Pretentiousness vs. Elitism
m0th
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, -eloquence- wrote:
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
> and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
> the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
i was thinking of elitism as something that usually goes on in a
government-situation, which would mean that it's more internal, i
suppose. *shrug*
pretentiousness has come to mean an outward attitude toward "normals" or
newbies, and a "gother-than thou" attitude within the scene.
but elitism would seem to have less to do with attitude and more to do
with how many people you know, how well-liked you are, how many
guest-lists you're on...;)
i know a lot of people who are full of elitism, but i wouldnt call them
pretentious at all.
you can control how pretentious you are because it's outward.
elitism ...it's more a thing you're granted by your peers, i would
suppose. just my observances. *sheepish smile*
<em>
m0th |"In visions of the dark night
Emily B. Zurich | I have dreamed of joy departed-
ezu...@uiuc.edu | But a waking dream of life and light
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~ezurich | Hath left me broken-hearted." -EAP
Christopher M Moore
In <elly-12019...@f182-097.net.wisc.edu>
el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) writes:
>
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
>because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
>would think that I was potentially elitist. In this subculture,
>there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
>new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
>say that most of us aren't pretentious.
>
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
er...i guess i think they're pretty similar. i think a lot of
pretentious people think of themselves as elitist, and certainly anyone
not part of an elite will think of the elitists as pretentious. i guess
an important difference is that pretentiousness is by definition
grounded on pretense. elitism implies deciding that you're better in
some way then loads of other people, which can range from goths saying
"we're better because we're more open-minded" to hardcore nazi skins
saying "we're better because we're white". both groups are elitist, and
i wouldn't say either are overly pretentious, if they believe what they
say (though one group is obviously quite retarded...it's an exercise
for the reader to pick out which i mean) since they're being elitists
on the basis of ideas and not fashion. someone who snubs somebody
because they're not fashionable is pretentious. most goths i've known
in real life (not many) are quite pretentious and i just have to laugh
at them.
in any case, i think refusing to like or talk to someone solely based
on the way they dress or what subculture they identify with is just
plain snobbery. the normal who laughs at the goth wearing black is no
different than the goth who mocks "those stupid raver kids" or whoever
for not being "goth" enough.
np:fsol "everyone in the world is doing something without me" (how
true, eh?)
--
Here lies a youth who died of consumption:
you know why
Do not pray for him
Inox
-eloquence- wrote:
>
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
> would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
When we're elitist, we may feel we're better than the
mundanes, other goths, etc. When we're pretentious, we
behave in a way that indicates we expect them to
acknowledge that opinion as valid. My $0.02.
--Inox
Eeyore
-eloquence- (el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu) wrote:
: I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
: would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
: would think that I was potentially elitist.
Hmm... seems to me that someone who incorrectly thinks that
he is better than everybody else is pretentious, while someone who
correctly thinks that he is better than everybody else is elitist.
P.S.: I'm elitist.
-eeyore
--
"I was doing a Q&A the other day with my audience and somebody
asked, 'How do you stay so superinformed about everything?' I'm not
superinformed. George Will is superinformed. You just think I'm informed
because most people know *absolutely nothing*. If I can point out that
Japan is in Asia, they think I'm a genius."
-- Bill Maher
Christoph Fitzgerald
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, -eloquence- wrote:
** What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
**and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
**the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
I think the meaning of both words has been jumbled up and lost a
lot of their original meaning. Still, they are both intrinsically
different. How?
Being pretentious, at the most common level, simply means to
to posses and make claims. Most people, under this definition are
pretentious, thus the word seems to have very little meaning in today's
society. Still, I think it generally means to make claims that are rather
bold. Stating "I am the the humblest person in the world" would be
rather pretentious. But, is that elitist?
To be elitist would be to let one's pretentious thoughts influence
his or her actions. If I, for instance, were to not talk to someone that
did not meet my pretentious qualifications, I would be elitist since I am
consciously and actively letting my notion of who is "good" enough to talk
to guide my actions. Someone that commented "I am the sexiest person
alive" would not necessarily be elitist. But, if he decided to let
that thought guide his or her actions completely, he would be.
I don't know if gothy people are intrinsically elitist or
pretentious. I think society contains elements of people that are both,
though, and the gothic genre falls under that. In a stereotypical high
school, for instance, the "jocks" excerted the same amount of elitism that
goths/other "freaks" did. Both groups looked down upon each other and let
that guide his or her actions. All subcultures with have elitist elements
in it. That is what defines it. I think the gothic scene IS rather
ostentatious in that we tend to value excessive display, be it
clothing wise or behavior wise, and that is more of something that doesn't
appear in other subculters.
Personally, I know I am an intellectual elitist. I really dislike
people that can't hold their own in any sort of intellectual discussion.
