This is a wonderful story I missed first time round and am only now enjoying.

When the Daily Mail calls rightwingers stupid, the result is dumbogeddon
…

Mail Online has (run) a story that not only insults its own readers, but cruelly invites them to underline the insult by making fools of themselves. In what has to be a deliberate act of "trolling", last Friday it carried a story headlined "Rightwingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study". In terms of enraging your core readership, this is the equivalent of Nuts magazine suddenly claiming only gay men masturbate to Hollyoaks babes.

The Mail's report went on to detail the results of a study carried out by a group of Canadian academics, which appears to show some correlation between low childhood intelligence and rightwing politics. It also claimed that stupid people hold rightwing views in order to feel "safe". Other items they hold in order to feel safe include clubs, rocks and dustbin lids. But those are easy to let go of. Political beliefs get stuck to your hands. And the only way to remove them is to hold your brain under the hot tap and scrub vigorously for several decades.

As you might expect, many Mail Online readers didn't take kindly to a report that strived to paint them as simplistic, terrified dimwits. Many leapt from the tyres they were swinging in to furrow their brows and howl in anger. Others, tragically, began tapping rudimentary responses into the comments box. Which is where the tragi-fun really began.

"Stupidest study of them all," raged a reader called Beth. "So were the testers conservative for being so thick or were they left and using a non study to make themselves look better?" Hmmm. There's no easy answer to that. Because it doesn't make sense.

"I seem to remember 'academics' once upon a time stating that the world was flat and the Sun orbitted the Earth," scoffed Ted, who has presumably been keeping his personal brand of scepticism alive since the middle ages.

"Sounds like a BBC study, type of thing they would waste the Licence fee on, load of Cods wallop," claimed Terry from Leicester, thereby managing to ignore the findings while simultaneously attacking public service broadcasting for something it hadn't done. For his next trick, Terry will learn to whistle and shit at the same time.

Not all the respondents were stupid. Some were merely deluded. Someone calling themselves "Hillside" from Sydney claimed: "I have an IQ over 200, have six degrees and diplomas and am 'right-wing', as are others I know at this higher level of intelligence." His IQ score is particularly impressive considering the maximum possible score on Mensa's preferred IQ test is 161.

Whatever the numbers: intellectual dick-measuring isn't to everyone's tastes anyway. Simply by highlighting his own intelligence "Hillside" alienated several of his commentbox brethren.

"If there is one person I can not stand and that is a snob who thinks they are intelligent because if they were intelligent and educated they wouldn't be snobs," argued Liz from London. Once you've clambered over the broken grammar, deliberately placed at the start of the sentence like a rudimentary barricade of piled-up chairs, there's a tragic conundrum at work here. She claims intellectual snootiness is ugly, which it is, but unfortunately she says it in such a stupid way it's impossible for anyone smarter than a steak-and-ale pie not to look down on her. Thus, for Liz, the crushing cycle of snobbery continues.

On and on the comments went, turning a rather stark write-up of a daft-sounding study into a sublime piece of live online performance art. A chimps' tea party of the damned. The Mail has long been a master at trolling lefties; now it's mischievously turned on its own readers, and the results could only be funnier if the website came with free plastic lawn furniture for them to lob at the screen. You couldn't make it up.

(There are a full 970 - mainly unintelligent - comments to enjoy here: www.dailymail.co.uk . . .)

So, is there some correlation between low intelligence and right-wing politics?

Exhibit A: FF's Wankistani posters.

Verdict: Guilty as charged. Case closed.

The study would have been more believable if the conclusion was: "Eurodopes are, well, dopes".

"Sounds like a BBC study, type of thing they would waste the Licence fee on, load of Cods wallop," claimed Terry from Leicester, thereby managing to ignore the findings while simultaneously attacking public service broadcasting for something it hadn't done. For his next trick, Terry will learn to whistle and shit at the same time.


Not whistle and shit simultaneously!! He probably has problems shitting, let alone whistling.

LOL - Yep,.. the "right wing" are stupid,.... uh-huh,..

truebluenz.com . . .


