the effect.
What I was trying to say is that the Dunning-Kruger effect being misrepresented as something that only applies to “stupid people” is often done by people who are themselves undereducated on its topic. The DK effect applies to everybody.
People who are proud about their lack of knowledge on a topic as if that somehow means that they were not programmed prior to the encounter.
Breaks for brakes, loose for lose.
Just pointing out that not everybody who can't spell shit is poorly educated.
Dyslexia, ADHD, having a different native language, ducking autocorrect, ... Lots of reasons.
Ironically, defending arguments using scientific studies and experiments, but not being able to think critically about the methodology used or what the results mean. Too often people will cite scientific literature based off the title and MAYBE skim it. Trying to have a discussion with them will usually result in them calling you anti-science.
A good example is the pseudo-scientific belief common within incel circles that women can store and absorb dna from past sexual partners and that their children can then have more than one genetic father (an excuse to shame sexually active women while fear mongering about cuckoldry). If you track down the source the study actually explicitly explains exactly why this isn't the case.
I'm going to forget that I read this comment and continue living in the moment before I knew this was a thing.
Using an apostrophe in plurals. Don't know why but this one drives me insane.
Also they're/there/their and you're/your
Break/brake
Write one long block of text, no punctuation, capitalization or paragraph breaks.
Maybe it's okay for something short, like texting, but proper grammar and punctuation are kind of necessary for the longer chunks of text.
I personally find your/you’re very tricky for whatever reason.
Like, I know which one I’m supposed to use, but I occasionally find myself using the wrong one every now and then for some inexplicable reason.
Listening to loud music without giving a shit about the neighbours.
Being intolerant of those who don't think like you do.
It depends on how you interpret "educated". If including things that aren't learned on school: I think that fallacies, rushed certainties and decontextualisation scream "this individual was so poorly educated that they never learned how to think."
I think that everything else can be derived from the above, shitty moral premises, or a mix of both.
Those who always put loud music or talk as if they were alone in the bus/public places. Always the same people
Personal use of proprietary software in the 2020s.
Or running a company to be completely dependand on dozens of unreliable and expensive proprietary software vendors.
"but I have already learned Photoshop workflow..." - my friend that uses it only to make memes
This isn't poorly educated, it's just a mistake in our education system where software isn't treated as well as it should be considering our day and age.
Even so, there are valid reasons to use some forms of proprietary software. Not every program has a good FOSS alternative. I would encourage people to look into FOSS alternatives but I wouldnt call someone poorly educated because they play games other than SuperTuxKart and Kmines.
Confusing THEN and THAN. Credibility immediately drops.
Your so discriminatory! just because someone do'snot have perfect gramner not means their stupid or pourly educated! you're altitude is disgusting. could of said nothing but you like to disrispect other's on the internet. I could care less but pls get lost on the specific ocean!
V angry upvote
Bone app the teeth indeed
It's bone apple tea, idiot.
It does not mean they are stupid, but it does indicate a poor education, or that they are ESL. Either way, not a value judgement on that individual, but there isn't really a good way to differentiate if someone is dumb or ignorant when they send you something that looks like it was written by a 5th grader.
People who think their dialect or language style is grammatically correct and others are wrong, because they don't personally known the grammar rules of any other dialect or language. They don't understand that language is alive and evolving and that the purpose of language is communication.
I would add to this people who aren't able to use their own native language properly. I receive IMs at work all the time that sound like a 16-year-old is sending a text message. Maybe I'm just getting old, but half the time I honestly can't decipher what they're asking me.
Using terms like 'u', 'ur', etc when writing. No one charges by the letter, it's simply lazy.
Doesn't this depend on the stylistic environment of the text? Personally, I'd consider it alright given that the sender and the receiver are in a casual relationship. It only makes one seem uneducated if they are using it in a more formal, or perhaps a public context.
Your comment reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote.
"You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up, too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you're at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances." - Stephen Fry, 5:00.
Some people still don't have unlimited texts, which literally does charge by the letter.
Come on guy’s
it's simply lazy
So, what does it have to do with poor education?
It made a lot of sense back when you had to type texts by pushing the same buttons multiple times. Now that smart phones have swipe to type and autocorrect, it is not a good excuse.
Nah it didn't even make sense back then. I could type full sentences with T9 easily, to the point that I wouldn't even need to look at the phone except to double check what I wrote before sending a text.
Nah, addiction plagues the well and the poorly educated. I was acquainted with a couple of Nobel prize winners who smoked like chimneys.
It's not a culture fair observation to be sure. Your Nobel prize winners I guess we're old (hence part of a generation when smoking was more widespread). There are also countries where smoking is more or less universal.
regurgitating talking points from a third party and the inability to distinguish between divisive issues and issues of difference. I
am a college professor and pastor and when I teach theology there is a crazy high instance of people who just spit out exactly what their favorite celebrity pastor says and immediate decide that it trumps whatever you are saying. Then they are unwilling to yield any bit of their position and get offended that you disagree.
disagreements do not need to be so divisive. The constant need for affirmation shows that you actually have no idea what you are talking about
Being poor or lower middle class and voting for right wing/conservatives. You essentially give away your hard earned money and give it to ultra rich and worsen the quality of your life.. usually because the right wing scares people to be afraid of other people and new phenomena.
I tend to agree. But even though I have a degree in English literature and creative writing, and have worked as a journalist and editor, I still have a few things that I routinely mess up. My thing is: sometimes a word gets double letters in certain forms. Run / running. Got / gotten. But this doesn’t always happen. Walk / walking. There are however some forms of some words where I can’t remember what is correct to do. I’ve gotten it wrong and been corrected. I’ve gotten it right and second guessed myself. Both of those have happened so many times that I can no longer keep it all straight.
