DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus “Anti-intellectualism...

That's what you got out of my post?

George Bush doesn't drink. And he's not nearly as stupid as the liberal intellectual elite wanted people to believe at the time..

He doesn't respect him, but he'd like to have a beer with him?

I have a picture in my head that he found his "days since someone has made fun of W" counter and decided to set it back to 0

I think you misunderstood my post. That's okay. I'm out.

No I understood your post. I was just in a mood to rant about the topic. My response had very little to do with 'how' I took you comment and more to do with personal frustration over the current state of pretty much everything in the country.

I think W's biggest mistake was who he chose to surround himself by and take advise from.

W was the one who refused to fight back against the media portrayal of him being an idiot. Plenty of people in his circle tried to get him to do it and he wouldn't. He mentioned it in his book Turning Points and I've heard Dana Perino reference that a few times on TV.

j/c

First a political comment: the real move toward anti-intellectualism for the last few years has been found on the Left. Look at how extremely bright people such as Sam Harris, Brett and Eric Weinstein, and others had been ostracized from "their own people". Just a couple of years ago when the Intellectual Dark Web was a thing, when you looked at that initial core group, Ben Shapiro was the only Conservative. The next closest to that side of the spectrum was Peterson, but Peterson's political disagreements weren't so much about liberalism vs. conservatism because he stated a need for both, but rather the tactics involved. Past those 2, Rubin fancies himself a (now) classical liberal), everyone else were firmly, self avowed liberals.

Their only sin was to say "wait a minute" and hold the left accountable to being consistent and true to who they say they were.


Political part aside, this does lead in to my next point: what the IDW has shown, and others like Joe Rogan's podcasts have shown is that we as a society might not actually have the short attention spans that we've assumed we've had for what? decades? Lots of people are willing to listen to Joe Rogan interview some dude for 3 hours, they are willing to pay good money to attend a 3 hour lecture, or sit and watch Petersen and Harris not debate really, but have a conversation about the concept of what Truth is.

The other thing that people appreciate about those cases is that they are done in a respectful manner. No one is going to shout, no one is going to arbitrarily make it personal, or make it personal at all, they take care to not misrepresent what the other person is saying, and if they do, they own up to it and publicly apologize...

THAT is an environment conducive to learning. Even if the material gets too far over your head, you are still exposed to
a process of thinking.

What is being characterized as anti-intellectualism isn't some war on knowledge by the dumb dumbs. It IS a refutation of the experts. It's a refutation of the presentation of information with little to no explanation, but an expectation that we are simply supposed to believe it on face value as being true, correct, and necessary. It doesn't help that the vehicle for disseminating that information is the Media which is all but useless in terms of being able to rely on what is Truth. It also doesn't help that any little bit of skepticism is met with massive backlash and being treated like Heretics and Apostates.

Nuance is not allowed. Expressing an idea to see how it sounds and working through its meaning is forbidden. Accuse the Right of ignoring facts, but there's plenty out there to show the Left restricts Thought.

I think the main reason people stopped trusting experts is because of how corporations hire "experts" to make a case for whatever side of the intellectual argument benefits their company regardless of the truth. You end up with 10 experts for both sides all being contrary based on which truth they are paid to tell.

Then because both sides use social media and fake documentaries the average person is left lost trying to figure our which experts are right and which ones are wrong.

There is also a genuine lack of trust in experts because yesterday's expert can be shown to be wrong over many, many fields. Not in a malicious way but simply because what they thought they knew turned out to be wrong information. Then because information is so freely available these days those mistakes can no longer be easily hidden and instead get broadcast all over the place. So all the common man sees is that even experts can't be trusted to know what they say they know.

Take Diabetes for example. Go to 10 different doctors and chances are that you will receive different plans of action from each and each will hold the OTHER doctors in polite contempt for treating you the wrong way. In the end you just have to do your own research and take what the doc says with a grain of salt and make your own choices. Then in the end the plan that will work is the one you can actually stomach enough to stick to because there is no perfect way to deal with it.