And yes, this HAS guided my actions, be it slight snickering here and
there or distancing myself from people that I consider to be less
intellectual. Probably not the greatest of attitudes, but it IS one that
seems to be common in the gothic friends and people I know.
*waves*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Christoph +
+ Hey, I'm Perky! +
+ http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fitz +
+ Currently Listening to: Mephisto Walz +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-eloquence-
I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
say that most of us aren't pretentious.
What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
-eloquence-
--------little kitten-goth, part&parcel of elly'n'boo,
"Don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things!" -Boo
http://arch.housing.wisc.edu/~elly/---------
Lady Bathory
el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) wrote:
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
>because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
>would think that I was potentially elitist.
Webster says (paraphrased) of elitism:
Elitism: (i picked the defn to which i infer that you refer. :) advocacy
of an elite.
Elite: a superior group.
Interestingly enough, as for pretension:
Pretentious: affected, assuming, conceited, conspicuous, ostentatious,
presuming, priggish, showy, tawdry, unnatural, vain.
>In this subculture,
>there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
>new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
>say that most of us aren't pretentious.
>
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
>
> I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
>thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
>to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
>
> -eloquence-
>
>--------little kitten-goth, part&parcel of elly'n'boo,
> "Don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things!" -Boo
> http://arch.housing.wisc.edu/~elly/---------
--
Lady Bathory.........Erzabet Travestments, POBox 6028, Evanston, IL 60204
"Without love or love's holiest treasure I shall pass into Hades abhor'd,
To the grave as my chamber of pleasure, to death as my Lover & Lord."
SpinningMusicToGetRippingDrunkTo@DeathRattleGothicNight@Delilah's,Chicago
Lady Bathory
[posted/mailed]
Disclaimer: my newsreader just did something weird & i think an early
version of this post got sent out. If there's a partial dupe out there
somehwere, sorry. (Hasn't showed up yet, so who knows.)
el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) wrote:
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
>because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
>would think that I was potentially elitist.
Webster says (paraphrased) of elitism:
Elitism: (i picked the defn to which i infer that you refer. :)
advocacy of the rule of an elite.
Elite: a superior group.
Interestingly enough, as for pretension:
Pretension: a false claim; affectation; assumption of superiority.
Pretentious: claiming great importance; ostentatious.
The problem in arguing whether one--or goths as a whole--is (/are)
pretentious or elitist is this: How can you be sure that you are indeed
one of the elite? (In soul-searching, one prolly then goes on to ask such
questions as, "Why do i *want* to be part of the elite, if in fact i
do?" For the sake of brevity, i'll assume that such things are
irrelevant to this discussion.)
& what kind of elite is it? Obviously not an economic or governmental
one. (I am both unwealthy & ineligible for public office. [1] :)
Over what does it rule? Again, not a governmental, societal, or economic
elite. Hell, must it rule? Or can the elite abdicate & sit around being
apathetically superior? That last gets my vote, w/respect to what you are
putting forth.
I would guess that you want to postulate a "goth" elite of superior
intellect, manners/decorum, &/or aesthetics. I disagree w/all of these
postulates, tho' one could prolly make a case for the 1st by conducting
surveys & manipulating statistics. However, goths are just as rude,
shitty, & poorly behaved on the whole as anyone else, & i simply cannot
logically come up w/a way to argue the "superiority" of one aesthetic
over another.
<fumble> Where's my Wilde?
Actually, in a discussion recently on the chigoth mailing list, Ron
Carrier offered up the possibility of a goth elite that exists w/in the
subculture: an elite composed of those who provide resources/outlets for
other goths (i.e., promoters, DJs, zine editors, boutique owners, event
hosts/-esses, etc.) By this defn, "pretentious" ppl would be hangers-on;
those who pad their self-worth by associating w/ & dropping the names of
elite, while basically doing nothing themselves (These ppl usually kiss
the collective ass of the elite, & then turn around & slag them behind
thier backs.) An interesting idea, tho' not necessarily applicable to
this discussion.
>In this subculture,
>there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
>new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
>say that most of us aren't pretentious.
I would argue that last sentence. I don't think (presuming that we're
defining "pretension" in a derogatory sense; i m'self am quite proud to
be Ostentatious As Fuck(tm) on a regular basis) most of the regular
posters here on a.g are terribly pretentious (unless in a ironic,
self-parodizing way)--those of us who think we're better than everyone
else actually are [2]. However, i do think there is a large contingent
out there IRL--in most of the goth scenes i've observed/in which i've
moved--of pretentious, self-important types.
There are those that would try to nobly argue that the wrist-to-forehead
cheeksuckers aren't *actually* "true" goths (whatever that means), but
rather some near-miss subgenre class: "nanogoths", "doom cookies", etc.
