I've been saying that for years. They can be mean and some people are amused by that, but it's not funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Printable View
I've been saying that for years. They can be mean and some people are amused by that, but it's not funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
We're talking about American politics, so the definition of "left" and "right" elsewhere is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
To be blunt, who cares what anyone outside the US thinks about American politics. You don't live here and you don't have to share in the successes and failures of our political system. We're the ones who shoulder the largest consequences of our governments debts and adventures into other people's business - others only periferally so.
Its sad when looking deeply into issues, taking as many information sources as possible, weighing them up, thinking carefully and making a rationale decision is seen as a negative thing. Sadder still when engaging in such a process is viewed as elitist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That is an elitist response.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I don't have any issue with intellectual pursuits. But that is not the end all, be all, of life. Many people work hard every day to provide a better life for their families and themselves. In many cases, that doesn't leave much time for "intellectual" pursuits. That does NOT mean they are stupid or unaware of what is going on around them.
They are, and have been since oh maybe 1950-52, code words... you know kind of like the words "lib'ral" and "comma'nist" so go "inna'lech-you'all"Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It was used as accusation against Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson back in the '52 election that I don't recall really---being born a few weeks after it I suppose, but also against him again in the 56 election and 60, and there I do recall the use---and the Geo W Bush like sneers of those using it..
Now Americans are notorious for sloppy vocabulary and an appalling lack of comprehension of subtleties and nuance in language so follow me a bit so you understand.
It is used as an accusation. It has overtones or undertones of physical weakness, or un-manliness. It is usually thrown out as an accusation by people possessing none of those qualities, especially an the main accusation : an intellect.
There is a difference between an "intellectual" approach/view point/argument and say an analytical approach/view point/argument.. indeed there is some very subtle irony in the way that some--particularly poorly educated, limited experienced ---accuse others of being/using "inna-lech-you-all" --implying that "it's all a buncha theoretical hot-air", when they themselves, like tooo many, always TEND STRONGLY argue theoretical, abstract concepts.
Now I cannot help the reflexive responses I have to stimulus---though of course I can control my actual behaviour, so having been raised here in childhood---in the deeply conservative, segregated, horrible US SOUTH, I have an amusing reflex when idiots have blurted out,or otherwise accused me of being an "Intellectual".....(.merely because I tend very markedly toward sharp analysis and broad scope--and evidently can explain the things I do both broad and close focus..and situate things within social and historical context)..... I have actually clearly "taken offense" and said to the accuser "Me! A fawkin intellectual?!
You come and stand right here and say that to me face." :angryfire Them "Oh but you are" me: "I'm warning you!"
Pretty silly and I catch myself before I beat der scheisse out of them---and when it was just thoughtless use, and I explain the difference between analytical and the ordinary and common connotations of the word, then they understand the reaction..
Ironic indeed because the main problem with USA and US Politics seems to be an impossibility to speak in concrete terms about even the simplest problems (we see this love of mental ****in in the popularity of bench-racing "discussion forums" about racing with fools blithely discussing things they have no way of knowing and no inkling of things significance, but that never deters them), always the drift is toward "idealized" crap.
Just a note on usage. Hope it helps
These are very good points indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
It would be an empty person indeed who didn't want to better themselves intellectually, wouldn't it? I agree intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, but this doesn't make it right for those on the 'non-intellectual' side to in any way be critical of intellectualism. How could anyone seriously argue that intelligence is a bad thing? In reverse, there is a legitimate argument to be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
What do you mean by that — other than 'I don't know about politics elsewhere, unlike those non-Americans who do know about American politics, so would rather we didn't discuss them'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
An utterly insular view, typical of those Americans with no interest in the world beyond their own borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Oh, and it's 'peripherally'.
It means exactly what it says. When you are discussing the various shades of red, bringing up green is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
An inane response. By definition, a discussion of American politics doesn't include any politics not American.Quote:
An utterly insular view, typical of those Americans with no interest in the world beyond their own borders.
I assume you will now note and correct everyone else's typos on this board?Quote:
Oh, and it's 'peripherally'.
But you're not comfortable discussing the politics of countries other than your own, though, are you? This is something common to many Americans, sometimes embarrassingly so, whereas there are many non-Americans very well-informed about American politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I often do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter