The Dangers of Anti-Intellectual Propaganda

[jackstar7]

The intellectuals in CA put the feelings before the science in law now too.

We covered this last year, dumbass.

Search function could make you look less of the asshole.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I've found this GOP presentation that explains their position.

 

[brycejones]

We covered this last year, dumbass.

Search function could make you look less a raging dumbass.

FTFY

 

[Zaap]

LOL!

Some of the absolute STUPIDEST people on the planet in a forum full of circle-jerking, asshole dumbasses, as closed-minded as it gets- thinking of themselves as the "intellectual elite."

(Practically falls out of my chair laughing!)

This forum is comedy gold!

 

[jackstar7]

LOL!

Some of the absolute STUPIDEST people on the planet in a forum full of circle-jerking, asshole dumbasses, as closed-minded as it gets- thinking of themselves as the "intellectual elite."

(Practically falls out of my chair laughing!)

This forum is comedy gold!

Who here has purported to be among the intellectual elites? Name names, windbag.

But it really looks like you just want to hate on people that actually respect intellect. Good look for you.

 

[Zaap]

By the way, thread title should be "The Dangers of Stupid People who think they are Intellectuals."

 

[jackstar7]

By the way, thread title should be "The Dangers of Stupid People who think they are Intellectuals."

Nice double-down from the dumbnuts.

 

[interchange]

No, because there isn't any question as to whether the Christian is a believer or not, there's really nothing to debate about. I'll call a transgender a transgender too, there isn't any question about that. But, if a "woman" has (or had) a penis and the normal biological male XY chromosome set, then it is very debatable whether or not that person is a "she". I don't go for prayer at public school. I don't believe the Christians get to decide the abortion debate because of what they think their god wants. I don't believe someone can claim they identify with xyz and in fact be xyz because they want to. Feelings don't go before the science, right?

I really don't understand your distinction. You respect one person's identification because there's no reason to question it (your words) but not another because...? Respecting someone's identification does not mean you have to believe it's right nor support any political or social positions they hold. Just as you can respect someone's identification as Christian and reject their god and application of beliefs to law (e.g. abortion). Neither is particularly scientific. Only a minority of what we are is genetically determined. Doesn't mean the rest of us is invalid.

 

[Commodus]

By the way, thread title should be "The Dangers of Stupid People who think they are Intellectuals."

You're really just proving the point of the thread.

We don't think we're intellectual elites, or even that we're smart -- we just value the pursuit of intellectualism, that belief that evidence-based reasoning and ever-expanding knowledge are good things. It's a shame you don't.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anti-intellectualism always leads towards emotional topics like this transgender sidetrack. They make it all about the feels & some rather primitive ones at that. It's not an issue of using one's intellect much at all.

It's a tool of autocracy. There's been a lot of it in the world recently.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You're really just proving the point of the thread.

We don't think we're intellectual elites, or even that we're smart -- we just value the pursuit of intellectualism, that belief that evidence-based reasoning and ever-expanding knowledge are good things. It's a shame you don't.

Curious that you thought he was referring to you. You are a notable exception in that you tend to engage in an intellectually honest way.

There are also the smug condescending confirmation bias lemmings who fancy themselves as intellectuals.

 

[realibrad]

realibrad,: No. What I am saying is that to flat out believe that gender is only a social construct is wrong.

M: What does this even mean? Gender is assigned at birth in most cases based on the configuration of one's genitalia. What do you mean by a social construct. Please restate the 'social construct' argument you don't agree with.

r: As interchange already stated, its both.

M: Both what a social construct as opposed to I don't know what or nature and nurture, and if the latter how does that figure in?

r: There is lots of evidence to show that biology and how the brain is constructed influences how people identify far beyond how society influences them. Its also true that its not only about biology.

M: The argument you consistently make is that being born a male means you are born with innate abilities to do a better job as a Google engineer than women are born with faulting google for irrational unscientific thinking, when their thinking is not involved in anything but including women who can compete equally with men in these man favored areas in the workforce and to make them feel gender welcome there. Google wants a mix of gender among its engineers. You fault them as excluding rather than including because you blind yourself to the real issue.

r: If you are saying that I believe a child born as a boy identifies as a boy because he was born with a penis you are wrong.

