Shockingly enough, you’d be wrong. Proving that the majority of priests holds a certain belief is quite straightforward. Poll them.
I do not understand what you are trying to argue here.
Again and again you talk about sociology, then you talk about academia, as if they were the same thing. You, too can poll people, so stop baising your statement on opinion. Otherwise, what’s your point?
P.S. Good one, Marley23. ::Thumbs up!::
Man, I wish I spoke at least one language.
The point was to DISCUSS what gets labelled as racism, and might actually be more of a dismissal of other ideas that tend to catch people in a wide net, because a lot of people of a certain ethnic group have other cultural traits in common with others of that ethnic group.
Please don’t act superior with your response to an idea when you clearly don’t understand the idea in the first place. The communication difficulty from my end, might be at fault, but if you don’t understand the statement, then please reserve your disdain for when you actually know what you’re talking about.
Many people I know understood the idea INSTANTLY when I presented it to them. It’s a matter of communication, and has nothing to do with the standards of rigor, it has to do with a sensitivity that is oftentimes trained out of people in academic studies. Some people think in a non-linear fashion, and other people are very linear. Some people use metaphor to describe things, and more concrete thinkers simply don’t understand this metaphor, and assume because THEY don’t understand the metaphor that the person using the metaphor doesn’t understand the subject, which is completely backasswards.
If I count 1, 8, 3 before 8, 4 after 3, 9 after 8, 7 after 6 but before 8, 2 before 3, 5 before 6 but after 4 and before 7 that doesn’t mean that I am illogical in any way simply because I don’t count it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Yet in Academia as an institution there is very little accomodation for this non-linearity. I am not saying that the linear thinkers should be the ones doing the direct accomodation, but if they cannot understand that there are people who think non-linearly who are not stupid, then it is they who are stupid, and not the non-linear thinker.
If you think that someone’s dogma is unreasonable and incorrect then the failure is on your part to get the point across, not on them for continuing to believe what they believe in the absence of a more understandable option.
I’m sorry people had such a hard time understanding this thread. The point is not about finding people who are racist, but about shifting away from the idea of racism, and addressing other prejudices that are more specific and directed. I was looking for a deeper understanding of what we CALL racism, not trying to blame people for being racist.
Erek
The discipline of sociology and academia are not the same thing. I had no idea I was giving anyone that impression. Sorry.
As for “basing my statement on opinion,” I have no idea what you are talking about. You made a claim regarding the opinion of priests. You want to find out the answer? Ask them. That simple.
Scott, we are having a real failure in communication here.
Hey, at least my thread highlighted communication failures to everyone. So in a round about way, it did it’s job. 
Great, here we are back at the beginning again. First of all, I’m glad to see an attempt to turn this ‘debate’ back into something other then a squabble about definitions of terms.
The problem is once again you’ve posed an assertion as the basis for your debate.
Maybe I’m slow but I haven’t yet seen where you’ve provided support for this assertion.
Can you give some specific examples that support your belief that “Academia, as an institution, is a source of bigotry.”
That will at least give us something something to debate.
For Example:
You assert, “I quite frequently see, xxx, yyy, and zzz, and I believe this shows that while not all Academics are bigots, the institution itself is a source of bigotry.”
Then I pop in and say, “Well while xxx, yyy, and zzz occuring does seem to be a sign of bigotry I don’t the case can be made that they are reflections of the ‘academic institution’ but rather the specific biases of the people involved.”
And great fun will be had by all.
If it seems like my ‘superiors’ are showing it’s really not my intention. It’s simply that to me, this debate has mostly a matter of stretched definitions and vague analogies that, while they display fantastic talents for language, don’t seem to really be ‘about’ anything. And thus, right over my head.
Maeglin, Thanks for the apology, however, it was simply my opinion. Did anyone else have the same reaction? I suspect so, but I do not know for sure.
However:
What I am asking is that you not base your opinion on observation sociologists, but on asking people, if you request the same of me.
During WWII, there was a meeting between the Soviet and American planners regarding problems with delays in shipments to Russia. After a lot of hollering by the Russians that the U.S. was late in delivering a long catalogue of products, the U.S. representative pointed out that the Russians had repeatedly failed to provide the specifications for nearly all of the desired matériel. Without the specs, which the Russians were behind in providing, the U.S. could not produce them.
The Russian snorted derisively, “We are here to talk about your behinds, not our behinds.”
Even if we find that the problem with the Academics is a reaction to bigotry among the religious organizations, we are only here to talk about why it is still Academia’s problem.
Okee-Dokee.
Tom: Twist my meaning all you like, but the simple truth is, I would have had no problem discussing religious bigotry if we could have also discussed it in relation to the subject at hand. For instance we didn’t discuss anywhere in this thread why it’s funny that “American Standard” is a toilet manufacturer. Why? because it’s not the subject at hand. So while religious bigotry can come into the discussion, and is valid to the discussion, it is not valid if it is used as a shifting of blame rather than a frank honest discussion of the topic.
