Anti Intellectualism is Killing America

POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Monday, July 13, 2026 01:26
VIEWED: 26874
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:33 PM (P)

Oh dear.

JOWHOEVERYOUARE, I think you know that in general I support the idea of phonetic English. Not because I can't spell under the current system, and not because I think it will make people more "logical" (I see plenty of illogic, even from nations whose languages are entirely phonetic) but simply because it will make learning English faster and easier, and allow pursuit into other intellectual endeavors.

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.

I'm willing to give up on the first in exchange for people knowing how to read and write ENGLISH. Why try force German, Latin, Greek, French, Spanish etc on people if it means 20% (or more) can't read or write in their native tongue?

The second issue is actually more problematic. I ASSUME that people in various English-speaking nations can and will translate the written (standard) phonetic language into their own pronunciation, but that's an assumption on my part. Perhaps there isn't an "on to" (one to one) relationship between the phonetics of one version and the phonetics of another version. That would have to be demonstrated across different accents by people who know how to speak that accent. And if phonetic English CAN'T be spelled consistently across accents, and you wind up with different versions across the globe, what good is it? The solution to the problem of various accents has yet to be demonstrated.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:42 PM (P)

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. For me, I think intellectualism is being able to ask insightful questions and develop NEW knowledge.

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

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:07 PM (P)

Here is the online definition

the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions.
Philosophy
the theory that knowledge is wholly or mainly derived from pure reason; rationalism.

I guess I think more of the latter when I use the term, the idea that what you understand of the world is based on evidence and facts, rather than 'commonly held beliefs' or 'common sense'. You don't believe something to be true just because lots of people are saying it, you require evidence.

It also means for me some sort of rigour in thinking through arguments, not the pap that is often thrown around on these boards, sound bites from conservative news sites and commentators that feed into the belief system of people who lack the wit to examine what others or they themselves are saying.

Anti intellectualism derides, distorts or ignores facts and evidence. In fact people who use evidence as the basis of their theories are regarded with suspicion.

1KIKI

Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:16 AM (P)

I think it has an extra flavor besides 'anti' -smart people, -logic, -facts, -education.

At its best, it's a general support for people who are plain spoken, and uneducated - but natural - philosophers. They don't say much but what they say is meaningful, and they mean what they say.

But it's morphed into a partisan support for any conservative, ignorant loudmouthed bubba on a rant. And anyone who disagrees falls into the category of suspicious liberal intellectual.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:00 AM (P)

I see it in the climate change debate. It's kind of like "facts, pffft. who looks at facts?" and a derision of science and scientists as being apart of a global consiracy that cooks up facts. Dont see them screaming the same when science produces health benefits or technology they enjoy.....

Another biggy is around law and order. Evidence says that punitive punishment does not reduce crime. It also demonstrates that early intervention in disadvantaged communities is more effective, but you know, that's just bullshit coming from the mouth of some highbrow academics - what do they know (never mind research). Much more satisfying to lock them up and throw away the keys because that's what electorates generally want.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, July 30, 2015 4:21 AM (P)

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.

That is a nonsense definition. I cannot speak for what Thuggery conjures.
Quote:

For me, I think intellectualism is being able to ask insightful questions and develop NEW knowledge.

There is a decent example. Perhaps add uncover past knowledge recently hidden.

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".

Good starting point.

JO753

Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh dear.

JOWHOEVERYOUARE,

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

That freeks you out, duznt it?

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

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.

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.

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.

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, so shoud know that thoze objectionz are adressed thuroly there.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

THGRRI

Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:45 PM (P)

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 31, 2015 5:26 AM (P)

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.

Seems you are being redundant, repeating your previous post in another phrasing. I certainly do not agree with your definition, and I have not seen anybody else do so either.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 31, 2015 10:09 PM (P)

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?

I'm going to re-read the article, and get back on that.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 31, 2015 10:23 PM (P)

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

JO753 is on your birth certificate, driver's license, and passport? Hoookaaay...

