What does is mean to be an "elitist?"

Elitist.

The English word itself seems to hold a rather negative connotation in the minds of some role-players. When confronted with the question, "Why is being an elitist a bad thing in terms of role-playing and writing?" people with these ill implications cannot fully describe why they feel the way they feel when they hear or see the word. They simply have had it - either consciously or subconsciously - embedded in them that such a thing is not good.

So, let us define what being elite is...

According to the dictionary:
Elite is "a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, especially because of their talent."

All right, so now that we know what being elite means, we know that, in regards to role-playing, that being an elite role-player means you strive for and demand the very best, both from yourself and from those you role-play with.

In respect to FOG, a role-playing message board developed for people who take writing seriously and as a form of art and expression, a place not for the typical role-player, but rather one who has a true passion for writing and role-playing, so much so, that they may be on the road to writing a novel or manuscript of their very own, then we see that a place such as this is ultimately striving for quality and a higher standard.

Therefore, I think with some confidence, we can all say, quite proudly, that we all are, in fact, elitists, and that that is truly a very good thing and something to be glad of and to cherish.

According to the dictionary, perhaps, but the elitism often associated with roleplayers is linked with arrogance. I am not saying we are arrogant, but the elite - even the ones that are self-centered and self-important - started small. An "elite" is different from an "elitist" in that the elite try not only to be the best they can be, but unlock the potential of OTHERS to be the best they can be, a type of mentor or teacher people can look to for reference.

The elitist, on the other hand, has eyes ONLY for the elite (or, rather, what he or she believes to be his or her version of what is elite) and, like rotten nobles in a society, keep the budding roleplayer down. They see their status as an achievement of dominance and prowess and prefer to be acknowledged as such, and to do that they ensure that they try to bring down rather than bring up. An elitist cannot stand having someone "higher" than she/him and will, rather than look up to that other elite and aspire to climb up there, decide to demolish them down to their level. In other words, "elitist" is synonymous to "ass".

Yes, Fate, I agree, elite is a good term.

Elitism is not.

Then again, words are but words and we could in fact be aspiring to the same thing using different verse. I'm simply glad to know that when you say the word "elitist" I'll not confuse one term for another

In roleplaying communities, it generally means that someone's overcompensating in some way. If people want quality, great, but elitist types, in my experience, tend to be the insufferable egomaniacs. It has nothing to do with demanding quality from oneself as putting on a show of "I am better" to others. Elitism implies exclusivity, something that FOG isn't really batting for.

Example; I once had one get sniffy and condescending to me because he mentioned a song title, "Someone to Love" and I went, "Oh, I love Jefferson Airplane, the Velvet Underground and all those other bands" and he meant the Queen version. And I said, "Ah well, honest mistake, it's a famous song and all." That's when he blew up and started getting defensive and tried to lecture me. Apparently, while he was familiar with Queen (as if I'm not; hah.) Queen has many songs, but that one is not really all that influential or terribly good. The Airplane song, whole different song, is iconic.

I tried to be cool, for about a moment, before the lecture started, and then I decided to coolly hold my ground against this sniffy tirade of his that I was obviously some uncircumcised barbarian for daring to confuse a Queen song and a Jefferson Airplane song.

I realized the real reason he wigged out was because he got caught flat-footed with the reference, didn't recognize any of what I was talking about and so put on a show of condescension.

Because he'd never heard of Jefferson Airplane, period, he started to overcompensate by calling the Airplane, "Some little psychedelic band" and I had to whip out the Billboard and Rolling Stone sources to explain that the Airplane was not some obscure band, and the song was, in fact, considered more influential than the Queen song -and- charted higher.

FInally, I just stopped talking about it, because the guy was being a jerk about the whole thing. But that was how he always was; if he said so, he was utterly right, no matter what the evidence said, and if he said so, he had a bunch of friends that agreed with it.