So I have some compassion perhaps for people who screw up to/too because they’re caught in a false mneumonic dilemma. (There’s a good example of my trouble with double letters, by the way - I always type “dilemma”).
I swear in some cases it’s more of a pathology and less just mere ignorance.
Many moons ago I had an old high school classmate add me on Facebook. They listed their religious beliefs as "Too each there own".
That's they're choice.
That's they're choice.
Well we definitely have a lot of reddit in this thread. Reminds me why I looked for alternatives in the first place.
Might not be a popular take but having an undefendable position like creationism does not necessarily mean "poorly educated." There are apologists who have learned proper reasoning skills and use their education to bend reality as much towards their will. I think most people would consider Jesuits and the like to be very educated but also very wrong.
As far as signs that someone is poorly educated, there are people who make up "big words" to give the impression of having a better education to other poorly educated people. Which backfires when someone with an actual large vocabulary walks into the room.
Outrage posting
Using "I" as the object instead of the subject, like saying "The waiter brought drinks to my friend and I."
This is one of those grammatical errors that is so common that it is almost not a grammatical error anymore. It is so pervasive in podcasts, movies, TV shows, etc. that I just gloss over it nowadays
Idk sounds pretty good to I.
What exactly is wrong with that sentence?
Try this:
The waiter brought drinks to I.
Sounds werid as hell, right? That's what's wrong with that sentence. I is a subjective pronoun, not an objective pronoun. Adding "my friend and" in front of it doesn't change that.
I understand that it doesn't matter to a lot of people, and it doesn't matter for sentence clarity, but it sound weird AF to some folks.
idk, I notice the opposite to happen more often: e.g. "me and John went to the bar last weekend"
Why is this so common? It drives me nuts.
Because of all the 'um actually' corrections from people whenever they'd say "Tom and me bought drinks." And not just to the point one starts thinking it's always "Tom and I" - I've had people 'correct' my 'to Tom and me', as well, because they think "Tom and me" is always incorrect.
This is also why I don't make a big deal about correcting others' grammar; it's often a tool people use to feel smarter (and thus superior) to other people. Language is a communication tool; if I know what you mean and there's limited ambiguity then I don't much care if you said 'would of' instead of 'would've'; and certainly not enough to interrupt a conversation to correct it.
Besides, between autocorrect, typos, and the brain's weird word-association tricks, a linguistics professor is capable of making significant grammar mistakes and not even notice, even if they'd know they were wrong if pointed out. So swooping in to tell them "hey you did this thing slightly wrong" in lieu of engaging with their intended point is not meaningful contribution.
Yes exactly. I didn't mention it above but it seems like the people who use "and I" incorrectly are the same ones trying to sound smarter by being more "proper" or formal. I agree people should just focus on the content of the message. I would not correct anyone in real life, but secretly inwardly it drives me crazy.
it seems like the people who use "and I" incorrectly are the same ones trying to sound smarter by being more "proper" or formal.
Yeah, that's exactly what makes it sound poorly educated to me.
I used to think it was people saying 'fustrated' instead of 'frustrated'.
Went on a trip a while back with a relative, here are some of the things that they belived/behaved like(sorry for the long text):Needless gossiping and thinking that other people's achivements threaten your credibility. Anger/apathy/being dismissive as default, snarky useless remarks, belittling other people any chance possible, trying to seem superior through "presenting intelectual", playing "the devil's advocate" just to look edgy and be unnerving, beliving propaganda over science, not apologising when needed, lacking self awareness and being selfish constantly, not going to therapy&health check ups, making poor spirited jokes about other people, not respecting people's space, touching them without permission,being disrespectful on purpose to other people(and to yourself), and the phobias(homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, xenophobic),misoginistic,misandrist, ableist, rascist,antisemitic,heavily nationalist attitude, thinking the world revolves only around you and that other people are just tools&objects, not cleaning after yourself, expecting other people to take care of things for/accompaning you as if they have an obligation, thinking violence settles things, refusing to pay people because "it's for exposure" and "they should do it for the experience/self fuffilment", loud music in public spaces(please use headphones), dismissing people's religious practice just because it isn't exactly how you would do it, pressing other people to live the life you want to but not living the life you want to live yourself, being needlessy pessimistic and cynical about the future(guilty), not being bewildered about earth and not wanting to learn or practice random things(who has time to be hateful when you see a beautiful leaf that has just sprouted?), lack of wanderlust.
Is your relative an Instagram influencer?
No. Average boomer with a tik tok.
Generally not getting a lot of deeper jokes or references about important topics
me myself
and I
Insisting things like tax returns or household maintenance should be taught in school.
The goal of Education is not to train you to fit into the system you happen to grow up in, but should provide the foundation (litaracy, STEM, art …) and awaken the curiosity in yourself to become lifelong learner.
That will develop society, and not a bunch of drones doing their tax returns and changing tires every season.
The most important thing you can learn, is how to learn. One of the things that most upsets me is when I hear someone say they can't do something "because no one ever taught me how". It's not your teachers/parents job to teach you how to do everything under the sun.
Ignorance is nigh-inexcusable in today's society, with so many sources of information at our fingertips. That's where the "poorly educated" part comes in for me - folks who don't know how to search for and evaluate information.
At minimum; school should give you the tools to be able to figure out how to do taxes/basic house maintenance/etc. But also, sometimes people need a little extra help; and we should have some sort of system to help people learn those things.
Those are foundational skills like math and reading. Accounting exists and mechanical repair exists. They aren't teaching you those specific fields.
Using less instead of fewer. Fewer is quantitative, Less is qualitative. Fewer rain drops, less rain.
