Conservative disdain of "elitism"

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Darth Wong
Have you ever noticed how trigger happy conservatives are to jump on you for any hint of "elitism", .i.e. displaying a preference for the experts than the dumb and uneducated? They have inculcated as a defense mechanism for their utterly insipid worldview that academic consensus doesn't actually matter, and that Joe Billy down on the farm knows just as much about Science as scientists, history as historians, and engineering as engineers.

It doesn't occur to them that any difficult field of inquiry takes years of university study and job experience to have a working understanding of, and that their "common sense" doesn't tell them **** all about the scientific evidence behind climate change, evolution, or whatever other complex issue they want to boil down to a simple soundbite that Fox News can spew to their mindless zombie audience.

Perhaps that is why they profess such an adulation for Trump; he acts exactly how they would if they had money. He flaunts scientific consensus, declaring that he doesn't "believe" in climate change and has a great "instinct" for science, refuses to listen to his advisors or even read intelligence reports, and bases all of his information on Fox News and his own "gut instinct". And yet you aren't supposed to say this in polite company, or else someone will chastise you for being "rude" and "elitist". And they fail to see the stunning irony in their mockery of supposed "social justice warriors".

Flyattractor
Nah. Pretty much every thing you just said is a Load of Crap. Biased Lefty Crap.
Especially the part about the University nonsense.

Valkorion
Originally posted by Darth Wong
Have you ever noticed how trigger happy conservatives are to jump on you for any hint of "elitism", .i.e. displaying a preference for the experts than the dumb and uneducated? They have inculcated as a defense mechanism for their utterly insipid worldview that academic consensus doesn't actually matter, and that Joe Billy down on the farm knows just as much about Science as scientists, history as historians, and engineering as engineers.

It doesn't occur to them that any difficult field of inquiry takes years of university study and job experience to have a working understanding of, and that their "common sense" doesn't tell them **** all about the scientific evidence behind climate change, evolution, or whatever other complex issue they want to boil down to a simple soundbite that Fox News can spew to their mindless zombie audience.

Perhaps that is why they profess such an adulation for Trump; he acts exactly how they would if they had money. He flaunts scientific consensus, declaring that he doesn't "believe" in climate change and has a great "instinct" for science, refuses to listen to his advisors or even read intelligence reports, and bases all of his information on Fox News and his own "gut instinct". And yet you aren't supposed to say this in polite company, or else someone will chastise you for being "rude" and "elitist". And they fail to see the stunning irony in their mockery of supposed "social justice warriors".

vaccines, GMOs, marxism, genetics, etc. - liberals are more likely delusional on many issues too. It seems less a matter of inherently caring more about science and more about both sides just accepting evidence that happens to support their case; you won't see conservatives rejecting right-wing scientific studies. Maybe there is a slightly greater respect verbally paid by liberals to science, but it is quite hypocritical and when it aligns with their position (aka climate change) it is likely mostly by coincidence.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Wong
Have you ever noticed how trigger happy conservatives are to jump on you for any hint of "elitism", .i.e. displaying a preference for the experts than the dumb and uneducated? They have inculcated as a defense mechanism for their utterly insipid worldview that academic consensus doesn't actually matter, and that Joe Billy down on the farm knows just as much about Science as scientists, history as historians, and engineering as engineers.

It doesn't occur to them that any difficult field of inquiry takes years of university study and job experience to have a working understanding of, and that their "common sense" doesn't tell them **** all about the scientific evidence behind climate change, evolution, or whatever other complex issue they want to boil down to a simple soundbite that Fox News can spew to their mindless zombie audience.

Perhaps that is why they profess such an adulation for Trump; he acts exactly how they would if they had money. He flaunts scientific consensus, declaring that he doesn't "believe" in climate change and has a great "instinct" for science, refuses to listen to his advisors or even read intelligence reports, and bases all of his information on Fox News and his own "gut instinct". And yet you aren't supposed to say this in polite company, or else someone will chastise you for being "rude" and "elitist". And they fail to see the stunning irony in their mockery of supposed "social justice warriors".


This reads like troll bait.

Guess it worked since Fly responded.

Flyattractor
You and your silly cheesecake!!!!!!

