3 ms·

Hah, loving it. Except I grew up in part of the country with gun violence (yes a UK labour stronghold too), still got a degree, a post doc, a job and a decent

by rob_c 4y ago

Hah, loving it. Except I grew up in part of the country with gun violence (yes a UK labour stronghold too), still got a degree, a post doc, a job and a decent income and would never vote labor or green due to their broken policies. (Selling/merging schools, anti nuclear, broken secterian policies to appeal to fringe groups, etc.) Anti intellectualism isn't being driven by tribal politics on this side of the pond so please refrain from spouting such nonsense.

n4r9 4y ago
Anti-intellectualism is a central part of the ideology championed by a party whose ministers express statements like "The people of this country have had enough of experts" and who rail against "metropolitan elites". Your life story - interesting though it is - and a list of policies you disagree with are neither here nor there.
- rob_c 4y ago
  Again Anti-intellectualism is centre piece in society and has risen to the point if being reveered across the pond asin "being too geeky" having negative connotations. Don't pretend this is a simple matter of party politics, you're not a hammer and this is not a nail. It's a large cross-partisan social ill which is only fixed by people working together not insisting "it's all his fault". The blue are guilty of their own politico-crimes, insider trading, favouritism/nepotism, classism and alike (we could go on), don't go making up justifications for them not being reputable they can do it on their own. Again, rampant anti-intellectualism is party policy of most parties. Greens (anti-nuclear given it's low carbon footprint), Labour (import more people rather than invest in the NHS in the good times by raising taxes), SNP (waa freedom), Brexit/GBP/???(whatever they call themselves, the backbencher OAPs calling for a return to the mythical 'good ol days'). There isn't a single party aspousing anything close to meritocracy. The closest we got to that was cummings who frankly has a lot to answer for, for trusting idiot 'data scientists' who luncheon with him in the boys clubs. He at least drove solid policy based on input from peers, even if it turns out his peers can't tell the difference between the black death and a sniffle.
  - n4r9 4y ago
    Ah, you're confusing "anti-intellectualism" with "stupidity". Anti-intellectualism is a narrative of explicit hostility towards intellectuals. What you're describing is party policies that you think are stupid.
    - rob_c 4y ago
      No that's called moving the goal posts. It's a logical fallacy
      - n4r9 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism Goal posts firmly fixed.
        rob_c 4y ago
        Ok point not ceded, but moving on. Why are you then comparing this party to others promoting both diametrically opposite sides of the same arguments as a sane "position". Both extremist religious views and personal freedoms are promoted by the labour in the UK. If they're not promoting anti-intellectualism (your claim) then are they simply demonstrating it? A party cannot hold both sides in an argument and plead with you not to question it. That is either being anti intellectual and anti discourse or demonstrating anti intellectualism. That or at worst is probably being dishonest. It's impossible to make a coherent argument promoting such a position. The same goes for the green party and it's anti nuclear stance despite knowing that had we adopted this decades ago a lot of the problems in the last 12 months wouldn't be coming to a head. You can't be anti fossil fuel and anti the only more carbon at scale reliable alternative. This is again holding both sides on the same argument. And yes the conservatives promote both free market and then practice crony capitalism which are both self defeating opposites of the same fiscal policy. Edit: I'm assuming at this point you're trying to make some statement about people pretending to be "learned" or "educated" by waving around that they could afford a degree of sorts without being learned. The problem is that you are cherry picking because there is now the modern problem of "too much data". Getting 13 answers from 12 experts means there is likely no answer and fits the statement of don't believe the "experts" aspousing their answer. Although I think the problem is the lack of gatekeeping around actual degrees which are worth the paper they're written on vs media studies toilet roll.

by rob_c 4y ago

n4r9 4y ago

Anti-intellectualism is a central part of the ideology championed by a party whose ministers express statements like "The people of this country have had enough of experts" and who rail against "metropolitan elites". Your life story - interesting though it is - and a list of policies you disagree with are neither here nor there.

rob_c 4y ago
Again Anti-intellectualism is centre piece in society and has risen to the point if being reveered across the pond asin "being too geeky" having negative connotations. Don't pretend this is a simple matter of party politics, you're not a hammer and this is not a nail. It's a large cross-partisan social ill which is only fixed by people working together not insisting "it's all his fault". The blue are guilty of their own politico-crimes, insider trading, favouritism/nepotism, classism and alike (we could go on), don't go making up justifications for them not being reputable they can do it on their own. Again, rampant anti-intellectualism is party policy of most parties. Greens (anti-nuclear given it's low carbon footprint), Labour (import more people rather than invest in the NHS in the good times by raising taxes), SNP (waa freedom), Brexit/GBP/???(whatever they call themselves, the backbencher OAPs calling for a return to the mythical 'good ol days'). There isn't a single party aspousing anything close to meritocracy. The closest we got to that was cummings who frankly has a lot to answer for, for trusting idiot 'data scientists' who luncheon with him in the boys clubs. He at least drove solid policy based on input from peers, even if it turns out his peers can't tell the difference between the black death and a sniffle.
- n4r9 4y ago
  Ah, you're confusing "anti-intellectualism" with "stupidity". Anti-intellectualism is a narrative of explicit hostility towards intellectuals. What you're describing is party policies that you think are stupid.
  - rob_c 4y ago
    No that's called moving the goal posts. It's a logical fallacy
    - n4r9 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism Goal posts firmly fixed.
      - rob_c 4y ago
        Ok point not ceded, but moving on. Why are you then comparing this party to others promoting both diametrically opposite sides of the same arguments as a sane "position". Both extremist religious views and personal freedoms are promoted by the labour in the UK. If they're not promoting anti-intellectualism (your claim) then are they simply demonstrating it? A party cannot hold both sides in an argument and plead with you not to question it. That is either being anti intellectual and anti discourse or demonstrating anti intellectualism. That or at worst is probably being dishonest. It's impossible to make a coherent argument promoting such a position. The same goes for the green party and it's anti nuclear stance despite knowing that had we adopted this decades ago a lot of the problems in the last 12 months wouldn't be coming to a head. You can't be anti fossil fuel and anti the only more carbon at scale reliable alternative. This is again holding both sides on the same argument. And yes the conservatives promote both free market and then practice crony capitalism which are both self defeating opposites of the same fiscal policy. Edit: I'm assuming at this point you're trying to make some statement about people pretending to be "learned" or "educated" by waving around that they could afford a degree of sorts without being learned. The problem is that you are cherry picking because there is now the modern problem of "too much data". Getting 13 answers from 12 experts means there is likely no answer and fits the statement of don't believe the "experts" aspousing their answer. Although I think the problem is the lack of gatekeeping around actual degrees which are worth the paper they're written on vs media studies toilet roll.