The Divide

[pokerider]

On 1/15/2017 at 9:17 AM, edluvar said:

You can't get news anymore, someone is always pushing an agenda.   Even Trumps tweets are fake news.   It's really sad actually.   I read CNN, BBC, and Fox to see their opinion on things.  The differences in how stories are reported is shocking.  

I find the business news services doing a much better job than the so called hard news.  On Fox Business (actual business programs), CNBC, Bloomberg, The Economist and some others.  Even Yahoo Business has several good articles.  They have much less bias overall and often just report some basic facts.  In some cases they chime in their opinions, but it doesn't seem as personally predicated as what Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, CNN etc all do. 

[happycamper]

16 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Shallow. I have not spoken against education, I speak against how an education is used by elitists.  Education should serve all, not to control people as many want.  To say that an education = happiness is just plain dumb. 

 

Mao didn't have a problem with education, just elitists. He was especially a fan of educating the elites a second time.

I don't think anybody thinks that education is used to "control people" as you post on here, other than to provide a sense of place and culture, and nobody has said or even implied that education equals happiness.

Are you sure you are discussing anything with anyone on this board, or are you frustrated with someone else in your life and you're trying to have the argument on here that you can't or would rather not have with them?

[Jwherb]

27 minutes ago, renoskier said:

If an educated person tries to explain something to someone less educated, does that make them "elitist"?

I think so.

[roswellcoug]

WH reporter calls himself one of the "elite"

“I would not be surprised if they moved us out. I really do think there is something about the Trump administration and those closest to him who want the symbolism of driving reporters out of the White House, moving the elites out farther away from this president,” Garrett said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-white-house-reporters-still-be-working-at-white-house-to-do-their-jobs/

[halfmanhalfbronco]

3 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

I think so.

Delivery is everything I think.  Engage with others the way you would wish to be engaged with.  I fall short of that sometimes but I try and make that a general rule of mine.

[renoskier]

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Delivery is everything I think.  Engage with others the way you would wish to be engaged with.  I fall short of that sometimes but I try and make that a general rule of mine.

Ah shut up, you don't know shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: wait, I forgot my little friend

  

[Jwherb]

Ultimately it's a language problem. 

Educated people tend to think more critically about things, consider context and implication, analyze and deliberate, but more importantly, then tend to have a specialized language and/or conceptual framework. 

Uneducated people tend to see things much more simply, definite, fixed, finite, and lack nuance.  There's a black and white, right or wrong.  They tend to rely on "common sense" rather than theories or detail. 

Of course it's never this binary, but I think this suffices to explain the impasse.  It also doesn't mean that one side is more intelligent or smarter than the other.  But rather, there's just a disconnect. 

The most brilliant speakers and communicators are able to take specialized or complicated ideas and simplify them for any audience.  Most of the rest of us would rather stay in our respective foxholes ("elitists" or "non-elitists"), neither of which suffer fools lightly. 

I think you can see it in how many of us react to, say, on one hand, how Obama speaks, versus, on the other hand, how Trump speaks (or GWB if I'm being generous).  When I hear Trump speak, it's simply unintelligible gibberish.  He may as well be speaking another language.  He makes no sense whatsoever.  But obviously a large group does understand him and quite well. 

[Jackrabbit]

22 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Hmmm.  In my experience some of the smartest, most educated people I know do not have degrees.  My Grandfather was a perfect example.  He did not finish highschool, decided to fight in the WWII instead.  Never went to college.  But he taught himself the calculus needed to do his job, and until he died always had a book in his hand.  I remember as kid always being in awe when he knew the answer to seemingly every Jeopardy question.  He was more educated than my other grandfather who taught at the University for level for 29 years and was chairman of his department for 19.  My other grandfather would always admit it as well.

  I do not really respect people who refuse to increase their knowledge.  For example a certain few posters here have admitted to never reading links or long posts.  I can't imagine them reading papers or books.  

"They may hod high degrees because they are basically insecure people"

What does that even mean?  Do you actually believe there is a correlation there?

I would guess that there is little difference in intelligence between.... say the college educated and those without.  There is a very large number of intelligent people that have a hard time learning from a traditional school.   My father in law wanted to be a cook in the Navy but sent him to radar school instead...only they didn't really have a radar school yet.  The guy was an obnoxious SOB w/ nothing but contempt for authority but was one of the smartest people I knew.  The only job he could hold was farming.  The guy had an incredible library.