Valkorion
Originally posted by dadudemon
This reads like troll bait.

Guess it worked since Fly responded.

tbh it's a more substantive argument, right or wrong, than 99% of the posts certain regular members make or could make even if they tried with maximum effort lmao

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Valkorion
vaccines, GMOs, marxism, genetics, etc. - liberals are more likely delusional on many issues too. It seems less a matter of inherently caring more about science and more about both sides just accepting evidence that happens to support their case; you won't see conservatives rejecting right-wing scientific studies. Maybe there is a slightly greater respect verbally paid by liberals to science, but it is quite hypocritical and when it aligns with their position (aka climate change) it is likely mostly by coincidence.

I think it's possible for liberals to have a generally greater respect for science that is actually genuine, but for there to also be other biases that under localized circumstances (e.g. GMOs) can outweigh that preference. While I don't have hard data with me, it seems intuitive given my observations that liberals accept the scientific consensus more on most subjects, though not all of them as you note (whichever specific ones are debatable).

Surtur
Wong, tee hee.

quanchi112
Originally posted by dadudemon
This reads like troll bait.

Guess it worked since Fly responded. laughing out loud

Flyattractor
^ Also Responded.

cdtm
Originally posted by Darth Wong
Have you ever noticed how trigger happy conservatives are to jump on you for any hint of "elitism", .i.e. displaying a preference for the experts than the dumb and uneducated? They have inculcated as a defense mechanism for their utterly insipid worldview that academic consensus doesn't actually matter, and that Joe Billy down on the farm knows just as much about Science as scientists, history as historians, and engineering as engineers.

It doesn't occur to them that any difficult field of inquiry takes years of university study and job experience to have a working understanding of, and that their "common sense" doesn't tell them **** all about the scientific evidence behind climate change, evolution, or whatever other complex issue they want to boil down to a simple soundbite that Fox News can spew to their mindless zombie audience.

Perhaps that is why they profess such an adulation for Trump; he acts exactly how they would if they had money. He flaunts scientific consensus, declaring that he doesn't "believe" in climate change and has a great "instinct" for science, refuses to listen to his advisors or even read intelligence reports, and bases all of his information on Fox News and his own "gut instinct". And yet you aren't supposed to say this in polite company, or else someone will chastise you for being "rude" and "elitist". And they fail to see the stunning irony in their mockery of supposed "social justice warriors".

Have you ever met, or worked, with these "experts".

I have. They shouldn't be running anything. All they care about is climbing their personal social ladder, their pensions, and constantly flaunting how accomplished they are.

They certainly don't embody what the Democratic Party claims to stand for: Empathy, compassion, doing away with class and social status, fixing the common man's burdens.

They could care less about the poor and downtrodden from behind their gated communities.

Darkstorm Zero
Holy shit.... I never expected to see Darth Wong again.

Dude, I havn't seen you since you got axed from Spacebattles.

dadudemon
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I think it's possible for liberals to have a generally greater respect for science that is actually genuine, but for there to also be other biases that under localized circumstances (e.g. GMOs) can outweigh that preference. While I don't have hard data with me, it seems intuitive given my observations that liberals accept the scientific consensus more on most subjects, though not all of them as you note (whichever specific ones are debatable).

Well, I think you're wrong and right...it's weird.


The most correct statement is, "It depends on which subject."


Evolution - Liberals

It's close enough to be disturbing but more liberals support the idea of evolution than conservatives. "58% of Republicans think God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, whereas the figure is ... 41% among Democrats."

Global Warming/Climate Change - Liberals

"The Pew Research Center (2012) found that 51% of conservative Republicans and only 7% of liberal Democrats claimed there was no evidence of global warming. Furthermore, only 16% of conservative Republicans said global warming occurred because of human activity, whereas 77% of liberal Democrats believed human activity causes global warming."

