British anti-intellectualism

[Pickman's model]

I think it's nowhere near as much of an issue here as it is in America. Partly because this country is a lot less religious than the US. Also maybe to do with how the successful businessman hasn't quite been elevated in public imagination to the same position as there.
Our word 'boffin' is still kind of affectionate anyway, unlike egghead nerd and geek (ignoring the recent trendiness of the last two).

you've not encountered 'the intellectuals and the masses', which if more widely read might consign at least some members of the bloomsbury group to the oblivion they deserve
BOOK REVIEW / Nobs versus mobs: 'The Intellectuals and the Masses' -

 

[catinthehat]

Edited due to being rambling bobbins about Blooms Taxonomy and adding nothing to the debate

 

[snadge]

Not arguing with you there, Danny. I've dismantled it in my mind. It's a start.

Remember to tighten those neck bolts back up, otherwise your head will fall off.


I also noticed that you totally bodyswerved my question, I'll repeat it again.

Good bodyswerving, forget about it being pinned onto liberals, do you think identity should trump logic and facts?

At no point did I mention working class.

 

[Spymaster]

Sure I remember Ace starting a thread on this well back in the day.

Who were you "back in the day" then. You've been around since 2003 and I've only noticed you in the last year or so. You're a name changer, right?

 

[emanymton]

Who were you "back in the day" then. Been around since 2003 and I've only noticed you in the last year or so. You're a name changer, right?

You know if you click (or tap) on their user name, you could see they have been a member since 2003.

 

[Spymaster]

You know if you click (or tap) on their user name, you could see they have been a member since 2003.

Well yes, that's what I said. But not with that name, is the point. I've been around since before that but have only been aware of the name for about a year.

 

[emanymton]

Well yes, that's what I said. But not with that name is the point. I've been around since before that but have only been aware of the name for about a year.

Sorry thought you meant you have been around since 2003. I see actually 2001 in your case.

 

[stethoscope]

Well yes, that's what I said. But not with that name is the point. I've been around since before that but have only been aware of the name for about a year.

A quick search and I could see that RS has had that username back in 2005 too as he was quoted by someone else. Though why he needs to even answer to you I'm a bit confused Spy

 

[Treacle Toes]

...logic and facts....

Are you conflating the two here? Are you suggesting they are the same thing?

 

[Spymaster]

Sorry thought you meamt you have been around since 2003. I see actually 2001 in your case.

Ah, yes. I see what you mean. I've edited my post to make it clearer. Don't know why it says 2001 on my profile. I joined in May 2000.

 

[Spymaster]

Though why he needs to even answer to you I'm a bit confused Spy

Just a question, he doesn't "need" to answer. That's up to him though, no?

 

[Athos]

Are you conflating the two here? Are you suggesting they are the same thing?

The first reference to logic and facts on this thread was mine. In it, I put 'and facts' in parentheses, making it clear that they're different - not conflated.

I don't believe that either should be trumped by identity. (But it's worth noting that I'm making a distinction between identity and experience, whilst accepting that they inform one another.)

Do you think that identity should trump either/or? That some people should have the last word on a particular topic, because of who they are, rather than the substance of their argument? Would you accept that such a position is an example of the anti-intellectualism of the identity politics strand of liberalism? What's your opinion of the tactic of silence any dissent from the view of those with the perceived most authentic identity, by insinuating bigotry? Does that stifling of debate amount to anti-intellectualism?

 

[redsquirrel]

Who were you "back in the day" then. You've been around since 2003 and I've only noticed you in the last year or so. You're a name changer, right?

No. Never used any other name.

 

[pengaleng]

The first reference to logic and facts on this thread was mine. In it, I put 'and facts' in parentheses, making it clear that they're different - not conflated.

I don't believe that either should be trumped by identity. (But it's worth noting that I'm making a distinction between identity and experience, whilst accepting that they inform one another.)

Do you think that identity should trump either/or? That some people should have the last word on a particular topic, because of who they are, rather than the substance of their argument? Would you accept that such a position is an example of the anti-intellectualism of the identity politics strand of liberalism? What's your opinion of the tactic of silence any dissent from the view of those with the perceived most authentic identity, by insinuating bigotry? Does that stifling of debate amount to anti-intellectualism?

I'd say yes. because it's fucking thick.

IMO shutting people down on the basis of 'well I'm xyz so I know more about it than you and you're bigoted so STFU' without having a conversation or explaining further or dissuading debate and trying to control others thoughts is fucking dense, because if you're going down that route to change peoples minds because you are 'right' your argument/point is already full of holes and by having that tantrum you've already lost and really it's just looking down on people you dont deem to be 'worthy'

good arguments stand up to scrutiny, shit ones have tantrums and shut people down. logic.

