Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think it's a lot more interesting to discuss anti-intellectualism.

One of the things that I noticed is that the people who most disagreed with the premise have not yet defined what they think intellectualism is. THUGR, for example, seems to think that intellectualism is respect for academic authorities: preservation of "canonical" knowledge.

---

Quote:

---

So, what IS intellectualism? Maybe if we can agree on what it is, we can figure out if being against it is "killing America".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh dear.

JOWHOEVERYOUARE,

---

Quote:

---

I think you know that in general I support the idea of phonetic English.

---

Quote:

---

There are two objections which make sense to me that you haven't addressed, one of which MAGONS herself brought up.

The first is that we will lose the subconscious knowledge of French, Latin, Greek, and German, and all of he other polyglot languages that English consists of.

The second (MAGON'S and others') is that managing to solve the spelling of the various accents will be quite difficult, and that forcing everyone to spell "phonetically" (Maybe not THEIR phonetics) will cause the loss of English-speaking culture, and force conformity. As an Ozzie, I think MAGON'S has a point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Generalized, anti-intellectualism is grounded in the insecurities of the uninformed and their anger that what they think carries little weight against facts.

Ya know, like SIG and 1KIKI when it comes to the Ukraine.

---

Quote:

---

JOWHOEVERYOUARE- SIGNY
I go by my real name here and everywhere on the web.

---

Quote:

---

That freeks you out, duznt it?

---

Quote:

---

I think you know that in general I support the idea of phonetic English.- SIGNY

Youv sed so several timez, yet dont seem to like the actual solution. Wun uv the 1st thingz I learned wen I joined the Saundspel Yahoo group (a spelling reform forum) iz that everybody haz their own ideaz about wut to do and everybody else iz rong. 'Everybody wants to be a General, nobody wants to be a soldier' iz a saying thats been around the English spelling reform community forever.

---

Quote:

---

Another thing I learned iz that alot uv pro-reform peepl are 'dabblerz' who spend very little time actually thinking thru the issue. The vast majority think that just the most obvious clunkerz need to be chanjed (the ough junk) and sum very minor % uv them go on to making a system. 99.9% uv them kum up with a regularization skeem thats virtually identical to a million other standard 26 letter Roman alfubet rule based comprimize systemz.

---

Quote:

---

You are in the majority group.

---

Quote:

---

There are two objections which make sense to me that you haven't addressed, one of which MAGONS herself brought up.

The first is that we will lose the subconscious knowledge of French, Latin, Greek, and German, and all of he other polyglot languages that English consists of.

The second (MAGON'S and others') is that managing to solve the spelling of the various accents will be quite difficult, and that forcing everyone to spell "phonetically" (Maybe not THEIR phonetics) will cause the loss of English-speaking culture, and force conformity. As an Ozzie, I think MAGON'S has a point.- SIGNY

You did partisipate in M52Nickerson'z anti-nooalf topic, so you shoud know that your claimz are false. I think you hav also claimed to hav read the entire Nooalf site,

---

Quote:

---

so shoud know that thoze objectionz are adressed thuroly there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:I personally think that the closer you can come to the current 26-letter alphabet and letter-combinations that people are already familiar with, you will have greater acceptance and faster transition. But that's just me.

---

Quote:

---

...I feel there are larger problems to deal with

---

Quote:

---

You have my lukewarm support.

---

Quote:

---

No, I never have, I never claimed I did, and in fact I said the opposite: I have NOT read the site

---

Quote:

---

Be a dear and condense their solution here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, I had to look up "intellectualism" ...

which took me to "intellectual"...

of or relating to the intellect or its use
developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
requiring use of the intellect
given to study, reflection, and speculation
engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

and "intellect" ....

the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge
the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

--------------

The crucial point seems to be "thought" ... as opposed to "emotion", "will", or "experience". How does this mesh with the original article, and with Americans specifically?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

There are many solutions - yours isn't the only one.

---

Quote:

---

I've proposed using the symbols one finds at the bottom the dictionary.

---

Quote:

---

Why you think yours is the ONLY viable solution ... THE ACTUAL solution ... let me just say, you need to rethink that.

---

Quote:

---

... key underlying pathology: anti-intellectualism.

exaltation of ignorance
culture of ignorance
critical thinking
aversion to reason
informed, engaged, and rationally thinking public
motivated by fear, susceptible to tribalism and simplistic explanations, incapable of emotional maturity, and prone to violent solutions
little to do with intelligence
rejection of critical thinking or, conversely, the glorification of the emotional and irrational
violent crime ... incarceration rate ... [low] education and scientific literacy
fundamentalist religion
Corporate influence
not thinking critically
shaping life around materialism and consumption [AND INDIVIDUALISM- SIGNY].
conformity and passive acceptance of institutional dominance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

It's anti-intellectualism to think of a nation of 300 million as a single entity with a single agenda or personality or purpose.
It's anti-inellectualism to take that obvious puff piece seriously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, there IS an aggregate response. That response is different from the aggregate response of other countries and peoples.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

You/the article take only certain bits of behavior from a handful of 300 million people and from that paste together a single Frankenstein monster and hold it up and say it shows the purpose and intentions of the 300 million, all which amazingly "proves" your held negative beliefs. Gee, what are the odds? Do you not see that the writer uses this ploy to attract readers such as yourself and Magons, and uses you just to sell ads? Are you not intelligent enough to realize that everyone can make their own Frankenstein in the same way, with their own slant, choosing their own parts and say it equally or even better represents the 300 million? Why does such an obvious and simple concept seem to be beyond your intellect?