Fracking - Conservatives

Nuclear Power - Conservatives

Organic Food - Conservatives

GMO's - Conservatives



But what we do find is a gross over-representation of Liberalism in psychology sciences - a 10:1 ratio. It is possible that some of the assumptions about how unscientific conservatives are comes from these social science ratios. Meaning, there is far more likely to be biases against conservatives in research that would look for and measure anti-scientific biases in liberals vs. conservatives. To put it more simply, "lots of liberals research this stuff so there will be a bias in favor of liberals." This does not mean that honest research is not out there. It just means that would probably be over-representation of studies that paint liberals in a more favorable light because far more researchers would be interested in such research.

Quite a bit of research is thrown out because the results do NOT support the outcome the research sponsors had in mind. Still, other research is massaged and twisted to get the desired results.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201303/are-conservatives-more-anti-science-are-liberals

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Holy shit.... I never expected to see Darth Wong again.

Dude, I havn't seen you since you got axed from Spacebattles.
Originally posted by Surtur
Wong, tee hee.

Pretty sure this isn't actually Wong, lmao

Surtur
I meant wong as in...tee hee wong is a funny word.

Surtur
Wait I'm thinking of the word wang. Well...*flee's*

Emperordmb
Well it's certainly a nuanced issue.

There are obviously some instances in which high level expertise in a particular field is definitely preferable.

But there are legitimate complaints of elitism that could be levied towards the media elites for example. The MSNBC Freudian slip comes to mind "he is trying to control what the people think, and that's our job." The way a lot of them carry themselves as if they are the gatekeepers for what information people should be allowed to know and what viewpoints are and aren't acceptable. Their willingness to lie about someone like Trump (who honestly you shouldn't need to lie about to build a case against) or even someone much more moderate in view and temperament like Jordan Peterson. Or when you look at how many time the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream media outlets have directly targeted YouTube and Pewdiepie in order to directly attack the income of alternative media outlets that are outcompeting them. Or when they dial everything up to eleven and make all these ridiculous clickbait news articles in order to get views and money in a dying industry.

Some people, rather accurately, see the mainstream media not as an objective voice or even the voice of the people sticking it to power. But rather the mainstream media largely acts like its own elite class acting in its own class interests.

Or what about Hollywood? There have been enough award shows in recent years for people to see them mostly circlejerking each other, virtue signalling, and acting as if they are at the cutting edge of the moral salvation of civilization, all the while acting like all those who disagree with their very particular moral view are just a bunch of ignorant hateful rubes.

Or what about the tech elites? A large number of people who in the wake of the 2016 election have said free speech on the internet is outdated and allows the spread of views they don't like, with Google releasing the "Good Censor" memo, and leaked conversations before the election about how to censor or downplay right-wing speech on their platforms, or even the conveniently synchronized removal of Alex Jones (who I don't even like mind you) from multiple platforms in the same day. Again these are people with an agenda who view themselves as gatekeepers for what people should be allowed to talk about and what information and viewpoints they should be exposed to.

And then of course, there's the university elites. Particularly the ones in the corrupt social "sciences" like sociology, gender studies, ethnic studies, basically all of the grievance studies who speak as if anyone who isn't invested in their specific worldview belongs to the evil power structure which has been the cause of all of humanity's problems. They are using taxpayer money and their status as professors and "experts" to peddle this broken ass view of morality which shifts the burden of moral responsibility from each individual to only "the privileged" and shifts basic empathy and the idea that one could have problems from every individual to only "the oppressed." These are perhaps the most insufferable of them all, they appoint themselves gatekeepers not of information but gatekeepers over who gets moral consideration, and in their gross condemnation of society as a whole despite all it has given us. And anyone who disagrees with them is either malicious or just hasn't been taught in the great intellectual pursuit of "critical theory" or "intersectionality."

Just as a recent example of the influence of these grievance studies, media elites, cultural elites, etc. they were able to get Baby Its Cold Outside banned from radio stations. When polled however, roughly only 5% of people actually found this song problematic while 95% of people were just fine with it, meaning 5% of the population was able to dictate what the other 95% of people were able to enjoy.


It is not competence (high level scientific expertise) or success (wealth) that primarily drives this disdain of "elitism." It's this smug arrogant self-congratulatory almost messianic attitude that a lot of these elites hold in their inappropriately self-appointed duty as gatekeepers over the morality and dialogue of society that people take issue with. That they operate as part of this cultural hegemony that largely tries to hold its power through gatekeeping and creating and enforcing an in-group out-group dichotomy between the people who act in their interests and the people who are deplorables.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not going to pretend the church for example has never overstepped its bounds by acting as a hegemonic police of vice and virtue. And it has received a lot of criticism for exactly that reason. Some of that criticism even exists in the Bible with Jesus's criticism of the arrogant self-congratulatory elitist self-serving attitude of the Pharisees (the religious elites of his day). Sadly a decent amount of what came after Jesus's time was a reflection of the issue he originally had with the pharisees. The church has acted as the gatekeeper in shutting down dialogue it doesn't agree with, a lot of people fled to America to escape the hegemonic influence with the church of England, and there has been struggle in the US between a lot of people and churches trying to cement influence in the political system. Even though I am a Christian I recognize a lot of this criticism as legitimate.

The problem is these new cultural elites have become something of the new Church, the new police of vice and virtue in some sense to whom a lot of the criticisms that could be appropriately applied to the church in a historic context could also be applied.

And herein lies the heart of Trump's charisma. He is not willing to be controlled by this hegemony, he is willing to call out the media, he is the figure who has drawn the primary ire of this hegemony and these elitists so many people take issue with. And ultimately when Trump insults or talks down to someone, it is usually one of these people, or a very specific person who is in a position of prominence who is opposed to him. What people don't hear when he speaks is Trump calling half of the nation deplorable, or implying working class citizens are just a bunch of ignorant rubes who need the enlightened guidance of people like grievance studies professors to change their dinosaur ways or whatever.

People don't consider Trump an elitist because of his wealth or status, because those aren't the things that draw the criticism of elitism to begin with.

BackFire
Conservatives love elites, just so long as those elites can speak to them at a fourth grade level.

cdtm
Originally posted by BackFire
Conservatives love elites, just so long as those elites can speak to them at a fourth grade level.

laughing out loud

cdtm
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well it's certainly a nuanced issue.

There are obviously some instances in which high level expertise in a particular field is definitely preferable.

But there are legitimate complaints of elitism that could be levied towards the media elites for example. The MSNBC Freudian slip comes to mind "he is trying to control what the people think, and that's our job." The way a lot of them carry themselves as if they are the gatekeepers for what information people should be allowed to know and what viewpoints are and aren't acceptable. Their willingness to lie about someone like Trump (who honestly you shouldn't need to lie about to build a case against) or even someone much more moderate in view and temperament like Jordan Peterson. Or when you look at how many time the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream media outlets have directly targeted YouTube and Pewdiepie in order to directly attack the income of alternative media outlets that are outcompeting them. Or when they dial everything up to eleven and make all these ridiculous clickbait news articles in order to get views and money in a dying industry.

Some people, rather accurately, see the mainstream media not as an objective voice or even the voice of the people sticking it to power. But rather the mainstream media largely acts like its own elite class acting in its own class interests.

Or what about Hollywood? There have been enough award shows in recent years for people to see them mostly circlejerking each other, virtue signalling, and acting as if they are at the cutting edge of the moral salvation of civilization, all the while acting like all those who disagree with their very particular moral view are just a bunch of ignorant hateful rubes.

Or what about the tech elites? A large number of people who in the wake of the 2016 election have said free speech on the internet is outdated and allows the spread of views they don't like, with Google releasing the "Good Censor" memo, and leaked conversations before the election about how to censor or downplay right-wing speech on their platforms, or even the conveniently synchronized removal of Alex Jones (who I don't even like mind you) from multiple platforms in the same day. Again these are people with an agenda who view themselves as gatekeepers for what people should be allowed to talk about and what information and viewpoints they should be exposed to.

And then of course, there's the university elites. Particularly the ones in the corrupt social "sciences" like sociology, gender studies, ethnic studies, basically all of the grievance studies who speak as if anyone who isn't invested in their specific worldview belongs to the evil power structure which has been the cause of all of humanity's problems. They are using taxpayer money and their status as professors and "experts" to peddle this broken ass view of morality which shifts the burden of moral responsibility from each individual to only "the privileged" and shifts basic empathy and the idea that one could have problems from every individual to only "the oppressed." These are perhaps the most insufferable of them all, they appoint themselves gatekeepers not of information but gatekeepers over who gets moral consideration, and in their gross condemnation of society as a whole despite all it has given us. And anyone who disagrees with them is either malicious or just hasn't been taught in the great intellectual pursuit of "critical theory" or "intersectionality."

