Love how "elitist" now just means "has the audacity to know things."

[trimtab@mastodon.social]

@ariaflame @Daojoan
Indeed. A man who talked about groceries as if he had only learned the word for the first time a few minutes before his speech....

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@Daojoan So they're anti-intellectualists but calling folk "intellectuals" has too many syllables so it's just "elitist".

[nicolai@babka.social]

@Daojoan what it really means is „has access to methods of thinking that not all people have but which are seen as mandatory for being heard and being able to speak politically“. And that is a real cause that unfortunately mostly terrible people really for. Other people do not really rally for it because it is an uncomfortable truth that one actually needs that method and that we indeed exclude people who can’t use it and that there is no good answer that could make them feel actually able to participate instead of just technically able to participate but without any chance of being heard.

[nicolai@babka.social]

@Daojoan I wrote small uni papers and essays about this question 15 years ago. Maybe it is time to update it with the current events and tell that story again

[konstruct@woof.tech]

@Daojoan "elitism" is just a fancy name for gatekeeping and bragging about something behind those gates

[yngmar@social.tchncs.de]

@Daojoan Especially young, female people, as it turns out.

[rogzilla71@mastodon.social]

@Daojoan Yep. That's how it works. For those on the right, "elites" are smart people. For those on the left, "elites" are rich people.

[scipoltech@mastodon.online]

@Daojoan The language and psychology at play is utterly bizarre... on the plus side, here in a UK by-election an "elitist" smart female plumber representing the Green party just beat a far right pseudo-academic "man of the people" backed by billionaires.

[peterbrown@mastodon.scot]

@Daojoan like most Scots, Carnegie believed “the people” should have access to reading, education and culture and put his money where his mouth was.
Being poor does not need to mean being ignorant and there are many very wealthy people who are totally ignorant - most of the current US government for example.

[arafel@mas.to]

@nini @Daojoan Possibly it's also harder to sell "I'm against intelligence," while "we're against elitists" is easier - and vaguer, you can turn it into anything you want with a bit of creativity.

[aronsilver@indieauthors.social]

@Daojoan nowadays I often feel elitist for having the audicity to grow up as a white man with a functional job and family. If everyone already judges me for it anyway, what am I supposed to do different?

[dp0@mastodon.social]

@mrundkvist @Daojoan
That is actually what I said: People turning away from information is exactly what I meant when speaking of the new means. Everyone has access to information and knowledge, so people need to be instigated to turn away from it. And this done by providing false information and creating doubt regarding the accessible real and factual information.

In the past, poverty and oppression were easy means to keep people uneducated. Today, more proactive ways are required.

[mkj@social.mkj.earth]

@Daojoan Sticks by their choices and morals even when doing so isn't perfectly convenient? *Definitely* elitist.

[mrundkvist@archaeo.social]

@DP0 @Daojoan
Why then didn't you and I turn away? We have the same access.

[larsbrinkhoff@mastodon.sdf.org]

@Halaana @ariaflame Norway has left the chat.