It's like that with a lot of things. There are just too many experts with conflicting information to just broadly trust them. I don't think we are anti intellectuals but just people who are tired of getting burnt by the expert that is wrong and then suffering from it.

Thanks for playing. You've struck out.



Being an islamaphobe is not intellectual. It's bigoted, ignorant, and downright idiotic.



Another king of logical fallacies with a racist book to boot, too.



Sexist pig who causes trauma to trans individuals.

Once again, not intellectual. A dummy who hides his bigotry by just asking questions.

This is not intellectual.




Not respecting someone's pronouns is one of the most disrespectful things you can do.



What's there to learn from sexist positions of "men are held down by women", "let's deny people their identity", and "Islam is a religion of death"?

If there's anything to learn, it's that their positions are based on dogma that can't actually be proven. They use word salad, especially peterson, to make themselves look smart.



What makes Peterson an expert on gender studies, transgender individuals, etc.? I'd like a full list of qualifications that back up his ethos. I'm looking for specific work on gender, trans issues, etc.

How much has Sam Harris studied Islam? I'd love to see where he actually did a deep dive on Islam in his studies rather than armchair philosophical speculation. What about him makes him an expert on Islam?

How is Joe Rogan an expert? He brings on controversial figures to draw ratings. That's not being an expert; he's being a carnival baker.




A plethora of individual across this entire board have shared studies, personal experiences, and many other items with you. It always comes down to "yeah, well...you're wrong because I believe" for you.




Propping up Islamaphobes and bigots doesn't add anything to an argument. It just shows your colored views of the world.



You're free to continue to share what you support. Just don't expect people to listen to you when you cite reprehensible people.

Newt

He just sent me a text asking me to vote for Trump yesterday

Just makes you want to pound your head against the wall. Up is down, right is left, black is white all because facts and truth are now subjective.

Oh wait, that reply was something I'm supposed to take seriously?

I hope not because virtually every aspect of your post has repeatedly been shown to be gross misrepresentations and mischaracterizations of those issues. I would have assumed participants in a discussion on (anti) intellectualism would have dispensed with such a dishonest tactic.

so, first, I do want to recognize that in quoting your post I did leave out the part about Trump. I did that not out of an attempt to cover for Trump, but rather to show that everything else you said in your post would justify someone such as I who hold the opposite position about the same issue.

Do you have any other debate tactics in your repertoire other than ad-hominem attacks? Rather than debate topics with counter-points or facts to back up your point of view or dispel the facts of the other side, you just always resort to calling someone who doesn't agree with you a racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. Do you know what they say about the debater that resorts to name-calling first?

And that pretty much illustrates what Devil is trying to point out. You can't have an intellectual conversation about anything when someone lays out an argument and the other side can only refute it by labeling the person with some derogatory name.

"Do you know what they say about the debater that resorts to name-calling first?"

"My name is donald trump." "and that there is lying ted cruz."

"you are a third rate reporter"

The list of personal attacks and childish name calling is endless. Exactly the same as the lies that have come forth since his first day in office.

"Get your degree from trump university and you too can make it big. All credits are transferable. Sign here. Make the check out to me. Here is your degree. I will see you in class."

So are you saying that Rocket is no better than Trump, in this case?

There's really only one thing that needs to be said to sum up the entire topic. The right elected Donald Trump. He is the embodiment of anti-intellectualism and he is, out of all of their options afforded to them, the person they chose to represent them. Out of 17 possible people they could have nominated, they chose the nastiest, dumbest, most anti intellectual human being among the field.

I don't feel anymore actually needs to be said.

I don't disagree, but can we go at least a couple posts about anything without going for "Well whattabout Trump?"

I don't disagree with you. Had I been able to vote in that primary (I'm an independent), I would've voted for Kasich. But other than Kasich, would you have voted for Cruz? Bush? That goofball doctor guy (can't remember his name)?
I don't think I'll ever understand (especially now, with the benefit of hindsight) how Kasich lost that primary.

