What does an 'autistic post' even mean, anyway?

A post made by me?

Also you're derailing the thread even further.

You're BOTH derailing the thread, so maybe you should stop blathering on about who is delusional and who has alts and who is hiding behind those alts and whatever else you're arguing about. Can't we have a thread that's about arguing politics rather than arguing about alts and autistic posts?

No.

Trump sucks, Billary sucks, Obama sucks, Islam sucks, commies suck. Everything sucks. No wonder retarded sandnigs want to implement sharia law when current western democracy is dead af.

Also anyone who dares to disagree with me is a SJW fag or a fascist white supremacist.

faking autism

God I wish that were me

Is democracy really dead though? With record high voter turnouts in the recent Brexit referendum and US primaries, along with the high media attention, the popularity of the so called 'anti-establishment' vote, I would say that the democratic process has never been more appealing and alive.

Many people seem to make blanket statements such as 'democracy is dead' simply when their peers don't vote along their point of view.

Democracy is so screwed up...
With any democratic vote, loads of people will vote in favour of whatever the vote's about, and loads will vote against. The people who lose the vote then scream dictatorship and start putting pressure on to reverse the decision. Which then would cause the people who won the vote to do the same... in an endless cycle.



I'm not looking at anything in particular *cough* bremain *cough*

^

EDIT: Democracy is useless.

Edited 7/2/2016 20:17:20

Many people seem to make blanket statements such as 'democracy is dead' simply when their peers don't vote along their point of view.

I was going to make a rather solid & serious reply to this but then I realized that nobody cares about either of our opinions.

So yeah, you're right, I did just say that because my peers don't vote the way I like them to. God democracy sucks. Welp sharia it is then.

democracy would work well but there are many people who dont know anything about politics or are just plain retarded. The reason why hillary is so popular is because the democratic debates are full of leftist idiots.






cant stump the trump

there are many people who dont know anything about politics or are just plain retarded.

I hate this argument. Whilst I find this more common from the political left than the right, I find it extremely arrogant nevertheless.

It illustrates the concept of illusory superiority, where studies show overwhelming numbers of people tend to overestimate their own IQ or deem themselves as 'above average intelligence' relative to everyone else.

I see it in the media, which likes to parade the 'college degree' or 'educated' vote, as if that matters. Sorry, but I don't accept that because you spent a few extra years in a notoriously liberal environment, your opinion suddenly increases in value over the opinion of say a common labourer, who works on the frontline of the economy.

If I had the option to vote, I too would lean Trump rather than Hillary, but I would 100% accept that there are people much cleverer than I with valid reasons to support either candidate.

TLDR : Don't assume people are 'uneducated' or 'racist' or 'don't know anything' or even 'retarded' simply because they don't vote your way. Your electorate is full of people just like you, people with their individual lives, and probably all thinking they are smarter than 90% of their peers too. People have different perspectives and priorities, that is all.

Rant over.

I guess everyone's a low information voter except you, then?

And arguments you don't like hold no weight too?

Epitome of my argument - arrogance. Nothing more annoying but also satisfying than watching people cry and complain when they lose because of other 'low information voters'.

Edited 7/3/2016 13:44:58

What, you call my argument 'no weight' and you want to be taken seriously?

And now, the clan I am in affects my political opinion too? Haha, you and your superiority complexes!

Edited 7/3/2016 13:49:09

I hate this argument. Whilst I find this more common from the political left than the right, I find it extremely arrogant nevertheless.
It illustrates the concept of illusory superiority, where studies show overwhelming numbers of people tend to overestimate their own IQ or deem themselves as 'above average intelligence' relative to everyone else.
I see it in the media, which likes to parade the 'college degree' or 'educated' vote, as if that matters. Sorry, but I don't accept that because you spent a few extra years in a notoriously liberal environment, your opinion suddenly increases in value over the opinion of say a common labourer, who works on the frontline of the economy.
If I had the option to vote, I too would lean Trump rather than Hillary, but I would 100% accept that there are people much cleverer than I with valid reasons to support either candidate.
TLDR : Don't assume people are 'uneducated' or 'racist' or 'don't know anything' or even 'retarded' simply because they don't vote your way. Your electorate is full of people just like you, people with their individual lives, and probably all thinking they are smarter than 90% of their peers too. People have different perspectives and priorities, that is all.
Rant over.

The guy says 1 sentence and based on that you immediatly assume that he's a lefty liberal and feels superior to everyone else and whatnot. Cut a bit back on the preconceptions dude. It makes you look like you have some low-education issues.

most voters are low information voters

+1.

you immediatly assume that he's a lefty liberal

Where have I ever assumed he is a lefty liberal?

and feels superior to everyone else and whatnot

Seems very apparent to me when he makes a blanket statements like 'many people who dont know anything about politics or are just plain retarded'

Cut a bit back on the preconceptions dude. It makes you look like you have some low-education issues.

Not a single preconception made. I think you are the one making preconceptions for me. You are the one struggling here.

Edited 7/3/2016 13:52:53

What, so its not arrogant to say that most people in an electorate are 'low information' or 'retarded'?

Your copy and paste from wikipedia does not at all support a majority or even abundance of 'low information voters', as you seem to be claiming.

But since we are trading wikipedia articles...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Edited 7/3/2016 14:11:59

Also Pulsey you have no respect for higher education or expertise. A person who studies economics has an opinion that is most likely worth more than a factoryworker and it is the same with philosophy, science, politics etc.

Completely disagree. In an electoral sense, all opinions are equally valuable. You are right that they may be more knowledgable about the effects of the issue, but as I have said that is irrelevant. Most people vote in their self-interest, policies they deem important to them and will have the biggest impact on their lives. Of course they may not be as knowledgable as an Economist on the general effects of a budget, but does that make all voters without Economics degrees 'low information people' with worthless opinions? Just because they don't make the so called 'best choice' for you or the economy doesn't automatically reduce them to retarded or low information.

Edited 7/3/2016 14:09:51

Yeah it does lol

Going by your logic, people obviously don't deserve to have any money. Better let Economists with their wise degrees spend that money for you, they know how to maximize your utility whilst have the best effect on the economy after all.

You seem to be arguing against the notion of choice itself, or that you are either an expert or a complete illiterate.

Edited 7/3/2016 14:21:23

I have to go anyway, we are moving in rhetorical circles.

strawman, never said anything about economic freedom.

!? This whole argument is about economic and political freedom, which you undermine when you generalize large chunks of your electorate as 'uneducated' or 'retarded.'

I merely said that people who lack knowledge shouldn't make important decisions on which they lack knowledge.

And thats my point. They don't lack knowledge. They understand well, and they vote according to their own self interest, not the interest of others or the faceless economy.

To buy something at the store doesn't require a knowledge of any sort.

How absurd. Of course it does, why do you think firms spend billions on advertising if it was a knowledge free industry? Consumers are always in a position of asymmetric information and make irrational choices all the time, according to you, should all their spending be controlled then when the government and Economists can make the so called 'better' choice for them?

Edited 7/3/2016 14:32:16