Yea sorry to say, but this is one of my signs of being poorly educated. Really don’t want to be harsh, and I’m all with you on being accurate and correct with language and expression. But language changes and always has trade offs and with accuracy and comprehension. There’s strictly no reason for a language to distinguish quantitative and qualitative amounts at this level.
And at some point, requiring compliance with rules like this, against the grain of the language’s evolution, becomes pedantry, which, I’m sorry to say, is often the signalling of being educated by those desperate to appear so.
I really hope this doesn’t come off as harsh and rude. It’s definitely useful to have this in the language, if you’re completely on top of it. But from what I’ve seen, even the most educated and smart people can trip on this because it’s just awkwardly unnecessary enough that it doesn’t really matter unless you’re keen to ensure you’re using “proper English”.
Especially in English, which is incredibly idiosyncratic.
I have an English degree so obviously I care about this shit. But I’ve spent enough time in the world to understand that there is more than one kind of education. I know brilliant sofrware programmers who might fuck up less/fewer. They’re not stupid. They have lots of education. I’m an idiot compared to them when it comes to logic and math. I have a friend who’s a master gardener, accomplished photographer, welder, electronics teacher, small business owner, IT technician, and a really good cook. He probably screws up a word here and there. He’s vastly more educated and intelligent than me.
So yeah… we should all just back off on being pedants about grammar and vocabulary rules, just a little bit.
An English major that's not a dirty prescriptivist?!? I thought it was impossible.
Yep. Especially as there is a lot more than simple "pedantic" grammar rules (or stylistic prescriptions as they so often are) to be "educated" about when it comes to English as a language, good practice for both speaking and writing, and of course language in general.
I don't agree with this one. The meaning of words change and that's true of 'Less'.
I generally don't agree with these prescriptivist positions though.
Gotta ask: do you take issue with “10 items or less” signs?
I would say "not the grammar" since many users are not native English speakers and have learned it as a second (or third, fourth...) language. 💁♂️🌏
Being poor and idolizing the rich.
That’s by design
Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
Coping mechanism for the poor, they can't admit they're at the bottom and so it feels good to put other people down for nonsense reasons
Or it can be a strategy. A white sharecropper is just as poor as a black sharecropper, but the white sharecropper has a higher place in society.
Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say "what a twat" but doesn't necessarily reflect poor education.
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
Sometimes my friends laugh at me for how little I know about pop culture. I laugh back though. I wouldn't say I'm proud of it but it's just funny.
Being proudly ignorant of everything is bad. I will respect people who know they don't know things though, you can't know everything about everything. It's why people generally specialize in a field in an industry.
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
It’s in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
It’s sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I think it's more narcissism than education. People who are educated can still not care about the environment and preserving public spaces.
Thinking that someone without a formal education is somehow beneath you.
On the flipside, the belief that someone with a formal education is somehow beneath you or brainwashed for it.
Ten years ago I never would've believed that people like that exist, or that they think Science is evil for some reason
Science is neutral, but can be used for evil.
Science is not neutral. It is biased towards the truth.
Yeah, it's just a tool that has been used for so much good that it's bonkers to trash it altogether
Basically judging people in groups doesn't work, you have decent and shit always wrapped together.
Everyone is below someone else somehow, since you use that word. I’m beneath my friend in film knowledge. I’m above my friend in gardening skill. In this sense, one can clearly be beneath someone else in education. Or height. Or travel experience.
You meant that regardless of education, we all have the same human worth. That’s true. But yeah you can absolutely be beneath me somehow
Not being able to entertain ideas. "What would the world be like with 100% renewable energy?" "Would basic healthcare for every person help our country?"
I tried to explain the 4 day work week to someone that gets paid by the hour. You make the same money but work 4 days a week instead of 5. Insisted he got paid less. Had to explain like a Bingo card with a Free Space, 1 day he is paid even if he stays home.
I don't know if that's necessarily wrong of them. There isn't any precedent for hourly workers to be paid when they're not working. The "four day workweek" as described simply means that any time over 32 hours a week is overtime. Hourly workers in general don't really have a "workweek" anyway because they will often have multiple jobs or will work whatever shift they can pick up that works with their schedule.
They understood how the 4-day workweek works based on how the 5-day workweek works. I think maybe you need to listen more to them and try to understand your own proposition better.
When companies voluntarily implement 4-day workweeks, they are literally either cutting 8 hours or doing 10-hour shifts. They do not pay for hours not worked.
I think it's good to note that while some of this is a failure to develop critical thinking, failure to entertain hypotheticals is OFTEN a trait for people with differing cognition. So don't assume they're poorly educated just from this, take it as a sign that the person thinks differently.
I've met and am friends with people who struggle with hypotheticals and education isn't the problem, just how their brain works.
Also, some hypotheticals don't consider the inherent problem of a situation or ignores context, and therefor aren't worth entertaining. Not all, just some. When that happens it's best to explain why the hypothetical doesn't work, which I suppose is entertaining it.
Because he's an hourly worker he's in the hourly mindset. You'd have to say your hourly rate would go up but only if you worked 32 hr/wk.
I like the idea of the 4 day workweek and would absolutely advocate for it, but I'm not sure how I personally would be affected by it. I do rotating 12 hour shift work to operate a power plant. I flip between 36 and 48 scheduled hours, 5 to 5 flipping between days and nights with a few days off between to flip my sleep schedule.
Would my OT start after 32 hours instead of 40? Would my company hire more people to schedule me between 24 and 36 hour weeks as a result? Because I'm not sure they'd be down with paying 4 hours OT on the cheapest weeks of my labor, and 16 hours OT every other week. So they probably have me work less, but does this result in a one time 25% raise and then fall off over time as no further raises come?
Idk, I would be fine either way because of how I budget, but I think these are valid questions that most hourly workers should be concerned about. I don't think it's such a simple concept, and companies will almost certainly find loopholes to exploit to fuck us like they did for the ACA.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
Could've stopped it there, the rest is implied.
I see you've met my neighbors.
The fuck?! Oh boy...
That's what he said.
In my personal experience conservatives are more likely to be pedos, it's just they are all hypocrites.
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist...
That's unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren't scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
I would think it's more about knowing how to trust it. See some news article about "This study said X", don't take it as fact. See a study that has been done numerous times by different groups that corroborate a result and you can have a much higher degree of trust in it. There is a reason the scientific method is a continuous circle, it requires a feedback loop of verifying results and reproducibility. The current issue is clickbait headlines getting the attention, people see it's "Science" and blindly trust it and it becomes a religion like any other.
What do you mean by "trusting in science"? Science isn't meant to be trusted, it's meant to be verified.
Given the reproducibility crisis occurring right now, nobody should be "trusting" in science as a matter of course- we should be verifying the decades of unverified research and dismissing the unverifiable research.
We fucked up the entire field of Alzheimer's research for nearly a quarter century by "trusting in science". We still bias towards publishing new research in academia over reproducing existing research. Science has a big problem with credibility right now and saying "oh just trust in science" isn't the solution.
Trust in the process of Science, not its insitutions.
unfortunately my dad who has a diploma in engineering and is working in that field for probably 30y now is still prone to it.
Whoever spread those conspiracies should die a slow and painful death to experience a fraction of what they brought on to a lot of families and friends.
The irony!
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers...
Racists benefit from worker's rights too.
Not when they vote for parties that fight against workers' rights
Priorities, right?
Which party shut down the rail union strike?
Fair enough.
Which party supports Right to Work laws?
Yeah yeah, Republicans are objectively worse for workers.
Don't pretend like the other party is pro-worker, though.
A toolbox generally belongs to one person. I see it on people's lockers too.
💀
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn't really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
Maybe it's a sticker war? Unions vs Trump?
Being a baby. What do they even know?
I have literally never met a more uneducated cohort. Absolutely shameful.
Parents feeding their baby cola in bottles and smoking while pregnant are two things that usually cause me to make assumptions
Smoking in general. An expensive habit of self-harm for short term "feels good."
You'd be surprised how many PhD-holders do coke/meth.
Do you see this often?
My cousin was taken off her mother because of the cola thing.
More times than I can recollect
Being proud of not owning books
Or being confident about disliking reading in general, whether be it fiction or scientific literature.
Hey, if you're not proud of not owning a copy of mein kempf that's on you buddy.
It's "Kampf" ... I have tried to read a few pages... It's unreadable drivel.
Fun fact: The book wasn't available in Germany for decades, because upon Hitler's suicide the copyright fell to the State of Bavaria. That recently expired and now you can find some heavily annotated versions.
I prefer Mein Bamf, Nightcrawler's treatise on teleportation.
taking Ayn Rand's work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn't going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
What Objectivist is that moral?
That's actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn't be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I'm not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That's it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
It's not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of "dark triad" traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That's a hard problem to solve.
That's pretty much what I meant, or at least an aspect of it.
"Asshole" is an umbrella term for me that means every anti-social behavior or more general, behavior against the spirit (not the text!) of whatever ideology you're implementing.
Whether your system fails because one "dark" person can manipulate 100s to do bad things for him or 100s of persons do small bad things every day doesn't really matter at the end - the system failed.
So you have to find a way to reign this behavior in. Psychopaths react similar to every other person, just way more extreme.
💀
I think capitalism is the outlier there. Some atleast expect knobheads but the free hand of the market or something is supposed to take them out of business.
But it doesn't seem to expect "knobheads" manipulating the hand.
How does that differ from the current way things are done? (especially in the US)
Largely it doesn't. There are some boundaries, like minimum wages and maximum working hours, etc. But according to the hypercapitalists, even those minimums are already undue influence by the government.
Not understanding the marginal tax rate.
I see so many educated people not realising this. The maths involved is something we learnt in ~ 5th grade, and I distinctly remember doing exercises on marginal rates in primary school in maths class. It's even simpler than compound interest - which is a staple of maths class later on.
Yet so many people say there's a problem with the education system that it doesn't teach practical skills like these. It clearly does, kids just don't remember it. Maybe it's because they don't need to use this knowledge until almost a decade later.
I don't remember ever having done this in school. In any case, the math is easy, yes. The hard part is knowing the rule that the government put in place for taxing you, and that's something you just have to know. You can't logic your way to it.
Not using smooth functions for tax calculations.
They think opinions are facts.
Or the other way around.
Yeah, I hate it when people don't realize that only my opinions are facts.
Black/white thinking. Everything is either bad or good, the problem or the solution.
Thinking everything is gray is also an uneducated response to this kind of thinking. Too many people refuse to stand up for a point because they think that 'all sides are bad' or 'well the good side isn't perfect'.
Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol's role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
I like your example but it isn't exactly what I was pointing to. It'd be like someone calling arresting drunk drivers a "gray area" and choosing not to vote at all on a bill in favor of that. Which of course there are nuances there, but they are nuances that often are irrelevant to the overall conversation and should not inhibit decision making.
I get that, but those were the kind of nuances and perspectives that I was talking about. You can think that drunk driving is a bad thing that should be prevented, without resorting to black/white thinking like: drunk drivers are bad and they should be thrown in jail.
Maybe they should be, but what is the downsides of that policy? What is the reduction in drunk driving and drunk driving accidents expected to be? Who are the drunk drivers and when do they drive drunk? What do they do in other places/countries? Anything about our country/area in particular that causes people to drive drunk? Is there anything else we could do that is more effective and/or less expensive? Could an alternative solution be to run busses through the night? Involve parents? Require alcolocks to be installed in cars?
