I've been subscribing to The Atlantic for years. It is entirely targeted at upperclass, liberal, college-educated whites. Which is exactly why I read it. Why would I read a magazine targeted at a culture I don't understand or am not a part of? I do expect The Atlantic to explain these culture groups to me in a language I understand, but any periodical simply targets its own audience for profitability reasons.
This sounds like a nice way to keep yourself trapped in an information bubble. I live thousands of miles away from the nearest English-speaking country in a society pretty different to what you'd see in England or the US, yet spend most of my time in the English-speaking section of the internet precisely because of that (reading pretty much anything that comes by, targeted at as diverse groups as possible).
Because it’s valuable to try to understand groups other than your own? Maybe even learn from them? Honestly I’m baffled that you hold this opinion with some pride.
I ascended to that class from a working class family (and no college) and y’all have just as many problems as any other social group.
I don't think you understand my opinion very well.
At no point did I say I do not wish to understand other people's opinions. But I don't speak in their culture, so I need it explained to me. That's literally what liberal humanities are all about, from the Renaissance on: trying to understand the world around you.
Are you somehow assuming, for example, that to truly understand Russia I should only read Russian newspapers and talk to Russians and speak Russian? I shouldn't have say how absurd that is, but here we are.
> y’all have just as many problems as any other social group
I never said we didn't. Don't put your shit on me.
> Are you somehow assuming, for example, that to truly understand Russia I should only read Russian newspapers and talk to Russians and speak Russian? I shouldn't have say how absurd that is, but here we are.
This attitude is so toxic and the reason why many Americans feel as if the 'elites' are talking down to them. Why do you presume the Atlantic, owned by Steve Job's widow, has any incentive to accurately portray these foreign cultures or even domestic subcultures? What a wild belief.
> I shouldn't have say how absurd that is, but here we are.
You might think it's absurd, but that's precisely how you obtain deep knowledge of another culture - you learn the language or, at the very least, listen to first-hand accounts of people belonging to that culture who speak your language.
Otherwise you're essentially asking to dumb it down for you.
> Otherwise you're essentially asking to dumb it down for you.
I wonder if you are exempt from the judgment you put on others.
While I agree that one can obtain a deeper understanding of a culture by exploring it thoroughly, your suggestion that any translation is "dumbing it down" is as absurd as your first argument, and an insult to every teacher.
This purity argument is destructive, as it reflects a powerfully deep elitism that is so exclusive, it appears to be an obvious volley against truth. I also wonder if you are capable of that kind of deep cynicism, or are just blathering.
(In anticipation, one easy argument against this purity is that people who speak English, live in America, went to college in America, got degrees in America ... STILL do not understand incredibly large parts of American culture until it is explained to them in their mode and register, and not even then in many cases. As my citations I'll simply point to our elections. So, yes, one can obtain deeper knowledge by full immersion--which is the point of deeper intellectual understanding--but ultimately that is an approximation, and even full assimilation does not bring enlightenment. Unless you are the thing, you are speaking through translation suited to your cultural comprehension.)
> your suggestion that any translation is "dumbing it down" is as absurd as your first argument, and an insult to every teacher.
I didn't suggest that, otherwise I wouldn't mention first-hand accounts of people who speak your language.
I'm eastern European and I've seen my share of people trying to explain Russia to others without an appropriate understanding of the topic.
They're often hilariously off the mark and I'm surprised anyone would prefer them over sources closer to the matter.
> In anticipation, one easy argument against this purity is that people who speak English, live in America, went to college in America, got degrees in America ... STILL do not understand incredibly large parts of American culture until it is explained to them in their mode and register, and not even then in many cases.
Do you consider yourself such a person? I mean, that's real some self-awareness, but at the same time you're condemning yourself to reliance on people who may or may not know what they're talking about.
That's not a concern, since I have reliable sources for that.
What I usually don't have at hand is insight regarding what's the current mindset and attitudes - the most revealing conversation I had about that was with a Russian who moved out of the countery and her reasons behind this decision (not money since she was from Moscow).
The most striking is always what a person considers normal.
