Camels in the Mist

I’ve decided to open a new category, called “Airtime in Rantspace”. Unbeknownst to me, the term rantspace is already in use, so i can’t claim it was my invention. Too bad. I still claim rights to “confusedicated”, although google refuses to associate it with me.

Anyway, today’s rant is about smart people and how sometimes, they can be damn stupid.

My university education and tendency to read somewhat creative works of literature have afforded me a vocabulary that in certain areas could be considered more expansive than that of your average plebeian. English please? Me use big words.

In my experience, and in the circles i frequent, it is often considered that the eloquence and/or wordiness with which a person creates a comment lends weight and/or relevance to said comment. While this is not entirely true, it’s generally assumed that if someone can use enough big words in a coherent fashion, then they probably mean something, and if i can’t understand what it is that they’re saying, it’s probably too deep for me, and they’re probably right. Once again, this is not entirely true, but spend enough time in those crowds and it’s easy to pick out a bullshitter. Sorry, did i say “bullshitter”? I meant rather, “purveyor of nonsensical verbal detritus”. With that said, there’s the other factor: coarseness of language. If your argument uses coarse language, it not only fails to lend strength to the argument, quite the contrary: it instead detracts from it.

Why is this? The more i think about it, the more i come to suspect that it’s a perception projected from those of higher education onto those of lesser. The implicit line of reasoning is as follows:

• I use bigger and more complicated words than you, and i use them in proper context
• ergo, i have a better education than you [flawed]
• ergo, i’ve had greater chance to study < logic and argumentation (or) the topic currently in dispute > and resultingly know more than you[flawed]
• ergo < my arguments are more correct than yours (or) i know more about it than you > [flawed]
• Ergo, i win [flawed]

Now… the above line of reasoning illustrates quite clearly the results of a series of head-to-tail arguments that, while they may have certain elements of what i hesitate to call “validity” to them (as they are not in fact, valid arguments) individually have a strong implicit base. The reason why it’s fairly commonly accepted is just this: often, this set of implications proves to be true, especially in cases online in public mediums (forums, blogs, irc) where seasoned intellectuals and professionals occasion to clash with the teeming masses of pre-post-secondary educationed teenagers.

Enter intellectual snobbery. It disturbs me to see people who refuse to acknowledge validity of argument (validity of upbringing, friends, intellect, sentience….) amonst those who do not strive to achieve the same level of language that they impose apon themselves. It disturbs me because these people refuse to admit that because they say something with bigger words, it means something else altogether.

“Hey, fuckhole, you’re a jackass” versus “You lack the proper intelligence to have an educated discussion with amoebic lifeforms”. What’s the difference? The difference is that the person making the second statement might claim that it was not a flame, an insult, but merely a calm, informed statement of fact. (It’s worth noting here that this is a heavy exagerration: the inherent irony is that if the receiver is capable of understanding the insult, it invalidates it. One might just as easily toss that insult at a brick wall, a peice of lint, or one’s own coffee cup) Not all cases will be extreme, but many “intellectuals” toss off flip wordy insults and pretend that they’re having a rational level-headed argument, while their opponent understanding but incapable of retorting with an adequate level of elquence instead responds with an insult that more closely resembles the first example. What’s this now? Flaming insults? The argument has now lost objectivity. Who tossed the first insult? the pseudointellectual will claim calm fact or a chiding jibe, not a “serious” insult, dumping the blame squarely on the opponent, who is thenceforth ejected from the discussion medium or ignored by all participants. This of course differs from place to place.

With that much of the rant out of my system, it’s difficult for me to say where i wanted to go with it… Just because a person talks in a manner you associate with idiots (use AOLer speak, anyone?) or fails in the skill of properly constructing a rational argument even though one clearly exists… doesn’t make them less intelligent than you. It doesn’t make you more right than them. It doesn’t give you moral highground when you flame them out with big words.

With that said, i bow to the irony that myself, a (pseudo)? intellectual, has with this rant flamed out both myself and my peers.

Y’all go an’ have a nice day, y’hear?

Currently Listening to:
[ Clouds Taste Metallic ] The Flaming Lips - Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World
"Thinkin that his head surely would explode
His thoughts go deeper than ever... yeah... yeah
Something never dreamed in all the science books the biggest light switch gets turned on yeah.. yeah"

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 9th, 2005 at 3:10 pm by Xore and is filed under All, People, Humor, Life, Airtime in Rantspace. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.