That is not a definition of an elitist, in the context of roleplaying, but it certainly is a portrait of one. The guy roleplayed one character and thought he was hot poo-doo for doing so and stayed in his little group of fawning sycophants. He was a one hit wonder because he had no versatility. When his little group disintegrated, he tried to open his own community, but no one wanted to go. They all knew they'd just be there to help him make his weiner look longer. He eventually disappeared, friendless.

In a similar vein, I knew another guy with the same sort of problem; he played as if to replace 'eyes' with 'oculars' and all sorts of little flourishes to make words more complex and intimidating to people who didn't know better, like "over" becoming "o'er" (Or, hilariously, once, 'lips' becoming 'labia') and was convinced that he was so perfect as a roleplayer that he couldn't be criticized. He and whatever girl was infatuated with him at the time were always moving from place to place because he got kicked out so often. Another one that couldn't bear disagreement, especially the informed kind that had research or experience to back it up.

I could go on with the examples, but these suffice. Both these guys came from narrow, limited sorts of positions with narrow, limited writing and acted like they were unpublished Hugo winners. Nothing wrong with not knowing something, but there is definitely something wrong with acting like you know it all to keep up appearances in a community more obsessed with social preening than doing the actual RP. We've had remarkably few instances of it here, I hope that continues.

See, I believe it is merely us people that have come to associate arrogance and egotism with elitism. The definition of an elitist is simply the "practice of or belief in rule by an elite." There is no mention of elitists being arrogant or egomaniacs. That was simply something that we, as role-players, have come to associate with such persons that define themselves as such, when really, we're missing the bigger picture, which is that wanting the best and wanting to strive to become better isn't a bad thing - in fact, it's quite the opposite.


What you describe, Heyseuss, is fairly common in people who don't like to let it be known that they don't know everything. I mean, that's just common sense, but to some people, they really don't like to be perceived that way. (We do have that mentioned in our etiquette even.)

Well, I try to eschew any elite label for myself. And I don't think this place fits the bill, as it is open to all who want to take a whack at the standards, which I do not think are impossible for anyone with a normal IQ.

So does that really qualify this place as a select group, or merely a forum with a few requirements that sort out someone who is too lazy to capitalize and write something like fifteen sentences, minimum? We're not exactly the Skull and Bones society here.

Rather, I think if you had sections for RP that were only available to people with a certain flag, that would constitute elitism. That would imply selection, as opposed to an 'open to the public, so long as the public adheres to the standard,' system as is had here.

Perhaps you're right, I shy away from elitism precisely because I have had personal experiences with people that embrace the title; usually they were talentless hacks who were more concerned with maintaining a social status quo than actually developing their writing. And maintaining the regime is part and parcel with elitism.

Heck, the board I left for here had that problem; an IRC channel full of people who didn't RP and kissed the leader's rear, and the moderators inevitably selected from that pool of recruits. Said place wasn't great shakes on writing quality, but they sure as hell had an elitist system, despite their moaning about other boards.

The question to ask here, the distinction, is whether this is a social forum or a writing forum. Well, maybe I'd like to think that this place is about the writing and not about the 'social scene' so much.

See, I believe it is merely us people that have come to associate arrogance and egotism with elitism.

In society, everything is associated with something. Humanity loves to label and link one thing with another, names with objects and ideas. What something is called doesn't matter. It could be "egotism" with "elitism" or "egotism" with "jackassery". We understand what you are trying to point out.

We have different names for the same thing. "Elitism" to you means "striving to reach the top and better oneself and others", which translates into "elite" to me.

The names we give things does not matter. What matters is that we understand what that association is trying to describe.

Those are very good points, Heyseuss. I don't view our community as a whole as an elite board, despite our (not-as-high-as-I'd-like-them-to-be) standards. I think that this place itself would simply qualify as a role-playing board that tries to respect the art of writing for what it truly is.

Oh, hun, I hear you loud and clear on that last bit as well. Loud and clear. *shakes head*

I would most certainly say that FOG has already established itself as a writing and role-playing board since early on and focuses more so on that aspect.

"(not-as-high-as-I-want-them-to-be) standards"

I totally agree. I suppose that's why we have Casual and Advanced role-play sections, though.

Let's make up a new word.

"Elitist" has the -ist suffix, which if I remember correctly means a specialty or someone who specializes in a certain field--in this case, an elite or the idea thereof.

I wouldn't say this is what we are--specializing in being elite. We specialize in writing and role-playing, and we want to be elite at it. Sooo... maybe a new word will help us nail down what we're trying to say.

Perhaps something like... elitic or elitary.

:idea: How about Eliterate.

I R ELITERATE! I like it.

Remarkably brilliant, Kalon.

In my own experience with both society, discussion forums, and roleplaying forums alike; elitism was either an "issue" or it wasn't. I will have to agree with the aforementioned descriptions and portrayals of "jackassery". These are the members of boards that the rest of a community seems to have an "issue" with.

The term "elite" or "elitist" was thrown into the mix because of the very social connection that Fate mentioned earlier:

See, I believe it is merely us people that have come to associate arrogance and egotism with elitism.

Arrogance was commonly attributed to the upper class in a hierarchy of a society. If we break it down to something simple, a Knight is obviously going to think of himself as being better and more worthy of slaying a dragon than a peasant. If you want to get into the tactics of this, then that's a DUH! because the knight is trained and has a freakin' sword. BUT! who is more likely to be the braggart in this scenario? The humble peasant? Or the prideful knight? :?:

An elitist ("elitist" meaning the very troubled persons we are discussing here) believes himself to be trained in the art of "x" and thus will gladly proclaim three things of his profession:

1. Experience. Like a Beowulf, he will be quick to state who he is, what he has done, and how many times he has done it.

2. Passion. This person, after stating their experience with "x", will then rush into why they perform "x". This shortly becomes an annoying redundancy. This proclamation is usually where the "issue" rears its ugly head and people begin to choose sides.

3. Disgust with the status-quo. Let's face it, a community of these "elitists" has no status-quo...because I have yet to find out one even exists. The elitist in question is typically self-centered and self-righteous. They will passively demand that no human being agree with them on ANYTHING. They will then proclaim their disgust with the status-quo of things. Because good communities try to level the playing fields, and because "elitists" are self-centered, and because they don't like agreement, they WILL demand a change about SOMETHING. This "demand" however is hidden between the lines of disgrace and anger at a situation. They will attempt to label everything wrong with it, and expect the reader to realize their proclamation, though it is never technically proposed.

So now that we've covered that, you wanna hear the knee slapper?

The real elitist in the Knight-vs-Peasant scenario is not the knight...but the peasant!

Take a look at Adrius Frostglare's paraphrased definition again:

striving to reach the top and better oneself and others

The very people that these "jackasses" look down upon and cyber-bully around have shown us no talent other than that of their excellence in political bullshit. (now looking to Fate's official definition).

The "peasant" of a forum is always trying to better himself. He's trying to exceed in his talents, but will never forget to make sure that the roleplayers around him are keeping up with the pace of the story. He's humble in his corrections and suggestions, and will strive to act as a mentor, rather than a dictator.

Overall, a peasant strives to one day reach the top, instead of simply bragging that he has already done so. He is the "eliterate". The other guy...well...he would look great in a cheap, shiny suit with two buttons and a briefcase, sitting in a court room yelling "objection!" (for those that didn't get that, he's like a fucking lawyer!). :smokin:

Hell, DJ, we could put your argument to the Cyber Court and get it practically set up as a legal document!

LOL. That was funny and a little over the top, Agenda. I don't know if I really agree with all that, as, prior to all this, I did consider myself an elitist (by my own definition/the dictionary's definition), and if you know me (especially in real life), then you know I'm one of the most humble, modest, and non-egotistical people ever. XD (In fact, I'd say my ego is really lower than average.) Like I said though, I didn't ever think of elitism as anything as bad or negative as you guys obviously do, but that may only be because I've never in my life come across anyone that called themselves such (in the world of RPing) and acted as if they were better. So, I don't possess the same negative associations I suppose, and perhaps because of that, my viewpoint is skewed. (Or isn't? I don't know what that makes it!)

Fate Foretold wrote:So, I don't possess the same negative associations I suppose, and perhaps because of that, my viewpoint is skewed. (Or isn't? I don't know what that makes it!)

Nope. That's like saying there is normality in this world, which there isn't. Therefore, your view is neither correct nor wrong. It's simply a view that differs from our own

You are a wise man for your age, Sir Adrius.

Fate Foretold wrote:You are a wise man for your age, Sir Adrius.

I get that a lot.

Also, age is simply the amount of time we've taken to learn things... and to my fortune I've gotten to learn much in a short 17 years. Some don't learn for 60 or even ever!

Just to throw my 2 in with the elitism issue, I've been both sides of the accusation of elitism, and it's a word you have to be careful with.

In this society, superiority is a bit of a taboo. We're taught that everyone is equal, and a lot of people seem to take it literally, but it's not that simple. If something is better than something else if it has more properties that are seen as good, then of course some people are better than others. As I see it, there's no shame in recognising this, if you do it in a healthy way. Recognising ourselves as superior to others in certain regards gives us self-esteem, and recognising ourselves as inferior allows us to admit proper admiration to those that deserve it, and gives us drive to improve.

I sometimes came under the attack of being 'elitist' for this way of thinking, and I think that's a legitimate sense of the word, although one which I would see as 'good' elitism (though that's not uncontentious).

The insidious side of elitism only comes in when we let ourselves get blinded. It's easy for us fallible mortals to confuse being better than someone else at certain things, or better than them by our own standards, for being better than them simpliciter, and there's nobody in the history of man who meets that description. A 'bad' elitist is someone who makes this jump. Someone versed in classical music, say, who refuses to acknowledge that to a lot of other people, Metallica is (or at least was) rather good. Their opinions are invalid, he says, because they have poor taste. I.e., they think Metallica is good. It's a circular way of thinking that does nobody any favours. Worse still, people like this can come to see everyone else as not only having poor taste but generally inferior, not worth listening to on any issue or associating with, and not the proper objects of compassion or duty.

It can be a fine line to walk for people who truly pursue their values with sincerity, since the more strongly you hold a value, the more universal it seems. But there really is a line, because 'good' elitism is no more than a decision to hold human values, while 'bad' elitism is just straightforwardly fallacious.

As Adrius said*, there's really no absolute right and wrong when it comes to word meaning, there's just general communicative use relative to a population. Given the widespread use of 'elitist' as a slander I tend to think of both uses of the word as legitimate, which is why I wouldn't apply the label to myself.

*or could be taken to say, what he actually said is that there's no normality in the world, whereas I think there's quite a lot and so some things are definitely correct and some incorrect, just not unqualified statements about word meaning.

Practice not equality but the potential of equality.

In many cases inequality is an unavoidable, acceptable or even a positively good thing, but there's certainly kinds of equality, social equality for one, that we should strive for.

Being Elitist doesn't mean you are a pompous arrogant. in this case its just someone who wants to share their skills with others who are- and want to 'be' at an advanced level.

Meh, we kinda already established that what we call it doesn't matter so much as what we mean with it.

Fate Foretold wrote:Kalon, you are a genius. ^^ I enjoy Eliterate lol.

Yes! (hehee) it's Fate!*
--------------------------------------------------

I think the idea of elitism is similar to the concept of "n00b vs. newbie".
In a literate role-play context, we can therefore say something like... "e-1337 vs. eliterate".

The e-1337 use their superiorz skillz to to massage their egos, while the eliterate strive to perfect themselves and help others do so. So the e-1337 are little more than n00bs with brains, and eliterate are what newbies eventually turn into.

It just the age-old selfish vs. selfless. "Elite" or "elitist" are neutral terms that can describe both types, just as "smart" people can be mean or nice--to put it in childlike terms. We're all really saying the same thing in different ways. ^_^

*Fateful genius + Fate who said it; I'm never going to get tired of punning Fate's username. xD

I will proudly accept the title of Elite, but I agree with Frostglare on the word elitism. The connotation he already sounded out is one I agree with perfectly. However, our society is forever conflicted on this issue. All men are created equal, so proclaims our constitution. With hard work you can achieve anything, is another common motto. However, we acknowledge heroes of superlative skill that are the epitome of what they do. Michael Jordan is still reckoned as the basketball player of his generation. Roger Federer was considered inhumanely good for a while. Once Nadel, who was ranked number 2 at the time said something along the lines that he was the best tennis player of the world, Federer was from another planet. Any action fan remembers Bruce Lee. If one researches this man for a little bit, you could definitively say he was above all others in his mastery. We regale these people as heroes beyond us, thus acknowledging a hierarchy of superiority. And yet, all people are created equal.

The thing about the claim that 'all men are created equal' is that under it's most obvious interpretation, it's just plain false. We do not all start the same. Even as babies, we start with different weights, skin colours, muscle tone, brain development, some of us are premature or overdue, some of us 'men' are women, and all of us have a different genetic code, limiting the kinds of proteins our body can synthesize. And that's not even considering the fact that everyone is born into a different economic and social situations. There are people, many, many people, who strive their entire lives, struggle every day, and never manage to overcome their situation.

However, it's still an excellent thing to have in a constitution. It's a counter to the idea of the divine right of kings - the idea that some people, by birthright alone, should be granted legal rights over other people. It embodies the ideal that everyone, regardless of their situation, be legally free to pursue any position - even that of ruler. What a constitution can't do is change the fact that some people are more able, either on their own merits or those bestowed by their situation, to achieve.

In a sense then, the claim that all men are created equal is actually as much an endorsement of 'elitism' (the good kind) as it is a condemnation of the bad kind, because the idea behind it is that people should be given the opportunity to succeed on their own merits, and be respected for those merits and their success, rather than have respect and power handed to them by the state and protected under as suspect a banner as 'divine right'.

Significantly skilled people (I do not yet count myself among them) are then faced with different ways of comprehending their position. They could see their skill as a divine license, something that puts them above others and gives them the right to be abusive or intolerant of those who do not share it, in which case they are like kings who believe themselves above the peasants simply because they found a crown on their head. Or, they could regard it as an ability only, entailing no special rights or privileges over others, granting only the opportunity to strive higher and achieve more.

I don't think anyone here would admit to being in the former category, but it's an easy mode of thinking to slip into. Even with my meagre level of skill and insight I often find myself alienated from the general public, and ask myself how I can possibly respect a person or organization that doesn't understand the difference between 'their' and 'they're', or who thinks newspaper comics are funny. But I have to, because my moral and legal obligations are separate to my personal attributes. *

* Sorry, bit of a rant there, I hope I didn't ramble too much.

Wow I though this thread was done, but I see you two have struck up something again.

Kesteven, I really enjoyed reading your response (all of them so far, to be exact). But what I found enjoyable was that it linked (or so it may) to what I said previously about the difference between the peasant and the knight - or, in your scenario, the peasant and the king. But other than that, I must re-read your post because my head began hurting (it wasn't you, it was the overly-carbonated Dr. Pepper I happened to be drinking while reading).

Kesteven, while I commend you for at least addressing the actual context of the phrase "all men are created equal," I think it's important not to inject the issue of ability or status into a discussion regarding said phrase.

In it's most well known form, the phrase makes no allusions to ability social status, race, gender, or or anything other than basic inallienable human rights. It's irresponsible to pretend that it does, let alone imply that in any sense that this most sacred of concepts acts as an endorsement of elitism.

While the words themselves, literally, read as such; in a literal sense the phrase is obviously false and should be considered as such. not as an endorsement of anything, but rather as a false concept not worth consideration. The only way one should read that paticular phrase is in the context which it was intended; the context of human rights, life, liberty, and property.

I am not arguing with you, I agree with you, on virtually all points. My purpose is simply to elaborate on what you've said.

The phrase "all men are created equal" is only true in one context; it's original context. Taken in any other fashion it is false. In fact, it is the dropping of context coupled with the acceptance of a statement which is obviously false that ultimately results in the interpretation of that concept as an endorsement of elitism.

He already covered that, Zovo, in the following paragraph:

In a sense then, the claim that all men are created equal is actually as much an endorsement of 'elitism' (the good kind) as it is a condemnation of the bad kind, because the idea behind it is that people should be given the opportunity to succeed on their own merits, and be respected for those merits and their success, rather than have respect and power handed to them by the state and protected under as suspect a banner as 'divine right'.

Even if it’s to be considered false, to disregard any detail of something you intend to analyze is quite the error. If we’re bringing such a renowned written concept into the discussion, it should be looked at from every conceivable angle, as we can’t be truly certain what the original context of the statement actually was. At least, I’m fairly certain no one here was around when the document was initially created, much less a part of the process. So, to claim that you know its meaning based only on your presumptions of its intent is a bit foolhardy.

Anyway, I’d like to take this discussion back to an earlier state for a moment, since I wasn’t fortunate enough to be a part of it at the time these details were brought to the table:

e⋅lit⋅ism [i-lee-tiz-uh m, ey-lee-]

–noun
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

We’ll ignore the second definition because it’s essentially a definition of what society considers the word to mean today. As such, to further analyze that aspect of the word would be noncontributory to the discussion. We’re all aware that elitism can be used in such context.

I’m a bit surprised no one pointed this out the first time the definition was used in the word’s defense, but perhaps it’s because I’m not thinking deeply enough about it.

“practice of or belief in rule by an elite”

Notice that bolded term? It says the practice of or belief in rule by an elite. In other words, it’s a belief system where someone who is elite is placed upon a pedestal to rule over those who do not hold the title of elite. This can be applied to a group of people or to a single person, but it doesn’t change the use of the word rule as opposed to something less…encumbering.

For instance, if it said that elitism was the belief in learning from those who hold higher station than ourselves, I could go along with it. If it said that elitism was the belief that those who hold those higher stations should instruct any aspirants who strive to reach that station, I could go along with it. What it says, though, is that those who attain the title of elite should rule over all others in their own field.

With that context established, the reason why it has become a generally negative concept should be a bit more apparent. Examples have already been given that show the error in such a system of belief.

Heyseuss, for example, mentioned someone who had a following and believed himself to be the very epitome of elite. The reason this person is guilty of elitism, and not another crime of a different title, is because he believed he held the right to rule over others because of his talent, skill, knowledge, or some other aspect of his being. Because he held such a belief, and because others accepted that elitist hierarchy, no one could rise to a higher station than that single individual in the field where he was considered the elite until those who supported his station were swayed.

Elitism is something that can only exist with the acceptance of its existence by those who are affected by it. At the very least, it needs the acceptance of those who are capable of perpetuating it. A single person can call themselves elite all they like, but until there are supporters who believe or accept that view, elitism doesn’t exist except in the mind of that single individual.

To condense my point, the problem with elitism is that it’s predisposed to the “hive-mind” complex. Even if something is wrong, it can become right if those with authority insist that it is right. Even if the person who sits on the throne is not the best ruler, he will be considered the best ruler so long as no one who can prove otherwise is allowed the opportunity to do so. Even if the elite writer is not the best at his trade, he can be looked upon as the best so long as all those who are better are rebuffed or ignored.

Elitism stifles the growth of a community that practices it by insisting that there is a single person – or a select group of persons – who will invariably be the best, regardless of merit.