We could if he hadn't been chosen as the head of the party and the spokesman for them. You see, that's the ultimate decision for a political party. When you decide to choose a person to represent your entire nation, you made the most critical decision one can make in the voting process. You made him the face of your party and the face of our nation.

I feel as though you are asking for people to put forth a court case while neglecting to show a video of the accused with the murder weapon in their hand. Trump is the key piece of evidence in this puzzle.

You are only mentioning a few of the choices they had at their disposal.

Jeb Bush
Ben Carson
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
Carly Fiorina
Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
John Kasich
George Pataki
Rand Paul
Rick Perry
Marco Rubio
Rick Santorum
Scott Walker

Now don't get me wrong here, the Democrats haven't done a much better job of selecting nominees. I'm not advocating that we are seeing our nations best people running for the office of the president.

But are you actually telling me that from that list you don't see at least a handful of candidates that aren't total idiots? You see, in the past I have disagreed with Republicans on some issues and policies. I disagree with Democrats on some issues and policies. Like yourself I'm an independent voter.

But there's no way given that there were choices they could have made that anyone can actually excuse the choice their voters made. People make choices based on their thoughts, beliefs and feelings. To choose the nastiest, most attacking and demeaning candidate possible speaks volumes to their mind set at the time. There's really no way to deny that they went for being nasty, hateful and not very bright. They wanted to get down in the mud and now they cry foul when you bring that to light.

And that goofball doctor? He's now in charge of HUD.

If you really want me to I can pull out definitions of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and then cite various references where this individuals factually hold the positions as listed by the definitions. It wouldn’t be too hard to do.

I’ve laid out countless factual based arguments over the years here to support my positions along with anecdotal stories from myself and others. I could do the same here to support my positions and it would turn into the typical “well, you think you’re sooo smart...”, “you don’t live in reality because I feel...” or “how dare you use these terms because they don’t match up with my reality...”

If we can’t agree on basic factual instances of bigotry, racism, xenophobia, etc. then there’s no point. Disagreeing on factual based terms is another form of intellectualism.

I could even provide examples, while giving the definition of intellectualism, of these aforementioned reprehensible individuals being anti-intellectual and it still wouldn’t be enough for you or Devil.

You do you. I’ll stick to the facts.

Kasich prolly would have been the last of the 17 I’d of voted for ... i was interested in the “goofy” doc, Carly, Cruz and trump at the beginning ...

Kasich leans way far to left for me .. he should have ran as a democrat IMO ...

The “goofy” doctor is Ben Carson ... he doesn’t exactly fit my definition of goofy but to each there own ...

And ya, i would have voted for the goofy doc over Bush but not Cruz ...

No. I do not see "a handful" of candidates in that list that aren't total idiots. I see maybe 1-2, tops (and that's because the majority of the candidates didn't get sufficient airtime to for me to really form an opinion).

I’m voting for him again and will be proud to do it ...

not for any of the reasons u suggest but it sure is nice to know how u really feel about me all because i look at things differently than u do ... that was eye opening ... thanks for sharing ...

It was truthful. You like having the nastiest human being you had a chance to select as your president. That's your choice but quit trying to act like you don't own that.

I explained quite clearly that it's not "how you look at things". We can disagree and you could have helped chosen a much more bright and civil candidate with which to represent your views. That's not the issue here. The issue is you support the nastiest human being to ever hold the office of president and are proud of it. That speaks volumes.

Happy to share.

Sure, why don't you do that? I'd love to know your definition of each term, because it seems to be along the lines of "If they mention a trigger word, they're a xenophobe". You were calling just about everyone on the board a xenophobe a few months ago when they mentioned that COVID started in China.

At any rate, why should that matter anyway? A fact or idea can be espoused by the biggest bigot in the world. That doesn't make it any less of a fact or idea. If they really are that bigoted or one-sided, then it should be that much easier to disprove the fact or shoot-down the idea, because it should be simple to point out the bias in their facts or conclusions.

