LibriumArcana.Games

I was just discussing a debate with someone, and she made the stupid remark "sounds like he is just saying he is smarter ", and then proceeded to dismiss his entire arguement. When I picked up and continued the argument (Creation vs Evolution, you know how those debates go), pointing out she knows nothing about the subject and should therefore shut the damn up about it instead of arguing from ignorance. She then called me an elitist twat who just thinks I am smarter than everyone else and blocked me (first time I have ever been blocked too).

I was reminded of one time in a livejournal I commented that I simply am better than quite a few people, and some morons jumped in saying you are not better or worse, just different.

This got me thinking about claiming superiority and telling ignorant people to just shut the fuck up. Quite frankly, the way I see it, if someone is demonstrably smarter than someone else, why shouldn't he use the full force of his intellect in discussion? Why can't he tell less intelligent people to just shut up about what they don't know about? Why can't he call ignorant people ignorant?

What is so wrong about saying I am better than you? What is the cause of people thinking this is wrong?

I would say that it isn't that some people are better.

It's merely that some people are worse than others.

Narsil wrote:I would say that it isn't that some people are better.

It's merely that some people are worse than others.

So two isn't greater than one, one is less than two?

By definition if someone is worse than someone else than the other person is indeed better than that person.

It's annoying as hell to be told that you're a fucking retard, that's why. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but people will still jump on you for it because they don't like it when it happens to them.

Destructionator XV wrote:So two isn't greater than one, one is less than two?

By definition if someone is worse than someone else than the other person is indeed better than that person.

Philosophy and Morality don't work quite the same way as mathematics...

You are indeed better than that person, but people see your statement as such to be arrogant, bigheaded and generally ignorant. It's very difficult to explain, and is actually a philosophical belief of mine; you're no better than anyone else. It's just that there's people who are worse than everybody else, like Bigots, Murderers, Sex Offenders and generally nasty people who should really be lined up against a grey-stone wall and shot at repeatedly until their corpses stop twitching.

He's a sword. What do you expect?
With that out of the way, wether or not some people are better than others period some people definitely ARE better than others at specific things.
For example, Adam here is almost inevitably better than me at Linux, the Tevars are demonstrably better than me at all things FR, virtually everybody is better than me at cooking (or Math for that matter)...
While lack of knowledge doesn't neccessarily indicate lack of intelligence, arguing a topic you lack knowledge about is never a smart thing.

Everything is wrong with elitism, but don't worry you aren't being elitist.

elitism.

1. 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.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class

elitism

n : the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals

As you can see, none of that applies. You aren't advocating legally superior status or the lion share of economic resources. Labelling you as "elitist" is just a red herring used to distract from the point that you're right and she's wrong. It's just an inaccurate smear.

And yes, I'm better than a lot of people. I'm a better person, morally and intellectually, than a lot of people I've met. And there are people smarter and nicer than I am. That's life, not elitism.

Bah, CC beat me before I could pull out the definition from the Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense.

Elitist
Someone who knows more than I do.

Moved to P&T.








And as for my opinion, I am better than a lot of people. There are people better than me. Does that make me elitist? No, just arrogant.

There's nothing wrong with elitism, provided you've got some kind of basis for it and don't expect other people to appreciate it. Otherwise, that's just arrogance. Arrogance, in my mind, is tantamount to self-delusion. Just setting yourself up for a fall.

I'm more intelligent than a lot of people I am around. I believe this. My reason to believe this is that a lot of people I am around just aren't very smart or generally aware. But I also don't count on everyone acknowledging my godlike brilliance and bowing down to my whim.

In my opinion, proper elitism is healthy self-confidence.

Drox wrote:There's nothing wrong with elitism, provided you've got some kind of basis for it and don't expect other people to appreciate it. Otherwise, that's just arrogance. Arrogance, in my mind, is tantamount to self-delusion. Just setting yourself up for a fall.

I'm more intelligent than a lot of people I am around. I believe this. My reason to believe this is that a lot of people I am around just aren't very smart or generally aware. But I also don't count on everyone acknowledging my godlike brilliance and bowing down to my whim.

In my opinion, proper elitism is healthy self-confidence.

