Via Kevin:

This really resonated with me. I know an avowed Marxist who is a professor of business. The last few times I spent time with him I wanted to leave the restaurant because of the way he bullied the staff. I was extremely uncomfortable with his demanding to be in control of things that were against the restaurant policy. And that same demanding “in charge” attitude extended other things as well. He asked that I not carry a gun when in his presence. He apparently didn’t know that at least two others and possibly three were also carrying as well. I told him, “No. I prefer to carry.” My soon to be ex-wife asked him to drop it and he did so I didn’t have to tell him what I really thought and blister the ears of others.

His superior attitude, even with confronted with the logical inconsistences and obvious falsities of his beliefs, was nearly intolerable. Even the simplest to confirm facts would be dismissed with, “I don’t believe your facts.” And finally, just, “We’ll just have to disagree because I feel this way.” in direct conflict with his own supplied facts. He even insisted that basing decisions on emotions, “is just as valid as facts and logic.”

He seemed proud of the corruption of his city politicians (Chicago). He told stories of all the graft and was proud of his vote for Democrats. He laughed at the fence around the graveyard, “To keep the dead from voting.”

I’ve had extended conversations with others who view themselves as “intellectuals” and they all view themselves as superior to others and I wouldn’t trust them to think themselves to a draw in a game of tic-tac-toe. It’s the “intellectuals” of the anti-rights crowd that are confused that everyone doesn’t see the superiority of their view and demand guns be banned regardless of the increases in violent crime when the victims are disarmed. Facts are irrelevant because they believe they are smart when in fact they have merely subscribed to a religion that rewards its followers with the belief they are superior to others.

5 thoughts on “Intellectuals

  1. You forgot my favorite line, if you can call it a “favorite”… “We haven’t had the right people in charge yet.”

    *Barron’s head now explodes in rage wanting to strangle something.*

  2. But are “intellectuals” limited to the liberal persuasion? I know some seemingly intelligent folks (at least, they tend to think they are) who are very Conservative or Libertarian in their views, are fully convinced that they alone are in possession of the facts, and consistently cop a superior attitude towards those who have “crap for brains.” If the facts are truly on your side, it shouldn’t be necessary to resort to a plethora of logical fallacies – among them ad hominem attacks – to prove a point.

    Not saying that there doesn’t appear to be severe delusional characteristics within the liberal camp, but Marxists aren’t the only ones with a superior attitude sometimes. Glass houses and all that……

  3. I find it interesting that those who can back up their statements with Facts, Figures and Data that has Zero Emotional Content (i.e., “Water is Wet”), tend to be derided by those who “FEEL.” But God Forbid when you use their own Logic against them!

    Case in Point: I remember that shortly after the Dc vs Heller Decision came out, that the New York Times wrote something along the lines that “In spite of this Ruling, we don’t FEEL that there’s a Right to Self-Defense inherit in the Second Amendment.” They weren’t too happy to see in the Comments that someone wrote, “Well, under your own Logic, I don’t FEEL that the New York Times has the right to Free Speech, in spite of the First Amendment, and you should have everything go through a Censor before it is Printed. Sauce for the Goose, you know.”

  4. @Defens, I was referring to self identified “intellectuals” or people who believe their job in life is to think and tell others their thoughts. And frequently they believe the force of government should be used to enforce their thoughts upon others.

    I know many very intelligent people. Some have superior attitudes. I don’t have a problem with that as long as they can quickly admit they were wrong when confronted with irrefutable evidence or the logical inconsistencies in their thoughts are pointed out. The “intellectuals” I know don’t seem to be capable of that.

    The superior attitude of one “intellectual” I knew extended to the point she literally believed she (and I) were a new species of man. The “New Man” would dominate the world and the lesser species would disappear over time. A quasi Utopian world would result. It’s a small step from thinking you are superior to most everyone else and that others not like you will die off to “hurrying the process of what will happen naturally anyway”.

  5. Conversations I’ve had with people who consider themselves intellectuals seem to invalidate that self evaluation. But I don’t know nothin’-you can ask my boss.

Comments are closed.