Just as a recent example of the influence of these grievance studies, media elites, cultural elites, etc. they were able to get Baby Its Cold Outside banned from radio stations. When polled however, roughly only 5% of people actually found this song problematic while 95% of people were just fine with it, meaning 5% of the population was able to dictate what the other 95% of people were able to enjoy.


It is not competence (high level scientific expertise) or success (wealth) that primarily drives this disdain of "elitism." It's this smug arrogant self-congratulatory almost messianic attitude that a lot of these elites hold in their inappropriately self-appointed duty as gatekeepers over the morality and dialogue of society that people take issue with. That they operate as part of this cultural hegemony that largely tries to hold its power through gatekeeping and creating and enforcing an in-group out-group dichotomy between the people who act in their interests and the people who are deplorables.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not going to pretend the church for example has never overstepped its bounds by acting as a hegemonic police of vice and virtue. And it has received a lot of criticism for exactly that reason. Some of that criticism even exists in the Bible with Jesus's criticism of the arrogant self-congratulatory elitist self-serving attitude of the Pharisees (the religious elites of his day). Sadly a decent amount of what came after Jesus's time was a reflection of the issue he originally had with the pharisees. The church has acted as the gatekeeper in shutting down dialogue it doesn't agree with, a lot of people fled to America to escape the hegemonic influence with the church of England, and there has been struggle in the US between a lot of people and churches trying to cement influence in the political system. Even though I am a Christian I recognize a lot of this criticism as legitimate.

The problem is these new cultural elites have become something of the new Church, the new police of vice and virtue in some sense to whom a lot of the criticisms that could be appropriately applied to the church in a historic context could also be applied.

And herein lies the heart of Trump's charisma. He is not willing to be controlled by this hegemony, he is willing to call out the media, he is the figure who has drawn the primary ire of this hegemony and these elitists so many people take issue with. And ultimately when Trump insults or talks down to someone, it is usually one of these people, or a very specific person who is in a position of prominence who is opposed to him. What people don't hear when he speaks is Trump calling half of the nation deplorable, or implying working class citizens are just a bunch of ignorant rubes who need the enlightened guidance of people like grievance studies professors to change their dinosaur ways or whatever.

People don't consider Trump an elitist because of his wealth or status, because those aren't the things that draw the criticism of elitism to begin with.


Remember the TV kids show Dinosaurs?

A real, live, sentient mink that said "I'm better then you" was for sale.

That's the kind of elite most are talking about, I think. The snobby type.

The type that thinks the best rulers, just happen to come from their own social circles.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well it's certainly a nuanced issue.

There are obviously some instances in which high level expertise in a particular field is definitely preferable.

But there are legitimate complaints of elitism that could be levied towards the media elites for example. The MSNBC Freudian slip comes to mind "he is trying to control what the people think, and that's our job." The way a lot of them carry themselves as if they are the gatekeepers for what information people should be allowed to know and what viewpoints are and aren't acceptable. Their willingness to lie about someone like Trump (who honestly you shouldn't need to lie about to build a case against) or even someone much more moderate in view and temperament like Jordan Peterson. Or when you look at how many time the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream media outlets have directly targeted YouTube and Pewdiepie in order to directly attack the income of alternative media outlets that are outcompeting them. Or when they dial everything up to eleven and make all these ridiculous clickbait news articles in order to get views and money in a dying industry.

Some people, rather accurately, see the mainstream media not as an objective voice or even the voice of the people sticking it to power. But rather the mainstream media largely acts like its own elite class acting in its own class interests.

Or what about Hollywood? There have been enough award shows in recent years for people to see them mostly circlejerking each other, virtue signalling, and acting as if they are at the cutting edge of the moral salvation of civilization, all the while acting like all those who disagree with their very particular moral view are just a bunch of ignorant hateful rubes.