M: I am not wrong in the majority of cases. I AM saying that being born with a penis in most cases means a person will make that identification where no ambivalence or internal doubt causes interference. I am saying that gender identification is a process of self selection probably based on biological reasons that have nothing to do with birth gender in cases where gender and identification are in conflict.

r: Gender identity is not nearly as simple as that.

That's my point. Let me make it this way:

Is it a social construct to fire an employee who interferes with a corporate decision to eliminate ideas presented on company media that promotes ideas that are inimical to promoting the comfort of employees who have been hired with the direct intention to promote gender equality because these women are actually just as good as however good Google is looking for as employees? You go right off the rails and suggest there are probably more talented male engineers than there are female engineers, the wrong argument, which is that for google the point is to have equal numbers of qualified engineers of each sex and that they don't need pin heads fucking up their aim by suggesting their approach isn't defies gender reality. A lot of companies have understood that a diverse workforce equates to greater profitability. This is because such a company can bring a broader perspective of experience to bear on a problem. Pin head thinking is a menace to navigation.

You know, it bothers me that you think I believe men are born better or women are born worse. I was going to respond to you, but I don't think I will now.

 

[realibrad]

I already did. You not noting or caring about it is on you.

I'm capable of many things, including shitting on your bothsides-ing and other garbage trolling.

Wait, this comment was your non-shit post?

"For me, the saddest part is that this has been a continual part of American culture that was documented over 50 years ago. Sadly, it changed nothing."

Wow, just amazing. Such gold, much wow. The story of where you got your information and your understanding of it was so insightful. That totally was worth it.

 

[umbrella39]

what the fuck are you prattling on about?

The "left"... remember... What he used to be until Trump made him see the light. He isn't even trying any more...

 

[umbrella39]

By the way, thread title should be "The Dangers of Stupid People who think they are Intellectuals."

No, but that would be a perfect quote for your Epitaph though...

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump did tap into a deep vein of anti-intellectualism, didn't he? The crowd roared when he said climate change was a thing made up by the Chinese. They roared when he went on about disease ridden drug smuggling Mexican rapists. They roared when he went on about Crooked Hillary! They're so fucked up that they're still chanting Lock Her Up! at Trump rallies. None of that requires much intellect.

It's all offered up as emotionally satisfying pablum to distract us from the truly awful things the GOP has done and are sworn to do in the future. This tax plan is an abomination, an outright looting spree on the Treasury. The only thing America stood to gain from their idea of healthcare reform was a hard screwing. Their idea of infrastructure spending is a giveaway to rentiers. They're treating the Dreamers like shit. They're fighting to hold power with every dirty trick in the book- gerrymandering, voter suppression, you name it. And what's with Scott Pruitt's soundproof booth, anyway?

Bah. Forget that shit. Go roll some coal to show 'em what you think about their Chinese hoax... go on about Hilary's emails or poor Carter Page & the evil FBI or anything, really, just so long as we're not talking about the true nature of this self inflicted catastrophe.That apparently requires more intellect than some people care to muster.

 

[mect]

No, because there isn't any question as to whether the Christian is a believer or not, there's really nothing to debate about. I'll call a transgender a transgender too, there isn't any question about that. But, if a "woman" has (or had) a penis and the normal biological male XY chromosome set, then it is very debatable whether or not that person is a "she". I don't go for prayer at public school. I don't believe the Christians get to decide the abortion debate because of what they think their god wants. I don't believe someone can claim they identify with xyz and in fact be xyz because they want to. Feelings don't go before the science, right?

You don't seem to understand the difference between sex and gender. Sex has a scientific definition. Gender is not as straight forward.

 

[jackstar7]

Wait, this comment was your non-shit post?

"For me, the saddest part is that this has been a continual part of American culture that was documented over 50 years ago. Sadly, it changed nothing."

Wow, just amazing. Such gold, much wow. The story of where you got your information and your understanding of it was so insightful. That totally was worth it.

Do you even read books, brahsephanie?

 

[Amused]

LOL!

Some of the absolute STUPIDEST people on the planet in a forum full of circle-jerking, asshole dumbasses, as closed-minded as it gets- thinking of themselves as the "intellectual elite."

(Practically falls out of my chair laughing!)