 

[mojo pixy]

Don't know about thick, because thick means stupid and I think ppl who do that know just what they're doing.

It's controlling behaviour, I'd say more clever than stupid.

 

[pengaleng]

Don't know about thick, because thick means stupid and I think ppl who do that know just what they're doing.

It's controlling behaviour, I'd say more clever than stupid.

most people doing it have picked it up from elsewhere, the clever ones are the ones who stared it, the thick is where people just start using that because someone else did and they think it makes them look clever

if I had a quid for every time I heard that line about 'refusing to discuss my existence' I'd be rolling in it like >>

the people at the top who are most influential arent thick, am talking about people on the ground who just read a single article and their minds made up, or they hear someone say something then integrate that into their daily vocabulary, they might not be thick, but the thing is thick, i aint cussing them, they cant help it in todays oversaturated world



does that make sense?? I aint smoked any weed yet init

 

[pengaleng]

It's controlling behaviour, I'd say more clever than stupid.

progressive authoritarianism?

it's a shame init

 

[mojo pixy]

I'm going to assert that Silence = Violence, then refuse to to discuss the matter any further. That's my contribution.

 

[pengaleng]

the way everything gets conflated with violence now is really boring as a shut down tactic

 

[snadge]

Are you conflating the two here? Are you suggesting they are the same thing?

no, they are entirely different things, compliment maybe though.

 

[Athos]

Don't know about thick, because thick means stupid and I think ppl who do that know just what they're doing.

It's controlling behaviour, I'd say more clever than stupid.

There's a mixture. Some are thick; they just parrot these buzzwords without any thought. Others are a bit more canny; they use them to shut down debates they couldn't otherwise win, allowing then to continue to position themselves on the left without exposing the vacousness of their politics.

 

[malatesta32]

working class people aint thick.

i think you'll find it's spelt 'Fick!'

 

[malatesta32]

re: students. in the UK it went from being a privileged position (pre-war), to a publicly funded possibility via grants (post-war), to an expensive investment that may not lead to a job related to your studies and no guarantee of better wages.
for many young potential students who have little money handling experience, the idea of accumulating debt, let alone one of £1000s, is daunting and unattractive and puts people off so there is a risk of it returning to a privileged position again.
Th expense has an unpleasant knock on effect: 'i've paid £X,000s so i deserve a better degree!'
The idea of studying abstractions like philosophy or study for its own sake, i.e., auto-didactism, baffles people and the UK isn't mad keen on abstractions. Where is our Bernard Henri-Levy or Foucault? Alain de Botton and Owen Jones? The only commentator I've seen remotely near is Paul Mason.

 

[Pickman's model]

re: students. in the UK it went from being a privileged position (pre-war), to a publicly funded possibility via grants (post-war), to an expensive investment that may not lead to a job related to your studies and no guarantee of better wages.
for many young potential students who have little money handling experience, the idea of accumulating debt, let alone one of £1000s, is daunting and unattractive and puts people off so there is a risk of it returning to a privileged position again.
Th expense has an unpleasant knock on effect: 'i've paid £X,000s so i deserve a better degree!'
The idea of studying abstractions like philosophy or study for its own sake, i.e., auto-didactism, baffles people and the UK isn't mad keen on abstractions. Where is our Bernard Henri-Levy or Foucault? Alain de Botton and Owen Jones? The only commentator I've seen remotely near is Paul Mason.

Where is the French Foucault?

 

[Athos]

Where is the French Foucault?

Cimetiere du Vendeuvre
Vendeuvre-du-Poitou
Departement de la Vienne
Poitou-Charentes, France

 

[pengaleng]

i think you'll find it's spelt 'Fick!'

pronounced. unless typing in a dialect.

 

[malatesta32]

pronounced. unless typing in a dialect.

alright joe college, just coz yoo got an O Level or too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because identity politics isn't just a "liberal" thing. When people mention working class and blaming everything on the liberals, that's a prime example of it.

Class isn't an identity, it's a fact of life that a liberal whiner like yourself can't - or more likely refuses to - grasp.

 

[seventh bullet]

He's just frightened that a class perspective may give him considerable discomfort re hypocrisy. He feels personally offended that the 'middle class' isn't viewed with the same goggles below him. And we are beneath him. Uncouth bullies against all that is good. What he dislikes is working class people having the temerity to assert a competing understanding of how society operates. But, if the ghastly hordes get too much, he can afford to just up sticks and move to another country.

 

[snadge]

Class isn't an identity, it's a fact of life that a liberal whiner like yourself can't - or more likely refuses to - grasp.

Debating with identity political proponents is so tiring, they pigeonhole EVERYFUCKINGTHING and restrict discussion by shutting you down.

When these fools look at people as fitting into certain criteria, their own worldview becomes warped.