5 ms·

The podcast really illustrates the anti-intellectualism that has overtaken politics (especially on the right-wing). Everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

The podcast really illustrates the anti-intellectualism that has overtaken politics (especially on the right-wing). Everything that could go wrong did go wrong. When questions were asked concerned citizens were shut down. Why listen to economists, technology experts, historians, and well informed citizens? When you can just go with your gut (really greed) and just disenfranchise the people in your constituents. The secrecy was telling; if they actually had an informed democratic debate, the proposal would not cut the mustard. The worst part is this really plays into the hands of the right-wing. Of course no one is going to trust government if they keep sabotaging it.

roenxi 8y ago
> especially on the right-wing You just took a great message and made it partisan. Why would you do such a thing? :( Looking at some stats [0] it is plausible that education levels have some influence on voting, but realistically it is probably going to be a proxy for socio-economic status. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by anti-intellecual, but the left has the same tenuous relationship with science as the right. The right just tends to be more obvious, because "science" has become a tool for telling poor people that the moral option is to accept lower living standards (eg, climate change => you are a bad person for consuming, but the rich aren't making sacrifices. Economics -> bankers get government protection from going bust, poor people get ruined with debt). I suspect these people aren't anti-science so much as they are pro-fairness, there are clearly massive class biases in the science that gets foisted on the political discourse. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-mid...
- sagichmal 8y ago
  There is no comparable anti-intellectual streak in the American left as there is in the right. Attempts to equate the two is pure bothsiderism, as insulting as it is wrong.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > Attempts to equate the two is pure bothsiderism, as insulting as it is wrong. I'm not letting the irony escape here; you've found the time to express a strong emotional response, but not enough time to actually explain or argue. > There is no comparable anti-intellectual As I hinted at above, how are we defining anti-intellectual today? Because a very quick check suggested to me that "anti-intellectualism" is defined as "republican party policy". Eg, I found a Quora article [0] where someone attempts to spin homosexuality as an intellectualism issue (second point, ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process). That is off the rails; being homophobic is just plain bigotry. Homophobia is a symptom of intolerance, not anti-intellectualism. The scientific status of homosexuality is probably irrelevant to most bigots. If we define anti-intellectual as anti-science, then it is plague on both houses territory. Both wings of politics have hot-button issues where any attempt to use science will result in angry crowds forming. If we are defining that as right-wing people don't like academics then that seems plausible to me, but also not exactly a problem. Academics can be wrong politically just like the rest of us (academics were famously pro-communism as a body, and look where that went!). With that in mind, it isn't anti-intellectualism as such rather than a recognition that academics aren't supporting issues that right wing voters think are important. Pretend that 60% of plumbers associate right wing - nobody on the left is anti-plumber because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. At worst their political beliefs would be ignored. [0] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-the-GOP-is-anti-intellectual https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-the-GOP-is-anti-in...
    - nate_meurer 8y ago
      > ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process. Ah yes, you're referring to Ben Carson, the famous neurosurgeon. Let's take a look at one of his more prominent scientific statements on homosexuality: > "[homosexuality] is a absolutely a choice (...) because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question." Brilliant, right? In a subsequent defense of his statement (couched in an apology of sorts), he went on to deny the very existence of transgender and intersexual people: > "I'm a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality. We do know, however, that we are always born male and female." Unfortunately his vast medical knowledge and experience seems to have left him completely unaware of the numerous people born physically hermaphroditic, or the much greater numbers of people whose non-binary sexual development is caused by hormonal conditions such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. That such profoundly ignorant statements lead many people to discount Dr. Carson's opinions is thoroughly unsurprising.

roenxi 8y ago

> especially on the right-wing You just took a great message and made it partisan. Why would you do such a thing? :( Looking at some stats [0] it is plausible that education levels have some influence on voting, but realistically it is probably going to be a proxy for socio-economic status. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by anti-intellecual, but the left has the same tenuous relationship with science as the right. The right just tends to be more obvious, because "science" has become a tool for telling poor people that the moral option is to accept lower living standards (eg, climate change => you are a bad person for consuming, but the rich aren't making sacrifices. Economics -> bankers get government protection from going bust, poor people get ruined with debt). I suspect these people aren't anti-science so much as they are pro-fairness, there are clearly massive class biases in the science that gets foisted on the political discourse. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-mid...

sagichmal 8y ago
There is no comparable anti-intellectual streak in the American left as there is in the right. Attempts to equate the two is pure bothsiderism, as insulting as it is wrong.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > Attempts to equate the two is pure bothsiderism, as insulting as it is wrong. I'm not letting the irony escape here; you've found the time to express a strong emotional response, but not enough time to actually explain or argue. > There is no comparable anti-intellectual As I hinted at above, how are we defining anti-intellectual today? Because a very quick check suggested to me that "anti-intellectualism" is defined as "republican party policy". Eg, I found a Quora article [0] where someone attempts to spin homosexuality as an intellectualism issue (second point, ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process). That is off the rails; being homophobic is just plain bigotry. Homophobia is a symptom of intolerance, not anti-intellectualism. The scientific status of homosexuality is probably irrelevant to most bigots. If we define anti-intellectual as anti-science, then it is plague on both houses territory. Both wings of politics have hot-button issues where any attempt to use science will result in angry crowds forming. If we are defining that as right-wing people don't like academics then that seems plausible to me, but also not exactly a problem. Academics can be wrong politically just like the rest of us (academics were famously pro-communism as a body, and look where that went!). With that in mind, it isn't anti-intellectualism as such rather than a recognition that academics aren't supporting issues that right wing voters think are important. Pretend that 60% of plumbers associate right wing - nobody on the left is anti-plumber because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. At worst their political beliefs would be ignored. [0] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-the-GOP-is-anti-intellectual https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-the-GOP-is-anti-in...
  - nate_meurer 8y ago
    > ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process. Ah yes, you're referring to Ben Carson, the famous neurosurgeon. Let's take a look at one of his more prominent scientific statements on homosexuality: > "[homosexuality] is a absolutely a choice (...) because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question." Brilliant, right? In a subsequent defense of his statement (couched in an apology of sorts), he went on to deny the very existence of transgender and intersexual people: > "I'm a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality. We do know, however, that we are always born male and female." Unfortunately his vast medical knowledge and experience seems to have left him completely unaware of the numerous people born physically hermaphroditic, or the much greater numbers of people whose non-binary sexual development is caused by hormonal conditions such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. That such profoundly ignorant statements lead many people to discount Dr. Carson's opinions is thoroughly unsurprising.