Reply With Quote
I got 31/33 on the quiz. I, however, spilled coffee on myself in the middle of the quiz and was corrupted by intellectualism to look up one of the answers; my moral compass guided me back to marking the question wrong.
I'm not sure that your distinction is a valid one, though it is a simple way to charge one with simply being "too intellectual" I suppose. The point is that instead of Obama's academic credentials being seen as the sort of achievement that all should aspire to, those accomplishments were, instead, used as a means to suggest that he was "too smart." I'm not going to say that the GOP wages a war on intelligence, but I'm also going to say that it's a shortsighted argument to attack those who've reached tremendous academic accomplishment on the basis that they've attained those levels of education and achievement.
I do think, however, that many who are supporters of the GOP, in general, see academic intelligence as being largely a waste of time or, more peculiarly, nothing more than an indoctrination at liberally-bent universities. It's beyond absurd to think that those who have the sort of intelligence and drive that is necessary to thrive at our most academically-rigorous ins utions are, at the same time, so incapable of original thought that they can only fall prey to (or cannot escape from) the rantings of those who are extremely leftist (or rightist for that matter).
The efforts to diminish the significance of an education at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, or any of the many other fabulous colleges in this country is both silly and counterproductive.
The fact that the presidential race in 2008 involved a great deal of suggestion that an education attained at those ins utions results in an "intellectual elitism" that is distasteful, to me, underscores a sort of reverse classism -- an effort to say that great academic achievement is essentially a worthless end to pursue because it will, in the end, make you unable to relate to the mainstream of our society. It's nonsense on its face; but it is, at the same time (I think) an effort to diminish the utility of an education attained in schools that attract the best and the brightest.
If that's what she said, Hillary was wrong, too, I think.
What an absurd leap. There's a monumental difference between saying that one party is attacking intelligence/achievement and saying that the same party lacks intelligence/achievement.
Both parties have members and adherents who are insanely bright. Only one of those parties, however, seems to embrace those who ridicule the value of a great education and argue that the best universities in the nation are somehow valueless. It's not all Republicans, to be sure -- but it's a more and more pervasive turn of rhetoric.
I suppose it is, to an extent. I don't think it's an organized effort and, as I've said, I don't think it's a pervasive belief. But it's my observation that when I do hear rhetoric about the lack of value in academic achievement and intellectual heft, I most frequently hear it from those who align themselves with the Republican party.
Not particularly. I consider myself someone who thinks independently. I read a lot and consider the arguments that advocates for various positions advance and from that, I try to reach my own understandings about issues and topics and decide for myself what my position is on any particular matter. I don't really know what an intellectual would be, definitionally.
I can say, however, that I believe a premium should be placed upon education; I believe that students should be encouraged to seek the highest levels of achievement they possibly can; I believe that achievement in academic realms is extremely important; I believe that while effort makes a big difference in what and how one learns, there is no subs ute for the educational benefits of being surrounded by very bright people (students and instructors alike); I believe that an instructor's political philosophy is an overrated concern in higher education -- smart students will think for themselves and accept or reject philosophies based on their own views; and I believe that the elite schools in this nation are elite schools for an extremely good reason.
Nothing could convince me that I'm better or worse than anyone else.
I have no idea. I'd guess that they're probably people of great academic achievement. That one is possessed of such achievement does not make him mistake-free or foolproof. But it would be equally wrong to blame the failings of those ins utions on the fact that those individuals were high academic achievers.
Absolutely not.
I got 31/33 on the quiz. I, however, spilled coffee on myself in the middle of the quiz and was corrupted by intellectualism to look up one of the answers; my moral compass guided me back to marking the question wrong.
I consider myself better than Hitler, if you're talking about the 'morals' department, and not the 'accomplishments' one.
I"ll agree that academic achievement should be admired, not castigated, but I don't agree at all that the GOP attacked Obama on the front of being "too smart". Other than perhaps a few isolated, off the cuff remarks from someone who didn't play a central role in McCain's campaign, I don't recall any concerted attacks on his intellectual attributes.
