From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

There's also a different definition of elitism within cultural preferences or other wishy-washy areas, you know. One particular area in art may have individuals lauding themselves as the height of "in"-ness, which is nowadays a legitimate use of the word elitism. Nullahnung (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So anyways, due to WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and edited that in.Nullahnung (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Why does the tone of this article come off as if it is from encyclopedia dramatica? It reads more like a bunch of angry blogging and opinion spouting than it does something I'd expect from RationalWiki... Or maybe I've misinterpreted the goals of this wiki. (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article is well below what we should want - and does, indeed, come across like an ED article. Now which one of us is going to put in the effort to improve it? Is that neither? Placeholder (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ve also got some problems with the article’s presentation and arguments: 1: The argument that “elitism” as an insult is a misnomer because it conflicts with the original dictionary definition comes dangerously close to argumentum ad dictionarium territory. It is entirely possible for words to have more than one meaning, or to change definition over time. 2: The assertion that calling someone an “elitist” automatically makes you an anti-intellectual conservative is disingenuous. When I hear the word “elitist”, I immediately think of right-wing political figure(head)s like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Ajit Pai - you know, those people who combine shameless corporatism with an air of insufferable smugness. I call those people elitists because the suggested substitute “asshole” is too vague and not specific enough. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs