> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> I was right: "socially constructed" _is_ an empty, vacuous term,
>> devised solely for the benefit of merely _seeming_ erudite and
>> well-reasoned. You use the term, and hope that it makes you look
>> smart. But when anyone calls you on your bluff, and actually asks
>> that it be _clarified_, get all huffy and accuse the other person of
>> being stupid.
>>
>> You're a fraud and a poser. Away with you, into the dustbin of tenure.
>
> What anti-intellectual claptrap - it sounds like something that
> belongs on Fox News. And last I checked, Kelly was nowhere near a
> tenure track. Might it be that she thought your chip-on-the-shoulder
> attitude wasn't worth a more serious response?
If that were the case, then more shame upon Kelley. If there was some solid material here, and anyone here knew what it was, then I have no doubt that it could be described for everyone's benefit. I asked that a phrase be made clearer, more concrete, if only to avoid ambiguity. I even suggested two or three ways in which the phrase could be defined.
Instead, Kelley reverts to a snotty, elitist tone-- replying that one must spend years of study to even demand a definition for a simple phrase. (In another context, this might be termed "arguing from a position of elite privilege.") It is not anti-intellectual to ask for clarification: it is, however, anti-intellectual to _deny_ such an answer, on the specious grounds Kelly provided.
Doug, if you'd asked a representative of the World Bank to explain some policy or another, and they replied, "I'd love to explain it to you, but you'd have to spend several years studying extremely high-level economics. Right now, you're not worth the effort," you'd have every reason to be suspicious.