LOL I also admit not reading an entire post...if my posts get more than this, I assume few actually read it.  Cut and paste...I have no interest.

IMO many "small" people who seek positions of authority, teachers, cops etc because their ego requires them to make up for ...some defect... the "Napoleon Complex"  They are not really interested in service only prestige or authority.

 

[Jackrabbit]

24 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Ultimately it's a language problem. 

Educated people tend to think more critically about things, consider context and implication, analyze and deliberate, but more importantly, then tend to have a specialized language and/or conceptual framework. 

Uneducated people tend to see things much more simply, definite, fixed, finite, and lack nuance.  There's a black and white, right or wrong.  They tend to rely on "common sense" rather than theories or detail. 

Of course it's never this binary, but I think this suffices to explain the impasse.  It also doesn't mean that one side is more intelligent or smarter than the other.  But rather, there's just a disconnect. 

The most brilliant speakers and communicators are able to take specialized or complicated ideas and simplify them for any audience.  Most of the rest of us would rather stay in our respective foxholes ("elitists" or "non-elitists"), neither of which suffer fools lightly. 

I think you can see it in how many of us react to, say, on one hand, how Obama speaks, versus, on the other hand, how Trump speaks (or GWB if I'm being generous).  When I hear Trump speak, it's simply unintelligible gibberish.  He may as well be speaking another language.  He makes no sense whatsoever.  But obviously a large group does understand him and quite well. 

I could not disagree more....Trump on the other hand.... 

[Jwherb]

2 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

I could not disagree more....Trump on the other hand.... 

 

Well, there you go.  Point proven. 

[happycamper]

17 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

I would guess that there is little difference in intelligence between.... say the college educated and those without.

I would guess that you are wrong here because educated people design the intelligence tests so they unconsciously make them biased towards education.

 

17 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

  There is a very large number of intelligent people that have a hard time learning from a traditional school.   My father in law wanted to be a cook in the Navy but sent him to radar school instead...only they didn't really have a radar school yet.  The guy was an obnoxious SOB w/ nothing but contempt for authority but was one of the smartest people I knew.  The only job he could hold was farming.  The guy had an incredible library.

You can learn a lot in college but at the end of the day you have to do all of the work of educating yourself; it just provides a framework for you to do it (and of course resources, it's tough to have an entire hydrology lab at your local library). If someone who went to college looks down their nose at someone who is self-educated and very well read then they are being what you call an elitist. 

17 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

LOL I also admit not reading an entire post...if my posts get more than this, I assume few actually read it.  Cut and paste...I have no interest.

Hey, this isn't Yahoo comments. Very few people cut and paste on here. 

17 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

IMO many "small" people who seek positions of authority, teachers, cops etc because their ego requires them to make up for ...some defect... the "Napoleon Complex"  They are not really interested in service only prestige or authority.

 

Can't disagree

[SJSUMFA2013]

1 hour ago, Jackrabbit said:

No............many are useful idiots

Ok Alex jones 

[Posturedoc]

44 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

It makes them stupid, if they don't actually explain anything but just use derogatory language.

Morons like you don't ever explain anything because you can't actually discuss this issues.  look at posturwitchdoc  above, he does nothing but insult me because that is the limit of his "elitism".  He can't discuss issues and neither will you moron.  You just keep hinting at how stupid jackrabbit is because he has to be if he disagrees with you.

Skier can't see your post because he's got you on ignore (sorry, skier). I'm not sure why you complain about being insulted when you are the king of that particular strategy on this forum. I call you out in that manner because I enjoy pointing out those inconsistencies...and because you are so unnecessarily douchey so much of the time. How about a helping of hypocrisy on that plate of irony you're eating today?

Many people, including me, don't engage with you seriously, blues, because so very many of your posts can't possibly be serious in nature. I'm happy to discuss actual ideas and issues, but like others, won't debate your wingnut views. If those really are the "truths" that rattle around inside your head, I'll leave you too them.

[bluerules009]

1 hour ago, Posturedoc said:

Skier can't see your post because he's got you on ignore (sorry, skier). I'm not sure why you complain about being insulted when you are the king of that particular strategy on this forum. I call you out in that manner because I enjoy pointing out those inconsistencies...and because you are so unnecessarily douchey so much of the time. How about a helping of hypocrisy on that plate of irony you're eating today?

