Elitism

[Drifterwood]

It's interesting that elite and elitism ahve come to mean different things.

Do you have a problem with Elite Forces, or Elite Athletes? I imagine not, because these people have both natural talent and dedication to achieve excellence. IMO the best education is based upon the pursuit of excelence irrespective of the field that it is in, academic or otherwise.

Our elite people create wealth, cure the sick, push boundaries in every sphere of life from the nobel prize winner to the humble Mail Man. Whatever that can be done, can be done to an elite standard.

Elitism as a dirty word seems to relate to social elites. Members of social elites seem to think they are an elite because of an accident of birth rather than natural talent and hard work. If you feel looked down upon by social elites, then you should throw off your devotion to "celebrity". Most of these people have done fuck all of any benefit to any other human being. Paris Hilton, springs to mind.

Though I would be very wary of any political force trying to turn me against acknowledging a quality elite.

 

[gingernuts]

I suppose a possible justification for social elites is that important jobs carry with them responsibilities which, if not kept to, lead to drastic consequences and a long fall from grace. An old name and a country seat cushion that fall and limit the lengths a person will go to escaping its consequences by covering up a failure.

An example might be Sir Anthony Eden who, after the Suez crisis, resigned immediately and in good time thus limiting the impact on his party and his country.

I still don't like it though.

 

[cockoloco]

It's interesting that elite and elitism ahve come to mean different things.

Do you have a problem with Elite Forces, or Elite Athletes? I imagine not, because these people have both natural talent and dedication to achieve excellence. IMO the best education is based upon the pursuit of excelence irrespective of the field that it is in, academic or otherwise.

Our elite people create wealth, cure the sick, push boundaries in every sphere of life from the nobel prize winner to the humble Mail Man. Whatever that can be done, can be done to an elite standard.

Elitism as a dirty word seems to relate to social elites. Members of social elites seem to think they are an elite because of an accident of birth rather than natural talent and hard work. If you feel looked down upon by social elites, then you should throw off your devotion to "celebrity". Most of these people have done fuck all of any benefit to any other human being. Paris Hilton, springs to mind.

Though I would be very wary of any political force trying to turn me against acknowledging a quality elite.

Elitism and Elite do not have the same meaning.

I can be part of an intellectual elite and use my knowledge and wisdom to instruct others. I can choose to share my talent with others.
IMO, an elitist would believe himself too important, and would only share it with his equals.

I don't believe that every member of an elite is an elitist. There are also elitists outside of the elites, which I cannot understand, but there are.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Well elucidated.

Any aristocracy believes itself to be elite... and that belief makes them elitist.

However- to suggest that liberals are elitist is simply not a valid argument by your definition.


ANYONE in favor of social programs to help the poor, of national health care, and the right to choose simply can not be considered elitist for their positions...
their positions are, by definition, inclusive and egalitarian.

You can not be both egalitarian and elitist.

Whereas the conservative mindset is exclusionary, and founded entirely upon a skewed notion of 'meritocracy'- as if having money automatically meant you had merit. ( the history of Europe's aristocracy and America's moneyed tycoons puts the lie to wealth equalling merit )
Conservatives believe that people who HAVE more deserve more.

Yet, conservative fantasies of meritocracy devolve, in practice, into oligarchy.

Thus ALL conservatives are, by definition, elitists.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Well elucidated.

Any aristocracy believes itself to be elite... and that belief makes them elitist.

However- to suggest that liberals are elitist is simply not a valid argument by your definition.


ANYONE in favor of social programs to help the poor, of national health care, and the right to choose simply can not be considered elitist for their positions...
their positions are, by definition, inclusive and egalitarian.

You can not be both egalitarian and elitist.

Whereas the conservative mindset is exclusionary, and founded entirely upon a skewed notion of 'meritocracy'- as if having money automatically meant you had merit. ( the history of Europe's aristocracy and America's moneyed tycoons puts the lie to wealth equalling merit )
Conservatives believe that people who HAVE more deserve more.

Yet, conservative fantasies of meritocracy devolve, in practice, into oligarchy.