So then our problem becomes the establishment of a definition for a
"goth".
To my mind (for the sake of your arguement), it is easiest to define a
goth as someone who moves w/in & subscribes to the aesthetic of the
gothic subculture. The "gothic subculture" is defined as an extreme
subcultural stratification originating in the early 1980's, arising out
of the punk movement, & centering upon dark imagery/music.
Taking into account these definitions, the woebegone doom-mongers
flitting about gothclubs worldwide moaning about their incomprehensible
emotional pain, slagging their fellows' fashion sense/dancing ability, &
incorrigibly quoting Morrissey on that stupid "Black on the outside"
shite are every bit as viable "goths" as we verbose a.g battleships.
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
Elitism is the championing of the existance of a small superior elite
over a large inferior mass. Pretension is one's automatic but unjustified
assumption of one's inclusion in said elite.
Obviously pretension w/respect to goth affects those outside the
subculture. Otherwise, why would countless normals & other non-goths
freaks assume we're all anorexic wrist-slitting basketcases clutching
volumes of Byron to our velvet-bedecked sunken chests.
> I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
>thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
>to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
Publish & be damned! :)
[1] Note that implicit w/in this statement is my own assumption of
inclusion w/in an elite. However, i'm just poking fun at pretension. :)
[2] Another case-in-point.
victoria gwaed
In article <elly-12019...@f182-097.net.wisc.edu>, quoth
el...@arch.housing.wisc.edub...
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
Mr. Webster...
"elite- choice...select...to choose...pick out...the choice or most
carefully selected part of a group, as of a society or profession/
pretentious-... making claims, explicit or implicit, to some
distinction, importance, dignity... showy, ostentaious...
***pretentiousness-... false assumption of excellence***"
Ah! there is the heart of the matter! There is nothing wrong with being
a little elitist (being choosey about who to associate with), "one must
have some discretion in one's company," the problem comes when a goth
tries to flaunt themselves as being something they obviously are not.
It is very tedious and boresome.
--
victoria gwaed *** lilitua...@2die4.com ***
(who is wondering what shyte she's going to get from this post.)
Ronald M. Carrier
[Posted and mailed.]
-eloquence- <el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu> wrote:
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
>because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
>would think that I was potentially elitist. In this subculture,
>there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
>new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
>say that most of us aren't pretentious.
I daresay that the "us v. them" mentality is characteristic of every
popular-music subculture, indeed of every social group that involves an
insider/outsider distinction (i.e. almost every social group one cares to
name). It's hard to see that this is intrinsically wrong, since (all
other things being equal) there is no reason why a social group should
not preserve its distinctiveness.
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism?
To be pretentious is to pretend to something, i.e. to hold forth a claim
to something. The pretender to the throne is one who holds a claim to
being first in succession, and s/he may well hold such a claim whether or
not the claim is legitimate. While "pretentious" is often used only in
situations in which the claim being held forth is illegitimate, it is a
term that is, strictly speaking, neutral with respect to the legitimacy
of the claim.
To be an elitist is to endorse or promote the existence of an elite. (It
is interesting to note that the first edition of the _OED_, of which I
have a copy, does not list "elitist" as a word. So the word is of fairly
recent provenance.) And the elite is that which is choice, that which
has been selected according to some criterion. So to be an elitist as to
endorse or promote the existence of some choice group within a larger
group, the choice group being selected according to some criterion.
Since the larger group in question is the gothic subculture (or at least
a local section thereof), to be an elitist within the gothic subculture
is therefore to endorse or promote the existence of some choice group
(according to some standard pertinent to the gothic subculture) within
the gothic subculture.
It can easily be seen from the above that pretension and elitism are
different, and in many cases unrelated to one another. The interesting
issue, then, is that of evaluating pretensions to membership in an elite
within the gothic subculture, since that is where pretension and elitism
intersect. The question here is: What is the legitimate criterion for
membership in an elite in the gothic subculture? For the criterion to be
legitimate, it should be a criterion that is pertinent to the ongoing
existence of the gothic subculture. This is because a pretension to
membership in the elite of the gothic subculture is legitimate only
insofar as the existence of the elite is itself legitimate; and the
existence of the elite is legitimate if the activities of the elite
sustain the existence of the gothic subculture.
What does one do as a member of the gothic subculture? One wears certain
clothes--and to make this possible there are those who market clothing to
the gothic subculture. One listens to certain kinds of music--and to
make this possible there are bands that compose and play gothic music and
fanzines and record labels concerned with such music. One goes to shows
and clubs--and to make this possible there are DJs and promoters who
establish and run those events. There exists within the gothic
subculture a comparatively small group of people who make it their
business to create and promote the various things and activities that the
rest of the subculture acquires and participates in. And since the
gothic subculture exists as the distinctive subculture that it is because
of these things and activities, the gothic subculture is sustained in its
existence by virtue of the doings of this small group within the gothic
subculture.
