This actually mirrors my experience, but I wonder if it is a little delayed.
I graduated with a BA in 2009, took a year off then went to grad school in 2011. That was quite a shock and I left in 2013 after my Master's... and it has gotten dramatically worse since then.
College grads pre 2010 is probably 80-20, but post 2010 it probably looks more like postgrad. What I am saying is that I think this trend is broken but we can't see it yet.
I recall seeing a bit more of a bi-polar effect there, although it was about "vaccine skepticism" rather than uptake (which was as much or more forced as it was voluntary). Where highschool and post grad educated cadres were the most skeptical as data started coming out, and the undergrads in the middle were the most credulous.
This was old news even at the time of its publishing in the 80's. But it documents the root cause -- the 1960's takeover of ivy's by marxist radicals and the foolish public who decided it didn't matter because "it's only college, it's not the real world"
It’s a theocracy anymore not “higher education” as the fields these women are educated in are social science garbage. They buy piety in the form of extolling doctrines and pushing narratives.
Blacks have the lowest average IQ of any racial demographic. This is not in dispute.
But it’s still just an average. There are, of course, many very smart black people in total. And they are well aware of that aforementioned average. So they will advocate for communism in order to prop up their own racial cohort.
College is a great place to test your own personal principles and ability to resist conformity and social pressures.
Because either you fall in line with the incredible pressure to become like this, or you end up hating them twice as hard after having dealt with them directly in real life.
I wouldn't go just for that, but having done it already I walked away much more hateful of women, gays and Pacific Islanders. Because this was pre-tranny wave and my school had an absurd Pacific fucker population with their own little "alliance" that made everyone hate them.
Save you the derivation, but basically since Trump voters are so unanimous and Biden allegedly winning moderates 2:1 we can figure that half of Biden-voting moderates are anti-trans, saying that sex is permanent.
Now they may not support discrimination or surgery bans, but a large portion of Biden voters say sex is unchangeable.
So the key takeaway from this is to win 2024, hammer this issue specifically to make Democrat be associated with trans and believing you can change your sex. None of the other social issues were even close to being this lopsided.
My lefty NPC friends will just say "it's not a big deal" and that the right are just "flipping out over nothing". Even when something is obviously wrong they consistently take the "boiled frog" approach and think it is most prudent to wait until it's "a real problem". Of course they'll never define that, but in practice is just means they'll never push back on any societal change until it is practically too late to do so.
Wedges move the weak-willed / conflicted center, not your left friends. I've never seen a wedge like this.
Wedges are always say 70% left-leaning vs 30% right-leaning so as one side is taking votes from the other they are also losing some on their own side. But a wedge that's 100% right-leaning vs 50% left-leaning? It's unheard of.
It means there's no downside to saying "there are two genders". The more you say it, the more democrats will lose voters.
Of course this fighting over the swayable middle is the secret sauce of the 2-party system because most people are unreasonable. Even people here, recently saying skipping S01 of ST:TNG is a "slippery slope" to woke - like really? It's terrible. People being unreasonable is why winner-take-all USA/UK are still going after hundreds of years, no parliamentary system is even close with average less than a lifetime.
Fair but even if the men today were in charge of marrying their daughters and selecting the men for the daughter, there's nothing to say the men won't just do what the daughter wants and wait until she's 39 and fucked around in college etc...
There's more at play. When women were banned from working for example and couldn't earn an income, there was incentive to marry them off younger and putting them through college would be pointless. I'd argue you'd find more success to the outcome you seek by banning women from being able to earn an income rather than by only allowing the father the deciding factor in who a woman marries.
The problem is it’s a fully funded pyramid scheme funded by the government through loan kickbacks and grants and pushed like a drug in public schools.
Mostly agree. However, in this case even the college grads are resisting this. It's people with masters+ who have gone insane looking at the data.
High School or less: 65% are sane, 35% insane
Some college: 61/39
College grad: 63/37
Postgrad: 38/62
Would be interesting to see the breakdown by field.
This actually mirrors my experience, but I wonder if it is a little delayed.
I graduated with a BA in 2009, took a year off then went to grad school in 2011. That was quite a shock and I left in 2013 after my Master's... and it has gotten dramatically worse since then.
College grads pre 2010 is probably 80-20, but post 2010 it probably looks more like postgrad. What I am saying is that I think this trend is broken but we can't see it yet.
It was the same with Covid vaccine uptake
I recall seeing a bit more of a bi-polar effect there, although it was about "vaccine skepticism" rather than uptake (which was as much or more forced as it was voluntary). Where highschool and post grad educated cadres were the most skeptical as data started coming out, and the undergrads in the middle were the most credulous.
How many knives would it take to skin 6m alive?
cool it with antisemitic remarks
see: The Closing of the American Mind
This was old news even at the time of its publishing in the 80's. But it documents the root cause -- the 1960's takeover of ivy's by marxist radicals and the foolish public who decided it didn't matter because "it's only college, it's not the real world"
It’s a theocracy anymore not “higher education” as the fields these women are educated in are social science garbage. They buy piety in the form of extolling doctrines and pushing narratives.
Everyone knows that the blacks aren't on board with this nonsense. They're just in it for the gibs.
Blacks have the lowest average IQ of any racial demographic. This is not in dispute.
But it’s still just an average. There are, of course, many very smart black people in total. And they are well aware of that aforementioned average. So they will advocate for communism in order to prop up their own racial cohort.
Nah they believe this shit too.
College is a great place to test your own personal principles and ability to resist conformity and social pressures.
Because either you fall in line with the incredible pressure to become like this, or you end up hating them twice as hard after having dealt with them directly in real life.
I wouldn't go just for that, but having done it already I walked away much more hateful of women, gays and Pacific Islanders. Because this was pre-tranny wave and my school had an absurd Pacific fucker population with their own little "alliance" that made everyone hate them.
I believe it's to alienate the white males. White males are the most dangerous thing, males in general, because we are defiant against tyranny.
Oh ya we are both under attack for sure. I agree
Target? No.
Advocate? Yes.
Save you the derivation, but basically since Trump voters are so unanimous and Biden allegedly winning moderates 2:1 we can figure that half of Biden-voting moderates are anti-trans, saying that sex is permanent.
Now they may not support discrimination or surgery bans, but a large portion of Biden voters say sex is unchangeable.
So the key takeaway from this is to win 2024, hammer this issue specifically to make Democrat be associated with trans and believing you can change your sex. None of the other social issues were even close to being this lopsided.
My lefty NPC friends will just say "it's not a big deal" and that the right are just "flipping out over nothing". Even when something is obviously wrong they consistently take the "boiled frog" approach and think it is most prudent to wait until it's "a real problem". Of course they'll never define that, but in practice is just means they'll never push back on any societal change until it is practically too late to do so.
I am hearing that "this is the science" and "the AMA supports gender affirming care" and therefore "stop making this political issue".
Wedges move the weak-willed / conflicted center, not your left friends. I've never seen a wedge like this.
Wedges are always say 70% left-leaning vs 30% right-leaning so as one side is taking votes from the other they are also losing some on their own side. But a wedge that's 100% right-leaning vs 50% left-leaning? It's unheard of.
It means there's no downside to saying "there are two genders". The more you say it, the more democrats will lose voters.
Of course this fighting over the swayable middle is the secret sauce of the 2-party system because most people are unreasonable. Even people here, recently saying skipping S01 of ST:TNG is a "slippery slope" to woke - like really? It's terrible. People being unreasonable is why winner-take-all USA/UK are still going after hundreds of years, no parliamentary system is even close with average less than a lifetime.
People who refuse to accept something as basic as sexual dimorphism are the ones who accuse you of scientific denialism.
Allowing women to choose who and when to marry led to this.
How do you figure?
That allowed them to have time to get indoctrinated or otherwise into trouble before they had their first kid which tends to make them less crazy.
Fair but even if the men today were in charge of marrying their daughters and selecting the men for the daughter, there's nothing to say the men won't just do what the daughter wants and wait until she's 39 and fucked around in college etc...
There's more at play. When women were banned from working for example and couldn't earn an income, there was incentive to marry them off younger and putting them through college would be pointless. I'd argue you'd find more success to the outcome you seek by banning women from being able to earn an income rather than by only allowing the father the deciding factor in who a woman marries.