7 ms·

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

by 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.

n4r9 4y ago
> 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. This might be what you take anti-intellectualism to mean, but it is not the common meaning (as given in the linked Wiki article or various other sources). Anti-intellectualism is a narrative of hostility towards intellectuals (e.g. academics, scientists, writers...). Having contradictory or unscientific views is not anti-intellectual, it's just stupid. Wanting to defund and reform the education system because of some idea that it's dominated by a cabal of left-wing revolutionaries who want to poison the minds of the youth, is anti-intellectual.
- rob_c 4y ago
  > Wanting to defund and reform the education system My god man did you pay attention when Blair sold the whole thing off during the good times? > Anti-intellectualism is a narrative of hostility towards intellectuals No this contextually is against self proposed "learned" who aspose things like critical gender theory as a science which is by construction unflasifiable. I'm done if you're going to argue around various definitions yourself we've taken 4 or 5 steps back in a conversation. A choice between playing stupid or acting stupid is the same as I've said. Anti intellectualism, as a broad topic not a politico farse (created by putting a hyphen between the words) is a broad social problem that needs addressing and is not based on party politics, you should be annoyed at all parties for this. If you choose to be a hammer and see this as a single party problem go ahead I can't stop you. Hold your contrarian views if you must. I won't tell you your wrong, I'll just feel sad for you.
  - n4r9 4y ago
    > Blair sold the whole thing off Yes - no arguments from me that this was anti-intellectual. I'm not saying that the Conservatives are the only anti-intellectuals in politics or that they always have been. I'm just saying that anti-intellectualism lies at the heart of their current ideology. Blair was not as ideologically distinct from modern conservatism as Corbyn or Starmer. > argue around various definitions I really feel like I've stuck to a single, commonly understood meaning of anti-intellectualism, and tried my best to keep the focus on this in order to clarify what "nonrandomstring" was talking about. > Hold your contrarian views if you must. I don't think they're so contrarian. If I search duckduckgo for "anti-intellectualism in UK politics", the top results are: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britishness-and-anti-intellectualism/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britishness... - 'A brief history of the ideology of anti-intellectualism and conservatism in the UK. ... As I hope to show here, anti-intellectualism is deeply rooted in the political history of Britain and has long performed a strategic conservative ideological function – which is to shield the status quo from systematic criticism.' https://resistinghate.org/anti-intellectualism-in-britain-and-why-its-dangerous/ https://resistinghate.org/anti-intellectualism-in-britain-an... - 'Perhaps the most well known incident involved Michael Gove during the Brexit Campaign when he said in an interview on Sky News that "People in this country have had enough of experts"' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism - Already discussed https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X17719507 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X177195... - 'Recently, Americans have become increasingly likely to hold anti-intellectual attitudes (i.e., negative affect toward scientists and other experts) .. For example, Trump questioned on several occasions whether or not climate scientists were secretly working with Chinese business interests to falsely promote evidence of climate change, hinted at researchers’ ulterior motives in producing research about the safety of vaccines, and called researchers “idiots” for creating (and advocating the use of) environmentally friendly but potentially carcinogenic lightbulbs' https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/anti-intellectualism-and-israeli-politics https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/anti-intel... - 'it is commonly understood as a populist disdain of individuals who speak of certain universal values and engage in the pursuit of knowledge from reason' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01112-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01112-w - 'Ideological conservatism appears to predict COVID-19 attitudes cross-nationally, especially in Canada and the United States ... Scholars have also increasingly seen anti-intellectualism as a component of conservative ideology' http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41482 http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41482 - 'The pattern seems to be that Tories attack what they see as intellectual, maybe because they expect intellectuals (well educated people who can think critically) to think critically against them.'

by rob_c 4y ago

n4r9 4y ago

> 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. This might be what you take anti-intellectualism to mean, but it is not the common meaning (as given in the linked Wiki article or various other sources). Anti-intellectualism is a narrative of hostility towards intellectuals (e.g. academics, scientists, writers...). Having contradictory or unscientific views is not anti-intellectual, it's just stupid. Wanting to defund and reform the education system because of some idea that it's dominated by a cabal of left-wing revolutionaries who want to poison the minds of the youth, is anti-intellectual.

rob_c 4y ago
> Wanting to defund and reform the education system My god man did you pay attention when Blair sold the whole thing off during the good times? > Anti-intellectualism is a narrative of hostility towards intellectuals No this contextually is against self proposed "learned" who aspose things like critical gender theory as a science which is by construction unflasifiable. I'm done if you're going to argue around various definitions yourself we've taken 4 or 5 steps back in a conversation. A choice between playing stupid or acting stupid is the same as I've said. Anti intellectualism, as a broad topic not a politico farse (created by putting a hyphen between the words) is a broad social problem that needs addressing and is not based on party politics, you should be annoyed at all parties for this. If you choose to be a hammer and see this as a single party problem go ahead I can't stop you. Hold your contrarian views if you must. I won't tell you your wrong, I'll just feel sad for you.
- n4r9 4y ago
  > Blair sold the whole thing off Yes - no arguments from me that this was anti-intellectual. I'm not saying that the Conservatives are the only anti-intellectuals in politics or that they always have been. I'm just saying that anti-intellectualism lies at the heart of their current ideology. Blair was not as ideologically distinct from modern conservatism as Corbyn or Starmer. > argue around various definitions I really feel like I've stuck to a single, commonly understood meaning of anti-intellectualism, and tried my best to keep the focus on this in order to clarify what "nonrandomstring" was talking about. > Hold your contrarian views if you must. I don't think they're so contrarian. If I search duckduckgo for "anti-intellectualism in UK politics", the top results are: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britishness-and-anti-intellectualism/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britishness... - 'A brief history of the ideology of anti-intellectualism and conservatism in the UK. ... As I hope to show here, anti-intellectualism is deeply rooted in the political history of Britain and has long performed a strategic conservative ideological function – which is to shield the status quo from systematic criticism.' https://resistinghate.org/anti-intellectualism-in-britain-and-why-its-dangerous/ https://resistinghate.org/anti-intellectualism-in-britain-an... - 'Perhaps the most well known incident involved Michael Gove during the Brexit Campaign when he said in an interview on Sky News that "People in this country have had enough of experts"' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism - Already discussed https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X17719507 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X177195... - 'Recently, Americans have become increasingly likely to hold anti-intellectual attitudes (i.e., negative affect toward scientists and other experts) .. For example, Trump questioned on several occasions whether or not climate scientists were secretly working with Chinese business interests to falsely promote evidence of climate change, hinted at researchers’ ulterior motives in producing research about the safety of vaccines, and called researchers “idiots” for creating (and advocating the use of) environmentally friendly but potentially carcinogenic lightbulbs' https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/anti-intellectualism-and-israeli-politics https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/anti-intel... - 'it is commonly understood as a populist disdain of individuals who speak of certain universal values and engage in the pursuit of knowledge from reason' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01112-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01112-w - 'Ideological conservatism appears to predict COVID-19 attitudes cross-nationally, especially in Canada and the United States ... Scholars have also increasingly seen anti-intellectualism as a component of conservative ideology' http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41482 http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41482 - 'The pattern seems to be that Tories attack what they see as intellectual, maybe because they expect intellectuals (well educated people who can think critically) to think critically against them.'