Do some research on the word "bourgeois".You might find that it doesn't fit your defense of "elitism"
I think I have a decent grasp of the concepts. It would appear that you have your very own form of elitism at play here. Every class somehow considers itself superior to the others, and most often are most aggressively opposed to the classes directly above or below.
The lower class are the underdogs, and because they are not materialistic, greedy, snobby, shallow, they are superior.
The middle class are the egalitarians. Because they believe in equality and are not too greedy, and have not let themselves sink into lower class debauchery and are average church-going families, they are superior.
The upper class are the aristocratic, obviously. Because they do not allow themselves to be restricted by what they see as inferior moral compasses, because they are well-bred, because they understand the workings of the world, and because, well, they are rich, they are superior.
(Of course the lines are not nearly as clear-cut as that. But they never are, really.)
Each class believes itself to be morally superior to the others. You believe yourself to be morally superior to people who contribute to what you consider to be no more than popularity contest threads, do you not? That would seem to be the case.
Anyhow, sorry to everyone else for allowing this thread to be rather hijacked. Get on with it. Some people just can't stand to be left out of the game and will talk crap about those who are playing.