Thus ALL conservatives are, by definition, elitists.

:liar:
I consider myself conservative. Thanks for stereotyping.

... and your definition of a conservative is wrong.

 

[Rikter8]

Think Mayor of Detroit, and his followers.

 

[Irish]

Hoping to have time to devote a serious post to this thread, but I have a lasagna in the oven right now. Just dipping my toes in for now...

I am better than everyone.

Be back later.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

:liar:
I consider myself conservative. Thanks for stereotyping.

... and your definition of a conservative is wrong.

That is not an argument.

In a battle between evidence and unsupported claims, you lose.


If you can't see how transparently manipulative Republican talking points are about "threats" and "fear"... then you really must BE a conservative...

Because the fearful and timid always believe their fears are justified.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS- try fielding an argument that explains a conservative position that is not founded on notions of meritocracy.

Try explaining how the poor, who work for the rich and help make them rich, who often suffer health problems related to their employment making rich people richer... how these poor don't deserve healthcare... simply because they can not afford it.


Rube-publicans are elitists.

...every damn one of them.


BTW- racism, sexism, and homophobia are all forms of elitism.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

That is not an argument.

In a battle between evidence and unsupported claims, you lose.


If you can't see how transparently manipulative Republican talking points are about "threats" and "fear"... then you really must BE a conservative...

Because the fearful and timid always believe their fears are justified.

Well, glad to see that you know exactly who I am and what I believe!!!

For your information, I do not support war. In fact, I was kicked out of the Army BECAUSE I did not agree with war so much. So I do not buy into the fear and all that jazz that you pin me with.

What is a conservative view point? Well, since you mention war, then lets go with that one. A true conservative believes that war is only jusified if it is defensive - as in someone invaded your country, so declare war on them. Iraq is not that. So, if you believe in that war, then you are a neo-conservative. The founding fathers believed that we should be our own country and not meddle with other countries business. They were conservatives.

Abortion. Conservatives believe that when consulting adults have sex, they run the possibility of a human being being created. This human being, while not breating on its own, is STILL a human being. Is it not? It is, I assure you. Therefore, conservatives believe that an unborn child, who cannot speak for itself, should be looked after and given rights. This is contrary to the left who beleives that this human has no rights and should be at the mercy of the doctor after it has been considered a "mistake" by its parent(s). The left is elite in this matter because the mother's "right to choose" is more worthy than an unborn child's right.

Healthcare. Oh man. I can tell that you are very undereducated at why we are in the healthcare connundrum in the first place! I advise you to look into the history of todays HC problems and get back with me. Everyone deserves it, and nobody in their right mind would say otherwise. But, why we are run ragged by healthcare is because of government involvement. Again, government involvement in health care never was conservative. A true conservative believes in less governent, not more government involvement. So in this case, a TRUE conservative would say, end all government involvement and turn it all over to the free-market.

I really think you are talking out of your ass here Phil. You are confusing conservatives with NEO-conservatives. But hey, glad to see you know what a conservative is and what it is not. Thanks for your stereotypical bullshit.

 

[Pecker]

My nerdy friend is a l33tist.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

PS- try fielding an argument that explains a conservative position that is not founded on notions of meritocracy.

Try explaining how the poor, who work for the rich and help make them rich, who often suffer health problems related to their employment making rich people richer... how these poor don't deserve healthcare... simply because they can not afford it.


Rube-publicans are elitists.

...every damn one of them.


BTW- racism, sexism, and homophobia are all forms of elitism.

I bet you would be surprised to find that the Rube-publicans were the ones that started civil rights for black? I bet your narrow mind cant even fathom the thought that the Republican party was FOUNDED in 1856 on their desire to END slavery! How is THAT for being racist? (link)

I bet you would be surprised to find that the Rube-publicans were the ones that started rights for women? In 1870, Republican governor john Campbell, WY, was the first to sign on a suffrage bill. It was at the 1872 Republican National Convention that Republicans seated women for the first time. Furthermore it was a Republican (A. A. Sargent) who started the 19th Ammendment but it was a DEMOCRATIC controlled Senate that shot it down! It wasn't until 1919 that the Republicans were able to control Congress and pass the Equal Suffrage Amendment. How is THAT for being sexist?

