patrick.net

Nomograph says

while Liberals always have a full head of wavy blonde hair.

Where do you think all the material for blonde jokes came from?

Bap33 says

Kevin says

Demographically speaking the internet in general is more liberal than the real world.

This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all. Particularly older people.

is it fair to say that this statement says that liberals are richer, more educated, and younger than conservos?

No, it says that poor, uneducated, and old people tend to be conservative. Even the ones who vote for democrats.

Kevin says

Bap33 says

Kevin says

Demographically speaking the internet in general is more liberal than the real world.
This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all. Particularly older people.

is it fair to say that this statement says that liberals are richer, more educated, and younger than conservos?

No, it says that poor, uneducated, and old people tend to be conservative. Even the ones who vote for democrats.

hmmm ...
anyone not conservative might be called liberal, and vise versa.
anyone not called poor might be called rich, and vice versa.
anyone not called uneducated might be called educated, and vice versa.
anyone not called old might be called young, and vice versa.
anyone not using the internet might be called a non-user of the internet, and vice versa.
and so you wrote, "Demographically speaking the internet in general is more liberal than the real world. This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all."

Since your answer was to my question about the type of folks that make up most of the on-line population, I think your position (and view of non-liberal posters) is very clear. I'm not challenging your position.

Bap33 says

This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all.

Of the three groups, older people do tend to be less likely to be online (than average) and also more likely to be conservative than average. Whereas the other two groups are probably online a little less, but not necessarily disproportionately conservative.

To say that older people, say over 63 tend to be significantly more conservative as voters than average voters under 63, is not equivalent to saying that liberals are younger than conservatives (more of a generalization). Obviously there exists 100 year old liberals, and a 21 year old conservatives to contradict that. It might be equivalent to saying that voters 63 and under are more likely to be liberal than average voters over 63, or just more liberal than average.

Older voters are not only disproportionately conservative, but they also tend to vote. They probably are also more likely to participate in online discussions (not at social networking sites that is) than the typical younger person, that is if they are online. Cancelling out some of the effect.

Way too much analysis ?

I think that there are plenty of sites and blogs that are dominated by conservatives. Maybe this one isn't in part because it's "owner" has expressed at least a relatively left of center view on some topics. Maybe also because they don't want the flack from people here (especially Nomo today) that will bust them on bs reasoning.

Bap33 says

anyone not conservative might be called liberal, and vise versa.

No, it's a continuum, like most things.

anyone not called poor might be called rich, and vice versa.

No, it's a continuum, like most things.

anyone not called uneducated might be called educated, and vice versa.

No, it's a continuum, like most things.

anyone not called old might be called young, and vice versa.

No, it's a continuum, like most things.

anyone not using the internet might be called a non-user of the internet, and vice versa.

Hey, you got one right!

Not all conservatives are poor, uneducated, or old.

Not all old, poor, or uneducated people are conservative.

But poor, uneducated, and old people do lean strongly towards conservative ideals, and do use the internet less than people who are financially stable, are more educated, or are on the younger side. There have been plenty of studies that demonstrate this, and it shouldn't be surprising -- there's a standard curve of technological adoption that has been demonstrated throughout history, and it goes something like this:

- Younger people are more willing to try new things.
- Wealthier people are willing to try new things.
- Educated people are willing to try new things.

Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.

Kevin says

Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.

Interesting. When Hitler and his National Socialist Workers Party came on scene in Germany, was that a "new thing?"

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.

Interesting. When Hitler and his National Socialist Workers Party came on scene in Germany, was that a “new thing?”

Nomo--you can rest easy. We're back to Hitler references again.

tatupu70 says

Nomo–you can rest easy. We’re back to Hitler references again.

Was "Nazism" a "new thing" or not?

Kevin says

- Younger people are more willing to try new things.
- Wealthier people are willing to try new things.
- Educated people are willing to try new things.
Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.

