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.

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    1. A character attack (point 3)
    2. 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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?