How about politics? Rube-publicans were the first to elect a woman the the House (Jeannette Rankin). No wait, they elected the first FIVE (Alice Robertson, Winnifred Huck, Mae Nolan, Florence Kahn)! Oh and the first Hispanic woman too (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen)! Well damn, how about old Earl Warren voting against segregation? Or what about in 1955 with E. Frederic Morrow becoming the first African-American executive in White House? President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. How about that one? And speaking of Ike, didnt he deploy troops to force the desegregation of schools in Little Rock - of course, against democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson? Yeah, that is true! And wasn't it the Democrats that filibustered the Civil Rights act in 1964 for 14 hours? Yep, that was them...

Those damn elite Republicans! They really hate all those blacks and women. They are sexist and racists to the max and and damned fool can see that, huh Phil?

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

My nerdy friend is a l33tist.

Man, those are the worst!

 

[Principessa]

Peaceful-Kancer, I think I see your point; but your point is moot. The Republican party of today is nothing like the one of 1856 or 1956. Heck they've almost done a complete 180 from where they were in 1972.

Yes, I do realize that the Democrats have done a fair bit of changing as well. Unfortunately this has not always been for the better. :frown1:

 

[SpeedoGuy]

... I think all my friends are what I call "intellectual elitists."

They snub their nose at everything you do, say, or believe. And they always have some sort of data that trumps your data, no matter the issue. Then, they always somehow know what is right and wrong for you in your life and if you don't do it their way, they question your sanity or your well-being.

If they repeatedly interact with you in a manner that leaves you feeling belittled I'm puzzled why you continue to consort with them.

...
Not to stereotype, but they are also all atheists and liberals. Nothing wrong with either of those... just that combination, in my experience, seems to breed what I defined as an "intellectual elitist."

I've encountered my share of those intellectual types. And I tend to have the same reaction.

On the other hand, I've also encountered anti-intellectuals, primarily Christian conservatives, who positively seem to pride themselves on willfull ignorance. That's equally dismaying to me.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Well, glad to see that you know exactly who I am and what I believe!!!

For your information, I do not support war. In fact, I was kicked out of the Army BECAUSE I did not agree with war so much. So I do not buy into the fear and all that jazz that you pin me with.

glad to hear it.

A true conservative believes that war is only jusified if it is defensive - as in someone invaded your country, so declare war on them. Iraq is not that. So, if you believe in that war, then you are a neo-conservative. The founding fathers believed that we should be our own country and not meddle with other countries business. They were conservatives.

I agree that is what being conservative USED to mean. And in that sense I am perhaps more conservative than most... but still willing to go to war to stop genocide or aggression.

However... how many of your fellow 'conservatives' would recognize and accept your stance as being conservative?

And why the hell don't I ever hear conservatives like yourself railing against the war in the media?

Abortion. Conservatives believe that when consulting adults have sex, they run the possibility of a human being being created. Therefore, conservatives believe that an unborn child, who cannot speak for itself, should be looked after and given rights.

Well here you lose me- consrvatives believe the unborn's rights should be protected... right up until its born, and then its entirely on its own.

If the father skips and the mother can't work because of children... then tough shit for those kids.

In point of fact this has nothing to do with fetuses being "human beings" - fetuses have no rights before the law. that is a fact.
You might as well argue that every ovum and sperm are "human beings" and therefore masturbation is murder. That is where that line of logic leads.


The truth is that its a conservative issue with sex... and punishment for sex. Because if conservatives REALLY wanted to end abortion then they would be in FAVOR of sex educaton and distribution of condoms to teens that GOD made perfectly sexually mature.
These measures would PREVENT teen pregnancy. Abstinence education has proven to be an abject failure.

Because conservatives reject all measures that PROVE to reduce teen pregnancy... and insist on zygote rights over the rights of a 14 year old girl to determine if she can provide for and support a child... conservatives are simply not concenred with the welfare of the unborn, but with sexual promiscuity and that it have consequences...
As in, no more parties, no more fun... stay home with baby and change diapers... and who cares if it results in a life of resentment and poverty.


Well. that and the fact that conservatives often believe in a delusion about an imaginary God sticking make believe souls in concieved eggs.

Which of course is malarky- because what about twins? Did God stick TWO souls into the one fertilized egg?

What about conjoined twins... Two souls at conception? Or one inserted later when the 'twining' occurred?
And, at what point exactly does a partial twin not get its own soul? If its just a second head? or how about a malformed second face?

And, given that science has shown that 60% of ALL conceptions spontaneously abort without any human action at all.... that makes God the worlds most prolific abortionist.
Tell me, does he insert a soul into every single one of those unformed clumps of cells that never get the chance to form so much as a nerve? much less a thought? Do these vast numbers of spontaneously aborted blastocysts float around heaven, never to know God, never to have a mind, or a moral choice?
Or Does God, in his mercy and foreknowledge of their fate not bother to create eternal souls for these unfortunates that can never become a person?

And if he does that... on what moral basis could he insert a soul into a fetus he knows the mother will abort?


ME? I hate abortion... I hope for a world where no woman ever feels she needs to have one...

But I know full well that laws will not stop abortion. My family arranged an illegal abortion back when it was illegal... without the slightest problem.
The death penalty does not stop murder...

IF you REALLY cared about ending abortion, as a thinking person you would HAVE to support ANY effort the reduced the likelihood of unintended pregnancy.

Cause, y'see, in TODAY's world, Just as you donlt HAVE to die from apendicitis, men and women having sex do not HAVE to concieve babies...
If they know how to prevent conception.

Let me give you an analogy that might make the idiocy of the right to life argument clear.

God gave your son or daughter a car... not just any car... but the fastest, most powerful, most beautiful hot rod they make...

The right to life argument is that a good parent should CUT the seatbelts out of the car, on the logic that, IF they are driving safely, then they should never NEED the seatbelts... and if they aren't driving safely, then they should expect to be hurt.

Surely you can see how immoral that attitude is? You can't PREVENT young people in the full flower of sexual attractiveness and hormonal drive from occasionally making a mistake.

SHould a girl of 14 ( and her child) be condemned to a miserable life, for a 15 minute act of indiscretion?


So- clearly- conservative ideas about abortion are predicated upon CONSEQUENCES for sexual conduct- not the life of the unborn, no matter what they claim...

In fact- anti abortionists actually USE the unborn child as a means of punishment for conduct they disapprove of.

The make a child become a chastisement.

That is morally wrong.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Healthcare. Oh man. I can tell that you are very undereducated at why we are in the healthcare connundrum in the first place! I advise you to look into the history of todays HC problems and get back with me.

YOu know nothing at all about this...

The modern era of "managed care" BEGAN in a conversation between paul erlichman and Richard Nixon... that is actually ON TAPE.

ANd what convinced Nixon it was a good idea... When he was told that HMOs are all about making a PROFIT off of healthcare.

Ever since then, it has been a railroad to disaster.

In fact, healthcare has become a method for sucking the life savings out of any middle class americans who have managed to actually accrue any - so that they can pass nothing on to their heirs.



And the greatest disaster was the deregulation that allows insruers to deny coverage to anyone who is sick.
It is now perfectly legal for insurance companies to try and limit their risk by refusing to cover anyone but the healthy.


Do you comprehend the stupidity of it? The entire IDEA of insurance is to spread the risk across the WHOLE population...
Part of why insurance rates are so high is that there are simply not enough people paying IN.

The simple fix? we don't need to change a damn thing... just make it illegal to refuse coverage.
If they HAVE to cover anybody... then they will WANT to cover everybody.

Same deal- everyone pays... everyone is covered. And prices actually go down because for every ill person you pick up, you will pick up 200 healthy people uninsured because they don't think they need it yet.


But beyond that--- the notion that the government screws everything up is insupportable.