Quote:
That freeks you out, duznt it?

Not really. First of all, I'm not sure that I believe you. And even if you DID officially change your name from whatever it was before to "JO753" ... well, I guess it takes all kinds of people. Not sure of the motivation behind it but, yanno, whatever. It's your name, not mine!

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.

In general, I support the idea of phonetic English. I've dabbled in creating my own. Others have their versions. 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:
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.

I general, I support phonetic English. I'm not committed to any particular system, I feel there are larger problems to deal with. But, as a general idea, I think it's a good one.

Quote:
You are in the majority group.

I general, I support the idea of phonetic English. I'm not a fighter for the cause, or for any particular system. You have my lukewarm support.

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,

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

Quote:
so shoud know that thoze objectionz are adressed thuroly there.

Be a dear and condense their solution here.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JO753

Saturday, August 1, 2015 12:09 AM (P)

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.

You and about 95% uv reformerz. Its kinda funny, but trajik - look at the American Literacy Council'z system. Several timez a yir, sumwun will join the Saundspel group after completing their dictionary uv reformed English in their system. They will spend several months trying to convins everybody why theirz iz better than the functionally indistinguishable ALC system and all the other clonez that can be found going back to the 1800z. Usually they fade away. Sum die hardz will start cranking out new systemz.

The trajidy iz all the work they do to repeat wuts been dun so many timez befor, all along claiming to be advocates uv reform, yet unwilling to spend a minit doing anything to help the cauze.

If you want to avoid ending up like them, don't waste any more time thinking about your appeazment 'sistum'.

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

A popular excuse to avoid doing anything.

Quote:
You have my lukewarm support.

xanks. Better than nothing.

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

Sorry. Cant keep trak uv everything about everybody.

Quote:
Be a dear and condense their solution here.

The plain text pajez are the condensed version. A 5 minit read.
http://www.nooalf.com/plaintext.htm

(I know this wuz a waste uv time, but I keep getting accuzed uv ignoring posts)

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, August 1, 2015 3:18 AM (P)

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?

Cognitive cerebral processing. Critical logical thinking, without bias or diversion. Cold rational thought is intellectual, while hot-blooded is emotional.

Experience is perception, but needed for evolutionary survival. Otherwise failing to have prejudice and discrimination will allow you to see that pretty fluffy soft lion on the street and go over to pet the nice kittt....

Will is ego, not rational or reason.

Whales are one of the largest creatures on the planet.
Elephants are one of the largest on land.
Giraffes are the tallest.
Cheetahs are the fastest.
Lions are most ferocious, perhaps the strongest claws.
Crocodiles have the strongest jaws.
Snakes and spiders are the most venomous.
Yet where humans walk on this world, they rule. It is because of our ability to think clearly, coldly, calculatingly, rationally, to reason and judge, decide with clarity. Emotion blinds the mind to reason, reducing a human and his strongest asset (mind, cerebrum) to merely another critter - yet some humans intentionally choose this path, make this choice, to degrade their thought process by intentionally infusing emotion to derail the logic process. Why?

1KIKI

Saturday, August 1, 2015 8:44 AM (P)

"yet dont seem to like the actual solution'

There are many solutions - yours isn't the only one. I've proposed using the symbols one finds at the bottom the dictionary. Signy believes in a more natural adaptation of current English. Other people in other places have made other proposals.

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

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Saturday, August 1, 2015 8:50 AM (P)

"Cold rational thought is intellectual"

It only pretends to be rational. But it's driven by the same emotional evaluations and assumptions, often so deeply ingrained people don't even know they're there. Purely rational thought has no preferred endpoint or aim.

Deciding to pet the kitty is irrational, as is fearing the lion.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JO753

Saturday, August 1, 2015 4:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

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

Youre telling me?

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

A very common idea. Try typing it and riting it by hand.