I think the right is safe, intellectually speaking

This appeals to the infantile sensibilities of liberals.
An equally usable claim would be to say that 'leftists are more mature' than conservatives.
These kind of arguments really work on stupid and immature people.
Hence, they are perfect for WulfCunt and his ilk.

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

www.nytimes.com . . .

Everyone know that Democrats have a larger share of "less than High School" educated voters than Republicans.

I found this interesting...

Not all the respondents were stupid. Some were merely deluded. Someone calling themselves "Hillside" from Sydney claimed: "I have an IQ over 200, have six degrees and diplomas and am 'right-wing', as are others I know at this higher level of intelligence." His IQ score is particularly impressive considering the maximum possible score on Mensa's preferred IQ test is 161.

I guess the people behind this article have never heard of Marilyn Vos Savant. She's a Mensa member and depending on the iq test, is listed from 185 - 228 iq.


The fact of the matter is, leftists want mommy to take care of them. That's why the left demands the govt be involved in every decision people make. The way I see it, intelligent people can make their own decisions. They don't need the nanny state. The fact that leftists need govt to take the role of mommy in their lives is definitive proof of substandard intelligence on the left.

Many people comment there (at the Mail) either for fun or to get under the skin of people they disagree with.

Some right wingers (total Conservative Republican Capitalists) agree with killing off the weak...or the seemingly inneficient humans...also by refusing to pay a fair whack of TAX.

Long term...What would that make the survivors (such as diefrog) become, except have them turning into creatures more dangerous than raptors....eventually; only to be wiped out by an extinction event that an unapreciated human coud forsee long term...(funded by TAX).



Sterilise the poor; if they want welfare. Groovy. Suffocate the bedridden while you are at it; they are a drain on society.



Amazing capitalsim.

lookanlearn wrote:

Some right wingers (total Conservative Republican Capitalists) agree with killing off the weak...or the seemingly inneficient humans...also by refusing to pay a fair whack of TAX.

Typical liberal hyperbole. How about we start with not giving subsidized housing and college tuition to illegal aliens and not allowing people to cash their welfare checks at casinos and strip clubs. Oh the humanity!

Johnny_Ola wrote:

lookanlearn wrote:

Some right wingers (total Conservative Republican Capitalists) agree with killing off the weak...or the seemingly inneficient humans...also by refusing to pay a fair whack of TAX.

Typical liberal hyperbole. How about we start with not giving subsidized housing and college tuition to illegal aliens and not allowing people to cash their welfare checks at casinos and strip clubs. Oh the humanity!

Do you think I disagree with you or somthing?



And yes; I do think the Mezzican border should be a 100 meter wide, 10m deep trench full of barbed wire...gringo; either that or you go Arab on class A powder drug-peddlars...and the like.

lookanlearn wrote:

Many people comment there (at the Mail) either for fun or to get under the skin of people they disagree with.

Some right wingers (total Conservative Republican Capitalists) agree with killing off the weak...or the seemingly inneficient humans...also by refusing to pay a fair whack of TAX.

Long term...What would that make the survivors (such as diefrog) become, except have them turning into creatures more dangerous than raptors....eventually; only to be wiped out by an extinction event that an unapreciated human coud forsee long term...(funded by TAX).



Sterilise the poor; if they want welfare. Groovy. Suffocate the bedridden while you are at it; they are a drain on society.



Amazing capitalsim.

Only a Nazi would say something like that. Are you a Nazi?

lookanlearn wrote:

Some right wingers (total Conservative Republican Capitalists) agree with killing off the weak...or the seemingly inneficient humans...also by refusing to pay a fair whack of TAX.

What an automaton. Regurgitating the progressive talking points without a single flicker of thought. Some people are like light bulbs that aren't screwed in all the way. Their brain flickers. Not Lookielou. His brain is permanently switched off.

Sterilise the poor; if they want welfare. Groovy. Suffocate the bedridden while you are at it; they are a drain on society.

I could ask you for a link or a source, but we both know that you can't name one that is mainstream conservative.

Amazing capitalsim.