There exists a subgroup within the gothic subculture, namely these
"movers and shakers." There is a criterion that distinguishes the
subgroup from the rest of the subculture, namely that of being one who
creates and promotes the things and activities that everybody else buys
and participates in. Thus the subgroup constitutes an elite. The
criterion that distinguishes this elite is legitimate, since the
criterion is pertinent to the ongoing existence of the gothic
subculture. Thus the elite is legitimate. To be an elitist within the
gothic subculture, and legitimately so, is to endorse and promote the
existence of this elite of "movers and shakers" within the gothic
subculture. To the extent that goths buy and participate, they are
elitists, since their buying and participating effectively endorses and
promotes the ongoing existence of the elite, and so the ongoing existence
of the gothic subculture. Pretensions to membership in this elite are to
be evaluated by whether and how well one creates things and activities
for the rest of the subculture.
<snip>
> I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
>thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
>to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
Please make sure to quote me in context and to spell my name correctly.
<grin>
Later...
--
Ronald M. Carrier -- rcar...@suba.com
Graduate Student in Philosophy, Northwestern U.
"Philosophy--I'm only in it for the money."
Kevin O' Gorman
el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) writes:
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
Pretentious people are afraid of life, elitist people are afraid of
other people.
K.
-
Loki
One day, it occurred to el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) to
write:
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
>because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
>would think that I was potentially elitist. In this subculture,
>there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
>new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
>say that most of us aren't pretentious.
Well, I would say that many of us actually are pretentious. But, that
aside... there is a difference, yes.
Elitism involves effort. People who are members of elite groups are
capable of accomplishing much more than the average person in their
chosen field of endeavour. For example, commandos in the military, who
are able to do things ordinary soldiers cannot.
Pretentious people have, well, pretensions. In their case, the
difference between them and ordinary people exists primarily in their
minds. An obvious example is that of the incompetent corporate
executive, whose employees happen to be efficient. He (I find women
tend to fall prey to this less often) believes in a myth of
superiority, because of the things he has accomplished by being a good
leader.
But, the difference is individual.
Loki --- Brynjolfr --- Redvision
f3...@unb.ca --- redv...@geocities.com --- d_fl...@husky1.stmarys.ca
Geek Code-> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/5742/#Geek
Goth Code-> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/5742/#Goth
Charles Peyton Taylor
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 03:14:36 -0500, el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu
(-eloquence-) wrote:
<snip!>
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
I would say that pretentiousness has more to do with
thinking (pretending) you are better than you actually
are. Elitism is more the smugness associated with being
a member of a group or club.
For example, someone who talks about being a "real" goth
would probably pretentious.
Someone who talks about how stupid mundanes are would probably
be elitist (which doesn't necessarily mean that the mundanes
in question aren't stupid, but that someone would still be
elitist.)
Altogether, I'd much rather be accused of elitism than of
pretentiousness. But, depending on the accuser, I might not
care one way or the other.
> I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
>thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
>to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
>
> -eloquence-
>
>--------little kitten-goth, part&parcel of elly'n'boo,
> "Don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things!" -Boo
> http://arch.housing.wisc.edu/~elly/---------
C h a r l e s P e y t o n T a y l o r cta...@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of
the Naval PostGraduate School
"Dreams are like water, colorless, and dangerous"
Osiris
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, nightshade wrote:
> the difference between pretentiousness and elitism;
> september and petro, respectively.
Aaaaaaaaugh! *twitch*giggle*
I haven't heard from September since he made his departure from my
apartment for final destination in Boston last year; and my friend Jenn
will never forget the day he arrived and found her there. I'll say this
for his pretentiousness... he gets around and has seen quite a bit, and
almost everyone has at least heard of him.
Of course, there's a big difference between famous and infamous. <g>
Now Petro, on the other hand... Oh, I'd better not say anything, so as
not to get smacked at tomorrow's Chigoth Pasta Party. ;)
"It's not just ones and zeroes anymore when you're within arms reach."
== Tarik John Dozier ============================ Osiris, Deus ex machina ==
osi...@deathsdoor.com t-do...@staff.uiuc.edu aeon...@cryogen.com
===================================== http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/t-dozier ==
And remember, it's better to hurl yourself screaming naked into the void
than to lie down and sleep with it.
David Gerard
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 03:14:36 -0500, -eloquence- (el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu) wrote:
: I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
:would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
Pretentiousness is acting like you're better even though you're
not. Elitism is knowing you're better and not giving a shit about
showing it. ;-)
(Note that the latter can tip over into hubris; which is why it's
generally a good idea not to rub it in people's faces, or at least
only on the occasions when the internal pressure caused by being
polite to fscking morons gets too high.)
:I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
:because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
:would think that I was potentially elitist. In this subculture,
:there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
:new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
:say that most of us aren't pretentious.
Yes, that's elitism.
: What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
:and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
:the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
Both.
: I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
:thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
:to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
Just spell my name right. ;-)
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"CHARACTER???? was it $%&$^$& character when i picked up the $&^$^ bullet
wound just three inches away from my least used but most favored portion
of lower anatomy? Character like that I don't need ..." (Jealousy)
Qcumber
el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) writes:
> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>I sense that there is definitely a difference between the two,
>because while I would never think that I was pretentious, I
>would think that I was potentially elitist. In this subculture,
>there seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality of sorts, producing
>new uses for words like "normals" and "mundanes". But I would
>say that most of us aren't pretentious.
> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
>and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
>the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
I think that the difference between pretentious and elitist is that
pretentious ppl's claims to be 'the be all and end all of goth' are
unjustified, whereas elitist ppl's claims are more justified (though they
are still not fully justified 'cos many ppl have differnt views as to
what is goth).pretentious ppl also tend to be more interested in thir own
image than in what they claim to be.
if you look up pretentious in the dictionary (Collins Paperback
dictionary and thesaurus to be precise) it has this to say:
pretentious adj. making (unjustified) claims to special merit or important.
> I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
>thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
>to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
quote me only if you email me a copy of whatver my stuff appears in.
Qcumber
~~~~~~~
dp...@uow.edu.au
mas...@suba.com
The dictionary definition of pretention has to do with pretense,
or _pretending_. I have always viewed the term this way, and I guess it
would only apply to those pretending to something - i.e., in this case,
pretending to be Goth.
I don't use "pretentious" to describe anyone because of my
concept of the word's usage ("poseur" fits better, anyway), and I am neither
pretentious nor elitist - though too many Goths feel the need to see
themselves as better than their bretheren, so I would consider "elitist"
a sadly valid term in some cases.
Smooches,
Heather
none of us are "better", we just do/feel/see things differently...
Albatross
nexxus1 wrote:
> nexxus1--who doesn't distinguish between pretentiousness and elitism
This is a problem.
Since the sixties, we are no longer allowed to value differences in a
hierarchal way. All elitism must be seen as pretension, since all things
must be seen as equal.
The intention behind this line of thinking was that it would eliminate
discrimination. Which it does. Unfortuantely it not only eliminates
unreal heirarchal distinctions, it also eliminates real and neccesary
ones. People who have been truly inculcated with this belief, that they
must not place one person or idea higher than another, are desperately
impaired in their ability to distinguish true from false.
Reality is heirachal in every possible way.
Deal with it.
King Albatross
ming of mongo
Personally, I consider myself elitist. And pretentious. Infact, I would
go as far as saying I am an "Elitist Pretentious Fuck"(tm)
Lets face it, do any of you have much good to say about the general
public? I don't. The progress of humanity in arts, sciences,
philosophy, etc... has all come from a rather small number of
individuals... The average human is barely capable of alphabeticly filing
memos.
I don't really care if they are gothic or not, but do they have to wear
those goddam baseball caps?
I know intelligence when I see it, and that is all too seldom. And I
know the difference between people who's tastes differ from mine, and
people with no taste at all. Take a guess which is the larger group?
--
-ming
http://exo.com/~ming
Elitist, pretentious, and proud.
nexxus1
>Hmm... seems to me that someone who incorrectly thinks that
>he is better than everybody else is pretentious
No, just arrogant
>while someone who correctly thinks that he is better than everybody else is
>elitist.
>
>P.S.: I'm elitist.
>
Assuming that you are being serious <trying hard to hold back the laughter> the
correct term for you would be 'arrogant'
Jim Rantschler
'eb>' is -eloquence-
'kg>' is Kevin O' Gorman
'tp>' is King Albatross <bow>
eb> What do you think is the difference between pretentiousness
eb> and elitism? Is the former merely something that goes on _within_
eb> the subculture? Or does it affect those outside it as well?
To begin with, here's the kind of paternalistic attitude that is
associated with pretentiousness:
kg> Pretentious people are afraid of life, elitist people are afraid of
kg> other people.
Yes, O'Gorman, you know these people better than they know themselves.
Phaugh!
This really gets my goat. Pretentious people are not 'afraid of life.'
You and I have no way of knowing what they're afraid of, what we do know
is that they want to be +seen+ as a member of the elite. I'm not
personally in favor of people trying to look like more than they are,
although I think everyone should strive to be more than they are. It's
really an image over substance issue.
Similarly, 'elitist' folks aren't afraid of other people. They think
that there is a difference between, say, good art and bad art, and
they'd rather just deal with the good art and ignore the rest. It can
come back to bite them, if they're too strict in their criteria, but all
in all, there's nothing wrong with liking to associate yourself with the
best.
It's possible to be both pretentious and elitist, but I'd consider it
rare: the whole posing aspect of pretentiousness gives someone little
time to appreciate the beauty of well written prose or novel
composition.
tp> Since the sixties, we are no longer allowed to value differences
in a
tp> hierarchal way. All elitism must be seen as pretension, since all
things
tp> must be seen as equal.
I'm not sure if this is correct, but it seems to be a valid theory: if
there is no best, then only reading the classics is just trying to
+look+ like you have taste: it cannot be that you do. I almost think
Albatross' post was facetious, but I agree with it anyway, with the
exception of the last two sentences:
tp> Reality is heirachal in every possible way.
tp> Deal with it.
(No, I think just the human constructs are.)
Jim Rantschler
Christopher M Moore
In <19970115005...@ladder01.news.aol.com> despa...@aol.com
(Despair603) writes:
>I`m neither one, I`m too misanthropic.
misanthropy is the ultimate elite...an elite of one.
"no one is good enough to hang out with me..."
Despair603
I would say that people who take on an elitist attitude are displaying
pride for the culture they associate themselves with. People who take on
more of a pretentious attitude are more into themselves and don`t really
care that much about the culture they associate themselves with.
I`m neither one, I`m too misanthropic.
CHB
Kevin O' Gorman
Jim Rantschler <rant...@mscd.edu> writes:
>To begin with, here's the kind of paternalistic attitude that is
>associated with pretentiousness:
[snip - he's talking about me!]
I don't know that it's the attribute of a parent to only bother dealing
with its children on Usenet.
>This really gets my goat. Pretentious people are not 'afraid of life.'
Well, that's rather stupid of them, isn't it. Quite frankly, I'd have to say
they are, hence their controllable PRETENSE.
>Similarly, 'elitist' folks aren't afraid of other people. They think
>that there is a difference between, say, good art and bad art, and
>they'd rather just deal with the good art and ignore the rest.
No, elitist people are people who refuse to expose themselves to anything
without the right name, provenance, whatever. They have no real criterion
for deciding what is good or bad, and in general don't really care.
And as for you, go stick your head in a pig.
K STOP MINUS END
Ronald M. Carrier
Christopher M Moore <tha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "no one is good enough to hang out with me..."
Shouldn't it be an elite of none? After all, the misanthrope falls into
the class of beings whom s/he hates.
This, of course, applies only to Timon of Athens-style misanthropy--the
more common version is the Swiftian, in which one hates the class but can
stand the occasional member of it. Whether that really constitutes an
elite is another question.
ren
I'm elite. You are pretentious. ;P End of lecture. :)
--
http://www.goodnet.com/~ren : I'm such a conformist! )
Goth Code 3.0A GoHu6SS6CS6$ TSeNrZ7 PLSgG B8/Bk!"1@ cMCw6 V7 M3p3w
ZGoClJaPuTeExIp C80 A29-(23) n6D b85T H180 g6T0883Fpu mEa1@?4# w9LAT v5E
r7SP p5Z767 D67! h5(TAnFePRDr) sM7PSsYn k5BmpT N1089SCNBH HsMp1 LusAZ9
Christopher M Moore
In <5bj8as$f...@suba01.suba.com> rcar...@suba.com (Ronald M. Carrier)
writes:
>Christopher M Moore <tha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>despa...@aol.com (Despair603) writes:
>>>I`m neither one, I`m too misanthropic.
>>
>>misanthropy is the ultimate elite...an elite of one.
>> "no one is good enough to hang out with me..."
>
>Shouldn't it be an elite of none? After all, the misanthrope falls
into
>the class of beings whom s/he hates.
hmm...you're technically quite correct. however, i often see
misanthropy used to mean "i hate everybody *except* myself", which in
any case is how i was using it. maybe this falls into the swiftian
definition that you mentioned; i suppose i'd enjoy the company of
someone as worthwhile as myself ;>
or maybe i'm not really a misanthrope? maybe i'm a (gasp) a.g.AB member
in disguise...
Audrey Delong
On 14 Jan 1997, ming of mongo wrote:
>
> -ming
> http://exo.com/~ming
> Elitist, pretentious, and proud.
you are hereby awarded 10 of those much coverted coolness
points....
akane, keeper of the coolness points--hey, they don't go bad in teh cold
pit i call a heart...>
>
Was that not a foretaste of unwept tears
That burned like fire on your tongue,
when over ways you never went
a blood-red sun went down? Edith Sodergran
Jim Rantschler
'me>' is me
'kg>' is Kevin O'Gorman
me>This really gets my goat. Pretentious people are not 'afraid of
life.'
kg> Well, that's rather stupid of them, isn't it. Quite frankly, I'd
have to say
kg> they are, hence their controllable PRETENSE.
Could you please show me your reasoning. One doesn't have to be afraid
to want others to see him or her as something he or she is not. As an
example, I may want to be seen as smarter than I am, and so I'd start
reading books by Camus, visibly. This may be to increase social status,
ass I might have none, which is not fear, but envy. There are many
primative emotions. We all know that.
me>Similarly, 'elitist' folks aren't afraid of other people. They think
me>that there is a difference between, say, good art and bad art, and
me>they'd rather just deal with the good art and ignore the rest.
kg> No, elitist people are people who refuse to expose themselves to
anything
kg> without the right name, provenance, whatever. They have no real
criterion
kg> for deciding what is good or bad, and in general don't really care.
I don't see this, either. I believe I said that elitism could go to
far, but I don't see how only hanging out with, say, chemists is a
paradigm of elitism. That, I feel, is your particular spin on the
issue. In some cases, in many cases, it may be true. That one thinks
of things in gradiations is discriminatory, but not necessarily bad.
Discrimination becomes bad in light of the criteria used.
Jim Rantschler
"The moon is a planet just like earth,
only it's even deader."
David Gerard
On 14 Jan 1997 18:05:08 +1100, Qcumber (dp...@uow.edu.au) wrote:
:el...@arch.housing.wisc.edu (-eloquence-) writes:
:> I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
:>would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
[...]
:> I'm going to take note of the responses--I want to write a
:>thingie (essay, whatever) for an up-and-coming 'zine that I hope
:>to produce. If you DON'T want to be quoted, please let me know.
:quote me only if you email me a copy of whatver my stuff appears in.
I assume she will be kind enough to post a copy here, after the zine
has been out a coupla months. ;-)
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"one of the groupies who came back into the goth area was wearing a candycane
and snoopy decorated red sweater (seriously!). there were people coming up and
saying 'so what is gothic anyway?' ugh. it was like a real life gathering of
aol users." (Aubrey Wright on Marilyn Manson)
Kevin O' Gorman
Jim Rantschler <rant...@mscd.edu> writes:
>Could you please show me your reasoning.
I refer you to Jnl. Gth. Stuf., Vol 23, p. 1334.
You great big hairy pillock.
K STOP MINUS END
Loki
One day, it occurred to tha...@ix.netcom.com(Christopher M Moore) to
write:
>despa...@aol.com (Despair603) writes:
>>I`m neither one, I`m too misanthropic.
>misanthropy is the ultimate elite...an elite of one.
> "no one is good enough to hang out with me..."
Watch it. Misanthropes often hate themselves, too. It's the
people-suck-I'm-a-person-I-suck train of thinking.
victoria gwaed
In article <5bf1h9$3...@news.snni.com>, quoth mi...@server.snni.com...
Agreed & ditto. Unfortunately this seems to be the minority opinion.
Around here, often, many if not most, seem to be unabel to distinguish
between discretion and prejudice. At least that is what I've gleaned
from recent 'us/them' threads on alt.goth.
victoria gwaed *** lilitua...@2die4.com ***
Christopher M Moore
In <5blvgh$6...@news.vanderbilt.edu> lilitua...@2die4.com (victoria
gwaed) writes:
>>I don't really care if they are gothic or not, but do they have to
>wear
>>those goddam baseball caps?
>>I know intelligence when I see it, and that is all too seldom. And I
>>know the difference between people who's tastes differ from mine, and
>>people with no taste at all. Take a guess which is the larger group?
>Agreed & ditto. Unfortunately this seems to be the minority opinion.
>Around here, often, many if not most, seem to be unabel to distinguish
>between discretion and prejudice. At least that is what I've gleaned
>from recent 'us/them' threads on alt.goth.
discretion goes well with elitism..."i won't associate with you because
i've personally seen you go around and taunt people who you think are
strange"
prejudice goes well with pretentiousness..."i won't associate with you
because you're wearing a baseball cap"
Hardrock Llewynyth
Thus saith Loki the Unworthy, in the Year of Our Lord Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:50:13 GMT :
> Watch it. Misanthropes often hate themselves, too. It's the
> people-suck-I'm-a-person-I-suck train of thinking.
"The man who is not a misanthrope at forty never truly loved mankind."