This forum is comedy gold!

Actually, I do not consider myself intellectually elite.

I do, however, bemoan the rejection of intellectualism, science and expertise and the growing trend of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

 

[Paratus]

Actually, I do not consider myself intellectually elite.

I do, however, bemoan the rejection of intellectualism, science and expertise and the growing trend of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Boy there’s a point on this plot that’s getting pretty crowded from folks in this thread.

Wonder which point that is?

 

[Moonbeam]

You know, it bothers me that you think I believe men are born better or women are born worse. I was going to respond to you, but I don't think I will now.

It doesn't bother me that you accuse me of something I did not do but which you feel that I did because you can't grasp the full perspective. And it doesn't bother me because I am not in some sort of competition or effort to win some sort of prize.

Would you argue that men do not have superior upper body strength than women do? My argument is that you would not argue with me on that point but that I would. Men do not have superior body strength to women. Do you hear that? Women are not, as you would claim, inferior to men in upper body strength. They are not equal to men in upper body strength, and from that you proceed to presume that my argument is that women are superior to men in upper body strength, because that is the cage you are in. The fact is that men have greater upper body strength than women do. On average, men are stronger than women in that area. That does not make them superior. It means they can shoulder on average less weight than the average man. In some situations this can matter. At google a statistical data that more men develop engineering skills than women, when the aim is to distribute engineering jobs with an eye to gender number equality, with an additional aim to make a cultural bias against women less an issue by creating a friendly and accepting culture for female engineers, block heads that warn google is ignoring statistics and harming itself thereby will get their asses canned.

I find you experience of what I have said taken as a personal affront, to something I neither said or intended. to look really more like a confession of some kind. What I have said is that gender bias in the workplace, stereotypical repetition of norms that miss the point, regardless of how true, from a statistical basis they may be, are the result of myopic non holistic vision. Males actually, are typically much better at this than women. It is a common phenomenon we find in engineers and why they carry pocket protectors full of slide rules. It is easy to assume that being good at one thing like engineering science can create the illusion one may be good at the social sciences too.

So the bottom line looks like to me that you are more interested in protecting the illusion that your beliefs are generated by high minded moral values to fend off evils that you see, social constructs, whatever those are, than to rigorously examine the validity of your claims. I think you are thinking that if your claims are wrong then your motives must be bad. I don't see you that way, as I have told you before. But this is how conservatives wind up defending their bubble, in my opinion. It's what you are doing here, right down to the victim mentality. If that is a fact the more you would find that fact hard to accept, the more you would take it as a sign of inferiority, the more difficult it would be to admit. I think my aim is to offer a mirror not a judgment of what is seen there. I think that is what you are doing. I think I had to look in the same mirror and what I saw killed me.

 

[TheVrolok]

Tapatalk has an image for the preview of this thread that doesn't seem to be in this thread. I'm very confused.

So you only came in here to try to find it as well huh?

 

[bshole]

When you have politicians that believe they have "a personal relationship with their savior" and that the proper way to do religion is to "have a personal relationship--ignoring all other theology," then you end up with this sort of thing. Evangelical types that believe "personal relationships" are the way to do business, policy, and life.

I find that many republicans are quite proud of their "personal relationship with truth" or "personal relationship with journalism" or "personal relationship with science." Anything you want can be true, you just have to want it to be that way and be sure to fondle it properly when it looks lonely.

I agree that it is part of it. Another part may be the corporate money that is used to influence politicians against the scientific consensus. Science denial should never be profitable but apparently it is.

 

[1prophet]

Blow back is a bitch.

"We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

Woodrow Wilson 1909

 

[zinfamous]

There is someone on this forum, in this thread that is educated on this subject.

@interchange

Would you mind giving your insight on the statement made by zinfamous?



I said that his statement is incorrect and that there is an overwhelming mountain of data that says he is wrong. Gender is not only a social construct and biology has a heavy influence on people and their gender identity.

you posted articles that again point to biological basis for sex, not gender. Traits that can, CAN, typically define some as biologically male or female. Gender is different. It's more about personality than it is a physical phenotype.

That, and you aren't ever going to find a conclusion that "nurture" doesn't have the same, if not more of an effect on these constructs than simple biology. Such is our current understanding of human systems.