This is the most amazing nugget of stupidity in this post.

I say 2 of the dumbest most boring idiots WullCunt and ShitAndEat should go 69 on each other and stop polluting the FF

Its on the way now in the good old US of A
news.bbc.co.uk . . .

Paying drug addicts to be sterilised is exploitative and wrong, say critics of just such a scheme that runs in the US. Jane Beresford talks to the woman behind Project Prevention.

Started before Hitler
en.wikipedia.org . . .

United States
See also: Eugenics in the United States
A poster from a 1921 eugenics conference displays the U.S. states that had implemented sterilization legislation by then
The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[25] The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. It was shut down due to ethical problems.

Clearly; there appears to be some people ahead of the curve.

I am all for Eugenics but this will never happen

in the end Hitler won, he made America and Britain accept the intolerable

faggots, drugs addicts and minorities from other countries (brown people)

it will be 150 years I bet but the West is done for and probably the human race

Was it Nostrdamus who said;-

"One day the world will be run by little yellow people."



Ah don`t know if he meant the Chinese or the French.







Hey; this is ff.com ?

(let that one slide Pascal)

Another shot from the Guardian, this time by Geo. Monbiot:

"Self-deprecating, too liberal for their own good, today's progressives stand back and watch, hands over their mouths, as the social vivisectionists of the right slice up a living society to see if its component parts can survive in isolation. Tied up in knots of reticence and self-doubt, they will not shout stop. Doing so requires an act of interruption, of presumption, for which they no longer possess a vocabulary.

Perhaps it is in the same spirit of liberal constipation that, with the exception of Charlie Brooker, we have been too polite to mention the Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence.

Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.

It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.

But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo". Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write.

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".

Lofgren complains that "the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

The madness hasn't gone as far in the UK, but the effects of the Conservative appeal to stupidity are making themselves felt. This week the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

But when I survey this wreckage I wonder who the real idiots are. Confronted with mass discontent, the once-progressive major parties, as Thomas Frank laments in his latest book Pity the Billionaire, triangulate and accommodate, hesitate and prevaricate, muzzled by what he calls "terminal niceness". They fail to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or to make an uncluttered case for social justice, redistribution and regulation. The conceptual stupidities of conservatism are matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism.

Yes, conservatism thrives on low intelligence and poor information. But the liberals in politics on both sides of the Atlantic continue to back off, yielding to the supremacy of the stupid. It's turkeys all the way down."

"Low-information voter" / "misinformation voter" describes FF's Wankistanis to a tee (assuming they vote).

So what do you poorly informed / misinformed FFers think? Does lack of intelligence lead to the formulation of "conservative" ideologies, or are some people just drawn to these ideologies because of their lack of intelligence? Or is it like the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first?

I'm looking forward to your usual intelligent and relevant responses. (Please try to follow with English spelling and grammar rules, stay on topic and don't just spout mindless abuse.)

The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter".



That doesn't prove that right wingers are of lower intelligence. That's just better marketing. The right have created a home that idiots feel safer with. The upper ranks are as intelligent if not more so than left wingers. After all they have created a safe harbour for those that aren't too bright; and their vote is equally valid to that of a genius. And they are one hell of a lot more idiots than genius's in this world. In fact the left can be labelled idiots. Instead of talking down to the masses they could have created (like the right has done) a world view that caters to the biases of the less intelligent.

Wulfcunt wrote:

Another shot from the Guardian, this time by Geo. Monbiot:

"Self-deprecating, too liberal for their own good, today's progressives stand back and watch, hands over their mouths, as the social vivisectionists of the right slice up a living society to see if its component parts can survive in isolation. Tied up in knots of reticence and self-doubt, they will not shout stop. Doing so requires an act of interruption, of presumption, for which they no longer possess a vocabulary.

Perhaps it is in the same spirit of liberal constipation that, with the exception of Charlie Brooker, we have been too polite to mention the Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence.

Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.

It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.

But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo". Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write.

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".