And the oposite must agree with your position too, right?
In the mirror you wrote:
Conservatisim, by definition, is lack of acceptance of new things
- Uneducated people are not willing to try new things
- Poor people are not willing to try new things
- Old people are not willing to try new things.

When your points are coupled together with our original conversation it come out kinda like I said it did. Don't it?
PatNet has a larger % lib population. Is it more or less than the over-all on-line %, I don't know. I agree that some sites will gravitate more of one or the other. But, we agree that the population on-line is tilted way left.

And the only point you made that I disagree with was when you said the on-line population will relfect the country after a generation. I feel the more left tilt will remain in the tech world in general. In the same way artistic minds are more liberal, mechanical minds are more conservative - would you agree?
I think the mind-set of people on either side dictates behavior, and behaior dicates on-line population. I work with guys that will never in life post a thought on any blog. They are -30, and are into tech-toys and such, but are not voiced in opinion. I also know a few dudes +60 that post on multi-blogs. They cant use their cell phones, but the are very voiced in opinion. THey also argue at the coffee shop and barber shop. It could be said that the on-line blog system is just the newest beauty shop / coffee shop bull shooting gallery.

The anny system on-line creats an issue, as far as gauging population. I could pretend to be anyone at any time - as can you and anyone else. So, I guess we are just gauging the personalities of the posts, and not the population. That sound right?

Kevin says

But poor, uneducated, and old people do lean strongly towards conservative ideals, and do use the internet less than people who are financially stable, are more educated, or are on the younger side. There have been plenty of studies that demonstrate this, and it shouldn’t be surprising — there’s a standard curve of technological adoption that has been demonstrated throughout history, and it goes something like this:
- Younger people are more willing to try new things.
- Wealthier people are willing to try new things.
- Educated people are willing to try new things.
Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.

By that definition, we would not have had a Tech revolution in the 80s and the creation of SV decades ago. You can compare Route 128 in Liberal Massachusetts, to the more Conservative birth of SV. When Govt tried to manipulate industry, Route 128 industries failed, while a "hands off policy" on SV allowed Industries to boom. Clinton tried to influence SV back in the 90s, visiting the area and talking to the leaders only to be snubbed off.

I would be considered old, and like many used lots of IT/Computer tools at work over the decades, however, I have no need for toys like an Ipod, Iphone or Ipad. They are toys, not high tech productivity tools.

Bap33 says

And the oposite must agree with your position too, right?

Only if you're a fucking idiot.

thomas.wong1986 says

Kevin says

But poor, uneducated, and old people do lean strongly towards conservative ideals, and do use the internet less than people who are financially stable, are more educated, or are on the younger side. There have been plenty of studies that demonstrate this, and it shouldn’t be surprising — there’s a standard curve of technological adoption that has been demonstrated throughout history, and it goes something like this:

- Younger people are more willing to try new things.

- Wealthier people are willing to try new things.

- Educated people are willing to try new things.

Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.

By that definition, we would not have had a Tech revolution in the 80s and the creation of SV decades ago. You can compare Route 128 in Liberal Massachusetts, to the more Conservative birth of SV. When Govt tried to manipulate industry, Route 128 industries failed, while a “hands off policy” on SV allowed Industries to boom. Clinton tried to influence SV back in the 90s, visiting the area and talking to the leaders only to be snubbed off.
I would be considered old, and like many used lots of IT/Computer tools at work over the decades, however, I have no need for toys like an Ipod, Iphone or Ipad. They are toys, not high tech productivity tools.

Please don't equate economic liberalism with "Conservatism". They are not the same thing.

Silicon valley was not founded by any sort of "Conservative" ideals, and it's ridiculous to suggest so.

And, again, not all old people are conservative, and not all people who embrace technology are liberal.

It must be really difficult to only experience a world view where everything is a binary state.

While left is fighting right this country is stripped naked behind your backs. Divide and conquer - old but good and still working today. Let us be busy arguing about which puppet was/is better president. As long as we divided, real robbery will go unnoticed.

If both parties keep shafting you, why are you still voting for them? They both payed by large corps for large corps. Nobody even trying to hide it anymore. Different puppets manipulated by same hands ... and nobody knows whats happening behind curtains.

thomas.wong1986 says

I would be considered old, and like many used lots of IT/Computer tools at work over the decades, however, I have no need for toys like an Ipod, Iphone or Ipad. They are toys, not high tech productivity tools.

I disagree. My ipod touch is even better than a pda. It is faster, cheaper and easier to use than a pda and with wi-fi I can even use it to access e-mail and the internet. This is a major advance and productivity tool.

LalaLandlord says

While left is fighting right this country is stripped naked behind your backs. Divide and conquer - old but good and still working today. Let us be busy arguing about which puppet was/is better president. As long as we divided, real robbery will go unnoticed.
If both parties keep shafting you, why are you still voting for them? They both payed by large corps for large corps. Nobody even trying to hide it anymore. Different puppets manipulated by same hands … and nobody knows whats happening behind curtains.

Wait a minute, presidents are just pawns of the powers that be? Politcal parties and left/right battles are just smokescreen to distract us while the powers that be take our money and erode our sovereign rights?

That can't be. Just drink the koolaid Lala!

Your vote matters, that is why you must vote for one of the approved democrat or GOP candidates or risk being outside the mainstream and "wasting your vote".

Too much... most posts are pointing fingers and have no solution.

One thing we could do is attack the drug smuggling aspect... if someone is captured smuggling drugs and ae found to be here illegally... they thus should have no legal rights whatsoever... then they are given last rites and executed on the spot and the body burned and no notification sent to anyone... from the Mexican led drug cartels' perspectives they disappeared with the goods... and the drug cartel will go after the family of the disappeared ones... and we'll have far less illegals... most of the eliminations will be done by the cartel.

Problem mitigated.

cevansnh says

Too much… most posts are pointing fingers and have no solution.
One thing we could do is attack the drug smuggling aspect… if someone is captured smuggling drugs and ae found to be here illegally… they thus should have no legal rights whatsoever… then they are given last rites and executed on the spot and the body burned and no notification sent to anyone… from the Mexican led drug cartels’ perspectives they disappeared with the goods… and the drug cartel will go after the family of the disappeared ones… and we’ll have far less illegals… most of the eliminations will be done by the cartel.
Problem mitigated.

Pure genius. Executions always make things better. Right? ......rrrrrrriiiiiiiigggghhhht

I got a better idea. End the drug war, legalize and regulate it and allow American entrepreneurs and businesses to compete with the cartels using better service/merchandise not more guns.

Mark it down .... this may be a first. I actually agree with the bench sitter.

Kevin says

Bap33 says

And the oposite must agree with your position too, right?

Only if you’re a fucking idiot.

interesting discourse ... I'll pretend you said something friendly and acceptable, and move on. Mainly because I enjoy the exchange. Just pick better ways to call names next time, please.

anyways, it would appear that you disagree with my point: My point is If what you say is correct, then the oposites must be correct. Why do you disagree?
If all that is black is not white, then all that is white is not black.
When you move you are not still, when you are still you do not move.
WHen you are right you are not wrong, when you are wrong you are not right.
When you are old you are not young, when you are young you are not old.
When you are poor you are not rich, when you are rich you are not poor.
You said your opinion with absolute clearity. Why attack me for suggesting that the oposite must hold true?

If you are going to express the various degrees of each position, then that would still have the polar oposite degree .. so, even when the "shades of gray" are put into your position, the oposite holds true. As a fucking idiot, I have no trouble understanding this simple concept.

Bap--

The problem is you didn't use the mirror opposites.

Here's your post again:

Bap33 says

Kevin says
- Younger people are more willing to try new things.
- Wealthier people are willing to try new things.
- Educated people are willing to try new things.
Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things.
And the oposite must agree with your position too, right?
In the mirror you wrote:
Conservatisim, by definition, is lack of acceptance of new things
- Uneducated people are not willing to try new things
- Poor people are not willing to try new things
- Old people are not willing to try new things.

