S.B.: this was too good not to share:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov..
A.E.: Don't you think it's kind of funny how neoconservatives dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic and anti-American? Intellectually, this is a fallacy. And yet "intellectualism" is employed here in precisely the same way.
S.B.: can you seriously deny that there is a strong anti-intellectual tendency in much of the rhetoric coming out of the political right? Bachman and Perry, in particular, make statements that are anti-intellectual, anti-science, all in the name of a sort of faux populism that seems to be their homage to Reagan.
I think it's a pretty lousy (and, coming from you, lazy) analogy.
B.B.: Maybe A.E. had an HPV vaccination. *ducks and runs very quickly away*
Me: can't wait for the obligatory shot at religion, fox news, and limbaugh...
S.B.: I try not to take shots at religion, Rich. I'm not religious myself, but I don't have a problem with people who are. On the other hand -- Fox and Limbaugh -- I think they're fair game in any discussion of the anti-intellectual movement....
There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent and well studied conservatives in this country and always have been. So it's not like conservatism NEEDS to be go in that direction. But I think any honest examination of the political rhetoric of the mainstream political candidates will support the idea that there's an anti-intellectual bent to it.
H.C.: Saying FOX, Limbaugh, AND intellectual in the same sentence is just wrong...
Me: the reflexive repetition of bumper sticker slogans by the left is anti-intellectual. Does anyone really think "faux" is in any way clever?
The left is a repository for some of the most anti-intellectual, personally destructive rhetoric that I have ever heard. Latest news, Gov. Christie may be too fat to run for president. Yes, this is thoughtful, intellectual commentary from the left.
S.B.: how is that a left wing perspective, Rich? That's just mean.
Me: Because this kind of stuff is modus operandi for the left, and it was two extreme leftists who discussed it: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/27/joy-behar-asks-michael-moore-about-chris-christie-do-you-think-countr
S.B.: look, I'm not going to defend Joy Behar, who to the best of my knowledge isn't even a political commentator. I happen to like Michael Moore quite a bit, we're much on the same page politically -- but asking Moore about whether someone's weight is an issue seems like an obvious question since he is himself overweight and often criticized for it.
In any event, I'm not talking about political COMMENTARY, Rich -- I read very little of it from any part of the spectrum because it bores me (especially the stuff I agree with, but commentary in general).
I'm talking about declared (or in the case of Palin,undeclared but obvious) candidates for political office.
Me: Well, your original quote from R.Y., and your first comment, are much more generic. Unless, of course, you are trying to formulate a No True Scotsman?
I wonder, though, since we are now talking about presidential candidates, if it is fair game to discuss Obama's intellectual foibles?
A.E.: If by "anti-intellectual" you mean recognizing incredulous snobbery, then yes, I am an anti-intellectual. It's a superiority complex. And the funny part is that the self-proclaimed "intellectually elite" hail from both ends of the political spectrum. They are just so convinced of their own superior intellects that naturally anything or anyone that could possibly disagree with them must be sub-intellectual. Which would be why my observation is characterized as "lousy."
S.B.: it is always fair game to tackle the candidates, but keep in mind, I'm not talking (here) about the validity of policies, but the worldview which the candidates seem to espouse.
I reposted the quote because, for one, I think it is timeless (and transcends politics, since as Andrew just pointed out as I type this, that all parts of the spectrum invoke it to suit their purpose).
But at present, I think that there IS a strong anti-science, anti-intellect component to the political rhetoric of the republican candidates. If you disagree, say so - but that is the only point I am trying to make. I'm not interested in a critique of any specific policies in this thread, just the worldview from which they appear to sprout.
A.E.: I'll agree with your last paragraph. And add that, from the left end of the spectrum, there is an equal component of faux-science and intellectual elitism.
Me: And my point is that the left's smug superiority is unjustified, given the palapable anti-intellectualism of the left. Further, I think it is a generalization to suggest that policy disagreements are categorizable as anti-intellectual. Indeed, the very assertion that a whole class of people tends to be anti-intellectual is in itself anti-intellectual statement.
The best way I can illustrate this is a parody of one-liners I posted on my blog: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2011/05/liberal-humor.htmlSee MoreMountain Man Trails: Liberal humor
mountainmantrails.blogspot.com
L.W.: Could you direct me to examples of anti-intellectual statements by the left?
I, myself, have noted disparaging comments about intellectuals from the right, but not from the left. Perhaps I am not reading or listening to the same sources that you are.
S.B.: "Perhaps I am not reading or listening to the same sources that you are." I am guessing that this is a true statement.....lol.
Me: L.W., with all due respect, do your own research. It's all over the internet.
Regarding the sources we read, I read leftwing websites all the time so that I know what the other side is saying. May I suggest that you should consider a similar strategy?
L.W.: If you can, give me pointers to the websites you find the most credible,
both "leftwing" and those you agree with. The Internet is a big place. It's
hard to discuss an issue when the sources which are being cited are
identified as being "all over the Internet" or "leftwing websites". Which websites? What statements? By whom? When?
Me: *sigh* Try googling "stupid democrat quotes" or some such thing. You will find gems like this: http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/democratquotes/Democrat_Quotes.htm
Me: I keep remembering more of the anti-intellectual things from the left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBhg1v4bMo
"...during the trans-Atlantic slave trade some 200 million African slaves bound for America had been thrown overboard by their white captors. This, he explained, had permanently changed the ecology of the Atlantic Ocean and had caused sharks, as a species, to begin following ships (in search of food)." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1766
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw
A.E.: One of my all-time favorites is Nancy Pelosi's "We'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it."
L.W.: Well, now, see, that isn't something I'd ever googled before, so you've taught me something already.
Here's a good quote that your links led me to:'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' 'English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it.' That is a Sarah Palin, mistaking her illiteracy for something else.
L.W.: Thank you for all those links! There must be some very anti-intellectual leftwingers out there after all. I'm out of time and will have to look them up later today. I did follow the very first one, though. Perhaps you didn't intend it? President Obama states in the video that banks have fewer employees because people use ATMs instead of going to the teller, and at the airport instead of dealing with a person, they use the kiosks. Have you not observed this fact yourself? How is this statement stupid, wrong, or anti-intellectual?
Me: "How is this statement stupid, wrong, or anti-intellectual?" He was linking automation, technology, and efficiency to the loss of employment. This is luddite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy)
L.W.: The business of the airlines won't be decreased by kiosks, so the total number of their employees won't necessarily be affected by the use of them. The airline will employ fewer ticket agents. The kiosks aren't a "labor saving device". They make it unnecessary and less efficient to use a (human) ticket agent, so there will be fewer ticket agents. How does Obama's statement that training programs need to prepare people for real world jobs (not to be ticket agents, because ticket agents are being replaced by kiosks) make him an anti-intellectual Luddite?
Me: "The kiosks aren't a 'labor saving device'. They make it unnecessary and less efficient to use a (human) ticket agent, so there will be fewer ticket agents." A) fewer ticket agents = labor savings, i.e. less labor. B) "The business of the airlines won't be decreased by kiosks, so the total number of their employees won't necessarily be affected by the use of them." So kiosks do not decrease number of employes, which means you've just explained the luddite fallacy. C) "President Obama states in the video that banks have fewer employees because people use ATMs instead of going to the teller..." i.e., he embraces the fallacy. So, you answered your own question.
No comments:
Post a Comment