I agree that it’s a word used as a slur which more often refers to an amorphous concept than it does actual real people.
Because seriously, it sees as often as not to refer to a cabal. “Liberal elites” aren’t just a category of people, they’re a group that works together with one mind to implement plans intended to do harm to good hard working conservatives.
The problem with this view of reality is that once you’ve smeared your head across the pavement, other people have to clean up the mess. They have to scrape you off and hose the pavement down, and see if they can find somebody to claim the ziplock. And that’s if they’re lucky - what if you’re still alive and stuff? We’re going to have to drag you off somewhere and patch you up - on the public dime, as often as not. Sigh. And in the meantime, with you lying there bleeding? Disrupting traffic with your broken body like that, cluttering up the landscape, ruining the view? How rude. Some people these days.
People think that committing suicide is a way to spare other people trouble. They’re not the ones that have to clean the carpets.
Is there enough consensus to decide:
How many liberal elitists does it take to change a light bulb?
There’s an older one about WASPs for which the answer is two - one to mix the martinis and one to call the electrician. But I don’t associate “liberal elitists” with martinis, particularly.
Plus, a “liberal elite” TM would never deign to speak with an electrician or other blue-collared worker personally. They’d have one of their 22-year old recent Yale graduate personal assistants do it.
All of these are true, with any dangerous activity.
Are we going to ban pointy knives? How about driving after dark? Scuba Diving? Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself)
Shooting guns at a range.
Swimming pools?
I mean at some point, just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t get to choose for themselves the level of risk they are willing to accept to do said thing. Shit, just about everything that we do in life comes with some sort of inherent risk.
But you know better than the individual if they should have that risk in order to choose to do whatever activity?
Do you think all public safety laws, traffic laws, seatbelt laws, drinking and driving laws, gun safety laws etc. should be repealed because people should get to choose for themselves what risks they want to take? Where does your logic end?
That’s an easy one:
liberal elite = deep state + highly paid media folks
Welp, Biden has settled the debate for us by calling out Warren’s platform:
Thanks for that, Joe. I fucking hope you lose the nomination to Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg.
Do you think that those who don’t have a sense of the statistics can make an informed choice? I don’t know what percentage of people know the numbers in this case, but from others I do know I doubt it is very high. These kind of crashes are not covered in the media, so due to the principle of availability I suspect people underestimate the risks. That’s why most people think the murder rate is higher than the suicide rate and many people think flying is more dangerous than driving.
For informed choice, I’m of two minds. On one hand I’m against having my insurance rates go up to pay off some clown who could have survived a crash if he was wearing a helmet. On the other, we always need more organ donors.
To paraphrase, the first rule about Liberal Elite™ is you don’t talk about Liberal Elite(arr). The second rule about Liberal Elite™ is you deny there is any such thing as a Liberal Elite. 
I don’t recall saying anything about all of the above laws. But for sure the ones that affect no one but the person.
We’re not talking about banning riding bikes (of any variety) just of requiring a low impact 
way of making the rider safer.
Driving after dark would be more fun if I didn’t put my headlights on. That okay with you?
Are you against requiring training?
Want to give up insurance coverage if you aren’t wearing a seatbelt? However, a seatbelt allows you to keep control of your car in certain situations. I spun out on ice once, and I was able to get back into control without hitting anything thanks to me being strapped into the seat. So even if you are alone wearing a seatbelt protect others.
The one’s I’ve been at have safety rules. Are you against that?
Are you against requiring fences so little kids don’t fall in and drown?
Yes, NANNY
Who blabbed? :mad:
Someone smearing their head across the highway affects more than just that person. I already spelled this out. Please read the thread or this conversation is pointless.
Yes, and I disregarded most, if not all, of those other ‘reasons’ you listed for making a nanny law about helmets. For the simple reason of that could be said about ANY dangerous activity.
How many people died from motorcycle crashes prior to the law? How many since?
How many of them are prevented due to helmets?
I am all for helmets, I used to race motorcross. But it should be the individual’s decision.
YOU do not know better than the individual what amount of risk they are willing to take.
At the risk of being elitist, there are a number of useful cites that abundantly answer the question you’re raising. here is a rich trove of statistics. One interesting one:
Does knowing how to use Google make me an elitist? That’s a pretty low bar.
I already said I’m not a staunch proponent of helmet laws. Would you be willing to sign a waiver that neither you nor your surviving family will be eligible for any state aid for medical care or welfare in the event that you die as a result of an accident without a helmet? Why should society subsidize your bad choice then?
But someone who has studied that matter will probably know better what the actual risk is in the first place.
"“Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.” -Harlan Ellison
Honestly, no offense, but what is it about conservatives that causes them to land on the “stupid” or “selfish jerk” side of every argument?
Fine. You want to argue that individuals have the right to decide what level of risk they want to accept. Well, other people don’t want have to incur your risk as well. That includes first responders who must rescue you or deal with the aftermath as well as other societal costs. That’s why we have licensing for driving cars or scuba diving. That’s why homeowners are required to fence off their swimming pools. Presumably gun ranges are also subject to regulations so they don’t pose a danger to their neighbors.
Yes, I forgot to include Hollywood. Also forgot to specifically mention sushi and fancy coffee drinks from overpriced chain restaurants.
There’s an old cartoon from The New Yorker or some similar magazine that cleverly portrays how Liberals and Conservatives view each other. It consisted of two panels:
The first panel shows a somewhat overweight stereotypical Midwestern couple laughing at a pretentious hipster couple eating sushi.
The second panel shows the same sushi eating hipster couple laughing at the Midwestern couple.
The clever part is that it’s the same couples in the same scene, but in each panel the laughing couple is drawn to be more normal looking and the other couple is drawn slightly more ridiculously. Haven’t been able to find it online.