495
Will the world ever stop being anti-intellectual?
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
495 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
47658 readers
734 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow so you actually think this is evidence, okay. I'm not even sure how to approach this. I was pretty gentle with you and your character too. I was a fucking asshole to a Hexbear user in another thread.
It does come down to character though. By putting one person as "intellectual" and the other "anti" it's creating a hierarchy between perspectives. So then the question is an ethical one, is it justified to dismiss another perspective based on XYZ. I'm guessing in this case, dismissing you is the "anti", right? Based on whatever criteria you've chosen. But what happens if we select different criteria?
Congratulations on being an asshole. Being subtle doesn't change the argument in any manner (and, it is something both gangsters and Trump have tried).
What criteria would you pick to change character attacks, blatant assumption, dismissal of evidence (without counter evidence) or marketing nonsense like "water battery" or "greenwashing" into intellectual arguments (whilst also posting other articles about using fossil fuels for hydrogen)? What about repeating arguments which literally take 2seconds to prove invalid?