What screams "poorly educated"?

Being poor and idolizing the rich.

Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.

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
- 💀

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 learning from history.

Reckless driving, speeding, having a loud car, having a lifted pickup truck.

Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.

I see you've met my neighbors.

Associating with arbitrary groups, such as football fans, nationalists, wearing certain clothing brands

"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 cnt father: Yeah? And what about that other politician?
Me: What about the disappearing middle class?!
D.C.F.: What...?
Me: WHAT ABOUT THE BEES!?!

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.

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.

Cigarettes

Nah, addiction plagues the well and the poorly educated. I was acquainted with a couple of Nobel prize winners who smoked like chimneys.

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.

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
- 💀

Right-wing politics

The irony.

Parents feeding their baby cola in bottles and smoking while pregnant are two things that usually cause me to make assumptions

Listening to loud music without giving a shit about the neighbours.

Seeing a pirate use unsafe sites

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.

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.

MAGA Hats. Those people are dumb by choice. And that's less forgivable than people who just don't know any better.

Confuses to, two and too.

Also their, there and they're

"Let's go Brandon!" Bumper stickers.

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.

Bonus points for using “like” in like every sentence.
FTFY ;)

Could've, should've, would've
- You wouldn't've.

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.

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.
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.

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...

Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
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!

I would say "not the grammar" since many users are not native English speakers and have learned it as a second (or third, fourth...) language. 💁‍♂️🌏

Not to mention a lot of native english speakers are garbage at the language too.

I see this in a lot of places I do work:

Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers...

Racists benefit from worker's rights too.
- 💀
- Not when they vote for parties that fight against workers' rights
- Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn't really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
- 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?

They think opinions are facts.

Coming to absolutes and never admitting your faults

Believing that capitalism lifts people out of poverty.

oh but it does
- why would you expose yourself like that
  If we take just one country, China, out of the global poverty equation, then even under the $1.90 poverty standard we find that the extreme poverty headcount is the exact same as it was in 1981.
  The $1.90/day (2011 PPP) line is not an adequate or in any way satisfactory level of consumption; it is explicitly an extreme measure. Some analysts suggest that around $7.40/day is the minimum necessary to achieve good nutrition and normal life expectancy, while others propose we use the US poverty line, which is $15.

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.