User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 86

  1. #11
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    So he really means 'people who are too smart for their own good' but wasn't smart enough to say it.

  2. #12
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,428

    Default

    Or he meant academics, intellectuals, and pseudo-intellectuals? This would make a lot more sense, especially since academia is so left-wing, generally speaking. It would make sense for Rick Santorum to say that conservatives will never capture the intellectual vote.

    But "smart people"? What a fail. I don't know how he ever thought that made enough sense to be included in a speech.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Read it here folks.



    I couldn't pass this up. He can say things like that without batting an eyelash, and he came close to the Republican nomination. There are countless more people like him in the senate and congress who, at this point, essentially control the direction of the Republican party, and there are millions of people willing to vote for them. These considerations make it hard to have much optimism for the USA.

    P.S: He also attacks libertarianism in that article, so he's really covering his bases.

    I just see all that as part of a far greater or broader strategy though.

    Simultaneously undermine peoples trust of the media per se, they arent even attacking the media as being too liberal or a liberal media anymore, just being the media, and the way in which it is being handled, attacking so called "smart people" is a form of flattery and I believe it is all calculated to further inflate libertarianism.

    If you consider the origins of libertarianism, how that name came about as the label for a movement at a time when culturally you could not call the movement individualist or individualism because of cultural aversion to those things, then it begins to make sense and ideology within the US has been just as much a deep and long running game of rigging as in China or Russia or the USSR or anywhere else.

  4. #14
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    From what I've gathered, he was (very clumsily) saying that academic types seek to advance technocratic policies that centralize power and decision-making in the hands of national experts, at the expense of both sub-national institutions, private organizations, and individuals, thereby maximizing the control of said elites over the operation and direction of the country, which means that a party ostensibly advancing federalism and limited government isn't going to appeal to them.

    Santorum made himself an easy target with his syntax, but his point was probably little different from F.A. Hayek's contention that classical socialism and central planning was popular among academics because a combination of intellectual arroance and self-aggrandizement leads to the 'fatal conceit' that 'man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes', and the associatted notion that highly educated experts are therefore the rightful architects and guides over societies and institutions.

    Back in college, when left-wing friends had trouble understanding what this means, I always brought up Rumsfeld as an example of this principle in operation.

    See, conservatives can be smart, too.

  5. #15
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    • Not derogatory enough. In subsequent speeches, he should refer to them as "nerds."
    • I imagine that, after speaking that snippet in the OP, he just kinda walked off the stage in a tizzy and ran to a corner, leaned against it with his forearm against his head, and stared at the ground in a dejected manner.
    • "We will also never have the small business owners on our side. Or the racial minorities. Or the poor. Or the wealthy. Or the folks working construction at that building a few blocks down that I think is supposed to be a McDonald's or a Krystal's. Or those fatcat lobbyists. Or the teachers and educators. Or the exchange brokers. Or even Republicans--yeah, not sure how we managed that last one, but.."

  6. #16
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    From what I've gathered, he was (very clumsily) saying that academic types seek to advance technocratic policies that centralize power and decision-making in the hands of national experts, at the expense of both sub-national institutions, private organizations, and individuals, thereby maximizing the control of said elites over the operation and direction of the country, which means that a party ostensibly advancing federalism and limited government isn't going to appeal to them.

    Santorum made himself an easy target with his syntax, but his point was probably little different from F.A. Hayek's contention that classical socialism and central planning was popular among academics because a combination of intellectual arroance and self-aggrandizement leads to the 'fatal conceit' that 'man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes', and the associatted notion that highly educated experts are therefore the rightful architects and guides over societies and institutions.

    Back in college, when left-wing friends had trouble understanding what this means, I always brought up Rumsfeld as an example of this principle in operation.
    I don't really understand how this is any different than much of the Republican party, which is just imposing a different set of experts/guides in charge of the country.

    Santorum's also been a Senator and run for President; he's a politician, and has been a lawyer and a consultant. I don't have a lot of patience with "clumsy," he needs to get himself together -- the guy has worked with words his entire career, he shouldn't be unable to communicate his ideas properly at this stage of his life. Unless he just doesn't really understand them.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #17
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    "Conservatives" have evolved into something else since the beginning of the Reagan era. Academia and the media are tagged as being leftist, but they really are not. The media has always supported every war effort by selective reporting, and their motivations are typically to just get viewers and to report whatever is sensational. There is an appearance of progressivism in academia, but when funding comes from corporations for research and other endeavors, those institutions are quite beholden to the desires of those with the power and money. Santorum uses words like the intellectual "elite" to rally support of the working class, but the Republican party is the one serving the interests of the elite.

    There is a perfectly intelligent and reasoned position for conservatism, but that is not the current party platform. The Republicans have become the more reckless party ignoring the issues in the environment, quickly involving in war efforts, and making economic policy that places the country at terrible risk gambling with its assets. It is because all three areas support the mega-corporations.

    What we are calling "liberals" are actually the conservatives right now and there is no progressive party in the U.S. There is no Left, but only Center and Right. The propaganda being used by the Right is to make the Center look like extremist progressives which is the very familiar use of psychological projection. Both Clinton and Obama have functioned in their policy like the pre-Reagan Republicans.

    It would be a wonderful day if there were multiple political parties that could genuinely appeal to intelligent, reasoning people who can debate issues from all sides, so that no stone is left unturned in analyzing every issue.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  8. #18
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    In that sentence smart goes with elite.

    He's talking about the NE educational establishment (and prob the media) not smart people generally.

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    but they really are not
    So I was forced to sit through Michael Moore films in state and local in college for fun then?

    So it was just joking when my IB/AP European history teacher told me she would want a military so defunded they would need to hold a bake sale to conduct an exercise?


    I could keep going, and going and going.

  10. #20
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    So I was forced to sit through Michael Moore films in state and local in college for fun then?
    That is one very specific, small example. If that is what defines liberalism in academia, then it's pretty weak. I sat through plenty of presentations of ideas I didn't agree with during my 16 years of higher ed and five degrees (including through the doctoral level). There wasn't anything in my experience very far to the left, but even that doesn't prove my point. The issue goes to the question of funding and who controls it because that is how the decisions are made.

    Plenty of professors may have personal views towards the left, and in my post I said there is an appearance of liberalism, but at the core academia is beholden to those who provide funding for research. This doesn't even address the fact that corporations benefit from even the government funded research paid for with tax dollars, and proceed to patent it and privatize its profits.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

Similar Threads

  1. Why the EU can never be like the USA (one nation).
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-06-2017, 11:37 PM
  2. Is it wrong for other people to express opinions on the internet...
    By phobik in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 10:17 PM
  3. Thoughts on the ending of Death Note (Spoilers be warned)
    By Savage Idealist in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO