American anti-intellectualism and how politicians and corporations exploit it

I just ran into this video on my YouTube feed, and what a great video it is! It starts with the history of anti-intellectualism from the time of the Puritans, and traces its history all the way up to the present day.

Absolutely eye-opening. It is especially interesting to see how in the modern day it is being exploited so shamelessly by wily self-interested politicians and greedy, shortsighted corporate interests to manipulate people into hurting themselves.

It really puts things in perspective and helps you understand how we have gotten to where we are, especially with the GOP and Evangelicals.

ataraxia said:

I just ran into this video on my YouTube feed, and what a great video it is! It starts with the history of anti-intellectualism from the time of the Puritans, and traces its history all the way up to the present day.

Absolutely eye-opening. It is especially interesting to see how in the modern day it is being exploited so shamelessly by wily self-interested politicians and greedy, shortsighted corporate interests to manipulate people into hurting themselves.

It really puts things in perspective and helps you understand how we have gotten to where we are, especially with the GOP and Evangelicals.

Click to expand...

Well worth watching. Thank for putting it up.

The climate religion - not too strong a word - seems to be the most prevalent form of anti-intellectualism these days. Highly emotional "The World is Burning!" tropes go unchallenged. Those who ask for extravagant claims to be examined are met with furious accusations of being "deniers". Decade after decade predictions fail but the acolytes, like Christian millenials, believe what they are told by their priests - "Next time the world will really end!"

Sweden said:

Well worth watching. Thank for putting it up.

The climate religion - not too strong a word - seems to be the most prevalent form of anti-intellectualism these days. Highly emotional "The World is Burning!" tropes go unchallenged. Those who ask for extravagant claims to be examined are met with furious accusations of being "deniers". Decade after decade predictions fail but the acolytes, like Christian millenials, believe what they are told by their priests - "Next time the world will really end!"

Click to expand...

How many Twinkies have you eaten today? Asking for a friend…

brianpatrick said:

How many Twinkies have you eaten today? Asking for a friend…

Click to expand...

Thank your friend on my behalf for an excellent example of an anti-intellectual question. And thanks to you for the emojis, beloved by those incapable of thought.

Sweden said:

Thank your friend on my behalf for an excellent example of an anti-intellectual question. And thanks to you for the emojis, beloved by those incapable of thought.

Click to expand...

I only think with my left nut for the easy stuff.
It’s probably better for you if I don’t take you seriously.

brianpatrick said:

I only think with my left nut for the easy stuff.
It’s probably better for you if I don’t take you seriously.

Click to expand...

Says the poster who goes on about 'Twinkies', whatever they might be. I look forward with keen anticipation to your next emoji fest.

Sweden said:

Says the poster who goes on about 'Twinkies', whatever they might be. I look forward with keen anticipation to your next emoji fest.

Click to expand...

When I speak to kids I talk to them on their level too.

brianpatrick said:

How many Twinkies have you eaten today? Asking for a friend…

Click to expand...

Thank you for an excellent demonstration of how this works, right out of the gate.

To the other posters: I swear I did not coordinate with this poster for such an uncannily good demonstration, right in the first reply.. But if you watch the video, this is one of the four ways it discusses of how anti-intellectualism works.

We will see if there are others here who will demonstrate the other three.

Sweden said:

Thank your friend on my behalf for an excellent example of an anti-intellectual question. And thanks to you for the emojis, beloved by those incapable of thought.

Click to expand...

Do they even sell those in Sweden?
I've never seen them on sale in the UK.

brianpatrick said:

I only think with my left nut for the easy stuff.
It’s probably better for you if I don’t take you seriously.

Click to expand...

<Bombast and bragging. Are you trying to out-boast Trump?

Peter said:

Do they even sell those in Sweden?
I've never seen them on sale in the UK.

Click to expand...

If we are talking 'Twinkies' then no. If emogies I think they are given away free to those who find actual words too difficult.

Sweden said:

If we are talking 'Twinkies' then no. If emogies I think they are given away free to those who find actual words too difficult.

Click to expand...

I don't use emogies so I didn't realise there was a difference.

"I just ran into this video on my YouTube feed."

The hallmark of intellectualism, surely.

