Why you salty, though?

Some of you may know that this blog is not my only online endeavour: I also maintain a sister-blog for religious topics and co-administer a Facebook page for the science club of my alma mater, as sort of a public relations officer-emeritus. One of the tasks of the latter position is maintaining not only the quality, but the appropriateness, of materials posted to the group page. So, I was somewhat surprised to find that, following a dispute between administrators and one persistent individual, an article had appeared on a community page which seems to be almost certainly a response to this exchange (written, of course, by the aforementioned individual). 

I've never been one to shy away from challenge. If you think I'm wrong, I flat out invite you to call me out on it. I'm a scientist. I like to know when I'm wrong. That said, if your response is garbage, I'll tell you it's garbage. Here follows a dissection of some of the more ridiculous points in the article, which may be found at this address (please, take the website "hits" pro bono). 

The main points of the essay, as I understand it, are that arrogance is born of intelligence and that intellectuals tend to "hurt, scorn, rebuke and oppress others because there is a belief that they are superior in intellect or strength". This is, of course, a worthy cause, as none should feel like he or she is less than another simply because his or her "book smarts" aren't well above par - surely, only so many can be at or above the average. The problem with the writer's approach, though, is that rather than cite examples, address causes, and tie it all with a nice logical bow, he chose to string together as much ad hominem, unsubstantiated claims and hasty generalization as seemed possible. 

Though these last three are somewhat inextricable, I'd like to address the hasty generalizations. First and most amusingly is that "in person, these people are docile", and use the internet as a shield. This plays very nicely off of a cliche which elevates the most socially inept people "I.R.L" (in real life, for those not fluent in the parlance of the interwebs) into veritable destroyers of planets and devourers of souls online. While I imagine this is often the case, it's not exactly a model that can be applied to everyone. I, for one, am just as likely to tear you a new one in person as I am online, provided you inspire me with the same amount of irrational tripe. In fact, I prefer arguing in person. I also don't know any of the other participants in the original exchange to be particularly "socially awkward", so I invite the author to substantiate the claim. 

It was also interesting to read that "society despises university students [because of] their tendency to enter university humbly and come out foolhardy, ridiculously selfish and snobs". I was not aware that this was a common observation of university students, nor had I any clue that we are despised. Rather, it seems that students are pushed unnecessarily frequently to go to university, and lauded as successes for completing their degree. In fact, student activism frequently appears to spark and continue social struggles. Never once have I heard of a mass sentiment against university students. I could be wrong, though, so provide me with some evidence to consider. 

By the way, some of my favourite ad hominem moments are "They are cowards!", "They are the most feeble of all", and "All of these people are pathetic."

To address the "I smell ignorance comment", darn tootin' I said it. The entire affair started when the article's writer responded to an administrator's brief admonition of a poor content choice by writing nearly 300 words, drawing the administrator's personal life as well as past admins into the mix. For someone so against personal attacks, that seems irresponsible and unreasonable. After reading several back-and-forth comments, I  responded to a gross misunderstanding of the role of science on society (which had somehow become a thing) and of the intent of the page and it's administrators. My response started with the line in question.

 The thing that gets me is that this entire essay was written as a way of lashing out at persons who he felt had wronged him. It is based on sentiment rather than evidence, and founded on events he deems to be personally offensive. In fact, "these", "they" and "them" are used in reference to the alleged offenders some 30 times in 50 sentences, indicating that the piece is more accusatory than explanatory, and gives it an unfortunate whiny tone. By all means, feel your feels and speak your piece, but to respond to taking personal offense by constructing a repetitive and pointed article about persons who, by your expert analysis "don't know themselves" seems to me to be petty and immature. 

I think I'm calling it. Never even addressed the supposition that the Evil Intelligentsia of Hate is apparently inherently divisive and partisan. I suppose it's up to the reader to assess the validity of that bit, as I hope they do with what I've written. You Humble Ranter is coming back out of the cave, people. Happy reading, and keep thinking critically.