Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry to burst your sarcastic bubble, but what I am referring to is a Pew Research poll from a couple of months ago documenting that 58% of Europeans wanted a weaker United States.
However, in regard to the statement, are you suggesting we abandon nuanced, developed uses of terms because their isn't a broad understanding of it's use? Or, are you suggesting because you're not yet versed in the use of a term that it shouldn't be used?
I'm stating that based on your original statement you don't understand the interrelationship of the subjects you've used, and that you either failed to articulate it correctly or it's wrong. In the role which you stated, you've described someone who is in a position of subordination, and therefore compliant and obedient to another's authority. This in and of itself removes from them the mantle of one who could be considered, elite, or perform the role of an elitist.
I understand that both Senator's can be considered elitist, and it would be appropriate based upon their stature, but not as a derogatory statement, as is the typical association inferred by political opponents. In such cases it has always been associated, and used, to infer that the opponent doesn't understand one's life or issues and thinks himself above the average citizen in an effort to demean. The nuance isn't misread nor is the intent. What is particularly telling is which party decides to level the charge.
I'm stating that based on your original statement you don't understand the interrelationship of the subjects you've used,
I believe you're stating your beliefs about the poor and, if they exist, the elite as if it were fact. You're saying I don't understand because I don't prescribe to your, apparent, beliefs.
However, you have yet, now that I'm asking a second time, specifically stated where I made an inaccurate assumption or implication.
Please cite the specific quote where I betray this lack of understanding.
Quote:
In the role which you stated, you've described someone who is in a position of subordination,
Subordination to who? Under what circumstances? I have no recollection of claiming anyone to be subordinate to another.
Please cite the specific quote.
Quote:
This in and of itself removes from them the mantle of one who could be considered, elite, or perform the role of an elitist.
I think you're claiming that I claimed that a poor person could be considered the elite? If so, no. However, I claimed they could be elitist... because being an elitist only requires that you believe in elitism.
I understand that both Senator's can be considered elitist,
If you're moving between the definitions of the word. However, I don't see McCain as a guy who feels inherently superior to others... and that's at the heart of the derogatory form of "elitist".
Without you, thus far, backing up your claims about misuse of the term, I'm left questioning your authenticity here.
Quote:
and it would be appropriate based upon their stature, but not as a derogatory statement, as is the typical association inferred by political opponents.
I think the derogatory sense applies to BO. However, I never understood how socialists used the term... I always thought they were lost... Now I know, it's apparently resentment of wealth?... A personal attack based on a person's accomplishments, whereas, I've always used it as a personal attack against the individual's personality. Interesting.
Quote:
In such cases it has always been associated, and used, to infer that the opponent doesn't understand one's life or issues and thinks himself above the average citizen in an effort to demean.
The bolded part, with no "and", is what I mean when I say BO's an elitist.
Funny how you keep quoting my following me around.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone
I thought you were going to put me on ignore?
Why? You think so affectionately of me, it'd be rude not to return the favor
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone
Public transportation. Then again we have excellent public transportation in quite a few city's that have the density to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone
Can we do better yes.
What would that be? SUPER- Excellent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone
So we have [excellent] public transportation. Another wants their crime rates.
Now I see why you are not so judgmental on the flip flop. Your rhetoric embraces it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j33
Heh, I've ridden public transportation in nyc, boston, and seattle, and have spent my entire adult life (and most of my teenage years as well) riding Chicago's. I've also lived 3 months in London, spent two weeks in Germany and Austria, and some time in Moscow riding public transportation in that part of the world. All of which put the US public transportation systems to shame. When I got back home from Germany after riding public transportation there, and boarded the 'el' to go home, I didn't know whether or not to laugh or cry at how pathetically inferior, dingy, and falling apart it was in comparison to what I had seen abroad.
I couldn't agree more. Anyone that would think otherwise has likely never been to a place with 'excellent' public trans. The El is like a rickety wooden roller coaster; slow, filthy, and boy is it LOUD... though I mostly took the commuter (Metra) and for me the biggest complaint was the lackluster scheduling. Express in more than one direction at any time but rush hour... forget about it! Judging by what I've seen of NY's rail, I doubt it'd be that much different. Other places: hardly enough breadth to be accurately comparative.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-24-2008 at 06:36 PM..
You're misunderstanding what elitism is. Elitism is about believing that one group is naturally superior-- that you're somehow naturally better than the next person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Again, position in life has nothing to do with a person's tendency to be or not to be an elitist.
