![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdeviancePet peeve of the day:
People who can't be bothered to do the tiniest bit of research into an issue before they go screaming and hollering at someone who clearly *has* done their homework. Yes, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but for fuck's sake, at least read a bit about a subject before you go railing about it. All you do is come off like an absolute idiot. Opinions don't have universally equal weight. Opinions which have research and education behind them are far more credible. So don't expect that someone is going to bother listening to a childish, straw man-filled rant about something you know next to nothing about.
Pet peeve of the day #2:
The political climate in the US for the last 20 or so years which has made education a dirty word. Why is "intellectual elite" considered an insult? Why is cutting funding for education even an option? Why don't people have any respect for academics? Why are things like getting rid of discussions of evolution in science classes even happening?
Ignorant people are easier to control. Religious leaders know that education leads to questioning and searching for answers to questions. Religion doesn't hold up easily under that kind of questioning. "Faith" requires giving up reason. Believing that there's a big man in the sky who watches everything you do and will punish you if you do the wrong things requires a suspension of disbelief that's nearly impossible when you've learned how to dig down to the basic truths about the world around you. This is not to say that agnoticism is anti-intellectual, just that organized religion is. There's no intellectual shame in saying "I don't know" whether there's a supreme being. But there is in saying that you *do* know that there is one and that you know exactly what he is and what he wants and who he talks to. Were it not for centuries of cultural and political reinforcement for Abrahamic religions, true believers would probably be considered just a little bit in need of psychiatric care. (Hell, why else does Scientology rail against psych?) The same principle is used by conservative politicians, especially now. They're pushing the idea that auditing one's leaders or questioning the president is "un-American" and not becoming of a true patriot. Unquestioning, unwavering faith in the Daddies of the world is how they maintain control. Punishing the people who question, and setting up a social standard which causes the citizens to punish each other for questioning keeps the status quo going.
It occurred to me the other day that the reason Air America has had such a rough time of it is because liberals don't need to be preached to. We already know conservatives are idiots, because we're intelligent enough to have done our own research about it. I have no interest in seeing F 9/11, for instance, because I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that Bush is a dickhead who screwed that whole situation up. I certainly applaud what he's done, and I hope it educates some swing voters, but personally, I don't need to re-live that day in order to know Bushco dropped the ball. Conservatives come in two varieties: the preachers and the converted sheep. The preachers are the rich white het men that control most of the wealth. The sheep are the ones whose ignorance and blind obeisance keeps the preachers in power. It's in the preachers' best interests, therefore, to keep the sheep stupid and obediant. This is why they cut funding for education and try to get prayer in schools and try to control the media. They don't want those sheep opening their eyes and minds and seeing the preachers for the selfish, money-hoarding, spoiled little brats they really are.
The other reason they keep gutting and decrying education is because they need to maintain a servant class. Maintaining their position at the top of the economic food chain requires a steady stream of underpaid workers who are too uneducated or too desperate to know or care that they're getting a raw deal. You have to keep the workers unaware that they're being oppressed if you want to keep making money off of their labor. This is also why you gut other social programs. If a worker remains scared of losing their job because they don't have any safety nets to rely on if they do, they won't complain about low pay or poor working conditions. So you scare the population by labeling any and all government-funded social programs as filthy communism, and badabing, your $20 mil/year paycheck on the backs of thousands of minimum wage drones keeps on coming.
People who can't be bothered to do the tiniest bit of research into an issue before they go screaming and hollering at someone who clearly *has* done their homework. Yes, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but for fuck's sake, at least read a bit about a subject before you go railing about it. All you do is come off like an absolute idiot. Opinions don't have universally equal weight. Opinions which have research and education behind them are far more credible. So don't expect that someone is going to bother listening to a childish, straw man-filled rant about something you know next to nothing about.
Pet peeve of the day #2:
The political climate in the US for the last 20 or so years which has made education a dirty word. Why is "intellectual elite" considered an insult? Why is cutting funding for education even an option? Why don't people have any respect for academics? Why are things like getting rid of discussions of evolution in science classes even happening?
Ignorant people are easier to control. Religious leaders know that education leads to questioning and searching for answers to questions. Religion doesn't hold up easily under that kind of questioning. "Faith" requires giving up reason. Believing that there's a big man in the sky who watches everything you do and will punish you if you do the wrong things requires a suspension of disbelief that's nearly impossible when you've learned how to dig down to the basic truths about the world around you. This is not to say that agnoticism is anti-intellectual, just that organized religion is. There's no intellectual shame in saying "I don't know" whether there's a supreme being. But there is in saying that you *do* know that there is one and that you know exactly what he is and what he wants and who he talks to. Were it not for centuries of cultural and political reinforcement for Abrahamic religions, true believers would probably be considered just a little bit in need of psychiatric care. (Hell, why else does Scientology rail against psych?) The same principle is used by conservative politicians, especially now. They're pushing the idea that auditing one's leaders or questioning the president is "un-American" and not becoming of a true patriot. Unquestioning, unwavering faith in the Daddies of the world is how they maintain control. Punishing the people who question, and setting up a social standard which causes the citizens to punish each other for questioning keeps the status quo going.
It occurred to me the other day that the reason Air America has had such a rough time of it is because liberals don't need to be preached to. We already know conservatives are idiots, because we're intelligent enough to have done our own research about it. I have no interest in seeing F 9/11, for instance, because I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that Bush is a dickhead who screwed that whole situation up. I certainly applaud what he's done, and I hope it educates some swing voters, but personally, I don't need to re-live that day in order to know Bushco dropped the ball. Conservatives come in two varieties: the preachers and the converted sheep. The preachers are the rich white het men that control most of the wealth. The sheep are the ones whose ignorance and blind obeisance keeps the preachers in power. It's in the preachers' best interests, therefore, to keep the sheep stupid and obediant. This is why they cut funding for education and try to get prayer in schools and try to control the media. They don't want those sheep opening their eyes and minds and seeing the preachers for the selfish, money-hoarding, spoiled little brats they really are.