It's not about whether you are a good or a bad person, or about what your beliefs or values are. In my experience, poorly educated people are just more likely to think in absolutes, which makes sense, because analytical thinking and the ability to view things through different "lenses" and from different perspectives, is something they try to teach you in school.
Believing that everything is nuanced, though, is absurd.
Yeah, everything is nuanced, that just doesn't mean that there are no right options.
Intelligence and maturity is holding a view while also recognizing that there are flaws in that viewpoint.
No matter what subject you're talking about, there are flaws in every stance. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a stance, but too many people act like they have to be 100% behind their stance in order for it to be valid
Yes, but the important part is understanding the flaws of what you are standing up for.
A Big Mouth Billy Bass that's been hacked with a recording of someone screaming "POORLY EDUCATED!"
C/angryupvote
Reckless driving, speeding, having a loud car, having a lifted pickup truck.
Truck balls
Tbh if i saw truck balls before they were popular, i would think they are pretty funny
Obligatory video making fun of lifted truck owners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcmYRSpDrOY
Refusing to accept that they are wrong.
Anti vaxxers
To be honest, I disagree. It'd be logical if that was true, because that's what you'd expect, but I've met plenty of counterexamples. People who were well educated in some subject and therefore assumed that they know everything better. I've found that for a certain group of people, having a bachelor's or master's degree makes them overestimate their ability massively. Some of them you could at least partially convince with facts, but I've also met a few of them who has gone completely off the deep end. Well educated doesn't always mean intelligent
Yeah I think a lot of people equate education with overall intelligence, and that’s just not how it works.
I’ve personally known an anti-vaxxer with a PhD, MDs who wrote at a middling grade 8 level, and a literal rocket scientist who never could figure out his email lol
Highly educated people can be brilliant in their specific fields of study, while being absolute morons in other areas. They just had all the right opportunities, money, and the time/skills/ability to study, memorize, and pass tests.
I actually know at least a couple high school grads whom I’d consider more broadly intelligent than some of the MD & PhD holders I’ve worked with over the years.
Racism.
Racist and intolerance to people different than them
Not wanting to tax the rich because "I might be rich one day".
This also screams "I am a selfish and self-centered person".
Yes, and it took awhile for us to recognize that in our friends and family.
Utter confidence in an area without expertise and without room for doubt or challenge.
Associating with arbitrary groups, such as football fans, nationalists, wearing certain clothing brands
That's a good one.
Trying to push mlm schemes like essential oils
Unfortunately I think MLMs trap plenty of educated people. It's just a blind spot.
I can't blame people for wanting to be their own boss or making some extra money. Sad to see that taken advantage of.
Being a republican. Sure there are some educated grifters who decide to label themselves as republican, but your average republican voter is a mouth-breathing fucking idiot.
I don't think evetybody, i think some rich white egoistic man might also be republican, but besides that, probably yes.
While I don't always agree, I can see how people can justify fiscally conservative policies. I tend to swing left, but arguing for small government isn't without merit. The problem is with socially conservative policies. The republican party is no longer the party of small government, but is instead the party of bigotry and hatred for their fellow Americans. I wish I had the option of voting for multiple parties, but unless I suddenly decide that I want to regress to 1920s social policies, Democrat is the only semi-sane option.
Depends on what the motivation is. There are fiscal conservatives that think it is a responsible thing to do and then there are the fiscal conservatives trying to pull the ladder up behind them. Fuck the latter. Agree to disagree with the former.
Not being curious. Education should never stop. You should constantly be seeking intriguing books, new ideas, different perspectives. Once you've lost your curiosity or pridefully believe in one opinion and one way of thinking, no matter your schooling, you have at that moment become poorly educated.
"Let's go Brandon!" Bumper stickers.
Oof, yes. I feel second hand embarrassment whenever I see someone sporting one of those. Maybe it worked at the time, but now it's just overplayed.
Same with "Fuck Trudeau" stickers and flags in Canada... ALWAYS on an oversized pavement princess truck, driven by a "but think of the children!" idiot who can't figure out the irony.
Not listening to other people's opinions and ideas
That's probably the reason the person in question isn't educated in the first place lol
"Whataboutism", or if you are unfamiliar with the term:
People that use this mechanism are "poorly educated" and unable to hold a conversation and they should just be mocked by whatabouting even harder, so they can maybe understand that they're dumb and that's not how you should debate.
Example of the last argument I had recently with my dumb c*nt father:
Honestly, in your example, you sound like, as you put it, a dumb cunt. The purpose of "whataboutism" is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent's position. Your dad pointed out that a politician on your side did something equally deplorable to the one you'd called out on his side. Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation about the nuance and differences between your chosen politicians, perhaps coming to better understand each other, you chose to devolve to nonsense, intentionally killing the conversation. That screams poorly educated (but possibly with an expensive education that makes you feel superior enough that you don't bother to question yourself and your ideals).
No, it is not. It would be if the argument was, for example, "which candidate is better" or "who should I vote for". But that wouldn't be "whataboutism" either, it would be just "point out hypocrisy".
If we are talking about just that single person (not even in a political way) and you bring up someone else just to deviate the attention, that is whataboutism and it's poison for the mind.
People that use this mechanism don't whant to have a "reasonable conversation", they just want to be right at all cost, even by sabotaging the debate. If you want to engage with them feel free to waste your time. I value mine more than that.
Plus keeping the argument going will make relationships worse: I voluntarely crash arguments like that with my father because yes, I do think that he's a dumb cunt, but at the end of the day I still want to say him "I love you nonetheless".
Sounds like this is more of a debate about semantics. "Whataboutism" is a recently-popularized term that doesn't have a concrete definition yet. You see it as a tool to escape a debate by diverting attention, but I see it as a tool to highlight hypocrisy while continuing a debate. Really, I guess what matters is context - specifically, whether one is attempting to debate "in good faith" (another recently-popularized, inconsistently-defined term).