Or what about the tech elites? A large number of people who in the wake of the 2016 election have said free speech on the internet is outdated and allows the spread of views they don't like, with Google releasing the "Good Censor" memo, and leaked conversations before the election about how to censor or downplay right-wing speech on their platforms, or even the conveniently synchronized removal of Alex Jones (who I don't even like mind you) from multiple platforms in the same day. Again these are people with an agenda who view themselves as gatekeepers for what people should be allowed to talk about and what information and viewpoints they should be exposed to.

And then of course, there's the university elites. Particularly the ones in the corrupt social "sciences" like sociology, gender studies, ethnic studies, basically all of the grievance studies who speak as if anyone who isn't invested in their specific worldview belongs to the evil power structure which has been the cause of all of humanity's problems. They are using taxpayer money and their status as professors and "experts" to peddle this broken ass view of morality which shifts the burden of moral responsibility from each individual to only "the privileged" and shifts basic empathy and the idea that one could have problems from every individual to only "the oppressed." These are perhaps the most insufferable of them all, they appoint themselves gatekeepers not of information but gatekeepers over who gets moral consideration, and in their gross condemnation of society as a whole despite all it has given us. And anyone who disagrees with them is either malicious or just hasn't been taught in the great intellectual pursuit of "critical theory" or "intersectionality."

Just as a recent example of the influence of these grievance studies, media elites, cultural elites, etc. they were able to get Baby Its Cold Outside banned from radio stations. When polled however, roughly only 5% of people actually found this song problematic while 95% of people were just fine with it, meaning 5% of the population was able to dictate what the other 95% of people were able to enjoy.


It is not competence (high level scientific expertise) or success (wealth) that primarily drives this disdain of "elitism." It's this smug arrogant self-congratulatory almost messianic attitude that a lot of these elites hold in their inappropriately self-appointed duty as gatekeepers over the morality and dialogue of society that people take issue with. That they operate as part of this cultural hegemony that largely tries to hold its power through gatekeeping and creating and enforcing an in-group out-group dichotomy between the people who act in their interests and the people who are deplorables.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not going to pretend the church for example has never overstepped its bounds by acting as a hegemonic police of vice and virtue. And it has received a lot of criticism for exactly that reason. Some of that criticism even exists in the Bible with Jesus's criticism of the arrogant self-congratulatory elitist self-serving attitude of the Pharisees (the religious elites of his day). Sadly a decent amount of what came after Jesus's time was a reflection of the issue he originally had with the pharisees. The church has acted as the gatekeeper in shutting down dialogue it doesn't agree with, a lot of people fled to America to escape the hegemonic influence with the church of England, and there has been struggle in the US between a lot of people and churches trying to cement influence in the political system. Even though I am a Christian I recognize a lot of this criticism as legitimate.

The problem is these new cultural elites have become something of the new Church, the new police of vice and virtue in some sense to whom a lot of the criticisms that could be appropriately applied to the church in a historic context could also be applied.

And herein lies the heart of Trump's charisma. He is not willing to be controlled by this hegemony, he is willing to call out the media, he is the figure who has drawn the primary ire of this hegemony and these elitists so many people take issue with. And ultimately when Trump insults or talks down to someone, it is usually one of these people, or a very specific person who is in a position of prominence who is opposed to him. What people don't hear when he speaks is Trump calling half of the nation deplorable, or implying working class citizens are just a bunch of ignorant rubes who need the enlightened guidance of people like grievance studies professors to change their dinosaur ways or whatever.

People don't consider Trump an elitist because of his wealth or status, because those aren't the things that draw the criticism of elitism to begin with.


I got buttmad reading this post. Because you didn't make very strong points and you took a VERY long time to actually state anything of substance. But I forced myself to read your long-ass post, this time, as a matter of principle.

I hate you.

But you used the enter key and broke it up into paragraphs. For that, I congratulate you. Perhaps college has done you some good?

Flyattractor
You need to cut back on the cheesecake.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Flyattractor
You need to cut back on the cheesecake.

What about the cinnamon rolls?

Flyattractor
Cinnamon will help with your Type 2
https://i0.wp.com/2littlerosebuds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/diabeetus.jpg

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.