| I don't think that IQ has anything to do with being a pretentious, elitist snob. You can act like that without having a high IQ. Everyone makes decisions on things based at least partially on how they feel about situations, since humans are not machines. This is what creates a shade of gray because what makes something right or wrong is the morals that people associate with them. Personally I would hate to demean someone on the internet as well as in real life, about equally. However, I find that in order to not come off as too strong on the issue, you have to try to see where the other person is coming from. The best way to learn to debate is to debate on the side that you are against. Only then, do you find value in your own opinions because you are fully enlightened. |
Suzune-chanJan 17, 2013 7:24 PM
 Where there is no imagination there is no horror. || Arthur Conan Doyle || Happy Halloween! |
| You are absolutely correct that it is possible to be right when others are wrong, and smart when others are stupid. But that is physically impossible when talking about entertainment (which I assume you are, since this is an anime forum). There is no such thing as "correct" entertainment, so therefore, you can't be right or wrong about it. You can't be "more intelligent" for liking something that others don't, or disliking something that others do. You can disagree, and argue your opinion, but in the end, it is all subjective preference. Believing that your opinion is superior to others' makes you a snobby dick. But proving people wrong in factual matters does not. Unless you are purposely condescending about it (which I am A-Ok with). |
Red_KeysJan 17, 2013 7:26 PM
 |
How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? You're smart, I'm sure you can figure out a way with that super high IQ. Edit: Also, I believe you're just really arrogant is all. |
ShoryuJan 17, 2013 7:27 PM
 Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is. |
| u think proving somebody wrong is being elitist? if you use solely your train of thought to do so, then there is nothing elitist about that. and how the hell is making a right decision while someone is making a wrong decision being elitist? u supposedly have an IQ much higher than that of the average joe but cannot come to these conclusions by yourself and instead turn to an anime forum? |
| Topic Clean Up If you are only going to come to the topic to post one word responses, without posting on topic, please just don't post. Try to stay on topic |
Where there is no imagination there is no horror. || Arthur Conan Doyle || Happy Halloween! |
Not_Biased said: I do still wish people would just see things my way because often I'm astounded that they don't/can't. How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? Therein lies your problem. If you don't want to come across as a pretentious snob you need to stifle the mindset you have that's making you think people should follow your words. Your thoughts affect your behavior whether you realize it or not. IQ is your innate ability; how you manage the worst aspects of your personality is not. It's something you need to learn on your own because the way I handle my demons is different from the way someone else handles theirs. |
 |
Not_Biased said: I've often pondered the sensibility of elitism. Wondered if it's a logical or good position to have or if it just makes you a dick. My actions and thought processes are the result of intentionally supressing the feeling because I've decided not to be said dick. But deep down, when I see the stupidity in such large groups of people I know in my heart that I do know what's best for them. Not everything in life is a shade of grey. Some things are black and white, right and wrong, smart and stupid. If being right when others are wrong or being smart when others are stupid makes me an elitist then so be it. My intentions aren't to make people feel stupid. I actually become uncomfortable when I feel I've done something to demean someone. Not so much on the internet because of the level of anonymity but IRL I actually feel like I've hurt someone's feelings when I prove them wrong. I do still wish people would just see things my way because often I'm astounded that they don't/can't. How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? Personally, I think that you're thinking too hard. You shouldn't feel like you've hurt someone's feelings when you prove them wrong because you're simply correcting their mistake. Unless you correct them in a douche way I see nothing wrong with it. |
 Remember: - Being the "smartest" is nothing special. - Being wise; however, is always better than being smart because at the end of the day, it depends on how one applies their knowledge, not how much one actually knows. |
Not_Biased said: You don't talk to people. Isolate your "brilliant mind" and become a recluse, introvert, whatever you have it. Even better, find someone with matching IQ and have a ball. Or how about you just be a decent human being? How hard is it to "put up" with people's idiocy? Just plaster a smile on that face (avoid smugginess) and flip a bird at them behind their backs. That'll show em! No it won't.How does one avoid being a pretentious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? An interesting lesson from a comedy website (Cracked; read it with caution): Being a genius is a source of unhappiness. *Takes deep breath* Wow I tried to take you seriously. However, I am absolutely sure you're directing this argument towards us, the MAL community. So I feel incredibly insulted (shit's serious on the internet, yep) by your OP. Don't think your opinion is higher than ours. After what's happened so far, it's pretty hard believe you have credibility anymore. Hidden text is da best. If anyone quotes me and sees this, YOU WIN 100 INTERNETS. And a cake. To be delivered in your comments! But yeah, I seriously think Not_Biased is just... ugh. Words have stopped being able to describe what he truly is. |