---

Quote:

---

The danjer uv democrasy iz that dummyz outnumber smartyz, therefor we rely on apathy and ignorans to avoid calamity.-JO

You mean the US is on the path of avoiding calamity due to its abundant ignorance and apathy - while our overlord corporations tend to our future with their wisdom?! Surely you jest.-KIKI

Surely you misinterpret.We got to see wut happenz wen men uv only averaj intellijens get to run the show. (Bush Jr)- JO

---

Quote:

---

It's anti-intellectualism to think of a nation of 300 million as a single entity with a single agenda or personality or purpose. It's anti-inellectualism to take that obvious puff piece seriously- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

It's pretty basic: it shows a lack of intelligence to not question that article. It's anti-intelligent to not see through it's purpose and go with it's weak premise. I am definitely saying you and others here have shown you are not up to understanding "aggregate phenomena."

---

Quote:

---

You/the article take only certain bits of behavior from a handful of 300 million people and from that paste together a single Frankenstein monster and hold it up and say it shows the purpose and intentions of the 300 million, all which amazingly "proves" your held negative beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Nobody is saying that "all" Americans are anti-intellectual.- SIGNY
The article does if you read it. The author continually uses "Americans..." - GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

... when confronted with a serious problem, there IS an aggregate response: Does the nation as a whole address the problem and move to solve it in a realistic way? - SIGNY

This is the crux of the matter, your's and the author's sloppy thinking. Saying "the nation as a whole," what does that even mean? Do you think we make decisions based on some collective thought? You certainly suggest as much with those words. Which contradicts your other posts where you lament how "In America we are so weak, only the .01% make the decisions..." and then you go on to suggest there's a Nation-wide movement, that Americans believe a certain set of actions. 96% of Americans wanted greater gun background checks, but the f*cks in congress didn't. You're not consistent with your own posts. You should write for one of these online "news" rags - that kind of lumping of intent is their bread and butter.

---

Quote:

---

Here's a funny one: "aggregate behavior" or "aggregate response" has been popular before - "All blacks like fried chicken." "Poor people will never better themselves." Do you believe those?

... That was A Response [to terrorism] an aggregate response of CONGRESS only, not Americans. Assigning greater meaning is what internet hacks do - which is obvious to people with open minds and critical thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:You seem pretty intent on telling us that everything is A-OK, because you can't stand to admit that the USA has any problems whatsoever. -SIGNY

This seems to be a frequent question I have for you: are you lying or stupid? Where did I say anything like that? So when I agreed with you before about US errors/mistakes/bad behavior

---

Quote:

---

you've chosen to ignore it (again) so you can make that erroneous, hyperbolic statement? And you expect people to not see that and trust you? Ever? Is that your intellectualism?

---

Quote:

---

What else could explain the hyper-patriotism (link is external) that has many accepting an outlandish notion that America is far superior to the rest of the world? Love of one’s country is fine, but many Americans seem to honestly believe that their country both invented and perfected the idea of freedom, that the quality of life here far surpasses everywhere else in the world.

---

Quote:

---

American schools, claiming to uphold “traditional values,” avoid fact-based sex education, and thus we have the highest rates of teen pregnancy (link is external) in the industrialized world. And those rates are notably highest where so-called “biblical values” are prominent. Go outside the Bible belt, and the rates generally trend downward (link is external).

---

Quote:

---

the impact of fundamentalist religion in driving American anti-intellectualism has been, and continues to be, immense. Old-fashioned notions of sex education may seem like a relatively minor issue to many, but taking old-time religion too seriously can be extremely dangerous in the modern era. High-ranking individuals, even in the military (link is external), see a confrontation between good and evil as biblically predicted and therefore inevitable. They relish the thought of being a righteous part of the final days.

---

Quote:

---

Corporate influence on climate and environmental policy, meanwhile, is simply more evidence of anti-intellectualism in action, for corporate domination of American society is another result of a public that is not thinking critically. Americans have allowed their democracy to slip away, their culture overtaken by enormous corporations that effectively control both the governmental apparatus and the media, thus shaping life around materialism and consumption.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, there IS an aggregate response. That response is different from the aggregate response of other countries and peoples.

---

The danjer uv democrasy iz that dummyz outnumber smartyz,

---

Quote:

---

"Do you think we make decisions based on some collective thought? You certainly suggest as much with those words." [G]
Aggregate doesn't mean the same thing as collective.- KIKI

Did I say it did?-G

---

Quote:

---

It's anti-intellectualism to think of a nation of 300 million as a single entity with a single agenda or personality or purpose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:


So fitting that in a thread about anti-intillectualism Signym uses the word "weenie," Kiki says a word doesn't mean what English language professionals say it does, and Magons feels the need to post a definition of the word "trend."
But don't that stop you guys from fixing the world...

---

Quote:

---

I see so many articles like this that feed the need for non-Americans to feel better about themselves by thinking badly of the ENTIRE US population.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

It's anti-intellectualism to think of a nation of 300 million as a single entity with a single agenda or personality or purpose.

---

= collective

---

= strawberry shortcake

I'll make sure to purposely misunderstand everything you say from now on and put an equals sign in front of it like it means something.

---

Quote:

---

single entity with a single agenda or personality or purpose.= collective

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM: The question is whether these beliefs can be overturned by evidence, and whether they get in the way of constructive problem-solving.

---