People love to put the blame squarely on one side’s shoulders or the other, and I wasn’t putting that blame on either side. Something that I encounter quite often is that both sides of an argument will accuse me of bias for the other side. That says something to me, even if it doesn’t to you.
I fail to see why it is not ok to discuss the foibles of one side and one side only. This is not a denial of the foibles of the other side, it’s just that the foibles of the other side are not the main thrust of the topic.
So bask in your superiority if you must, but I’d appreciate it if you reserved such superiority for when you actually deserve it.
Erek
My apology was sarcastic, but I am glad you appreciate it. For the last time, I really have no idea what you are saying.
Normally, I find myself disagreeing with tomndebb, but this time I find myself agreeing with what they posted. Furthermore, when you said:
It sounds as if you are saying it is not permissible to discussion the attitude of the OPer, instead of the topic. In fact I learned the, well, not the hard way, but the not so nice way that the OP does not own the thread. In addition, you said:
Well, it is okay because sometimes that is how things happen. Are you asking that some of the people here trade sides, just so that each side gets equal time? That seems odd. If not, and you are annoyed that your side of the argument is being ignored well, I don’t have an answerer for you.
In other words, only insofar as it gets back to kicking the Academics. Twisting? If that is not what you said, then you really need to figure out how to express yourself more clearly.
As to throwing out a fairly nonsensical accusation of “superiority” against me, I will note that I have not expressed a superior position at any time, only challenged specific claims and provided counter examples and explanations. On the other hand, your entire position has been one of “superiority” for the faith-based groups who do not happen to be academic.
In my earlier post, I suggested that the basic problem was one of language, not of faith.
I pointed out that I have seen similar problems among groups in which the Academics and non-Academics have shared the same level of spirituality.
I have pointed out that I have seen the same problems among groups in which spirituality was not an issue at all.
I have noted occasions where I have seen members of the “faith” oriented groups using claims of spirituality as a litmus test to deride others (much as I perceive you doing here).
Your response was to dismiss my comments with a claim that my faith was “too intellectualized,” (an erroneous charge based on a very limited reading of my posts in a very specific context), as an excuse to ignore my actual observations.
“Superiority”? Go find a mirror.
Now, I am quite willing to accept at face value your particular anecdote in which some group of people divided and acted in the manner that you observed. I am sure that such things occur.
However, you have taken a single incident (or a few incidents) through your own filters and tried to extrapolate an entire social phenomenon, all the time portraying yourself (the attacker in this case) as a beleaguered defender of some point that you have still failed to convey to most of your audience.
I think that it is possible that there was a decent discussion, here, but I am less persuaded that you actually wanted one.
I just reread the OP, and there are a few logical inconsistencies in it:
- you never define academics. Do the faculty of Bob Jones U and a community college count, or only the faculties of NYU and Columbia (to be NT biased.)
You seem to be gneralizing to all academics based on the subset you have met in “activist” groups. What do these people teach? Are they a representative sample?
Are there no racist poor black people? Racist white non-academic people? Do you think objecting to the teachings of a particular religion like Baptism makes you a racist because some blacks are Baptists? Does objecting to Catholicism make you both anti-Irish and anti-Italian as well as anti-Hispanic?
You seem to be implying that New York is the model for the entire country. I’m from New York, and I love the place, but having lived many other places I can tell you that this isn’t so.
You seemed to be saying that for academics to think that minorities are smart enough to be academics was racist. Was I interpreting this right?
Your contention that college is 75% bureacracy, and 25% useful, is interesting, especially since you’ve never been. What is red tape to you? Would an engineering major have more or less red tape than a humanities major? Do you think you could learn more math, engineering or physics by yourself than a person of equal intelligence could in a good college? Do you think the feedback you would get from skilled professors (academics though they be) would be useless?
IMHO, you could have benefited from a rhetoric class.
I am sick of this discussion. It is impossible for me to get my point across. I am happy that some people were capable of understanding me, but the people that think I was trying to bash Academia, and that somehow this examination of Academia is a dangerous opinion, are in short…fools.
Tom: In my opinion, for what it’s worth, most posts I have read from you over the past few years have come across as pompous and superior, I don’t feel like you are singling me out.
If we cannot discuss the subject then that’s fine. I am tired of trying to defend myself by saying I don’t have a problem with “Academia”.