What you do though is take any idea put forth, look at who says it, find any off-topic statement they have ever said in their life, in or out of context, label that person with some term, and then dismiss anything else they have to say (related or not) because of that label. How is that intellectual?

When you post a study saying that Transgender female athletes have no advantages over biological females, I point out and show how the study was flawed because of sampling bias, and also mention how world records are all set by biological males which should show that there is a distinct physiological advantage to being a male. What I don't do is try to paint you as some sort of heterophobic, mysandrist and dismiss any ideas or thoughts you put forth on the topic, because of that.

Yet I see you do that constantly. If someone doesn't agree with you, slap a label on them or call them a Buffalo fan. There's nothing intellectual about doing that. If someone has bad facts or ideas and come from a truly slanted position, then it should be that much easier to disprove.

Also, here's a definition for you:
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim a, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument a is wrong".

Your truly incredible ... The first line in my response to u says I will PROUDLY vote for him again ... and u somehow come to the conclusion I don’t OWN IT ... that is even illogical for u ..

There was NO OTHER CANDIDATE that came close to sharing my views ... NONE ... if u were 1/2 as intelligent as u think u are you’d know that ...

Your so biased u actually think he is dumb ... of all the things y’all trash him for that is the one that makes y’all look the most foolish ...

THANK U MR. PRESIDENT ...

He is dumb. "We have 15 cases and they will be down to zero soon."

“If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value,” Trump told Republicans in April. “And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one.” He then made a whirring noise mimicking a turbine.

“If you buy a box of cereal—you have a voter ID,” the president said.

"You're 21 years old, you start working and you're paying 12 dollars a year for health insurance."

‘An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud’

‘I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.’

‘All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me – consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.’

‘I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.’

‘My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.’

Remember, new "environment friendly" lightbulbs can cause cancer. Be careful-- the idiots who came up with this stuff don't care.

‘You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.’

‘[The New York Times] don’t write good. They have people over there, like Maggie Haberman and others, they don’t – they don’t write good. They don’t know how to write good.’

Wind turbines are not only killing millions of birds, they are killing the finances & environment of many countries & communities.

‘I think I am actually humble. I think I’m much more humble than you would understand.’

If Scotland doesn’t stop insane policy of obsolete, bird killing wind turbines, country will be destroyed.

‘I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.’



I can go on and on and on......

Only an idiot would take almost any of that seriously ... and some of its true ...

His IQ is off the charts ... and he’s right that yours being significantly lower is not your fault ... even when he lets u off the hook u can’t cut him any slack ...

The simple fact that you think he was kidding when he said those things is terrifying.

This wasn't some comedic interview, a majority of those quotes are from his own press conferences. Not a time when he would be joking. And he never changes his personality or tone when you say he isn't being serious. Because he is being serious.

Ya ... I’m sure

- The man knows more about ISIS than the generals ... I’d put that in context for u but it would fall on deaf ears ...

- the mans so stupid he thinks if u have a windmill near your house the value goes down 75% .. what kind of moron would actually believe anyone could think that ...

- the man is so stupid he thinks wind turbines killing birds will destroy Scotland ... ..

- and gee i wonder what context the buying the box of cereal gives u voter I’d comment came from ...

Like he said .. his IQ being so much higher than yours is nothing to be ashamed of and is not your fault ...

You should leave these debates to thinking people and go back to enjoying your Trump pocket pal... ANYONE who seriously thinks Trump is a smart person should be medicated.

And if you don't like being insulted, stop insulting the left with these toxic posts of utter nonsense and calling pit less intelligent that Trump... nothing could be farther from the truth.

j/c:

I haven't read this thread for awhile. After reading all the back and forth about about Trump and other politicians, I find the thread title not only fitting, but also hysterical. This debate is certainly all about anti-intellectualism. LOL

Agreed. The low end of the charts always stops at zero.

And once again I see you brought the whine to the party.