The other reason they keep gutting and decrying education is because they need to maintain a servant class. Maintaining their position at the top of the economic food chain requires a steady stream of underpaid workers who are too uneducated or too desperate to know or care that they're getting a raw deal. You have to keep the workers unaware that they're being oppressed if you want to keep making money off of their labor. This is also why you gut other social programs. If a worker remains scared of losing their job because they don't have any safety nets to rely on if they do, they won't complain about low pay or poor working conditions. So you scare the population by labeling any and all government-funded social programs as filthy communism, and badabing, your $20 mil/year paycheck on the backs of thousands of minimum wage drones keeps on coming.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Because our government refuses to properly fund education, because elite educational institutions maintain an appearance of being liberal and leftist while being fiscally right-wing and encouraging their students to do the same, the "intellectual elite" is composed primarily of a class of rich, white, very-old-Mayflower-family men, and anyone outside this group who wishes to be accepted in that inner circle better share their views or risk not being tenured, hired, accepted into whatever group, basically: not being heard. They'll seduce a certain number of minorities and poor individuals with scholarships and good faculty positions, and the lucky few will frequently respond by proclaiming the ideals that the elite stand for and joining them, as much as possible.
There's a reason, after all, big corporations want to give Harvard scholarships to poor inner-city black kids, but refuse to give money to the schools these kids attend.
They're trying to buy the "promising" kids, as early as possible. This way, they can keep the servant class in check while maintaining an appearance (supported by the Colin Powells of the world) of egalitarianism.
On another point:
Of course many of the intellectuals in this country are socialists. They know that in socialist systems, the intellectuals frequently are more valued and end up with more control. In our current system, only money really buys you a place in government.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think educated people *should* be valued more or listened to more than anyone else. No class of people should be. When the government actually listens to the poor and working classes of this country, then we'll be getting somewhere.
no subject
It's true that many Ivy League schools are run by the people you describe, but such isn't at all true for the vast majority of higher education. You're missing the one critical difference here, and that is public vs. private schooling, on both levels. Private schools, like you describe, have always been run by the privileged few. The reason conservatives want to gut public education funding (and this goes for college and primary both) is because they know very well that an education is a ticket to financial autonomy, and they want to assure that only their well-fed kids get that.
I don't get what you're trying to say in your second point, however. Socialists by definition try to bring power to the people-- by giving them the tools they need, including education, to acheive financial autonomy. Socialism isn't replacing the financial ruling class with an intellectual ruling class, it's eliminating the ruling class entirely.
As for who should be more listened to, it's all a matter of the subject at hand. I think it's perfectly logical to say that the person who has the most education and experience with a given subject is the most qualified to talk about it. That education and experience doesn't have to be formal, however. Obviously the working class is qualified to speak on matters they have experience with, regardless of whether they have letters after their name or not.
However, one thing to remember with this is that, per the scientific method, anecdotal evidence (i.e. personal experience) is not, in and of itself, an infallible means of determining the truth of a matter. I could, for instance, say that all black men are sexist if all the black men I'd ever met were sexist, and be perfectly true to my own experience, while completely untrue for empirical evidence. One of the best things education can give a person is perspective, and the skills to look a the big picture of a situation, instead of drowning in the myopia of exclusively personal experience. Education is not a "class" of people, it's an experience, and one which should be open to all. When we're talking about ensuring the basic rights and needs of citizens, absolutely education level should not be a determining factor in that. Beyond that, however, I see no problem with education being part and parcel of a meritocracy. After all, do you really want someone who got all D's in high school to get into med school?
no subject
I absolutely agree with what you're saying about the Republicans gutting public education, but I don't think it follows that they're anti-education, precisely. They don't want the lower classes to be educated; they want to keep education a privilege.
As far as socialism goes (I suppose I'm really talking about Marxism here, not the broader definition), in theory there wouldn't be any ruling class, but in practice, as with any other system, there is.
no subject
At the moment, Bushco are pushing the notion that Kerry is "out of touch" with "the people" because he comes from a wealthy, educated background. Bush himself is being promoted as being more "grassroots" because he had never left the US until he became president, for instance, and because he can't string a coherent sentence together.
They don't want the lower classes to be educated; they want to keep education a privilege.
Yes, and also they want to keep education under their control. Vouchers for private schools, homeschooling, etc. They want to make sure that the only education people are getting is the education they want them to get. An education which doesn't involve critical thinking skills, social science, arts or diversity requirements, for instance.
There are plenty of private and public schools which truly are liberal (and well-respected) however. Stanford, for instance, is an excellent school whose graduates are often quoted in research articles. Our local public school, the University of Washington, is considered one of the top medical schools in the country (among other wonderful programs.) Then there are always the arts colleges: Julliard, Oberlin, etc. Several smaller private schools are very liberal and important, such as Portland's Reed College. And then there are always the techs-- MIT, for instance.
Most of your CEO's, high-powered lawyers, etc. do come from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. but the Ivy League isn't the only thing out there, not by a long shot. Most schools have an area of specialty that they're respected in. For some, like most schools in Texas, that's merely having a major football team. But there are still hundreds which have wonderful academic programs which haven't succumbed to the control of the right wing. MBA programs aren't what the phrase "intellectual elite" refers to.
As for a ruling class, I'd much rather be ruled by intellectuals than by greedy corporations. :D
no subject