MennoNet.com

PeterG wrote:As far as I can tell, this talk of "elites" amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem argument. (That's right, I said something in Latin. Deal with it. ) It is irrelevant for distinguishing truth from falsehood and right from wrong.

But if we understand how others perceive us, at least it gives us the information, if we want to work at better relationships.

I guarantee you I am perceived as an elite in some places. Very, few, but some.

Robert wrote:

PeterG wrote:As far as I can tell, this talk of "elites" amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem argument. (That's right, I said something in Latin. Deal with it. ) It is irrelevant for distinguishing truth from falsehood and right from wrong.

But if we understand how others perceive us, at least it gives us the information, if we want to work at better relationships.

I guarantee you I am perceived as an elite in some places. Very, few, but some.

Peter, you may have a point, but, honestly, not a “more correct one” than any others here. imho.
btw, i like your Latin. but, that’s part of why some become annoyed with me .. as elitist.

i agree with Robert’s note.
possibly every member of this forum has certain people who perceive them as elitist, not in a positive light. including the OP.

but, i think Dan is trying to define one particular use of the word in today’s political world.
that may not be possible, when no one is wrong, but, no one is right.

Robert wrote:

PeterG wrote:As far as I can tell, this talk of "elites" amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem argument. (That's right, I said something in Latin. Deal with it. ) It is irrelevant for distinguishing truth from falsehood and right from wrong.

But if we understand how others perceive us, at least it gives us the information, if we want to work at better relationships.

I guarantee you I am perceived as an elite in some places. Very, few, but some.

I think you both have made good points here:

Peter: I agree, the label "Elite" seems like a bit of a strawman - an insult used against someone you want to tear down or delegitimize. In politics, it has no real ideological definition because it is a term used by all political groups, sometimes about the other party & sometimes about their own. I think it means simply "a person who is not really one of us, who has unearned power/privilege, and who thinks they are better than us." Pick your target, and slap that label on:

• Conservatives label liberal celebrities "elite."
  Liberals label business people "elite."
  Bernie labeled Hillary "elite".
  Elizabeth Warren labels wall-street "elite".
  The alt-right labels moderate-republicans (like Romney, the Bushes, McCain) "elites".
  The blue collar label the white collar elite.
  The less formally educated label the more formally educated elite.
  etc., etc., etc.

It is usually an "us" vs "them" insult that I find unhelpful. Funny...In sports it is a compliment. In politics it is a put-down.

Robert: Your encouragement to be thoughtful about how we contribute to perceptions that elevate us above others in an important one - What do we do to send a messages of superiority (either intentionally or unintentionally)? Do people, regardless of station in life, feel honored and affirmed as they relate to us? I think empathy is a key factor here - can we place ourselves in someone else shoes enough to really understand where they are coming from.

I'm sure I have worn the "elite" label often over the years - probably today even on this forum...and that's OK. We can't always choose the box people put us in. The important question for me is, how have I contributed to the perception of superiority? THAT I can do something about.

Your encouragement reminds me of some of the teachings of the Apostle James.

to further muddy the waters -
“elite” can also be used as a high honor. for instance, “they are an elite team.” accomplished.
it’s an interesting word.

temporal1 wrote:to further muddy the waters -
“elite” can also be used as a high honor. for instance, “they are an elite team.” accomplished.
it’s an interesting word.

As some wear the title "deplorables" now.

Perhaps a better term is “intelligentsia”; an elite or an intelligentsia certainly do exist, and understanding why Trump won requires understanding why a lot of Americans don’t trust the American intelligentsia anymore.

When you start laying out “established” facts, figures, statistics, and making appeals to authority, a large swathe of America finds you less credible, not more credible. I think this is one of the frustrations Bootstrap runs up against.

Unfortunately, the intelligentsia has decided to embrace ideas like transgenderism. Middle America trusts these people even less than it used to.

Full disclosure: by any rational metric I am part of the “intelligentsia” or the “elite”, so I feel this means I can be critical of the elite.

This thread, more than anything else, led to me giving up on the forum a few days ago. I'd like to try talking this out.

I think Dan explained the issue well. In this thread, I felt people were calling me an "elite", with the meaning he explains below. I felt people were saying I am not "one of us", and that I spend my time thinking I am better than other people. I felt targeted.

And I expect better from the Kingdom of God.

