Being poor and idolizing the rich.
That’s by design
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
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.
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.
Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
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.
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
💀
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.
"Let's go Brandon!" Bumper stickers.
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.
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 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.
"People who don't support my party are stupid"
Is a pretty big "poorly educated" sign.
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.
Listening to loud music without giving a shit about the neighbours.
Reckless driving, speeding, having a loud car, having a lifted pickup truck.
Confusing THEN and THAN. Credibility immediately drops.
Associating with arbitrary groups, such as football fans, nationalists, wearing certain clothing brands
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.
Not learning from history.
Being a baby. What do they even know?
"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!?!
MAGA Hats. Those people are dumb by choice. And that's less forgivable than people who just don't know any better.
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!
Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
The irony!
religion and the belief in the supernatural/paranormal. also the belief in conspiracy theories.
conspiracy theories i agree with, but religion? organized religion, definitely. joining a religion with a hierarchy signals that you want someone else to give you all the answers, which is very much a mark of poor education. but religious beliefs are not an automatic marker of poor education, as long as they're sincerely held, don't supersede science, and are frequently revisited and revised based on personal experience and knowledge. even basic, broad frameworks like animism or some parts of Buddhism can help you make sense of the world when science can't help you
💀
Parents feeding their baby cola in bottles and smoking while pregnant are two things that usually cause me to make assumptions
Not wanting to tax the rich because "I might be rich one day".
This also screams "I am a selfish and self-centered person".
Permanently Deleted
The irony.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
I see you've met my neighbors.
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.
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.
If I know someone personally and they text me with abbreviations and such like that. I do judge them for it.
Come on guy’s
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.
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers...
Permanently Deleted
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn't really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
💀
Not when they vote for parties that fight against workers' rights
Since we are rating if a person is racist or not based on the actions/words of the person they voted for, isn't everyone who voted for Biden racist as well?
I’ll take “poorly educated” over “educated and unwilling to learn or grow.”
That's the same thing to me. Parents and teachers failed to educate them in how to be curious.
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.
I mean it would also help if we had a functional tax system in the US that wasn't deliberately made overly complicated to encourage people to pay for tax filing services.
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.
Cigarettes
Nah, addiction plagues the well and the poorly educated. I was acquainted with a couple of Nobel prize winners who smoked like chimneys.
Addiction is everywhere, but cigarettes are unique. It’s no secret that cigarette companies deliberately get people addicted, and then let them die, simply because it’s profitable.
You KNOW you’re being used. Voluntarily paying to make it happen is stupid.
I’m sympathetic towards older folks who got hooked when the companies were still lying to the public, but anyone who started smoking in the last few decades is a moron.
Using "I" as the object instead of the subject, like saying "The waiter brought drinks to my friend and I."
Permanently Deleted
Bonus points for using “like” in like every sentence.
FTFY ;)
When someone says "I seen".
No, you saw. Or you have seen.
It's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
what gets me is when people interpret the use of different english dialects as a negative reflection on their character. demanding strict adherance to prescriptivist standards of grammar seem to me to be a sign of poor education.
Ya that's not a sign uneducated imo. Infact, formal education has very little to do with how "educated" one is ime.
I didn't go to college. And most of my "peers" didn't either. But I wouldn't consider myself uneducated in the least.
Many of my peers use this term, and while "uneducated", many are far from dumb.
I'd consider it more of a dialect atp.
But I guess your right in that there is a higher chance they are kind of uneducated, but i think how you portray it comes off as pearl clutching, and sort of mean.
Coming to absolutes and never admitting your faults
They think opinions are facts.
Believing that capitalism lifts people out of poverty.
oh but it does
why would you expose yourself like that
Thinking about different languages in the terms of "useful" or "useless" according to the number of speakers they have.
Edit: What I mean specifically is not for someone to want or not to personally learn a language, but if the existance in itself of a language is more or less valuable according to how many people speak it (per example and as I explained below, believing that Occitan's existance is useless because there's already French to talk to Occitan people with, who already understand it). Yes, this happens.
Why does this show lack of education over lack of interest in linguistics? I’ve studied linguistics, and I don’t categorize languages that way, but I could see how a pragmatist wouldn’t see value in learning Esperanto or Papiamento.
I think you misunderstand what I am referring to. I am not talking about a wish to learn a language, but to consider languages as useful or useless in regards to their entire existence.
This is unfortunately not very uncommon in people of European countries who look down upon regional languages, stating that their existence or that learning them is useless (not for them only, but for anyone) just because you can already do the task of communicating with others through the national language (per example, considering the existance of the Occitan language useless because the people of everywhere where it is spoken can already understand French). This is done by people who not understand (or even worse, who don't care about) the value that exists in language from a cultural perspective.