--attribution lost
Hardrock, who thinks i may have been Menken
--
Hardrock Llewynyth a.g.AB founding member (DNRC)
hard...@speakeasy.org http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock
The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend
so much of your life defending sons of bitches; for oppressive laws are
always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the
beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H.L. Menken
ren
> Watch it. Misanthropes often hate themselves, too. It's the
> people-suck-I'm-a-person-I-suck train of thinking.
err. Words of wisdom. REally.
David Gerard
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:04:17 -0800, ren <r...@goodnet.com> wrote:
:I'm elite. You are pretentious. ;P End of lecture. :)
I do believe he's hit the nail on the head. (raises drink)
--
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn -- email me if it doesn't work for you
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror)
mailto: f...@suburbia.net f...@tertius.net.au
David Gerard
On 15 Jan 1997 12:40:28 -0600, Ronald M. Carrier <rcar...@suba.com> wrote:
:Christopher M Moore <tha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>despa...@aol.com (Despair603) writes:
:>>I`m neither one, I`m too misanthropic.
:>misanthropy is the ultimate elite...an elite of one.
:> "no one is good enough to hang out with me..."
:Shouldn't it be an elite of none? After all, the misanthrope falls into
:the class of beings whom s/he hates.
:This, of course, applies only to Timon of Athens-style misanthropy--the
:more common version is the Swiftian, in which one hates the class but can
:stand the occasional member of it. Whether that really constitutes an
:elite is another question.
(Y'r enumerating labels, which is more showing off than discussion.)
My misanthropy is my certainty that the majority of humanity sucks,
utterly. I like myself and love and respect my friends. I often
consider than a class apart from humanity.
This is elitism, but can be pretension if applied cluelessly or because
one thinks it would be a status-enhancing attitude to hold.
David Gerard
On 18 Jan 1997 07:29:49 GMT, Hardrock Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
:Thus saith Loki the Unworthy, in the Year of Our Lord Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:50:13 GMT :
:> Watch it. Misanthropes often hate themselves, too. It's the
:> people-suck-I'm-a-person-I-suck train of thinking.
I fell into this at sixteen; more specifically, I knew deep within
my soul that the people around me sucked unbelievably, and thought
that I was one of them hence must suck too ... horrible.
Fortunately I then realised I didn't have to be.
:"The man who is not a misanthrope at forty never truly loved mankind."
: --attribution lost
:Hardrock, who thinks i may have been Menken
'Truly' is not necessarily but can be a weasel word in such phrasings.
Holly Clark
> : I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
> :would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
the easiest way i have of doing this is looking at said person and who
they surround themselves.
in my experience pretentious people find it easier to have people believe
their pretensions at greatness when those people are absolute morons. the
sort who will worship any novel git who has accumulated enough vocabulary
to sound like he/she knows what he/she is talking about.
elitists, by definition, must be choosier about the company they keep,
wouldn't you think?
p.s. i can't help noticing how many subtly different definitions of
'pretentious' there are out there, among people.
.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
.holy.
*and i shall love to listen to the wind
in the wheat....
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
victoria gwaed
In article <5c33ps$p...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, quoth
hcl...@chat.carleton.caÚ...
>
>> : I was thinking (no way--really?!?), and wondering how we
>> :would define elitism as being different from pretentiousness.
>
>the easiest way i have of doing this is looking at said person and who
>they surround themselves.
>in my experience pretentious people find it easier to have people believe
>their pretensions at greatness when those people are absolute morons. the
>sort who will worship any novel git who has accumulated enough vocabulary
>to sound like he/she knows what he/she is talking about.
>elitists, by definition, must be choosier about the company they keep,
>wouldn't you think?
Actually I think you have an extremly valid point here. Aside from textbook
definitions, I think this is a great litmus test of people. They can talk
the talk but if they can't walk the walk, they won't be able to sustain the
friendships of those who can.
To illustrate your point: When I was in London last year I was bombarded
with warnings from ex-pat (mostly french and american) goths about how
pretentious the British goths were, but actually (& this was zero surprise
as I live with one),they are just elitist. Sure the London gothics were
sceptical of me at first, but once they got to talking to me, the ones I
chose to inflict myself upon got on quite well with me. I was told
repeatedly; "Don't pick anyone who looks TOO good" to get you into the
slimelight... I picked the best dressed gothic I could find and she even
offered after I talked with her for a few minutes!
victoria gwaed *** lilitua...@2die4.com *** GothCode3.0:
GoATCD5SS6Sb6CS3 TAnFe(TgGl)]Nr[8 B/!3Bk\]6"3 PSaRSg cBkcNRs8 V6s
M2p3D ZGoExgExzFanClb C6o a27(21) n2M H157 g9!??8?A m5Ea1No1G@s6
w8! v8MS r7EI p75585Me D78! h9AnFeTg{R} sF2SSsWy k7BdSDPFR N0796NW
HfsSp4 LusTN8