Lofgren complains that "the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

The madness hasn't gone as far in the UK, but the effects of the Conservative appeal to stupidity are making themselves felt. This week the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

But when I survey this wreckage I wonder who the real idiots are. Confronted with mass discontent, the once-progressive major parties, as Thomas Frank laments in his latest book Pity the Billionaire, triangulate and accommodate, hesitate and prevaricate, muzzled by what he calls "terminal niceness". They fail to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or to make an uncluttered case for social justice, redistribution and regulation. The conceptual stupidities of conservatism are matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism.

Yes, conservatism thrives on low intelligence and poor information. But the liberals in politics on both sides of the Atlantic continue to back off, yielding to the supremacy of the stupid. It's turkeys all the way down."

"Low-information voter" / "misinformation voter" describes FF's Wankistanis to a tee (assuming they vote).

So what do you poorly informed / misinformed FFers think? Does lack of intelligence lead to the formulation of "conservative" ideologies, or are some people just drawn to these ideologies because of their lack of intelligence? Or is it like the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first?

I'm looking forward to your usual intelligent and relevant responses. (Please try to follow with English spelling and grammar rules, stay on topic and don't just spout mindless abuse.)

Lack of intelligence leads one to be socialist, not conservative. You're an excellent piece of evidence.

You brain damaged far left loons lack the basic intelligence to make your own decisions. That's why you demand that mommy govt step in and take control of your pathetic excuses for lives. You need the nanny state to tell you what lightbulbs to buy, what cars to own, what to eat, etc.. Since you cannot make these decisions, you assume the rest of us are as useless as you. So you insist on foisting socialist tyranny on those of us who don't want or need it.

LTKilling wrote:

I am all for Eugenics but this will never happen

in the end Hitler won, he made America and Britain accept the intolerable

faggots, drugs addicts and minorities from other countries (brown people)

it will be 150 years I bet but the West is done for and probably the human race

The world did quit well while westerners were dressed in animal clothes and struggling to master fire.
Little brown people are smarter than you think.

Your typical liberal voter. The welfare queen. Notice at her age how many kids she has.

FACT: Republicans Have Higher Level Of Education and Have Higher IQ's Than Democrats

STUPID PEOPLE: Prof. Robert Brandon, chair of the Philosophy Department at Duke, defended his department's lack of intellectual diversity by quoting John Stuart Mill to the effect that conservatives are disproportionately stupid, and hence naturally underrepresented in academia.
Eugene Volokh points out that Brandon was misrepresenting Mill. Volokh: "If some liberal professors (who are probably pretty far from 1860s Liberals) want to express their contempt for conservatives (who are probably pretty far from 1860s Conservatives), then it seems to me that they shouldn't call on John Stuart Mill to support their prejudices." Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Prof. Jim Lindgren, law professor at Northwestern University and director of the Demography of Diversity Project, is doing empirical research on conservatives and liberals in academia, and has some thoughts. They're kind of long, so click "more" to read them. It'll be worth your time.
Lindgren writes:
The article in the Duke Chronicle is interesting on the implications of a survey of faculty voter registration, which purports to show that across several Duke departments 142 faculty are registered as Democrats, compared to only 8 Republicans. Some Duke faculty members suggest that it makes little difference, since they are comfortable with the level of intellectual diversity at Duke.
Yet consider a thought experiment: imagine that the numbers were reversed and Duke's faculty in the humanities or social sciences had 17 times more Republicans than Democrats. Would the education, research, and mentoring still be broad enough to make the existing Duke faculty feel that viewpoint diversity was not a problem? I doubt it.
The most questionable explanation in the article is that of Duke philosophy chair, Robert Brandon:
"If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.
If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.
The irony here is that if there were substantial numbers of Republican political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists at Duke and other elite schools, Professor Brandon might already know that in the United States, the two most similar groups in educational attainment and verbal proficiency are liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans--and that ordinary, non-liberal Democrats are among the least educated political groups.
Interesting. It's no doubt embarrassing for a professor of philosophy to be so corrected by two law professors.

-www.liveleak.com . . .