I'll defer to your own statement that this view is not pervasive, and barring some scientifically gathered data that would incriminate this affront as being peculiar to the GOP, I have difficulty agreeing with this.I do think, however, that many who are supporters of the GOP, in general, see academic intelligence as being largely a waste of time or, more peculiarly, nothing more than an indoctrination at liberally-bent universities.
I agree, but let's also agree that any such thinking doesn't belong to one Party more so than the other. I don't see either Party diminshing academic achievement.It's beyond absurd to think that those who have the sort of intelligence and drive that is necessary to thrive at our most academically-rigorous ins utions are, at the same time, so incapable of original thought that they can only fall prey to (or cannot escape from) the rantings of those who are extremely leftist (or rightist for that matter).
The efforts to diminish the significance of an education at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, or any of the many other fabulous colleges in this country is both silly and counterproductive.
I don't believe that was a part of the political dialogue until Obama suggest that when the going gets tough, people cling to their Bibles and guns.The fact that the presidential race in 2008 involved a great deal of suggestion that an education attained at those ins utions results in an "intellectual elitism" that is distasteful, to me, underscores a sort of reverse classism -- an effort to say that great academic achievement is essentially a worthless end to pursue because it will, in the end, make you unable to relate to the mainstream of our society.
This charge of elitism, right or wrong, was initiated by Hillary and picked up by McCain, and not because of his Ivy League education, but because they interpreted his remarks as him being out of touch with mainstream America.
He brought that upon himself, and again, it was not an affront against intellectualism.
It wasn't a leap at all, merely a question. Manny would have us believe that stupid people are being elected (which they are), and faulting the GOP for this. That arguement stinks of partisanship, and is without merit (aka absurd).What an absurd leap. There's a monumental difference between saying that one party is attacking intelligence/achievement and saying that the same party lacks intelligence/achievement.
So long as it's not a valued belief, that is, a belief without consensus, I just blow them off. If you look hard enough you'll find small pockets of dissent against anything and everything. I don't think those views are deserving of an audience, and prefer to write them off as ignominious, outlier thinking, no more righteous than the beliefs of the Aryan Nation or some of the extreme views of the Michael Moore types.I suppose it is, to an extent. I don't think it's an organized effort and, as I've said, I don't think it's a pervasive belief. But it's my observation that when I do hear rhetoric about the lack of value in academic achievement and intellectual heft, I most frequently hear it from those who align themselves with the Republican party.
Well said FWD, and I would hope that everyone would agree with those thoughts.I can say, however, that I believe a premium should be placed upon education; I believe that students should be encouraged to seek the highest levels of achievement they possibly can; I believe that achievement in academic realms is extremely important; I believe that while effort makes a big difference in what and how one learns, there is no subs ute for the educational benefits of being surrounded by very bright people (students and instructors alike); I believe that an instructor's political philosophy is an overrated concern in higher education -- smart students will think for themselves and accept or reject philosophies based on their own views;
One cannot blame the GOP for the low scores on that test unless there is some evidence that GOP officials scored significantly lower than their Dem colleagues.
I would be willing to make a small bet that Republicans, in general, know less about the world at large than Democrats, or that at the very least, Democratic politicians at the national level know more about geopolitics than Republican ones.
It has been my experience that knowledge of geopolitics, while not exclusive to either side of the political spectrum, tends to be more valued by those on the left.
The anti-intellectual bent on the right has a long history, dating back to the postwar period when any person who read a lot of books was feared by the populist right as an "egghead" with Communist sympathies. The generation of conservative leaders that led the movement from the 1960's to the 1990's worked hard to expunge that element, but they grew old and left the stage without successfully grooming replacements. The Reagan era is over, and what passes for "conservatism" today is a mix of the John Birch Society and the Dixiecrats.
But that is a hunch, not fact based upon evidence. My su ion would be that GOP pols scored lower, but that su ion could be wrong, so going out on that limb to make a point is imprudent.
I've learned to keep my mouth shut when good ol' boys try to explain that Sarah Palin would make a great President because:
1) she's got that thar horse sense rather than that fancy-pants book learnin' (no offense, ES, but y'ar a li'l bit of a what with yer big werds n' stuff)
2) she don't know nuthin' about the world 'cept what's in the Bible and that's all y'need to know.