Many people, including me, don't engage with you seriously, blues, because so very many of your posts can't possibly be serious in nature. I'm happy to discuss actual ideas and issues, but like others, won't debate your wingnut views. If those really are the "truths" that rattle around inside your head, I'll leave you too them.

If my views were so "wingnut", it would be easy to discredit me.

You won't debate because you can't.

I debate all the time with Jwerb, Law and others who more often then not, disagree with me and agree with you.  The difference is they have a handle on some issues and have thought enough about them to form coherent opinions that they are able to present defending their ideas and opinions.

You on the other hand are a complete moron who only knows what he thinks when the media tells you what you think.  You can't debate because you have never actually thought about issues and formed your own opinions.  You are like the masses that followed Hitler and the masses that followed Stalin.   You love authoritarianism and a strong leader who will lead you.   You will follow anyone, anywhere.

[Jackrabbit]

2 hours ago, Jwherb said:

 

Well, there you go.  Point proven. 

W/o having enough time to write a book ..... your post was very narrow minded.  

[Posturedoc]

40 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

If my views were so "wingnut", it would be easy to discredit me.

You won't debate because you can't.

I debate all the time with Jwerb, Law and others who more often then not, disagree with me and agree with you.  The difference is they have a handle on some issues and have thought enough about them to form coherent opinions that they are able to present defending their ideas and opinions.

You on the other hand are a complete moron who only knows what he thinks when the media tells you what you think.  You can't debate because you have never actually thought about issues and formed your own opinions.  You are like the masses that followed Hitler and the masses that followed Stalin.   You love authoritarianism and a strong leader who will lead you.   You will follow anyone, anywhere.

I don't debate you because I find most of your arguments tiresome and most of your logic, such as it is, incomprehensible  

How nice of you to throw JW et all some bones where it suits your argument rather than calling them morons as you do in the large majority of these debates you refer to. Drudgery for some is entertainment for others. Good on them. 

Were I a lover of authoritarianism, I'd have voted for The Pres. Elect. I voted for Hillary, fully aware of both her and my own actions. Save your tired liberal authoritarian screed for posters who haven't read it several hundred times. 

[Jackrabbit]

3 hours ago, happycamper said:

I don't think anybody thinks that education is used to "control people" as you post on here, other than to provide a sense of place and culture, and nobody has said or even implied that education equals happiness.  Polysci professor quacks routinely teach only one political view...they intentionally control the discussion and their students..

Are you sure you are discussing anything with anyone on this board, or are you frustrated with someone else in your life and you're trying to have the argument on here that you can't or would rather not have with them?    You think waaay to hard, I am not that complicated.  I prefer to stay away from people who have no humility...but I am fascinated by them.   HINT.

 

[renoskier]

38 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Polysci professor quacks routinely teach only one political view...they intentionally control the discussion and their students..

Jack, I know you rarely answer questions but please, how many poly-sci courses have you taken?

[Aslowhiteguy]

50 minutes ago, Posturedoc said:

I don't debate you because I find most of your arguments tiresome and most of your logic, such as it is, incomprehensible  

How nice of you to throw JW et all some bones where it suits your argument rather than calling them morons as you do in the large majority of these debates you refer to. Drudgery for some is entertainment for others. Good on them. 

Were I a lover of authoritarianism, I'd have voted for The Pres. Elect. I voted for Hillary, fully aware of both her and my own actions. Save your tired liberal authoritarian screed for posters who haven't read it several hundred times. 

You don't think Hillary is authoritarian?

I get voting against Trump.  I just can't wrap my head around the notion that a reasonably intelligent and educated person could vote "for" Hillary unless they simply weren't paying attention. 

But you voted for Obama twice and you seem to have a grasp on most of the issues you and I have debated for years on this board and the NV board before we joined the MW. 

You are an enegma, Neal.  Or maybe you're just the best liberal, troll the internet has ever seen. 

[edluvar]

6 hours ago, Jwherb said:

Maybe.  

I think the "elitists" should certainly show more respect to the educationally-challenged, to quit ignoring, disparaging, or mocking them, and to further respect their views, opinions, and situation. 

On the other hand, the "non-elitists" should stop so often being intellectually lazy, gullible, analytically-void, dogmatic, intimidated, etc., and open their minds and ears up to discussion and, like you say, introspective analysis. 

 

Personally I'm tired of explaining to people why they should treat others with basic respect.  Blaming whole races or religions for problems and generally only thinking about themselves.