Your government supplies you with water, with garbage cleanup- with roadways, and infrastructure, with bridges which, when maintained thru proper taxation, stand for hundreds of years.
With police and firefighters...

And, most importantly, your government provides you with military defense.

It is impossible to argue that the government has done these things poorly.
The most affordable things in your life are government provided.
The government provided REGULATION of employers so that you can have a healthier working environment, and be COVERED in case you are hurt on the job.

Conservatives love to gripe about the supposed inefficiencies of government, and the GLORY of profit oriented business..... But simply contrast the cost opf US soliders to the cost of Blackwater profit mongering mercenaries... and you can clearly see that battle field equipment costs as much for them as it does for the Army... We pay MORe for Blackwater for only ONE reason... so rich men can rake in money on top of the costs of fielding men.


By the same token... the privatizing of Walter Reed resulted in POORER care- not better, because the privatized corporation had to pull profits out of the same amount of money that formerly went entirely into care.


Today- In HMOs- doctors get bonuses tied to NOT providing services. A doctor can not address your illness. he has to manage his BUDGET for the number of patients, and every dollar he spends on YOUR care, he sacrifices out of HIS pocket.

ITs stupid.

And finally- take note... ALL our elected representatives, executives and justices HAVE nationalized health care- the best in the world.
They HAVE a pension plan way better than social security and all nationalized. Paid for by you and me.

That alone is a violation of equal treatment- a constitutional guarantee.
But beyoind that- its proof that any stories you hear about how the govenrment simply can't possible provide good health care are bullshit.

The government provides for your congressmen- and they live very long lives.

So in this case, a TRUE conservative would say, end all government involvement and turn it all over to the free-market.

Funny how the group that opposes evolution spouts darwinian ideas about the economy.
And ideas proven wrong.
Warren Buffet- who knows more about money that anyone has called the idea of the "invisible hand of the free market" one of the stupidest ideas in business.
He says its more like an invisible foot that stumbles and stubs its toe 'cause its in the dark.

There is no such thing as a free market when money buys you inflence over law.

To wit- money bought influence to "free market up" the mortgage industry.
The free market mortgage industry naturally led to avaricious manipulations and unsound business dealings to gain money NOW 'cause CEO's have short careers.

The Free market mortage industry collapsed- just like a population of lemmings- who, when food is easy, reproduce to the point of mass starvation...

And then what?
Allow the mortgage industry failure to pull down the entire economy?
That would be the 'free market" solution... but, of course, that would result in destroying the entire US economy... extinct, like Dodo's, because they couldn't understand and control their natures.

Of course not... when the corporate profiteering sector fucks up... they fuck up so big that we simply CAN'T let them free market DIE... or we ALL go.

So we shore them up... no free market- the redistribution of taxpayer productivity into private corporate hands..
once more, money buys the influence to get the law to bail them out.

The CEO'S retire with hundreds of millions and YOU and I get to hold the bag.

That is not a free market- The Federal Reserve's manipulators of interest are NOT a free market...
History has proven the Free markets don't work.

MANAGED markets... regulated markets are what works.

What we have is semi-free TRADE... in a regulated market.

The Fed was created to STOP the wild swings that occurred when our markets were 'freer".

So really- pull your head out and READ something other than right wing propaganda about their "pet" economic theories...'
the theories that GOT us into the mess we are in right now.
And that only stiff regulation will cure.


Free market ideology is no different than communist ideology- a pretty idea based upon a belief about human nature that is simply not true.

Oh, and BTW--- more proof of no free market.... corporations can declare bankruptcy... but citizens no longer can.
Those that can buy influience get off scott free from bad business decisions and debt...
But you are denied that freedom because credit companies buy more influence than you do.

I really think you are talking out of your ass here Phil. You are confusing conservatives with NEO-conservatives. But hey, glad to see you know what a conservative is and what it is not. Thanks for your stereotypical bullshit.

This is funny coming from a guy who, OTHER than his stance on the war, has spouted the precise republican party line. Like a good little dogmatist.