Kevin said "more willing", you said the opposite is "not willing". Had you said "less willing", your statements are closer to the truth on the first statement

On the last 3--it's just flawed logic. Here's another example. Educated people like popcorn. Does that mean uneducated people don't like popcorn?

you did read where I suggested his point was about "degrees" right? And that would include your point about proper vocabulary.

Concerning you last point, if you suggest the action taken is independant of the demographic of the actor, then that would negate the entire premise. My original question was about demographic divides online. So, if the original question was, "Do educated people eat popcorn more than uneducated people?", then the conversation would have started from there and arrived at some other location. False logic has been avoided be me thus far. It is not false logic to express the need of oposites to support any absolute claim. In my opinion. lol

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

End the drug war, legalize and regulate it and allow American entrepreneurs and businesses to compete with the cartels using better service/merchandise not more guns.

Thats pretty much the worst idea ever. An entire society can be subjugated by permeation with intensely addictive substances like heroin. Do you think that heroin is illegal in every civilized country because: (a) it’s an extraordinarily powerful and dangerous substance with a thousand-year track record of wreaking havoc in society; or (b) politicians hate freedom.
Tear your eyes away from Mises for a moment and read up about the Opium Wars. That is the actual, real-life result of your neat-o sounding idea. Nobody is interested in your blast from the past.
In other words, American capitalists and entrepreneurs would have our nation irreversibly strung out in a matter of a couple years. But, like your hero who flew through the windshield because of his childish rebellion against seatbelt tyranny, our great nation would die doing what it loved: getting high.

So why aren't the countries that have legalized or decriminalized drugs awash with addicts? Look into Portugal, which currently has the most liberal drug laws, and compare the usage numbers to America. You also seem to forget that drugs were perfectly legal in America for a long time without the entire country falling into drug addiction.

I say legalize, tax, and use the taxes for treatment of addicts/abusers and I don't even do drugs. Of course the chance of this happening is zero. Way too many people make a lot of money off of the war on drugs.

Bap33 says

so, even when the “shades of gray” are put into your position, the oposite holds true.

OK--but that's not how you expressed it.

@tatupu, I agree, that is fair to say.

@bob,
RE: Portugal/Azores. Over the last 150 years, every single Portagee that could make it to America, did. The only ones left on the Azores or the mainland are those that could not find a way here, or those that are part of old money there.

Nomograph says

In other words, American capitalists and entrepreneurs would have our nation irreversibly strung out in a matter of a couple years.

False. Never happened and never will.

But it is perfectly ok for the medical profession to supply their addicts with pain, anxiety and antidepressant medications isn't Doctor? How many people are "legally" strung out on prescription medications, to the tune of millions or billions of dollars a year in the pockets of doctors, and pharmaceutical companies? Legalize it, the Medical Industrial Complex needs the competition.

But you don't really think Marijuana should be illegal do you?

bob2356 says

You also seem to forget that drugs were perfectly legal in America for a long time without the entire country falling into drug addiction.

Right you are Bob. Just as with tobacco, alcohol and other bad habits the wise are able to avoid or use in moderation and the foolish will always be foolish because if it were illegal to be stupid we'd all be locked up sooner or later.

What is sad is that the lessons of prohibition and how it empowers the crime lords have fallen to the abyss of the drug czar and drug war mentality.

1-2-3- what are we fighting 4?

If we were to legalize drugs, it wouldn't and couldn't be anything beyond weed first. If after a couple of decades, it failed because commercialization caused way more people to abuse weed, then we would never consider the question of legalizing harder drugs.

So the only real question now is should marijuana be legalized. And even there I would say we only find out for sure if it is done in one or more states and works out. So because of that, and because I think it may be little worse than it is now, I am strongly considering voting yes in California this fall.