Like Dan, I think this can be a helpful place to think things through together. But not if we are going to bite and devour each other. I appreciate the thread where Haithabu and I were talking, I think he has done a really good job of focusing on facts and thinking through things together, despite significant differences in our viewpoints. I think we usually do well at that in any thread that doesn't touch on politics.

Dan Z wrote:Peter: I agree, the label "Elite" seems like a bit of a strawman - an insult used against someone you want to tear down or delegitimize. In politics, it has no real ideological definition because it is a term used by all political groups, sometimes about the other party & sometimes about their own. I think it means simply "a person who is not really one of us, who has unearned power/privilege, and who thinks they are better than us." Pick your target, and slap that label on:

• Conservatives label liberal celebrities "elite."
  Liberals label business people "elite."
  Bernie labeled Hillary "elite".
  Elizabeth Warren labels wall-street "elite".
  The alt-right labels moderate-republicans (like Romney, the Bushes, McCain) "elites".
  The blue collar label the white collar elite.
  The less formally educated label the more formally educated elite.
  etc., etc., etc.

Add posts where people imagine what nasty things I might think about people like them,

Dan Z wrote:

Robert wrote:

PeterG wrote:As far as I can tell, this talk of "elites" amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem argument. (That's right, I said something in Latin. Deal with it. ) It is irrelevant for distinguishing truth from falsehood and right from wrong.

But if we understand how others perceive us, at least it gives us the information, if we want to work at better relationships.

I guarantee you I am perceived as an elite in some places. Very, few, but some.

I think you both have made good points here:

Peter: I agree, the label "Elite" seems like a bit of a strawman - an insult used against someone you want to tear down or delegitimize. In politics, it has no real ideological definition because it is a term used by all political groups, sometimes about the other party & sometimes about their own. I think it means simply "a person who is not really one of us, who has unearned power/privilege, and who thinks they are better than us." Pick your target, and slap that label on:

• Conservatives label liberal celebrities "elite."
  Liberals label business people "elite."
  Bernie labeled Hillary "elite".
  Elizabeth Warren labels wall-street "elite".
  The alt-right labels moderate-republicans (like Romney, the Bushes, McCain) "elites".
  The blue collar label the white collar elite.
  The less formally educated label the more formally educated elite.
  etc., etc., etc.

It is usually an "us" vs "them" insult that I find unhelpful. Funny...In sports it is a compliment. In politics it is a put-down.

Robert: Your encouragement to be thoughtful about how we contribute to perceptions that elevate us above others in an important one - What do we do to send a messages of superiority (either intentionally or unintentionally)? Do people, regardless of station in life, feel honored and affirmed as they relate to us? I think empathy is a key factor here - can we place ourselves in someone else shoes enough to really understand where they are coming from.

I'm sure I have worn the "elite" label often over the years - probably today even on this forum...and that's OK. We can't always choose the box people put us in. The important question for me is, how have I contributed to the perception of superiority? THAT I can do something about.

Your encouragement reminds me of some of the teachings of the Apostle James.

Josh wrote:Perhaps a better term is “intelligentsia”; an elite or an intelligentsia certainly do exist, and understanding why Trump won requires understanding why a lot of Americans don’t trust the American intelligentsia anymore.

When you start laying out “established” facts, figures, statistics, and making appeals to authority, a large swathe of America finds you less credible, not more credible. I think this is one of the frustrations Bootstrap runs up against.

And I think that's particularly dangerous when we have angry partisanship, where either side can make up "facts" that will be believed, even if they have nothing to do with reality. My faction said it, I believe it, that settles it. If you disagree, you are the wrong kind of person. And we have politicians who can say ridiculously untrue things in full confidence that their faction will believe it because of how they feel about "the other side".

If we Christians fuel that flame, we are not being salt and light. I really do believe there are facts that people can agree on if they are willing to look at them carefully together. But we can't do that with the angry, resentful part of the brain that fuels so much of politics. If we set it up as a fight, we don't usually think clearly.

To be reasonable, we have to drop the drama. If drama gets inserted into every discussion, we will have a very hard time agreeing on the basic facts behind anything.

Bootstrap wrote:

MaxPC wrote:Saw a statement in a paper that sums up the entire conversation.

Science is about studying what is. Politics is about what ought to be or what might be. Science is about objectivity. Politics is about subjectivity.

Here's the "paper": http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ry-museum/.

I think that's confirmation that I don't belong in this thread. I'll drop out now.

Bootstrap, I wonder if you've considered how this kind of response could come across to people who don't hold to your view on climate change?