That’s my opinion on the subject. Take it for what it’s worth. I’d like to discuss the principle of “elite” as opposed to elitist, but that will have to wait.

Wait, how can you berate me for ignoring a false statement taken out of context, an then a paragraph later simply ignore the definition of a word you're addressing simply because it doesn't follow the context to which you're refering?

I acknowledged his assessment of the phrases actual context, and though obviously none of us were around when the phrase in question but we know the context because the document still exists, and he even went so far as to mention which document he was refering to.

A false statement, once established to be false, should be disregarded from interpretation because it's false. What's the point? Interpreting it only leads to further fallacy and ultimately ignorance; as exemplified by the belief that said statement could ever be seen as an endorsment of elitism. It serves no purpose aside from misguiding oneself.

If it's false, throw it out. Don't linger on studying it.

Weiss wrote:
We’ll ignore the second definition because it’s essentially a definition of what society considers the word to mean today. As such, to further analyse that aspect of the word would be noncontributory to the discussion. We’re all aware that elitism can be used in such context.

If you're saying that there's no value in analysing common definitions then I disagree, because people can be competent in word use without a full and conscious understanding of the concepts behind the word.

However, we have pretty thoroughly analysed most of the main definitions already and you're right to point out that we missed one of the most important and as a root meaning (I suspect, anyway), potentially one of the most elucidatory. I liked your explanation and can't actually think of anything to criticise or add, which is rare for me.

I would say though that

Even if the person who sits on the throne is not the best ruler, he will be considered the best ruler so long as no one who can prove otherwise is allowed the opportunity to do so. Even if the elite writer is not the best at his trade, he can be looked upon as the best so long as all those who are better are rebuffed or ignored.

only holds in an absolutist framework. Since we're concerned with writing, I think we should at least consider the relativistic perspective.

If we take one of the functions of an authority or ruler to be to dictate, or at least affect, the norms of a community, and we take 'best writer' or 'best ruler' to be normative judgements, it should be obvious that the very idea of rule by an elite becomes very thin. It's not the case that everyone better is rebuffed, but that within that community, from the perspective of its existing norms, whoever currently rules it is the best, at least unless someone who fulfills the existing ideal even better than the current rulers comes along. It's a meaninglessly self-reinforcing paradigm. Of course, you might not think writing or ruling are normative concerns, in which case I'm happy to discuss it (in another thread) because I'm personally still undecided.

Zovo, I confess I was being rather flippant with the Declaration. I don't know what Jefferson meant and not being a historian I can't claim to. What I said was only meant to be taken as a reply to Kalaam, challenging his position that the claim that all men are created equal is in tension with the concept of an elite: I tried to show firstly that the interpretation he'd given was false (and to that extent probably not what it was intended to mean), and proceeded to give an alternative interpretation that was both true and, with reasonable assumptions, fit well into a defense of the 'hierarchy of respect' form of elitism he described. Anything else I said or implied was probably just carelessness on my part, I certainly don't think Jefferson himself was advocating elitism when he wrote those words, at least not elitism in the political form Weiss is talking about.

However, if your claim really is that 'all men are created equal' is a phrase that could never be used to defend any kind of elitism in a sense under which it remained true, then I disagree. That's all rather off-topic though, I certainly wouldn't have brought up such an obscure reference if it wasn't for Kalaam.

However, if your claim really is that 'all men are created equal' is a phrase that could never be used to defend any kind of elitism in a sense under which it remained true, then I disagree. That's all rather off-topic though, I certainly wouldn't have brought up such an obscure reference if it wasn't for Kalaam.

I didn't say it could not. I said it should not; nor should we entertain the implication. It absolutely could, as you've showed; but to do so is both to drop context and to accept fallacy as legitimate; two things we should avoid whenever possible.

Additionally, Jefferson lifted the phrase from the works of John Locke and used it in the context which it was originally intended; the inallienable rights of men. Though he did make a slight alteration, changing "property" to "pursuit of happiness." I'm unclear as to why.