Asklemmy

43945 readers

1028 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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 5 years ago

MODERATORS

471

Will the world ever stop being anti-intellectual? (discuss.online)

submitted 1 year ago by ThePenitentOne@discuss.online to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

284 comments fedilink hide all child comments

One of the most aggravating things to me in this world has to be the absolutely rampant anti-intellectualism that dominates so many conversations and debates, and its influence just seems to be expanding. Do you think there will ever actually be a time when this ends? I'd hope so once people become more educated and cultural changes eventually happen, but as of now it honestly infuriates me like few things ever have.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you can provide a way to approach that example differently, I'm open to suggestions. It's an example of my experience, where my comment includes many of the common techniques they employ

Your comment is

A character attack (point 3)
You're saying case studies and examples aren't relevant to the conversation (point 2). That's dismissing evidence.

Why isn't my experience relevant, and why can't we post our experiences? Are we required to simply say "yes" or "no" and not why?

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Congratulations on being an asshole. But being subtle doesn't change anything (even Trump tried, and got a gag order).

What criteria would you pick to change character attacks, blatant assumption, dismissal of evidence (without counter evidence), incorrect comments, or marketing nonsense (like "water battery" or "greenwashing") into intellectual arguments?