"
Duh, I know the description....my question was more to whom it was directed....."
It wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, other than those who are outsiders thinking they have it all figured out about something they are largely ignorant of, about things of which they have limited information.
So....I have to be from West Kentucky to have an opinion on this story?
Nope. You're allowed to have an opinion on anything you want, including this story.
And because I'm not from there, my view is of gross ignorance?
Yep. Unless you are familiar with the man, the area, and the people there, by definition that's an ignorance of the area.
Anyone can have an opinion on anything. But it's the opinions that are based on the most information that are the most valid. The problem with many people, however, is they base an opinion on incomplete information, and then even when more information becomes available that should alter their opinion, they stick to it regardless, often dismissing real relevant information as irrelevant and meaningless. It's more important for some people to feel that they're right than it is to even consider the possibility that they're wrong. That's where we get wackos from.
This thread is a good example, where because they guy is a democrat he's vilified, yet he's not even a democrat, not really.
I don't need to know whether he's a Dem or a Pub, I think I said that in my first post. Arrogance is arrogance, regardless of who's "sporting" it.
Actually, in your first post you said, "Another arrogant idiot that thinks there's some kind of "ruling class" in this country and he's part of it......let him eat cake!" And you were wrong on all counts. He's not arrogant, he's not an idiot, and he doesn't think there's some kind of "ruling class" in this country and that he's part of it. If you knew anything about the man, other than he's got a (D) after his name and he was speaking to a class at WKU (and you didn't even know about WKU until after your initial comment), you'd have known all that. Your response indicates gross ignorance of the man and the situation, made a determination, and drew a conclusion based on extremely limited information or a preconceived prejudice of one thing or another.
I really could give a flip about his resume'....he spoke like an arrogant idiot.
Actually, he spoke like a conservative Republican, as well as the way many in the area speak. Are his comments somehow arrogant because he's got a (D) after his name, or because he made them at a place of higher learning?
I probably know and understand more about this lifestyle than what you give me credit. Don't forget, you don't know me, my background, where I've been or where I'm going.
I don't give you any credit at all, nor do I withhold any, because I don't care. I'm responding to what you type, not to you personally. All I know about you is what you type. You are what you type.
I said it in my other post and I'll say it again, I don't care whether the guy is red or blue, if it makes you feel better to think that was a litmus test for my post then knock yourself out but it's not about that, it's about attitude.
Oh, I know it's about attitude, it's about a perceived attitude that you either don't understand or resent. I simply put the statement he made in context, and you wanted to make it out to be far more than it was, by turning it into a smart versus stupid intellectual elite thing. But it's not about that, and why you want to make it about that I have no idea, unless you resent those who are educated or something, and everything they say is perceived by you as some kind of personal insult.
As for the "context" of his comments....I don't really care about that either.
Huh? You're the one who singled it out in quoted red text as being the important part of all this arrogance extravaganza, saying, "I think the quote in red might say more than anything about this..... "they" seem to speak differently while they're amongst those that they consider "smarter" than the rest of us." It was the
context itself that you used to
justify your comments. If that's not caring about context, I don't know what is.
IMHO, those that live in Kentucky or any other state where the terms redneck, hillbilly, or ridgerunner, don't like being talked about like that nor do they like the condescending tone that some of these idiots use.
How did your formulate such an opinion? Is it one of those, "If I were in their shoes I wouldn't like it," sort of opinions? The reason I ask is, I'm from Kentucky, live there now, and you know that, and I've already told you that the above opinion is incorrect. Yet you're still sticking with that opinion? Amazing. Like I said earlier, we can recognize the term when it's used and by whom, and know the meaning and intent behind it. Sometimes it's used in a condescending manner, and in those cases, no, we don't like it, especially when it comes from some holier than thou East Coast snot who thinks they know what's best for us. But we can recognize when it's not being used in that manner. I know too many rednecks who wear the moniker with pride. Some are even college educated, too, which should come as no surprise considering I live in a college town.
For someone that's supposed to be so "tolerant", you sure seem to have a hard time extending that to some of us.
Well, good grief, what's you're definition of tolerance, then? It is never voicing a disagreement of opinion? Is that it? Am I supposed to agree with everything people say, or at least
not offer up a dissenting opinion, in order to demonstrate tolerance?
The only thing I have an absolute intolerance for is hypocrisy.
It's interesting that people who complain about other's lack of tolerance are often the least tolerant people on the planet. Take homosexuals, for example. They constantly scream about intolerance, yet they have
zero tolerance for someone who doesn't agree with them. Yet it's not even about tolerance, it's about them wanting something, really, really badly, and because they want it really, really, badly, they think they deserve it, and when they don't get it, they scream intolerance, which is just the adult gay version of throwing a temper tantrum in a grocery store like a three year old. But I digress.
I'm actually extremely tolerant. I'll discuss anything with anybody, especially those who don't agree with me. It's hard to learn much if all I'm doing is talking to people who think the same as me and already agree with what I'm saying. In fact, the more differing opinions I can come to understand, even if I disagree with them, the better I can form and even alter my own opinions about issues. It's very hard to have a truly valid opinion on a divisive issue unless you at least make the attempt to have a pragmatic understanding of the opposing viewpoint. I will sometimes take a side that I don't even agree with, in order to draw out some of those opinions and different ways of looking at things.
Very few issues are black and white, and neither are the opinions and views of them. Rather than keep my mind and viewpoints static and unyielding with an arrogance that I'm absolutely right about an issue, discussion closed, I prefer to open my mind and broaden my knowledge about a subject in the very likely event that I'm not correct about everything and that I don't, in fact, know it all, as some here incorrectly believe that I believe.