Position in life has much to do with others perception of elitism, hence the label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
A poor person who claims they're inadequate to run their life and claims a need of help from someone they claim is superior is an elitist just as much as the person who is rich and supports laws forcing the poor to act in ways consistent with his/her beliefs.
In this example the poor person is clearly subservient in his role. As you've explained "claims a need of help from someone" which defines a subservient role to the benefactor.
How then, can the person who is subordinate in capacity or function be considered an elitist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Elitism is contrary to freedom because it says some people can't be free because they cant' take care of themselves. You see how elitism-- BO-- is anti-American?
I would say Freedom and elitism can be diametrically opposed when the assumption is, by attaining the status of one you have the other by definition, and thus you begin to assert, that you deserve to be treated a certain way because of this. Therein lies the opportunity for humility.
Plato 360 B.C.E. "I dare say; but there is no reason why we should rudely quarrel with one another about your legislators, instead of gently questioning them, seeing that both we and they are equally in earnest."
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Position in life has much to do with others perception of elitism, hence the label.
Yes, if you're using elitist in the "that person has immense gobs of money."... but that's not relevant to this conversation which deals with elitism as belief in inherent superiority. If the former is being used, position in life has everything to do with it... but it's still irrelevant to this conversation.
Quote:
In this example the poor person is clearly subservient in his role.
By choice. Hence, they're elitist because the poor person is prescribing to the notion that they're inferior. You're not breaking news here. I've said this all along.
Quote:
As you've explained "claims a need of help from someone" which defines a subservient role to the benefactor.
This was what I was getting at in my previous post about your assumptions. You're implying because someone claims it, it must be so... It's a circle argument... "If someone believes they need help, they must need help." You can believe that, I don't care... However, it seems like a weak premise to rest your beliefs on.
Quote:
How then, can the person who is subordinate in capacity or function be considered an elitist?
Did you look at the definition of elitist? "...belief in rule by an elite" and "consciousness of... a select or favored group."
Seems simple enough. You don't have to have money or position to believe in it, do you?
I don't understand why you're arguing here. You've all but expressed, by your implications, that you're an elitist. If you believe in it, say it loud and proud. I don't care... and all the socialists will be right there with you. What are you arguing about? Trying to cover the fact?
What the rest of the world wants is exactly what they will get with Obama. We will lower our standard of living to prop up the rest of the world.
What the rest of the world wants is a United Nations that will rid the US of it's sovereignty. We will eventually get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is a global economy that favors smaller nations/economies over the larger more prosperous nations. They will get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is to put the US in it's place for being a country envied for it's of prosperity, it's power and influence, it's freedoms. They will get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is a less influential, less powerful, subservient to world court US. They will get that with Obama.
Is what the rest of the world wants what you want?
What the rest of the world wants is exactly what they will get with Obama. We will lower our standard of living to prop up the rest of the world.
What the rest of the world wants is a United Nations that will rid the US of it's sovereignty. We will eventually get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is a global economy that favors smaller nations/economies over the larger more prosperous nations. They will get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is to put the US in it's place for being a country envied for it's of prosperity, it's power and influence, it's freedoms. They will get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is a less influential, less powerful, subservient to world court US. They will get that with Obama.
Is what the rest of the world wants what you want?
Oh my gawd! you ARE THE MESSIAH!
you know WHAT THE rest of the world WANTS!!!!!!!!!
THE WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD !!!!!! I AM impressed!
What the rest of the world wants is exactly what they will get with Obama. We will lower our standard of living to prop up the rest of the world.
What the rest of the world wants is a United Nations that will rid the US of it's sovereignty. We will eventually get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is a global economy that favors smaller nations/economies over the larger more prosperous nations. They will get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is to put the US in it's place for being a country envied for it's of prosperity, it's power and influence, it's freedoms. They will get that with Obama.
What the rest of the world wants is a less influential, less powerful, subservient to world court US. They will get that with Obama.
Is what the rest of the world wants what you want?
Wow, are you official spokesman for the 6 billion folks around the planet? Must be a busy job.
My God, I am continually struck by the arrogance of this man...oh, I mean Messiah...
you have the audacity to refer to his arrogance?To wage a war and lie about why we did it takes arrogance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone that would think otherwise has likely never been to a place with 'excellent' public trans. The El is like a rickety wooden roller coaster; slow, filthy, and boy is it LOUD... though I mostly took the commuter (Metra) and for me the biggest complaint was the lackluster scheduling. Express in more than one direction at any time but rush hour... forget about it! Judging by what I've seen of NY's rail, I doubt it'd be that much different. Other places: hardly enough breadth to be accurately comparative.
