The people who think Taiwan is in New Zealand also have an opinion on Israel and Palestine.

I guess it depends on the demographics. At my college, there are many black, Hispanic, and Arab students. Almost all of the ones I’ve spoken to are sympathetic towards Palestine.

White people will be weirder about their stances, because as you said, the ones who don’t understand the problem will still end up taking a side due to vibes. The East/southeast Asians I’ve talked to are usually too focus on securing that Lockheed internship to really care.

I got on to my mil about Russia Ukraine a month ago, asking if she knew what eumaidan was or knew anything about Crimea or Donbas. Absolutely no knowledge of any, not even an idea which were places or events. She agreed she didn't know even the basic history and didn't bring it up the rest of the week. Que thanksgiving and she's talking about it again, ask again about those 3, still no clue.

The real white man's burden is having to deal with other white people

Common mayo L

Ngl sometimes it’s hard to not be mad at every single person over the age of 45 for not murdering at least one fossil fuel exec by now

This was your responsibility assholes, and now I have to live in the world y’all fucked up

People older than like 40 need to start making excuses for the lack of terror

zoomers

18-34

The main reason I have this account is so that I can show it as evidence of mitigating circumstances at my Zoomer-led people's trial.

I'm a late millennial, I can be a wise old hermit sage to the zoomers in the post climate wars apocalypse era.

More privilege and more aggressive/violent. Sure one could write a whole essay analyzing this but it should come down to mainly those two reasons

Being a man seems to be far less of a factor than being a KKKraker though.

Because a lot of us are kids at heart (aka immature) to whom war is nothing but a show, especially if it's happening far away.

The scaling is kind of fucky, most values are in the 30-70 range but the bars make it seem like 20-90

American campus Bolshevism, sponsored by Israel and Lockheed Martin and the NSA

On 12 January 1971, the federal government indicted Philip Berrigan and other East Coast antiwar activists on felony charges of plotting to impede the Vietnam War through violent action. The activists' agenda supposedly included blowing up underground heating pipes in Washington to shut down government buildings, kidnapping presidential adviser Henry Kissinger to ransom him for concessions on the war and raiding draft boards to destroy records and slow down the draft.

The Justice Department prosecutors chose to hold the conspiracy trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a conservative area where a randomly chosen jury would be heavily against the defendants. However, before the jury was selected at what came to be known as the Harrisburg-7 trial, a group of left-leaning social scientists supporting the defendants interviewed a large number of registered voters in the area to try to figure out how to get a sympathetic jury there. They discovered, among other things that college-educated people were more likely than others to be conservative and to trust the government. Thus, in court, during the three weeks that it took to examine 465 potential jurors and pick a panel of 12, lawyers for the defense quietly favored skilled blue-collar workers and white-collar workers without a lot of formal educations—nonprofessionals, although the sociologists and lawyers apparently never used that term.

The lawyers were uneasy doing this, however, because it went against their intuition. The notion of closed-minded hard hats and open-minded intellectuals is widespread and is reinforced by mass-media characters like loading-dock worker Archie Bunker and his college-student son-in-law, "pinko" Mike. In fact, All in the Family made its television debut the very day of the Harrisburg indictments, 12 January 1971; by the time the trial and jury selection started, it had been on the air for a year.

Ignoring these false stereotypes paid off. The government put on a month-long, $2 million extravaganza featuring 64 witnesses, including 21 FBI agents and 9 police officers. The defense called no one to the witness stand. After seven days of deliberation, the jury was not able to reach a unanimous decision, and the judge declared a mistrial; but with 10 of the 12 carefully selected jurors arguing for a not-guilty verdict, the government dropped the case.^2^

Blue-collar skeptics? Loyal intellectuals? Was the Harrisburg survey a regional fluke? Look at what the nationwide polls showed at the time. On 15 February 1970 the New York Times reported the results of a Gallup poll on the war in Vietnam.^3^ Gallup had found that the number of people in sharp disagreement with the government over the war had increased but still constituted a minority. While this increase in opposition was important news, what were particularly interesting were the data on the opinions of subgroups of the population. These numbers announced with striking clarity that those with the most schooling were the most reluctant to criticize the government's stand in Vietnam. There was a simple correlation (although only in part a cause-and-effect relationship): The further people had gone before leaving school, the less likely they were to break with the government over the war. (See note 3 for the results of the poll.)

2. New York Times, 13 January 1971, p. 1. Jay Schulman, Phillip Shaver, Robert Colman, Barbara Emrich, Richard Christie, "Recipe for a Jury," Psychology Today. May 1973, pp.37-44, 77-84; reprinted in Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Saul M. Kassin, Cynthia E. Willis, editors, In the Jury Box, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif. (1987), pp. 13-47. Jack Nelson, Ronald J. Ostrow, The FBI and the Berrigans, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, New York (1972). William O'Rourke, The Harrisburg 7 and the New Catholic Left, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York (1972).

3. New York Times, 15 February 1970, sec. 1, p. 4; or George Horace Gallup, The Gallup Poll, vol. 3, Random House, New York (1972), pp. 2237-2238. The question was worded as follows "Some U.S. senators are saying that we should withdraw all our troops from Vietnam immediately. Would you favor or oppose this?"

                        Favor   Oppose  No opinion

National average        35      55      10

By age group
21-29 years             39      57       4
31-49 years             36      56       8
50 and over             33      53      14

By extent of education
College                 29      64       7
High school             34      58       8
Grade school            44      41      15

From Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives by Jeff Schmidt, Chapter 1 "Timid Professionals"

Bold emphasis is mine.

I think that's a good demonstration of why you rarely can draw useful conclusions from opinion polling. slight changes in wording that do not actually change the issue in question (given that one actually understands what is being asked) will dramatically change how respondents understand the issue. a question about "Biden's handling" of the conflict can easily lump pro-palestinian respondents in with insane right wing zionists who think the Biden administration's mild chiding of Netanyahu while giving him everything he asks for is tantamount to betrayal. And what good does it do to ask about Israel's military conduct when all the journalists doing actual reporting on that military conduct are being systematically murdered?

I don’t think the “education” part is too relevant tbh. Although they’re not Marxist hubs like republicans portray, campuses tend to have more organizations and students that aren’t strictly adherent to the status quo, so if you’re never exposed to that then you’re likely gonna keep supporting whatever you supported before.