MellowJelloJan 17, 2013 7:53 PM
| Well I could say I wasn't somewhat elitist but then I would be lying. Thing is, it doesn't matter if you're smart or dumb, white or not, rich or poor, ext... Everyone is a little bit elitist. The desire to be on a higher tier than others and make sure you rub it in their face is simply human nature, it's fueled great men and small men, good men and monstrous men. Aka, you can't be human without being a dick who thinks he's better then someone else. |
 |
Not_Biased said: Really? People ask you that?When people ask me what is my "secret" I do tell them that it is no secret, just common sense, commitment and hard work |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Not_Biased said: Resurrected said: Not_Biased said: I do still wish people would just see things my way because often I'm astounded that they don't/can't. How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? Therein lies your problem. If you don't want to come across as a pretentious snob you need to stifle the mindset you have that's making you think people should follow your words. Your thoughts affect your behavior whether you realize it or not. IQ is your innate ability; how you manage the worst aspects of your personality is not. It's something you need to learn on your own because the way I handle my demons is different from the way someone else handles theirs. When people ask me what is my "secret" I do tell them that it is no secret, just common sense, commitment and hard work; I offer to explain things to them, point them to books/articles and regimens that would lead them to the right direction; but all they want are shortcuts and tricks to go overnight from dumb to educated; from financially broke to riches; from fat to fit; all without changing an iota of what they are doing, and without putting any effort. I'd question anyone asking for advice and not taking it but I'd also wonder if you were offering unsolicited advice. Tone also makes a difference. |
|
| Resurrected makes a good point. It doesn't matter whether you are right for not, if the person does not want to hear it. No matter what information you use to back it up some people are fixed in a particular mindset, making it difficult to talk. Everyone has met someone like this, at some point. In those situations, it is better to not throw gasoline on the fire because they will never hear you, unless you share their opinion. In that case, you always come off as kind of mean, even if it is not your intention. Although, I don't think that is being elitist. |
Suzune-chanJan 17, 2013 8:20 PM
Where there is no imagination there is no horror. || Arthur Conan Doyle || Happy Halloween! |
| Did you create this topic to discuss elitism, or further your own agenda of convincing everyone that you are intelligent? I would be hard pressed to categorize any of your initial points as elitist in the first place, which is why I ask. You're not entitled to post in any of these threads, nor are you to converse with any of the people around you. Although I pity you if you cannot find at least a core group of people, however small, that you can converse with on an intellectual level. I trust that your IQ isn't high enough where I would have to retract that statement, but if it is, then you should already know why simply "being" is a difficult process. |
| There should be a question at the end of every IQ test that says: "Have you ever brought up your own IQ in conversation or discussion?" If you answer "yes", your score is automatically reduced to 0. But more seriously, shallow definition of intelligence is shallow. There is no reason for anyone to act in an elitist way, although I won't pretend that I do not, at times. Neane1993 said: No. It's tough being intelligent in a world where almost everyone are brainless zombies. |
JoshJan 17, 2013 9:11 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Post-Josh said: There is no reason for anyone to act in an elitist way Sounds like beta speak to me. If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"    Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| A true elitist doesn't start threads; he just posts in them to criticize everyone. |
| “Suppose, gentlemen, that man is not stupid.” |
Tavor said: How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? You're smart, I'm sure you can figure out a way with that super high IQ. Edit: Also, I believe you're just really arrogant is all. Bloodcalibur said: Post-Josh said: There is no reason for anyone to act in an elitist way Sounds like beta speak to me. If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. I hope the day still hasn't come where people will quantitatively categorize people by their varying degrees of intelligence. And with this system, does elitism from superiority mean that you are superior if you are quantitatively more intelligent? Does personality or the "strength of a person's character" count towards your superiority as a person, and thus towards elitism? If so, I would like to become a smart hipster to become as ELeEt as possible! |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| elitist on MAL... that's a myth |