I certainly don't know you or your personal relationship with your dad. He doesn't sound like a great debate opponent, but to be fair, neither do you. Most people aren't nowadays, sad to say. Somewhere between Trump and Biden, people forgot how to wait their turn and debate the idea, rather than the person. It takes two to tango, they say, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find two individuals who are able to set aside their egos and listen in earnest to opposing beliefs.
I guess I'm a bit biased. 2020 turned me into a misanthrope. 🤷
Well. No.
Whataboutism as an argument is about chasing the lowest possible ethical standard. You'll always find someone worse. That doesn't mean it's ok.
Even worse, they're always exaggerated comparisons, such as "zomg, hunter Biden was using drugs". Well, did you vote for hunter? And almost consistently, the sources being used aren't reliable sources. And once those claims are fully rebuked, they move on to the latest nonsense (there are a lot of scared whistleblowers out there who the allegedly mentally weak "sleepy Joe" Biden is apparently threatening lol).
And this seems to be mostly a Right wing attitude
Let's not make this political. Right wing and left wing are still part of the same bird. They used to move in harmony, balancing each other, but for the past few years, those wings have been either attacking or ignoring each other. The eagle is in free-fall, and it's mindsets like this that keep it from course-correcting.
But what about the children? Won't somebody please think of the children?!
AKA changing the topic to avoid learning anything.
religion and the belief in the supernatural/paranormal. also the belief in conspiracy theories.
Wearing camo and American flag shit in public. Honestly just having American flags on anything now pretty much is the same as that read hat
Believing that capitalism lifts people out of poverty.
Nationalism
Believing the earth is flat
Any reference to "common sense", which really means "what I believe". Violating it is used as a universal rebuttal for any intellectually sophisticated argument.
Which sucks because it's diluting the meaning of the phrase, and there are still many situations where it does/should apply.
I’ll take “poorly educated” over “educated and unwilling to learn or grow.”
Not learning from history.
Also trying to sweep the nasty parts of history (basically most of it) under the rug.
Referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect in casual contexts. Most people who refer to it, have not really read about it enough to be qualified to use it.
I mean, you can sum it up in a sentence. Is it really that complex?
"People with poor knowledge, experience or skill in an area tend to overestimate their ability in that area."
Is your beef that people tend to conflate lack of skill or knowledge with low intelligence, which is not what the DK effect says?
"Mount Stupid" vs everyone thinking they're above average
I'm assuming they get told they suffer from DK a lot haha
Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you're referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it's a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
I wouldn't say it shows a lack of education. If anything it's more prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of unhelpful "executive" education.
The irony of this is that those who aren’t “educated on the topic” do not realize that by describing the Dunning-Kruger effect as the law of “overconfident stupid people”, they themselves have become subjects of the effect.
What I was trying to say is that the Dunning-Kruger effect being misrepresented as something that only applies to “stupid people” is often done by people who are themselves undereducated on its topic. The DK effect applies to everybody.
People who are proud about their lack of knowledge on a topic as if that somehow means that they were not programmed prior to the encounter.
Breaks for brakes, loose for lose.
Just pointing out that not everybody who can't spell shit is poorly educated.
Dyslexia, ADHD, having a different native language, ducking autocorrect, ... Lots of reasons.
Ironically, defending arguments using scientific studies and experiments, but not being able to think critically about the methodology used or what the results mean. Too often people will cite scientific literature based off the title and MAYBE skim it. Trying to have a discussion with them will usually result in them calling you anti-science.
A good example is the pseudo-scientific belief common within incel circles that women can store and absorb dna from past sexual partners and that their children can then have more than one genetic father (an excuse to shame sexually active women while fear mongering about cuckoldry). If you track down the source the study actually explicitly explains exactly why this isn't the case.
I'm going to forget that I read this comment and continue living in the moment before I knew this was a thing.
Using an apostrophe in plurals. Don't know why but this one drives me insane.
Also they're/there/their and you're/your
Break/brake
Write one long block of text, no punctuation, capitalization or paragraph breaks.
Maybe it's okay for something short, like texting, but proper grammar and punctuation are kind of necessary for the longer chunks of text.
I personally find your/you’re very tricky for whatever reason.
Like, I know which one I’m supposed to use, but I occasionally find myself using the wrong one every now and then for some inexplicable reason.
ATM's. CPU's. DVD's.
Everyone knows the real plural is ATM machines.
That hurt my brain, darn you.
Listening to loud music without giving a shit about the neighbours.
Being intolerant of those who don't think like you do.
It depends on how you interpret "educated". If including things that aren't learned on school: I think that fallacies, rushed certainties and decontextualisation scream "this individual was so poorly educated that they never learned how to think."
I think that everything else can be derived from the above, shitty moral premises, or a mix of both.
Those who always put loud music or talk as if they were alone in the bus/public places. Always the same people
Per say is a giant pet peeve of mine.
Would of. Mother. Fucking. Would of.
Personal use of proprietary software in the 2020s. Or running a company to be completely dependand on dozens of unreliable and expensive proprietary software vendors.
"but I have already learned Photoshop workflow..."
- my friend that uses it only to make memes
This isn't poorly educated, it's just a mistake in our education system where software isn't treated as well as it should be considering our day and age.
Even so, there are valid reasons to use some forms of proprietary software. Not every program has a good FOSS alternative. I would encourage people to look into FOSS alternatives but I wouldnt call someone poorly educated because they play games other than SuperTuxKart and Kmines.
Getting on an unsafe submarine
MAGA Hats. Those people are dumb by choice. And that's less forgivable than people who just don't know any better.