As for my experience with Academia, I have friends who’ve been to college, my girlfriend is currently in college, her mother is a professor, my uncle is an administrator at essex county college in Newark, his son teaches at Medgar Evars in Brooklyn, my best friend teaches at a community college in New Mexico, I have tons of friends that have gone to college. I’ve spent time around NYU and Columbia. My friends show me the BS they have to go through. I read posts on this board about pleasing teachers being the secret to their academic success. I have friends who’s family has given large sums of money to schools and therefore their family has some piece of that school named after them. My ex-wife was a nanny for a hot shot NYU professor when he was being courted by Yale, Harvard, and Oxford and watched as NYU bent over backwards to keep him there, even paying him for a year off while expanding his already ridiculously large apartment near Washington Square Park. I’ve seen lots of people with worthless degrees entering the job force in debt with very few prospects making no more than people with high school diplomas. The majority of people I know who are doing the best in the workforce either have no degree, or are working in a field that has absolutely squat to do with their degree. I have listened to people with PhDs act like their knowledge is superior to mine, only to have to correct facts to something they have said five minutes later, only to deal with this superiority again later from them. I have taught College graduates how to do their own jobs. I constantly get asked “Where did you go to school?”, and have people surprised that I didn’t.
So sure, I’m certain it has more to do with the religious bigotry than it has to do with the academic bigotry. You can say whatever the hell you want, but I am tired of trying to manage your superior attitudes when the majority of responders are completely skirting the original subject. I’ve clarified it and reclarified it stating for the record that I wasn’t confident with my communication style in the OP, but that wasn’t good enough for people. I am tired of saying the same thing over and over, if you haven’t gotten it, you aren’t going to get it.
None of you with your “superior” understanding of academic institutions has even offered up one opinion as to why the academic institutions might be alienating to some people, but have given me many examples of how those religious people are bigots. I see no desire forthcoming from people taking the “defense of academia” stance to talk about how it can be improved as though to admit it’s faults would somehow destroy the foundations of it. That’s dogmatic pure and simple.
I think that the collegiate system in America as a whole is lacking fundamentally. I don’t think it has the value that it’s proponents place upon it. I think we are so programmed to be a marketing culture that you are more interested in trying to harangue me into thinking it’s a good thing than you are in trying to make it a better more attractive thing. WHEN I DON’T EVEN HATE ACADEMIA!
If Academia is so all embracing then how come the majority of students at the “Best” universities are rich white students? Why do they even NEED affirmative action programs? I never once said every academic is a filthy racist, but you all are defending academia as though I did. There is an institutional culture that frankly…sucks.
I am not against learning at all, learning is great, and having a place with buildings and teachers there to help you do it is wonderful too, but let’s bring the focus back to a level of realism that you all seem to be professing, but not practicing.
If you’d bother to read other threads I have posted there are places where I have taken the stance against religions, and of course when I do that many religious people think I am anti-whatever religion they are just like you.
The only way you’ll prove to me Academia isn’t a religion, is you stop treating it like a sacred cow. No amount of High School debating is going to accomplish that.
and Voyager: Just because New York is the center of the Universe doesn’t make it the WHOLE Universe, and I realize that. ;p
Erek
Rhetoric class, thank you, I’ll go get a book on that, then I’ll REALLY be able to prove that I’m smarter than all of you. ;p j/k
Anyway, yeah I could benefit from a Rhetoric class.
Then, perhaps, you should have looked at how your message was misperceived and tried to say it more clearly instead of simply “saying the same thing over and over.” I agree that you have said the same thing over and over and I have not seen any difference between your first post and your last post. And I am afraid that your “some of my best friends are academics” defense does not actually persuade me, either.
Note, for example, that I have made no defense of Academia in my posts, yet you continue to accuse me of doing that very thing all the while libeling me with your accusation of “superiority.”
I’m sorry that your thread did not go well, but maybe you can return to this theme some time when you are able to articulate it.
Tom: It’s not a “some of my best friends are academics” post. That btw is the DUMBEST way to diminish someone’s argument I have ever heard. I never liked it when it referred to gay people or black people either. If you have Black friends, I think that IS proof that you are not as racist as someone who won’t hang out with black people at all. It also proves that you have experience with those people, and your position even if flawed is at least based upon dealing with them and not what you saw on television. I just gave the examples of my experience with Academia. It might be a surprise to people who for some weird reason think we live in an anti-academic society, but it’s more or less all-pervasive and inescapable.
Again, I will point to the ability of other people to understand my posts.
Erek
I have read and reread this thread several times. As one who has very little interest in the topic but one who enjoys a good debate, I have to say I do not understand **mswas’s ** posts. Most of them are so incoherent I read them multiple times and cannot figure out what the point being made is supposed to be. Overall they are circular in logic and short on substance.
No arguement here,Megatool. Now, I need to ask, you have reread the thread multiple times? I am amazed I managed to read it once, as I was posting in it. However, I see you have made only three posts so far, so please, make your stay here memerable, how about you try and counter one of mswass, a.k.a. erek’s points? Try it, it will be fun. Well, that is, unless he only has one point.
Were Cosmodan’s points also circular and hard to understand?