Post-Josh said: Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Read the rest of the sentence. Go ahead, I'll give you some time to think about it. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: 4chan memes... nice...Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Bloodcalibur said: I did. There is obviously no such measure, so it reverts back to being a matter of "if".Post-Josh said: Read the rest of the sentence.Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: 4chan memes... nice...Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. Good thing that term was being used before 4chan even existed. You must be new to the internet. Post-Josh said: Bloodcalibur said: I did. There is obviously no such measure, so it reverts back to being a matter of "if".Post-Josh said: Read the rest of the sentence.Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Wrong again. The method of measurement would be up to what was agreed upon by the subjects. If it was boxing, they could agree on whoever wins between two people in a boxing match, best of 5, would be the superior boxer. If it was chess, they could agree that whoever wins in a best of 7 would be considered the superior chess player. Hence why I specified such open variables. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: You must be an internet veteran. Be proud.katsucats said: Good thing that term was being used before 4chan even existed.Bloodcalibur said: 4chan memes... nice...Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. You must be new to the internet. Bloodcalibur said: Except the thread was about categorical superiority without conditions.Post-Josh said: Bloodcalibur said: I did. There is obviously no such measure, so it reverts back to being a matter of "if".Post-Josh said: Read the rest of the sentence.Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Wrong again. The method of measurement would be up to what was agreed upon by the subjects. If it was boxing, they could agree on whoever wins between two people in a boxing match, best of 5, would be the superior boxer. If it was chess, they could agree that whoever wins in a best of 7 would be considered the superior chess player. Hence why I specified such open variables. X is superior. NOT X is superior if a, b, or c is true. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Yeah, what Katsu said. You don't have to tell me that someone can be better at chess than someone else, haha. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: You must be an internet veteran. Be proud.katsucats said: Good thing that term was being used before 4chan even existed.Bloodcalibur said: 4chan memes... nice...Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. You must be new to the internet. That it? katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Except the thread was about categorical superiority without conditions.Post-Josh said: Bloodcalibur said: I did. There is obviously no such measure, so it reverts back to being a matter of "if".Post-Josh said: Read the rest of the sentence.Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Wrong again. The method of measurement would be up to what was agreed upon by the subjects. If it was boxing, they could agree on whoever wins between two people in a boxing match, best of 5, would be the superior boxer. If it was chess, they could agree that whoever wins in a best of 7 would be considered the superior chess player. Hence why I specified such open variables. X is superior. NOT X is superior if a, b, or c is true. Oh really? Not-Biased said: Not everything in life is a shade of grey. Some things are black and white, right and wrong, smart and stupid. If being right when others are wrong or being smart when others are stupid makes me an elitist then so be it. Pretty sure that if statement is announcing a condition. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference.katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: You must be an internet veteran. Be proud.katsucats said: Good thing that term was being used before 4chan even existed.Bloodcalibur said: 4chan memes... nice...Bunch of moralfags in this thread lol. You must be new to the internet. That it? katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Except the thread was about categorical superiority without conditions.Post-Josh said: Bloodcalibur said: I did. There is obviously no such measure, so it reverts back to being a matter of "if".Post-Josh said: Read the rest of the sentence.Bloodcalibur said: Therein lies the problem, my good Trollcalibur.If you're superior than someone then you're superior than that person, it wouldn't be a false statement if it could be proven, whatever measurement was used to define that superiority that is. Wrong again. The method of measurement would be up to what was agreed upon by the subjects. If it was boxing, they could agree on whoever wins between two people in a boxing match, best of 5, would be the superior boxer. If it was chess, they could agree that whoever wins in a best of 7 would be considered the superior chess player. Hence why I specified such open variables. X is superior. NOT X is superior if a, b, or c is true. Oh really? Not-Biased said: Not everything in life is a shade of grey. Some things are black and white, right and wrong, smart and stupid. If being right when others are wrong or being smart when others are stupid makes me an elitist then so be it. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Woah there....i thought the point is that it is virtually impossible to have a clearly defined objective way to define superiority and thus elitism. Even if you go and play your little games of chess or boxing or curling, or whatever, if you put conditionals, per say, A, B, C, you still can't determine superiority, even if it is only virtually in those fields. Such games and such have elements such as luck and chance and so are imperfect indicators of superiority in that field. Though long hours of practice and natural talent for one thing may give you an advantage in that era, through pure luck and excellent vantages of opportunity, the one less trained could say beat the better trained 6/7. And we are all too lazy to run simulations to infinity. :P |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
