this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
415 points (91.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43811 readers
1041 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
This smells like someone who considers himself an “intellectual” and is sick of people disagreeing with him.
That may be the case but it doesn't change the strong current of anti-intellectualism in modern societies.
It's useful to those in power, for example.
No disagreement there, but simply declaring that “those who don’t see things my way are anti-intellectual” is a drastic over-simplification of how things got this way. Declaring it into Lemmy, which an echo chamber of progressives and communists (including myself) means we all know who he’s talking about, which means it’s just a progressive dog-whistle for the “them” that we want to be mad at.
There are a lot of intelligent people who hold what I’m sure OP would consider anti-intellectual stances. I live around them, work with them, play games with them, etc. it’s much more valuable to understand who they are and how they got to their beliefs than it is to simply vilify them.
I haven't seen the argument "disagreement is anti-intellectual" being used here, though I'm sure people act that way. It's hard to be disagreed with: people tend to entrench rather than change.
It's still worth noting that anti-intellectualism is pushed as a tool of division and control though. Sure it occurs naturally but weaponized at a systemic level it is much more of a threat to society.
This smells like jumping to conclusions.
It was but OPs replies seem to confirm it.
To follow-up my snarky reply What if we’re the bad guys here?-NYTimes OpEd (non-paywall) This has a good take on how being “intellectual” is potentially an elitist take.
Or someone who's seen brexit happen, or the rise of right wing populist parties everywhere that want to ban books and discount expert advice on climate, the economy, etc.
Observing democratically-elected governments being unable to address existential threats to the human race is certainly food for thought.
I somewhat agree. The world isn’t black and white. And as a society we are very much still untwined with our primitive groupthink.
The world is very complex.
What's wrong with that? Just an example, imagine living in a world where most people consume animal products without second thought, despite the absolute moral atrocity that is committed as a result of it. You'd be pathetic to not be outraged at it. People should care about the consequences of their actions, but most people hypocritically selective in what ways they are.
Is it anti-morality or anti-intellectualism you were concerned with? Now I’m confused.
Both. Most people who eat meat would say animal abuse is wrong, all while ignoring their own contribution. A lack of intellectual honesty and logical consistency that leads to moral problems is also anti-intellectual. They would say slavery is wrong because it is prejudice, and unjust for 'xyz' reasons, while also saying 'xyz' reasons aren't good enough to change their mind away from eating meat.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]