And, as far as your stance on the war- I appreciate and support that you are agaisnt it.

But when your nation asks you to serve.
You fucking serve.
IF you sign up in peace... you shoulder your weapon in war.

Opposing the war to get out of service is conveniently self serving.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Peaceful-Kancer, I think I see your point; but your point is moot. The Republican party of today is nothing like the one of 1856 or 1956. Heck they've almost done a complete 180 from where they were in 1972.

Yes, I do realize that the Democrats have done a fair bit of changing as well. Unfortunately this has not always been for the better. :frown1:

You are right. The Republicans are not the same as they were. The Democrats are not the same either (as you stated). Both parties are corrupt as fawk.

But, this is not to mean that Republicans today are conservative, because they are not. This is is why I specifically pointed out that today's Republicans are what is called a Neo-conservative. Yesteryear's conservatives are now called constitutionalists or traditional Republicans (or the like).

I've encountered my share of those intellectual types. And I tend to have the same reaction.

On the other hand, I've also encountered anti-intellectuals, primarily Christian conservatives, who positively seem to pride themselves on willfull ignorance. That's equally dismaying to me.

Indeed. It is dismaying. There is always going to be people on both sides.

And, as far as your stance on the war- I appreciate and support that you are agaisnt it.

But when your nation asks you to serve.
You fucking serve.
IF you sign up in peace... you shoulder your weapon in war.

Opposing the war to get out of service is conveniently self serving.

This here is a perfect example of elitism folks. Phil here thinks that he knows what is best for me. He wants to thank me for being against it, but at the same time he wants to dog me for getting out for being against it. In other words, I should have just been a follower and stayed in. Who cares if I knew that I couldn't live with MY conscience for knowing MY part in something immoral. I should have remained a sheep and followed. By listening to my moral fiber and deciding to stand up for that notion, I am "self-serving." Again folks, this is a perfect example of elitism.

 

[Irish]

This human being, while not breating on its own, is STILL a human being. Is it not? It is, I assure you.

This, also, is not an argument. The point you just trivialized by "assuring" us is where most of the debate stems from. You're sort of... missing the point. Seems to be par for the course, though, and Phil is doing a bang-up job.

In response to the original topic (a much more broad sense of elitism): I feel like a little sense of elitism primarily pushes people to better themselves. What other reason is there to put effort into something if you aren't comparing yourself to something? And when you find you compare favorably, you feel good about it.

I really wanted to say a lot more about this, but I'm ironically just not feeling it anymore.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

This, also, is not an argument. The point you just trivialized by "assuring" us is where most of the debate stems from. You're sort of... missing the point. Seems to be par for the course, though, and Phil is doing a bang-up job.

Irish. How is it not a valid point? If it has 46 chromosomes, then it has a very high chance of it being a human. This is science, is it not? So when an egg and sperm meet and combine and form 46 chromosomes, then science says that is the most basic and fundamental definition of a human being, right? It doesn't matter if it can survive on it's own. Hell, we have people get in car wrecks every day that will not exist on their own because something is wrong and a machine has to pump blood for them or be a lung for them. But nobody says those people are not human, do they? I truly think that if you say that because an unborn baby is, not born, they are not a human is disgusting. If you want to say that abortion is purely about the woman's choice to do with her body as she sees fit, then I still think that you need to acknowledge that when that sack of protein with 46 chromosomes dies, then you have just killed a human being. I only "assured" you because it seems that science sides with me, but we are now making up alternate definitions of what a human is and is not, conditionally, so that we can feel better about what we are doing.

My point remains, unless you wish to debate me on what a human is and is not.

In response to the original topic (a much more broad sense of elitism): I feel like a little sense of elitism primarily pushes people to better themselves. What other reason is there to put effort into something if you aren't comparing yourself to something? And when you find you compare favorably, you feel good about it.

I really wanted to say a lot more about this, but I'm ironically just not feeling it anymore.

I think you are confusing "bettering yourself" and being an "elitist." As discussed above, an elite athlete will strive to be physically elite over their opponent. However, being an elitist is not something that they have necessarily earned.