3) she's hot
4) she can hunt and field dress a moose
5) she likes us real Americans and not them Commie gots in the big cities (no offense, ES)
6) us good ol' boys'd like t'do her
7) she's hot
I also keep my mouth shut when I hear the same arguments I heard back in 2000, such as "It don't matter how smart she is as long as she'd pick the right advisors. Them's the ones who need to know all that history and economy and stuff."
At least where I am in Texas, being a parochial idiot has become a prerequisite for staying in the conservative movement as this purge moves forward. So, of course, I'm out.
I agree. I would not be willing to say 100% one way or another, but I would be confident enough to place a small bet on the outcome of any objective study.
I will remember this post the next time you wiegh in on one of the global warming threads and use the small minority of scientists who dissent against that theory as "proof" that AGW is a silly theory.
One area where I am not keeping my mouth shut is when people who profess to be Bible-believing Christians openly advocate the assassination of the President-elect of the United States. I rebuke them immediately. Some people become contrite and repent, agreeing that we do have to respect our leaders even when we disagree with them. Others call me an abortion-loving un-American Communist liberal emergent metrosexual who probably cheats on my wife with men and that I better shut my mouth before they put their boot in my ass or kill me just like the n*****.
I suspect the faith espoused by the latter is just cultural veneer.
It's about 50/50 between the two responses.
You encounter many people like that?
Just curious
Specific responses (paraphrased):
1) Obama will expand abortion. We have to kill him. How can you not support killing him? Your position is basically advocating abortion.
2) This guy is basically a terrorist. You can't be an American and let him stay in office. I know you think you're being smart and reasonable, but this is a line in the sand.
3) Typical Communist response. Sorry, but I think you're a Communist.
4) Yeah, I've heard some of your stuff. You're one of those liberal emergent types who gets all scholarly on the Bible, so I'm not surprised.
5) You're a metrosexual . You probably cheat on your wife with other men.
6) Who are you to talk to me like that? You better shut your mouth before I put this boot in your ass. I can kill you just as easy as that n*****.
And those are just the people who say things directly to me. Who knows how many more want Obama to die but don't verbalize it, or how many are repentant to my face but say the same sort of things as what I listed above behind my back.
It's been a real eye-opener.
Interesting stuff. I mean, I've experienced the Commie accusations first hand (on this board and outside of it) when it comes to supporting Obama. The "metrosexual " one, not so much.
In what way? i.e. what did you learn that you were ignorant of before?
(sorry, but I have to get to work after this, but I will check back later)
I was ignorant of the fact that a lot of people who claim to be Christians, and who go to church, and get all giddy talking about all the things Christ is doing in their life, somehow think that murdering a President they don't like is acceptable, or even mandated by their faith, and will get belligerent, obscene, or threatening when somebody challenges that position using Scripture.
I've never heard anything like this. Nothing like this has been openly discussed about an American politician in my lifetime. It's as though I've entered Bizarro World, where a bunch of East Texans who were cryogenically frozen in 1948 got thawed out three weeks ago and sent to Houston.
I'm not talking about supporting Obama in terms of his political agenda. I'm talking about "supporting" him in the sense of "murdering him would be wrong."
Communist.
aah I see
so we're talking all-around ed up people here
where's my buddy phenom?
It's been quite some time since I weighed in on that issue, but I'll be sure to hold you to that.I will remember this post the next time you wiegh in on one of the global warming threads and use the small minority of scientists who dissent against that theory as "proof" that AGW is a silly theory.
Actually I did qualify the small pockets of dissent as being ignominious and outlier in nature, but dissent need not be large to warrant credibility (I'll be the final arbiter of it's credibility).
You suspect?
That's bizarre Stout (the bolded text), and if I didn't know better, I'd say that sounds like the rant of someone that had just chugged a bottle of mezcal.
Tragic. Almost beyond comprehension.
^Human beings have a remarkable ability to not see and not hear whatever they don't wish to acknowledge.
^You speak authoritatively, as one who is well versed in this "ability".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