Sweden said:

Well worth watching. Thank for putting it up.

The climate religion - not too strong a word - seems to be the most prevalent form of anti-intellectualism these days. Highly emotional "The World is Burning!" tropes go unchallenged. Those who ask for extravagant claims to be examined are met with furious accusations of being "deniers". Decade after decade predictions fail but the acolytes, like Christian millenials, believe what they are told by their priests - "Next time the world will really end!"

Click to expand...

This is not true. Climate change science is based on a century and half of observations from scientists from around the globe, and the models are proving uncannily prescient (sorry for using so many big words in a thread about anti-intellectualism, but I figure this is one place where it's OK to do so and not have to dumb things down to 5th grade vocabulary):


Those who continue to claim otherwise have not bothered to read even an introductory textbook on the subject. If not, I would strongly recommend that to them . There are even good problem sets at the end of each chapter to help you refine your understanding of how the mathematical models work with the most recent observations (of course it may need a little more math background than just the 5th grade level). Happy reading!

NatMorton said:

"I just ran into this video on my YouTube feed."

The hallmark of intellectualism, surely.

Click to expand...

Yes. And that's why the Earth is only 6000 years old, vaccines are a grand government conspiracy to inject tracking software in us, and we should not mask or distance in a deadly pandemic but stick UV light and bleach up our behinds instead.

ataraxia said:

Yes. And that's why the Earth is only 6000 years old, vaccines are a grand government conspiracy to inject tracking software in us, and we should not mask or distance in a deadly pandemic but stick UV light and bleach up our behinds instead.

Click to expand...

And NYC saved money on tax credits by AWS choosing to place its headquarters elsewhere, price controls are sound economic policy, the police are the problem in high crime neighborhoods, and women can have penises.

Politicians have been playing rubes on both sides for as long as there have been politicians.

NatMorton said:

And NYC saved money on tax credits by AWS choosing to place its headquarters elsewhere, price controls are sound economic policy, the police are the problem in high crime neighborhoods, and women can have penises.

Politicians have been playing rubes on both sides for as long as there have been politicians.

Click to expand...

Only politicians on one side today try to dismiss the most current science as just another political opinion.

ataraxia said:

Only politicians on one side today try to dismiss the most current science as just another political opinion.

Click to expand...

... that would be more compelling if it weren't coming from the side demanding a faith-based definition of gender or that our planet will become uninhabitable in 12 years.

ataraxia said:

This is not true. Climate change science is based on a century and half of observations from scientists from around the globe, and the models are proving uncannily prescient (sorry for using so many big words in a thread about anti-intellectualism, but I figure this is one place where it's OK to do so and not have to dumb things down):

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming - Carbon Brief

Some 14 out of 17 climate models published since 1970 were accurate in their projections of the warming that would take place after they were first published, reports Science, picking up a new study from Geophysical Research Letters.

www.carbonbrief.org

Those who continue to claim otherwise have not bothered to read even an introductory textbook on the subject. If not, I would strongly recommend that to them. There are even good problem sets at the end of each chapter to help you refine your understanding of how the mathematical models work with the most recent observations. Happy reading!

Click to expand...

Thank you for your suggestion. However after some 40 years of reading about supposed anthropomorphic global warming theories I am disinclined to peruse a warrmist tract disguised as a 'textbook'.

Care must be taken not to try to ‘justify’ an appeal to authority (logical fallacy) argument as being OK by asserting that we must let the ‘experts’ on X (academic elites?) decide what the best policy on X ‘actually is’.

Let’s examine two things, each making some sense separately, that when combined no longer seem to make sense. I’m sure that we can find ‘experts’ who agree with each of the following tax policy ideas:

1. Progressive federal income tax (FIT) bracket rates, whereby income above certain levels is be taxed at higher (marginal bracket) rates than that of income below those (excessive?) income levels seems valid.

2. Spending one’s income in certain (socially beneficial?) ways is preferred, therefore the amount of FIT due is reduced based on how or upon who one’s income was later spent via the addition of (sometimes itemized) tax deductions and/or credits to reduce seems valid.