They're proud of it. Trump even saidn"I love the poorly educated"
Stupidity is not an intellectual failing; it is a moral failing. This is why intelligent people can be so fucking stupid.
Confusing THEN and THAN. Credibility immediately drops.
Your so discriminatory! just because someone do'snot have perfect gramner not means their stupid or pourly educated! you're altitude is disgusting. could of said nothing but you like to disrispect other's on the internet. I could care less but pls get lost on the specific ocean!
V angry upvote
Bone app the teeth indeed
It's bone apple tea, idiot.
It does not mean they are stupid, but it does indicate a poor education, or that they are ESL. Either way, not a value judgement on that individual, but there isn't really a good way to differentiate if someone is dumb or ignorant when they send you something that looks like it was written by a 5th grader.
Judging ppl on theyir grammer
"their" vs "they're" is worse imo - I still don't understand how one can mix up a contraction
People who think their dialect or language style is grammatically correct and others are wrong, because they don't personally known the grammar rules of any other dialect or language. They don't understand that language is alive and evolving and that the purpose of language is communication.
I would add to this people who aren't able to use their own native language properly. I receive IMs at work all the time that sound like a 16-year-old is sending a text message. Maybe I'm just getting old, but half the time I honestly can't decipher what they're asking me.
Using terms like 'u', 'ur', etc when writing. No one charges by the letter, it's simply lazy.
Doesn't this depend on the stylistic environment of the text? Personally, I'd consider it alright given that the sender and the receiver are in a casual relationship. It only makes one seem uneducated if they are using it in a more formal, or perhaps a public context.
Your comment reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote.
"You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up, too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you're at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances." - Stephen Fry, 5:00.
This is exactly the way I think about it!
Some people still don't have unlimited texts, which literally does charge by the letter.
Come on guy’s
So, what does it have to do with poor education?
It made a lot of sense back when you had to type texts by pushing the same buttons multiple times. Now that smart phones have swipe to type and autocorrect, it is not a good excuse.
Nah it didn't even make sense back then. I could type full sentences with T9 easily, to the point that I wouldn't even need to look at the phone except to double check what I wrote before sending a text.
Cigarettes
Nah, addiction plagues the well and the poorly educated. I was acquainted with a couple of Nobel prize winners who smoked like chimneys.
It's not a culture fair observation to be sure. Your Nobel prize winners I guess we're old (hence part of a generation when smoking was more widespread). There are also countries where smoking is more or less universal.
regurgitating talking points from a third party and the inability to distinguish between divisive issues and issues of difference. I
am a college professor and pastor and when I teach theology there is a crazy high instance of people who just spit out exactly what their favorite celebrity pastor says and immediate decide that it trumps whatever you are saying. Then they are unwilling to yield any bit of their position and get offended that you disagree.
disagreements do not need to be so divisive. The constant need for affirmation shows that you actually have no idea what you are talking about
Being poor or lower middle class and voting for right wing/conservatives. You essentially give away your hard earned money and give it to ultra rich and worsen the quality of your life.. usually because the right wing scares people to be afraid of other people and new phenomena.
Confuses to, two and too.
Also their, there and they're
Dyslexia hell though
I tend to agree. But even though I have a degree in English literature and creative writing, and have worked as a journalist and editor, I still have a few things that I routinely mess up. My thing is: sometimes a word gets double letters in certain forms. Run / running. Got / gotten. But this doesn’t always happen. Walk / walking. There are however some forms of some words where I can’t remember what is correct to do. I’ve gotten it wrong and been corrected. I’ve gotten it right and second guessed myself. Both of those have happened so many times that I can no longer keep it all straight.
So I have some compassion perhaps for people who screw up to/too because they’re caught in a false mneumonic dilemma. (There’s a good example of my trouble with double letters, by the way - I always type “dilemma”).
I swear in some cases it’s more of a pathology and less just mere ignorance.
Many moons ago I had an old high school classmate add me on Facebook. They listed their religious beliefs as "Too each there own".
That's they're choice.
That's they're choice.
Well we definitely have a lot of reddit in this thread. Reminds me why I looked for alternatives in the first place.
Specifics? Or do you mean the thread in general?
Might not be a popular take but having an undefendable position like creationism does not necessarily mean "poorly educated." There are apologists who have learned proper reasoning skills and use their education to bend reality as much towards their will. I think most people would consider Jesuits and the like to be very educated but also very wrong.
As far as signs that someone is poorly educated, there are people who make up "big words" to give the impression of having a better education to other poorly educated people. Which backfires when someone with an actual large vocabulary walks into the room.
Outrage posting
Using "I" as the object instead of the subject, like saying "The waiter brought drinks to my friend and I."
This is one of those grammatical errors that is so common that it is almost not a grammatical error anymore. It is so pervasive in podcasts, movies, TV shows, etc. that I just gloss over it nowadays
Idk sounds pretty good to I.
What exactly is wrong with that sentence?
Try this:
Sounds werid as hell, right? That's what's wrong with that sentence. I is a subjective pronoun, not an objective pronoun. Adding "my friend and" in front of it doesn't change that.
I understand that it doesn't matter to a lot of people, and it doesn't matter for sentence clarity, but it sound weird AF to some folks.
idk, I notice the opposite to happen more often: e.g. "me and John went to the bar last weekend"
Why is this so common? It drives me nuts.
Because of all the 'um actually' corrections from people whenever they'd say "Tom and me bought drinks." And not just to the point one starts thinking it's always "Tom and I" - I've had people 'correct' my 'to Tom and me', as well, because they think "Tom and me" is always incorrect.
This is also why I don't make a big deal about correcting others' grammar; it's often a tool people use to feel smarter (and thus superior) to other people. Language is a communication tool; if I know what you mean and there's limited ambiguity then I don't much care if you said 'would of' instead of 'would've'; and certainly not enough to interrupt a conversation to correct it.