As I've pointed out, that isn't elitism. Elitism is enjoying a superior legal, social, or economic status based due to membership in an elite group. What you are talking about is awareness and pride based on individual abilities, not elitism. In fact, this has been established earlier in the thread.

Next time us your godlike brilliance and read before posting.

Cynical Cat wrote: Next time us your godlike brilliance and read before posting.

Are you saying that people who read before posting are better than others? ELITIST BASTARD!

Cynical Cat wrote:As I've pointed out, that isn't elitism. Elitism is enjoying a superior legal, social, or economic status based due to membership in an elite group. What you are talking about is awareness and pride based on individual abilities, not elitism. In fact, this has been established earlier in the thread.

Next time us your godlike brilliance and read before posting.

While that is the dictionary definition, experience tells me that it's also not how most people think of the word. But you have me. I posted before I read... and, well... I think you forgot an e.

Drox wrote:
While that is the dictionary definition, experience tells me that it's also not how most people think of the word. But you have me. I posted before I read... and, well... I think you forgot an e.

That a lot of people have no idea what elitism truly is due to massive numbers of strawmen and ad homen attacks in the media and popular culture doesn't change what it really is.

And clearly if the ruling elite is going to be chosen of the basis of spelling ability, I will not be in their numbers.

I hear stuff like that said a lot, but it always occurred to me: a word is meaningless save for what people imbue it with. The meanings of words are fluid, and do change. Popular opinion does define a word. Dictionaries at best are snapshots of this at the time of publishing.

Edit: maybe that's the problem with elitism, we can't agree on what it means.

Drox wrote:I hear stuff like that said a lot, but it always occurred to me: a word is meaningless save for what people imbue it with. The meanings of words are fluid, and do change. Popular opinion does define a word. Dictionaries at best are snapshots of this at the time of publishing.

Edit: maybe that's the problem with elitism, we can't agree on what it means.

No, the problem is people throw around words like "Hollywood elite" or "intellectual elite" as ad hominem attacks and other people buy it. In the social sciences they are quite clear about what an elite is and it is something that is studied by anthropologists, archeologists, historians, and socialogists to name some of them.

The definition has been given. It is the correct one. It is the topic under discussion.

As for the other so called definition, every human being feels superior to others for one reason or another (strength, intelligence, religion, race, morals, gender, etcetera). That isn't a philosophy or a system of government.

Now stop derailing the discussion.

Would a meritocracy (rule by those with ability) fall under elitism using the correct definition? I beleive that would fall under the definition "the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals," the elite in this case being the best leaders. If so, why would that be wrong? Should not the best people for the job get the job?

Or is the problem with elitist attitudes that there really is no objective way of measuring merit, meaning, for example, only Harvard graduates could run for President rather than truly picking the best?

Destructionator XV wrote:Would a meritocracy fall under elitism using the correct definition? I beleive that would fall under the definition "the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals," the elite in this case being the best leaders. If so, why would that be wrong? Should not the best people for the job get the job?

Or is the problem with elitist attitudes that there really is no objective way of measuring merit, meaning, for example, only Harvard graduates could run for President rather than truly picking the best?

To be an elite you would a member of a distinct group. If we picked our leaders by high performance on a battery of tests, that would theoretically be both an elite and meritocracy. As a matter of fact, I happen to know of a real life example of this.

The Salish Indians didn't own resources, but rather entrusted them to be certain people to be managed. How did you become one of those people? You had your dreams analyzed to sea if the spirits favoured you. And of course if you one of these priviledged people, you were able to hire shamans to help you son have the proper dreams (i.e. tutors for the SAT/entrance exam/whatever).

Weren't the Mandran Chinese an exam chosen meritocracy?

frigidmagi wrote:Weren't the Mandran Chinese an exam chosen meritocracy?

My understanding of the Chinese system is much more limited, but I understand part of their bureaucracy was exam selected.

All people are equal.
Iy's just that some are more equal than others. (Anyone who doesn't spot the quote can Burn).

However the fact is that while theres always someone better at something or smarter than yourself, you'll be better/smarter than someone else.

After all Einstein is/was "better" than an Aids ridden african prostitute, however the difference will almost never be this clear cut in real life or in any realistic situation.
It would be accurate to say that all people are born and have equal rights (Though not abilities, those thinking that should read up on communism ).