However, when those two (good?) ideas are combined - look what happens:

A $10K tax deduction amount gets someone with (enough) income in the 25% bracket rate a $2.5K federal subsidy, while it gets someone with (enough) income in the 35% bracket rate a (40%) larger $3.5K federal subsidy. Does it make any sense to give a (40%) larger federal subsidy to those with higher annual incomes for (later) spending an identical amount (politically?) correctly?

NatMorton said:

... that would be more compelling if it weren't coming from the side demanding a faith-based definition of gender or that our planet will become uninhabitable in 12 years.

Click to expand...

Gender is not faith-based, but socially defined. Let's define it in a way that minimizes human misery, suffering, and persecution- in the same way we have started to do with race.

Questioning climate change science despite all the evidence for it today is the equivalent of being a flat Earther or young Earth Creationist. I would stop and pick up a good introductory textbook on the subject instead.

NatMorton said:

"I just ran into this video on my YouTube feed."

The hallmark of intellectualism, surely.

Click to expand...

Care must be taken not to allow bad solutions (public policies?) to be justified simply because ‘experts say’ they are intended to help solve real problems.

ataraxia said:

Gender is not faith-based, but socially defined. Let's define it in a way that minimizes human misery, suffering, and persecution- in the same way we have started to do with race.

Questioning climate change science despite all the evidence for it today is the equivalent of being a flat Earther or young Earth Creationist. I would stop and pick up a good introductory textbook on the subject instead.

Click to expand...

'Gender' and 'Race' have this in common: Both are fictions. In place of the first we have sex and of the second a vast number of overlapping gene pools.

ttwtt78640 said:

Care must be taken not to try to ‘justify’ an appeal to authority (logical fallacy) argument as being OK by asserting that we must let the ‘experts’ on X (academic elites?) decide what the best policy on X ‘actually is’.

Click to expand...

This is no license for people with no educational background or work experience in a particular field to question the unanimous consensus of all of those working in that field. The way science is set up to work is that there is enough questioning, competition, and internal checks and balances within any field that the scientific enterprise is largely safe from corruption in its unanimous declarations. And yes, it's OK if that consensus changes over time as we see and learn more- the latest science should still be taken seriously. Change and growth in science is no reason to dismiss its latest consensus.

The local grocer, car mechanic, or hair dresser are in no position to question the authority of every single medical or scientific organization on the planet. If they don't understand how one of those expert opinions work, they are better off spending their time picking up an introductory textbook on the subject and getting up to speed on it.

ttwtt78640 said:

Let’s examine two things, each making some sense separately, that when combined no longer seem to make sense. I’m sure that we can find ‘experts’ who agree with each of the following tax policy ideas:

1. Progressive federal income tax (FIT) bracket rates, whereby income above certain levels is be taxed at higher (marginal bracket) rates than that of income below those (excessive?) income levels seems valid.

2. Spending one’s income in certain (socially beneficial?) ways is preferred, therefore the amount of FIT due is reduced based on how or upon who one’s income was later spent via the addition of (sometimes itemized) tax deductions and/or credits to reduce seems valid.

However, when those two (good?) ideas are combined - look what happens:

A $10K tax deduction amount gets someone with (enough) income in the 25% bracket rate a $2.5K federal subsidy, while it gets someone with (enough) income in the 35% bracket rate a (40%) larger $3.5K federal subsidy. Does it make any sense to give a (40%) larger federal subsidy to those with higher annual incomes for (later) spending an identical amount (politically?) correctly?

Click to expand...

Facts and observations are one thing, and what to do about them is another discussion entirely. Before we can talk about what to do about the facts and observations, we have to agree on them. When one side continues to insist that the Earth is only 6000 years old and created in 6 days, or that vaccines don't work, or that trickle down economics is still something to be taken seriously, it makes rational discussion impossible.

It's like trying to discuss how to launch a satellite into orbit with a flat-Earther. You're just not going to get very far.

Sweden said:

'Gender' and 'Race' have this in common: Both are fictions. In place of the first we have sex and of the second a vast number of overlapping gene pools.

Click to expand...

Right. But social policy discussions today are about gender identification, not sex. Some social constructs are important.

Here is a nice introductory article on the subject, and why the distinction is important. I am thinking we should have had an "introduction to science 101" preface to this thread.