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.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      That may be the case but it doesn’t change the strong current of anti-intellectualism in modern societies.

      It’s useful to those in power, for example.

      • jrbaconcheese@yall.theatl.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No disagreement there, but simply declaring that “those who don’t see things my way are anti-intellectual” is a drastic over-simplification of how things got this way. Declaring it into Lemmy, which an echo chamber of progressives and communists (including myself) means we all know who he’s talking about, which means it’s just a progressive dog-whistle for the “them” that we want to be mad at.

        There are a lot of intelligent people who hold what I’m sure OP would consider anti-intellectual stances. I live around them, work with them, play games with them, etc. it’s much more valuable to understand who they are and how they got to their beliefs than it is to simply vilify them.

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I haven’t seen the argument “disagreement is anti-intellectual” being used here, though I’m sure people act that way. It’s hard to be disagreed with: people tend to entrench rather than change.

          It’s still worth noting that anti-intellectualism is pushed as a tool of division and control though. Sure it occurs naturally but weaponized at a systemic level it is much more of a threat to society.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or someone who’s seen brexit happen, or the rise of right wing populist parties everywhere that want to ban books and discount expert advice on climate, the economy, etc.

      • Haus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Observing democratically-elected governments being unable to address existential threats to the human race is certainly food for thought.

    • ryno364@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I somewhat agree. The world isn’t black and white. And as a society we are very much still untwined with our primitive groupthink.

      The world is very complex.

    • ThePenitentOne@discuss.onlineOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s wrong with that? Just an example, imagine living in a world where most people consume animal products without second thought, despite the absolute moral atrocity that is committed as a result of it. You’d be pathetic to not be outraged at it. People should care about the consequences of their actions, but most people hypocritically selective in what ways they are.

        • ThePenitentOne@discuss.onlineOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They might not be agreed upon. But I’d really like to see a single good justification before I die. I know most people don’t care. But that itself is disgusting. If they were put in the animal’s position they would cry about injustice, all while also not caring when they are not. An argument reliant on speciesism is as good as one of racism or any other form of prejudice.

        • ThePenitentOne@discuss.onlineOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Both. Most people who eat meat would say animal abuse is wrong, all while ignoring their own contribution. A lack of intellectual honesty and logical consistency that leads to moral problems is also anti-intellectual. They would say slavery is wrong because it is prejudice, and unjust for ‘xyz’ reasons, while also saying ‘xyz’ reasons aren’t good enough to change their mind away from eating meat.