this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
469 points (91.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
749 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure that your statement has anything to do with stopping thinking of others as dummies. I think it's telling you to think of them that way, and you're just trying to push that under the rug to try to be nice.
You're saying to understand anti intellectualism you need to understand things from their perspective.
The lack of knowledge (especially true knowledge) and lesser ability to understand complex ideas are major aspects of that perspective.
No matter how we define or measure intelligence, we're mathematically guaranteed that it's distributed approximately on a bell curve with a small number of intelligent people at the top.
I'll never not see anti-intellectual people as stupid, even if they have their reasons. I used to be an idiot who actively did things they thought were wrong. But eventually I stopped because I realised it's completely hypocritical and morally and logically wrong. I came to that conclusion without need of others judging me through my own self-reflection, and I'll admit it was hard. Even so, I wished somebody would have called me out, but I guess animal consumption is so engrained in society people don't even question it. I had my reasons to do so, but they were by no means a justification. I still try to understand things in different ways, but eventually it becomes redundant taking each case and doing so. The reality is that anti-intellectualism is incredibly prevalent and people need to change their ways of thinking. Sometimes they are just blatantly wrong and need to stop letting their emotions do their thinking. Sometimes there is nothing to understand. I don't know why people are so bent on seeing every individual separately, it's impossible to do so. Even if we do, they are still liable for their actions. Such as choosing not to self-reflect.
Sounds like your grasp of what “reality” refers to is flawed. What kind of instrument would one use to measure whether people need to change their thinking? What units does that instrument use?
Maybe instead of bemoaning how little effort others are putting into understanding things, you should forge ahead with your own work.
Can you prove this?
The mark of an intellectual! Making bold statements without evidence then suppressing any discussion of that lack of evidence.
Gee I wonder why anti-intellectualism exists?
It couldn't possibly be because of dumbshits like you who enable them, thinking that by allowing them to dominate the conversation every single time it is brought up that you'll convince them to see the light or anything.
It couldn't possibly be people like you pushing popular misconceptions about the debate and blindly accepting every dumb personal attack they make on the rest of us as true without critically thinking about any of it or applying any of your intelligence or anything.
Nah. The problem is other people who call them out and hold them accountable. Totally everyone else.
By being skeptical I’m not enabling anything except actual intellectual honesty.
So in other words, you're just part of the problem.
How do you figure what I said means what you said?
Bruh. Bold?
I don't know why I'm dignifying this with a response.
Yeah you basically claimed that anti-intellectualism is based on stupidity. Do you have any evidence of that?
The answer is obviously no, or you’d be producing it
Anti-intellectualism is stupidity. All stupidity is is just willful ignorance. That's what the word means colloquially and we're using the colloquial meaning of the term.
Grow the fuck up and stop defending stupid people. You are literally harming our country by legitimizing them and anti-intellectualism as a whole. That kind of thinking has no place in any modern society and neither do you if you think that's the direction we should allow it to be dragged in.
Psssssst saying stuff like that doesn't make you sound very smart
I don't give a fuck how I sound. Personally attacking me doesn't work. All you anti-intellectualist dipshits have to bring to the table are dumb personal attacks, red herrings, and temper tantrums whenever you're told you need to know basic facts, and understand things you clearly don't, and the rest of us are sick of it.
Be a fucking adult for once in your lives.
Well you had me fooled, given that you seem to think what you're saying is so important
I wanna dig into this, please elaborate on your adult ideal
Oh look at that, no substantive argument defending openly rejecting learning, just more viciousness and vitriol because that's all ignorant motherfuckers like you know how to do when confronted with your own flaws. Knock me over with a feather.
Die mad. You're doing wrong being willfully ignorant and you're doubly wrong for defending something so harmful and dangerous. You're not going to bully me into shutting up simply because you don't want to hear the truth.
You have to know basic shit and most importantly, want to learn to be a meaningful participant in a fucking democracy. We're trying to run a society here. We have no time for your ignorance. You've caused enough suffering and destruction as it is.
Look at how upset you are, at something that's totally out of your control. So much anger, I could drown in it. Maybe try to focus on more positive emotions.
I wanna focus in on this statement. Do you say hurtful things like this because maybe deep down you're afraid that you'll die angry, angry at things that are completely out of your control? This is a very natural fear so don't be afraid to admit it.
Wow I didn’t even need to quote two sentences of yours to expose your hypocrisy. You managed to do it in the span of ten words.
But just to drive the point home, this was you a couple comments ago:
Like, you’re spewing vitriol. Do you really not see that?
You showed yours in four.
You showed yours the second you opened your mouth defending dumbasses in here while completely ignoring their own brand of vitriol, and offering up your own as a consequence.
You show yours when you couldn't be assed to look at my post history for five minutes like a decent concern troll. 🤦
You're literally doing it right now, looking for a cheap gotcha moment, and when you read this and find out it didn't work because I am openly an asshole, you're going to whine and complain, and I'm gonna sit here and shake my head right along with OP.
You are on the wrong side of history and you are actively helping to destroy not only the U.S. but the rest of the developed world with your garbage and you give not one single fuck as long as you can use stupid people -- and I emphasize stupid people -- to virtue signal.
Grow up.
There’s no hypocrisy indicated in the two sentences you quoted; indeed there’s no conflict between them.
Where there is a conflict is between shaming me for insulting people (Did I? Where?), in the same sentence that you insult me.
You're literally defending anti-intellectualist dumbshits throughout the thread. Most of your posts are vitriolic. You came in here with an attitude, and when others called you out on it, you assaulted them with the same tired old thought-terminating cliches and personal attacks every anti-intellectualist abuses others with. It's old, it's tiresome, it's destructive, and you really really need to go do something better with your time on this earth than enabling people to be stupid with no social consequences.
You're doing it everywhere. And you don't realize what you're doing because you don't think about what you're saying, and you don't think about what you're saying because you don't care about the truth. Like all anti-intellectuals.
Well, the rest of us do, and we have a country to run and lives to live. You need to go touch grass. We'll simply move on without you.
No. You have your definitions arranged sloppily. Stupidity is stupidity.
I’m not defending anyone. Like at all. You being unable to see that is another indicator of how sloppy and undisciplined your mind is.
Colloquially, anti-intellectualism is the stance that intellectualism is bad. Intellectualism is not the same as intelligence. Intellectualism is a specific relationship with the mind and knowledge. Specifically it’s the belief that articulated argument and logic is the best way to approach knowledge. Anti-intellectualism is the stance that there are other ways far more valuable to develop knowledge.
For a bunch of self-proclaimed “intellectuals” you guys have no idea what you’re talking about.
Like being an intellectual and in favor of intellectualism is one thing. It’s another thing entirely to declare yourself an intellectual without actually being one.
In my experience, skilled intellectuals don’t call themselves that, and people who call themselves intellectuals are primarily interested in being seen as special.
Just to educate you a little on what the landscape is here, alternatives to intellectual consideration of reality include:
You’ve latched onto one of those, because apparently you don’t read enough to have any awareness whatsoever of the context of this conversation. Which is ahem rather anti-intellectual of you.
Well, you got me there, Chief