Shitting through your lips as usual, Wulfie.
Stick to defending animal abuse and child molestation, you worthless troll.

this is a method of attacking those that don't like the " multicult, and the EU. The right wing " little Englanders "

There is no other reason for this

lookanlearn wrote:

Many people comment there (at the Mail) either for fun or to get under the skin of people they disagree with.

That's a good point: when I read the comments sections of the DM and DT, and also FF, I often wonder if the posters are for real - why are these people commenting when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about and clearly haven't understood what they've read? Can ANYBODY be that ignorant, that simple-minded, that deluded? And then they also reveal to the world that they're semi-literate morons instead of keeping mum?

But does it matter? After all, "stupid is as stupid writes". Somebody pretending to be a moron deserves to be ignored as much as a true moron.

So far the responses on this thread have corroborated the study's findings: most FF "conservatives" ARE unintelligent.

But that's long been clear: many FF threads are created on the basis of invented scare stories from dodgy sources, RW propaganda pieces, rants from obscure blogs or other hate sites, or from factual reports the Wankistanis have failed to comprehend. Yet lots of FFers seemingly believe every word and work themselves into a hysterical lather over them.

Threads based on stories and pieces which are truthful and factual reporting are swamped by FFers descending into puerile name-calling, denial, hysteria, fear and loathing, racial prejudice, bragging chauvinism and jaw-dropping ignorance (often with the same erratic spelling and grammar as the DM commenters mentioned), with the added ingredients of stalking, gay porn and paedophilia. None of this speaks for intelligence in FF's self-proclaimed conservatives!

Here's one of my favourite examples: www.fuckfrance.com . . . (and that despite my warning!)

And another: www.fuckfrance.com . . ...

And yet another: www.eupolitique.com . . .

Examples are really too numerous to cite here. There can be only two explanations for the massed stupidity on display here: FFers really are unintelligent conservatives (nowadays almost a tautology). Or they're just annoying dickheads pretending to be unintelligent.

So my question to the Wankistani moron scum here: which are you? Do you really lack intelligence, or are you just annoying dickheads?

(There ought to be a poll for FF's least intelligent Wankistani "conservatives". But the field is HUGE.)

Wulfrun wrote:

lookanlearn wrote:

Many people comment there (at the Mail) either for fun or to get under the skin of people they disagree with.

That's a good point: when I read the comments sections of the DM and DT, and also FF, I often wonder if the posters are for real - why are these people commenting when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about and clearly haven't understood what they've read? Can ANYBODY be that ignorant, that simple-minded, that deluded? And then they also reveal to the world that they're semi-literate morons instead of keeping mum?

But does it matter? After all, "stupid is as stupid writes". Somebody pretending to be a moron deserves to be ignored as much as a true moron.

So far the responses on this thread have corroborated the study's findings: most FF "conservatives" ARE unintelligent.

But that's long been clear: many FF threads are created on the basis of invented scare stories from dodgy sources, RW propaganda pieces, rants from obscure blogs or other hate sites, or from factual reports the Wankistanis have failed to comprehend. Yet lots of FFers seemingly believe every word and work themselves into a hysterical lather over them.

Threads based on stories and pieces which are truthful and factual reporting are swamped by FFers descending into puerile name-calling, denial, hysteria, fear and loathing, racial prejudice, bragging chauvinism and jaw-dropping ignorance (often with the same erratic spelling and grammar as the DM commenters mentioned), with the added ingredients of stalking, gay porn and paedophilia. None of this speaks for intelligence in FF's self-proclaimed conservatives!

Here's one of my favourite examples: www.fuckfrance.com . . . (and that despite my warning!)

And another: www.fuckfrance.com . . ...

And yet another: www.eupolitique.com . . .

Examples are really too numerous to cite here. There can be only two explanations for the massed stupidity on display here: FFers really are unintelligent conservatives (nowadays almost a tautology). Or they're just annoying dickheads pretending to be unintelligent.

So my question to the Wankistani moron scum here: which are you? Do you really lack intelligence, or are you just annoying dickheads?

(There ought to be a poll for FF's least intelligent Wankistani "conservatives". But the field is HUGE.)