31–40 of 380 posts
Does 'rationalisation' have some strange meaning in this context that I'm unfamiliar with? As far as I'm concerned any view justifying the matter is a rationalisation, left or right wing politically; agree or disagree it's certainly nothing to be upset about being called a rationalisation.
As someone who grew up in a strongly red area and with beliefs in that vein, I know EXACTLY the kind of exclusion that the author is talking about to a painful degree. For anyone who wants to experience it, walk into any Reddit discussion and tell everyone you're a devout Christian and watch the pseudo intellectuals exercise their "openness." And yes it's true I'm far from the most religious person there is, and I st…
>most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA. There's a certain irony here I can't dismiss. You write three paragraphs about being victimized by stereotyping Middle America, then end your rant by.... stereotyping everyone on the east coast (or those who sought extended education).
The catch there is that knowing Socrates isn't getting you off the side of the road, and that's what I was getting at. I could've explained it better though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in the D.C. suburbs, probably the single place in the country that most highly values traditional academic intellectualism. His characterization is entirely consistent with my observations growing up. In my high school, peoples' disdain for the rest of the country was open. Even the snobs in NYC or SF are more tolerable (NYC having a pragmatic undercurrent, and SF at least having a "builder" mentality).
Yes but both you and the person I'm responding to casually ignore the fact you are basically engaging in broad generalizations while complaining about the fact other groups make broad generalizations and his primary justification was the fact it happens on Reddit . The sheer irony involved in that original comment and his choice of example should have been immediately obvious. The fact it wasn't makes me think, frank…
Does 'rationalisation' have some strange meaning in this context that I'm unfamiliar with? As far as I'm concerned any view justifying the matter is a rationalisation, left or right wing politically; agree or disagree it's certainly nothing to be upset about being called a rationalisation.
So you could use the word "rationalize" neutrally, but most people don't use it that way and don't take it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA. There's a certain irony here I can't dismiss. You write three paragraphs about being victimized by stereotyping Middle America, then end your rant by.... stereotyping everyone on the east coast (or those who sought extended education).
It's less a generalization of everyone who has a degree being incapable of performing that task (I'd imagine a lot would be able to figure it out, it's not complicated) and more the idea that knowledge which is highly useful such as that is viewed as being "beneath" knowledge such as a thorough understanding of the writings of Socrates. The catch there is that knowing Socrates isn't getting you off the side of the ro…
I'm from the South and can't go home without being made fun of for "doing computers".
As someone who grew up in a strongly red area and with beliefs in that vein, I know EXACTLY the kind of exclusion that the author is talking about to a painful degree. For anyone who wants to experience it, walk into any Reddit discussion and tell everyone you're a devout Christian and watch the pseudo intellectuals exercise their "openness." And yes it's true I'm far from the most religious person there is, and I st…
Even the worst bible-thumping rednecks I know (many, many cousins of both sides of the family) will agree to disagree and behave in a civil manner in the presence of those with whom they disagree.
When I was living in San Francisco, I've been literally run out of coffee shops, restaurants and parties after the wrong person finds out I'm pro-gun.
As someone who grew up in a strongly red area and with beliefs in that vein, I know EXACTLY the kind of exclusion that the author is talking about to a painful degree. For anyone who wants to experience it, walk into any Reddit discussion and tell everyone you're a devout Christian and watch the pseudo intellectuals exercise their "openness." And yes it's true I'm far from the most religious person there is, and I st…
Yeah, pretty much this. It's also often the case with certain media outlets and politicians too, who make the assumption that anyone who's religious, not socially 'left wing' or anything else is a bigot who should be looked upon with disdain at every possible opportunity. It's great ammunition for certain politicians (like Trump or his UK and European counterparts).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but both you and the person I'm responding to casually ignore the fact you are basically engaging in broad generalizations while complaining about the fact other groups make broad generalizations and his primary justification was the fact it happens on Reddit . The sheer irony involved in that original comment and his choice of example should have been immediately obvious. The fact it wasn't makes me think, frank…
This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking to a traditionalist. And progressives wonder why they have such a hard time talking to traditionalists? You'd have to be willfully blind.
Is there some kind of large, documented body of evidence proving what the OP says is true? [ Hint: We have that for racism but we don't for what the OP is stating as far as I'm aware. ]
> Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking to a traditionalist. And progressives wonder why they have such a hard time talking to traditionalists? You'd have to be willfully blind.
I'm unaware requiring broad, systemic evidence of discrimination before applying the "this is a problem beyond a few individuals" is a strange standard.
Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in the D.C. suburbs, probably the single place in the country that most highly values traditional academic intellectualism. His characterization is entirely consistent with my observations growing up. In my high school, peoples' disdain for the rest of the country was open. Even the snobs in NYC or SF are more tolerable (NYC having a pragmatic undercurrent, and SF at least having a "builder" mentality).
Yes but both you and the person I'm responding to casually ignore the fact you are basically engaging in broad generalizations while complaining about the fact other groups make broad generalizations and his primary justification was the fact it happens on Reddit . The sheer irony involved in that original comment and his choice of example should have been immediately obvious. The fact it wasn't makes me think, frank…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA. There's a certain irony here I can't dismiss. You write three paragraphs about being victimized by stereotyping Middle America, then end your rant by.... stereotyping everyone on the east coast (or those who sought extended education).
It's less a generalization of everyone who has a degree being incapable of performing that task (I'd imagine a lot would be able to figure it out, it's not complicated) and more the idea that knowledge which is highly useful such as that is viewed as being "beneath" knowledge such as a thorough understanding of the writings of Socrates. The catch there is that knowing Socrates isn't getting you off the side of the ro…