katsucats said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference. Now you're straying further away from the OP's original point in order to [yet again] wiggle your way out of being wrong. OP made clear effort in applying condition-based interpretations of superiority. You argued my original comments by stating the topic wasn't about requiring conditions when it actually, and very clearly, was. If we read on, he states, "..or being smart when others are stupid..", along with the rest of his post, you can clearly see his intentions were to use examples of condition-based measurements, however vague and lacking of specified categories they may have been. So unless you're grasping at straws by playing with interpretations, or you're purposely playing dumb, both of which are tactics which you have deployed with predictable consistency in the past for the purpose of avoiding having to admit when you've made an error. gensousekai said: Woah there....i thought the point is that it is virtually impossible to have a clearly defined objective way to define superiority and thus elitism. Even if you go and play your little games of chess or boxing or curling, or whatever, if you put conditionals, per say, A, B, C, you still can't determine superiority, even if it is only virtually in those fields. Such games and such have elements such as luck and chance and so are imperfect indicators of superiority in that field. Though long hours of practice and natural talent for one thing may give you an advantage in that era, through pure luck and excellent vantages of opportunity, the one less trained could say beat the better trained 6/7. And we are all too lazy to run simulations to infinity. :P Try to understand how conditions work. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: Question: Do you think when TC wrote elitism, he was talking about being superior in intelligence (or any X), or was he talking about being superior, period?katsucats said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference. Now you're straying further away from the OP's original point in order to [yet again] wiggle your way out of being wrong. OP made clear effort in applying condition-based interpretations of superiority. You argued my original comments by stating the topic wasn't about requiring conditions when it actually, and very clearly, was. If we read on, he states, "..or being smart when others are stupid..", along with the rest of his post, you can clearly see his intentions were to use examples of condition-based measurements, however vague and lacking of specified categories they may have been. So unless you're grasping at straws by playing with interpretations, or you're purposely playing dumb, both of which are tactics which you have deployed with predictable consistency in the past for the purpose of avoiding having to admit when you've made an error. Obviously the latter, but you'd rather talk about being right than actually being right. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Question: Do you think when TC wrote elitism, he was talking about being superior in intelligence (or any X), or was he talking about being superior, period?katsucats said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference. Now you're straying further away from the OP's original point in order to [yet again] wiggle your way out of being wrong. OP made clear effort in applying condition-based interpretations of superiority. You argued my original comments by stating the topic wasn't about requiring conditions when it actually, and very clearly, was. If we read on, he states, "..or being smart when others are stupid..", along with the rest of his post, you can clearly see his intentions were to use examples of condition-based measurements, however vague and lacking of specified categories they may have been. So unless you're grasping at straws by playing with interpretations, or you're purposely playing dumb, both of which are tactics which you have deployed with predictable consistency in the past for the purpose of avoiding having to admit when you've made an error. Obviously the latter, but you'd rather talk about being right than actually being right. You're grasping at straws as usual. He was talking about elitism in general, then elaborated further by explaining why he feels superior by giving examples of cases where he made clear usage of conditions. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: But he's talking about why he feels superior period, not why he feels superior in X.katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Question: Do you think when TC wrote elitism, he was talking about being superior in intelligence (or any X), or was he talking about being superior, period?katsucats said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference. Now you're straying further away from the OP's original point in order to [yet again] wiggle your way out of being wrong. OP made clear effort in applying condition-based interpretations of superiority. You argued my original comments by stating the topic wasn't about requiring conditions when it actually, and very clearly, was. If we read on, he states, "..or being smart when others are stupid..", along with the rest of his post, you can clearly see his intentions were to use examples of condition-based measurements, however vague and lacking of specified categories they may have been. So unless you're grasping at straws by playing with interpretations, or you're purposely playing dumb, both of which are tactics which you have deployed with predictable consistency in the past for the purpose of avoiding having to admit when you've made an error. Obviously the latter, but you'd rather talk about being right than actually being right. You're grasping at straws as usual. He was obviously talking about elitism in general, but elaborated further by explaining why he feels superior by giving examples of cases where he made clear usage of conditions. Define elitism. Is someone elitist if he thinks he is superior, or superior at something? Look it up in the dictionary. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: But he's talking about why he feels superior period, not why he feels superior in X.katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Question: Do you think when TC wrote elitism, he was talking about being superior in intelligence (or any X), or was he talking about being superior, period?katsucats said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference. Now you're straying further away from the OP's original point in order to [yet again] wiggle your way out of being wrong. OP made clear effort in applying condition-based interpretations of superiority. You argued my original comments by stating the topic wasn't about requiring conditions when it actually, and very clearly, was. If we read on, he states, "..or being smart when others are stupid..", along with the rest of his post, you can clearly see his intentions were to use examples of condition-based measurements, however vague and lacking of specified categories they may have been. So unless you're grasping at straws by playing with interpretations, or you're purposely playing dumb, both of which are tactics which you have deployed with predictable consistency in the past for the purpose of avoiding having to admit when you've made an error. Obviously the latter, but you'd rather talk about being right than actually being right. You're grasping at straws as usual. He was obviously talking about elitism in general, but elaborated further by explaining why he feels superior by giving examples of cases where he made clear usage of conditions. Define elitism. Is someone elitist if he thinks he is superior, or superior at something? Look it up in the dictionary. Unfortunately for that [reaching] argument, elitism can be applied categorically. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Furthermore, you're wrong on another case. He was talking about why he feels superior based on him being superior in X Y Z. |
BloodcaliburJan 18, 2013 12:50 AM
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: There's nothing stretching about applying a textbook definition as it is. Notice it says "superiority", not "superiority in something".katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: But he's talking about why he feels superior period, not why he feels superior in X.katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Question: Do you think when TC wrote elitism, he was talking about being superior in intelligence (or any X), or was he talking about being superior, period?katsucats said: That's if being right when others are wrong makes you categorically superior, not being right makes you superior at chess. Big difference. Now you're straying further away from the OP's original point in order to [yet again] wiggle your way out of being wrong. OP made clear effort in applying condition-based interpretations of superiority. You argued my original comments by stating the topic wasn't about requiring conditions when it actually, and very clearly, was. If we read on, he states, "..or being smart when others are stupid..", along with the rest of his post, you can clearly see his intentions were to use examples of condition-based measurements, however vague and lacking of specified categories they may have been. So unless you're grasping at straws by playing with interpretations, or you're purposely playing dumb, both of which are tactics which you have deployed with predictable consistency in the past for the purpose of avoiding having to admit when you've made an error. Obviously the latter, but you'd rather talk about being right than actually being right. You're grasping at straws as usual. He was obviously talking about elitism in general, but elaborated further by explaining why he feels superior by giving examples of cases where he made clear usage of conditions. Define elitism. Is someone elitist if he thinks he is superior, or superior at something? Look it up in the dictionary. Unfortunately for that [reaching] argument, elitism can be applied categorically. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Someone is elitist if they perceive themselves to be superior because they are good at X. Elitism is not someone perceiving themselves to be superior in X because they are good at X. Bloodcalibur said: Alright, I mis-worded that post, but you're still wrong.Furthermore, you're wrong on another case. He was talking about why he feels superior based on him being superior in X Y Z. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: There's nothing stretching about applying a textbook definition as it is. Notice it says "superiority", not "superiority in something". Oh boy, you're not the brightest at English comprehension are you? Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Check the bold. And just in case you still don't get it, here's a wiki: Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern. katsucats said: Someone is elitist if they perceive themselves to be superior because they are good at X. Elitism is not someone perceiving themselves to be superior in X because they are good at X. This explanation and regurgitating of data had nothing to do with opposing my post as I did not even claim that "elitism is someone perceiving themselves to be superior in X because they are good at X", nor made any examples following such a premise either. So you either misread something or failed to comprehend again (what's new?). katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Alright, I mis-worded that post.Furthermore, you're wrong on another case. He was talking about why he feels superior based on him being superior in X Y Z. Thats 3 times now I've made you admit to being wrong. And even this isn't a fully honest one. You did not mis-word your post, you clearly misunderstood his post. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: Despite your coloring, the dictionary is still talking about categorical superiority. You need comprehension skills.katsucats said: There's nothing stretching about applying a textbook definition as it is. Notice it says "superiority", not "superiority in something". Oh boy, you're not the brightest at English comprehension are you? Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist Bloodcalibur said: Yes, 3 times I admit to being wrong in the 3 times that I am wrong. Not bad.katsucats said: Thats 3 times now I've made you admit to being wrong. And even this isn't a fully honest one. You did not mis-word your post, you clearly misunderstood his post.Bloodcalibur said: Alright, I mis-worded that post.Furthermore, you're wrong on another case. He was talking about why he feels superior based on him being superior in X Y Z. Too bad you have never admitted to being wrong in the dozen plus times you are wrong. See, I see my modesty as a virtue. Modesty = wisdom = alpha as fuck Lying to cover up weaknesses = gamma = Bloodcalibur :/ |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Despite your coloring, the dictionary is still talking about categorical superiority.katsucats said: There's nothing stretching about applying a textbook definition as it is. Notice it says "superiority", not "superiority in something". Oh boy, you're not the brightest at English comprehension are you? Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist Which is exactly what I've been pointing out in relation to OP's point. This entire time I've been the one trying to prove that elitism is applied categorically. You need better English comprehension skills, or just admit you're wrong (again). katsucats said: Oh that's funny because....Lying to cover up weaknesses = gamma Mod EditPost stretched page, added a spoiler ag Thank you, come again. |
Suzune-chanJan 18, 2013 2:00 PM
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| You know, you two should get married or something.... |
| The Art of Eight |
dankickyou said: You know, you two should get married or something.... Homie follows me everywhere, writes about me everywhere even when I'm not involved in the thread, stalks my girl's pics on her profiles (rofl), and has been trying to win an argument ever since he lost several debates a few weeks back. What can I say, he's a little obsessed. I mean, over 2000 forum posts on a 2.5 month account. Wtf lol. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: dankickyou said: You know, you two should get married or something.... Homie follows me everywhere, writes about me everywhere even when I'm not involved in the thread, stalks my girl's pics on her profiles (rofl), and has been trying to win an argument ever since he lost several debates a few weeks back. What can I say, he's a little obsessed. I mean, over 2000 forum posts on a 2.5 month account. Wtf lol. I'll take that as another debate you've went beta on me and decided to abandon ship. Bloodcalibur said: katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Despite your coloring, the dictionary is still talking about categorical superiority.katsucats said: There's nothing stretching about applying a textbook definition as it is. Notice it says "superiority", not "superiority in something". Oh boy, you're not the brightest at English comprehension are you? Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist Which is exactly what I've been pointing out in relation to OP's point. This entire time I've been the one trying to prove that elitism is applied categorically. You need better English comprehension skills, or just admit you're wrong (again). katsucats said: Oh that's funny because....Lying to cover up weaknesses = gamma  Thank you, come again. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| He took the time to take screenshots of my posts to spam them and he's calling me obsessed? Hah! Funny thing is that me admitting when I'm wrong proves the post he's spamming. *sigh* They need to do something about the education these days. When Indian call centers understand English better than people who grew up in New York, we've got a major problem. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I don't always laugh at elitism But when I do... |
|
katsucats said: He took the time to take screenshots of my posts to spam them and he's calling me obsessed? Hah! Funny thing is that me admitting when I'm wrong proves the post he's spamming. *sigh* They need to do something about the education these days. When Indian call centers understand English better than people who grew up in New York, we've got a major problem.  katsucats said: ! Funny thing is that me admitting when I'm wrong proves the post he's spamming. In the post, you admit to attempting to talk about things you lack knowledge on and admit to trying to ease out of arguments when you started realizing you might be wrong. According to your other post though, that's being a gamma :). |
BloodcaliburJan 18, 2013 6:02 AM
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| I thought my second post was on topic, wutz up with that mods. |
 |
| Your form of elitist only applies to practical agendas such as science that being said many things in this world is just based on personal preference and tastes, there are no absolute decisions in everything, even science and maths, you can complete a question using various methods and skills each having their own merits and flaws |
| kek |
Not_Biased said: I don't. There is no need. When you get into an argument with someone, you should take into consideration that someone may prove you wrong.I actually feel like I've hurt someone's feelings when I prove them wrong. Not_Biased said: Humility.How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? |
I'm also filled with pure-hearted ulterior motives. |
More topics from this board
» Plushies_Nette_ - 6 hours ago |
2 |
by BitChilly
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
58 |
by H-A-M-M-Y
»»
57 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - 10 hours ago |
13 |
by Spunkert
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» For everyone who has signed up to this site using Protonmail, and doesn't use that address for anything elsevasipi4946 - 12 hours ago |
3 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - Yesterday |
21 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
1 hour ago |