Besides, between autocorrect, typos, and the brain's weird word-association tricks, a linguistics professor is capable of making significant grammar mistakes and not even notice, even if they'd know they were wrong if pointed out. So swooping in to tell them "hey you did this thing slightly wrong" in lieu of engaging with their intended point is not meaningful contribution.
Yes exactly. I didn't mention it above but it seems like the people who use "and I" incorrectly are the same ones trying to sound smarter by being more "proper" or formal. I agree people should just focus on the content of the message. I would not correct anyone in real life, but secretly inwardly it drives me crazy.
Yeah, that's exactly what makes it sound poorly educated to me.
I used to think it was people saying 'fustrated' instead of 'frustrated'.
Brought instead of bought.
Over their I saw a cat. It was licking it's paws.
I hate autocorrect for constantly changing my “its” to “it’s”.
(I just had to fight it to get the above “its”)
Boarder
💀
Went on a trip a while back with a relative, here are some of the things that they belived/behaved like(sorry for the long text):Needless gossiping and thinking that other people's achivements threaten your credibility. Anger/apathy/being dismissive as default, snarky useless remarks, belittling other people any chance possible, trying to seem superior through "presenting intelectual", playing "the devil's advocate" just to look edgy and be unnerving, beliving propaganda over science, not apologising when needed, lacking self awareness and being selfish constantly, not going to therapy&health check ups, making poor spirited jokes about other people, not respecting people's space, touching them without permission,being disrespectful on purpose to other people(and to yourself), and the phobias(homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, xenophobic),misoginistic,misandrist, ableist, rascist,antisemitic,heavily nationalist attitude, thinking the world revolves only around you and that other people are just tools&objects, not cleaning after yourself, expecting other people to take care of things for/accompaning you as if they have an obligation, thinking violence settles things, refusing to pay people because "it's for exposure" and "they should do it for the experience/self fuffilment", loud music in public spaces(please use headphones), dismissing people's religious practice just because it isn't exactly how you would do it, pressing other people to live the life you want to but not living the life you want to live yourself, being needlessy pessimistic and cynical about the future(guilty), not being bewildered about earth and not wanting to learn or practice random things(who has time to be hateful when you see a beautiful leaf that has just sprouted?), lack of wanderlust.
Is your relative an Instagram influencer?
No. Average boomer with a tik tok.
Generally not getting a lot of deeper jokes or references about important topics
me myself
and I
Insisting things like tax returns or household maintenance should be taught in school.
The goal of Education is not to train you to fit into the system you happen to grow up in, but should provide the foundation (litaracy, STEM, art …) and awaken the curiosity in yourself to become lifelong learner. That will develop society, and not a bunch of drones doing their tax returns and changing tires every season.
The most important thing you can learn, is how to learn. One of the things that most upsets me is when I hear someone say they can't do something "because no one ever taught me how". It's not your teachers/parents job to teach you how to do everything under the sun.
Ignorance is nigh-inexcusable in today's society, with so many sources of information at our fingertips. That's where the "poorly educated" part comes in for me - folks who don't know how to search for and evaluate information.
At minimum; school should give you the tools to be able to figure out how to do taxes/basic house maintenance/etc. But also, sometimes people need a little extra help; and we should have some sort of system to help people learn those things.
Those are foundational skills like math and reading. Accounting exists and mechanical repair exists. They aren't teaching you those specific fields.
Seeing a pirate use unsafe sites
When someone says "I seen".
No, you saw. Or you have seen.
It's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Ya that's not a sign uneducated imo. Infact, formal education has very little to do with how "educated" one is.
Using less instead of fewer. Fewer is quantitative, Less is qualitative. Fewer rain drops, less rain.
Yea sorry to say, but this is one of my signs of being poorly educated. Really don’t want to be harsh, and I’m all with you on being accurate and correct with language and expression. But language changes and always has trade offs and with accuracy and comprehension. There’s strictly no reason for a language to distinguish quantitative and qualitative amounts at this level.
And at some point, requiring compliance with rules like this, against the grain of the language’s evolution, becomes pedantry, which, I’m sorry to say, is often the signalling of being educated by those desperate to appear so.
I really hope this doesn’t come off as harsh and rude. It’s definitely useful to have this in the language, if you’re completely on top of it. But from what I’ve seen, even the most educated and smart people can trip on this because it’s just awkwardly unnecessary enough that it doesn’t really matter unless you’re keen to ensure you’re using “proper English”.
Especially in English, which is incredibly idiosyncratic.
I have an English degree so obviously I care about this shit. But I’ve spent enough time in the world to understand that there is more than one kind of education. I know brilliant sofrware programmers who might fuck up less/fewer. They’re not stupid. They have lots of education. I’m an idiot compared to them when it comes to logic and math. I have a friend who’s a master gardener, accomplished photographer, welder, electronics teacher, small business owner, IT technician, and a really good cook. He probably screws up a word here and there. He’s vastly more educated and intelligent than me.
So yeah… we should all just back off on being pedants about grammar and vocabulary rules, just a little bit.
An English major that's not a dirty prescriptivist?!? I thought it was impossible.
Yep. Especially as there is a lot more than simple "pedantic" grammar rules (or stylistic prescriptions as they so often are) to be "educated" about when it comes to English as a language, good practice for both speaking and writing, and of course language in general.
I don't agree with this one. The meaning of words change and that's true of 'Less'.
I generally don't agree with these prescriptivist positions though.
Gotta ask: do you take issue with “10 items or less” signs?
I would say "not the grammar" since many users are not native English speakers and have learned it as a second (or third, fourth...) language. 💁♂️🌏
'emails'
'the ask'
'the spend'