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

Its not the only viable solution, its just the best uv the few that are.

2nd best iz Unifon. I assume you are familiar with it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Saturday, August 1, 2015 8:15 PM (P)

Herez an example uv the standard issue linguisticly trained spelling reformer:
http://dedalvs.conlang.org/petersonian.html

This fellow created the Dothraki languaj for Game Uv Thronez.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 1, 2015 9:55 PM (P)

So, here is the original article, edited to highlight what the author thinks is "anti-intellectualism" -or, conversely, "intellectualism".

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.

Well, the author kind of wobbles back and forth a bit between the definition of "anti-intellectualism" as "ignorance" or "lack of rational, critical thinking; thought not driven by emotion or will". Eventually, though, he emphasizes the latter definition. So his thesis about "anti-intellectualism" is mostly consistent with the dictionary definition of the word.

And I agree with ALMOST everything he says. When an economic/political/social system exists where there are HUGE discrepancies in power, where the 0.00001% determine everything of importance and the 99.99999% have no say (except in the most trivial of matters, like what kind of toilet paper to purchase) the LAST thing "the powers that be" can tolerate is a population which decides to look up and see who is pulling the strings.

But I'm not sure that anti-intellectualism is a particular feature of the USA. Since most modern economies are very large, and most modern economies have very large differences in power, most rulers probably depend on "anti-intellectualism" and an emotion-based belief system of SOME sort to remain in power.

It's possible, for example, that the problem with the AMERICAN brand of anti-intellectualism is not that Americans have more beliefs than other nations, but that specific American beliefs are particularly pernicious and self-destructive. For example, in America, violent crime and gun deaths are vastly higher than in other developed nations. At the same time, many people believe that incarceration and gun ownership are viable solutions to crime.

These are all SYMPTOMS of an underlying belief, and that belief is that violence is the answer to ... well, everything ... from bad schools to poverty to mental illness. You won't solve the problem of violence by restricting people's ownership of guns, you have to change a whole attitude. When people are ready to give up their guns, that will be an indication of a sea-change in an American belief system. So the belief in violence as a cure for all of society's - and the world's - ills is a one of those pernicious beliefs. Another is "individualism" ... the belief that people should have no connection to each other except through the marketplace.

By contrast, while Europeans are much more practical about crime and violence, they have their own pernicious beliefs about the viability of democracy while under the rule of unelected bank technocrats/ the Euro. This has led to the waterboarding of Greece and the the suppression of southern European economies.

Greeks, meanwhile, believed that they could stay in the Euro and avoid austerity (cake-and-eat-it-too), not understanding that Germany and the other creditor nations were (are) seeking to assert total dominance. Northern European creditor nations - nations which seek to amass currency by being net exporters- fail to realize that NOT EVERYBODY can be a net exporter (It's a mathematical impossibility; when there are net exporters there are also net importers; a world of "net exporters" should beg t

JO753

Sunday, August 2, 2015 3:08 AM (P)

Ted Turner sed "Life iz a game. Money iz how we keep score." But can you juj countryz by how rich they are in a competativ envirement?

You haf to wonder how well America and other English speaking nationz woud be doing if they werent collectively blowing a trillion per yir bekuz uv a louzy orthografy.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Sunday, August 2, 2015 3:40 AM (P)

Humans are probably not superior to other animals in reasoning skills.

What we have, which they don't, is persistent abstract language. That language is like an overarching, collective hive-mind, that directly forms or influences nearly every experience, independent of individuals.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, August 2, 2015 3:49 AM (P)

"A very common idea. Try typing it and riting it by hand."

About as difficult as Polish

easier than Russian

far easier than Mandarin.

Completely doable.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, August 2, 2015 5:37 AM (P)

And yet, there IS an aggregate response. That response is different from the aggregate response of other countries and peoples. Are you saying that the intellect can't make sense of aggregate phenomena? Are you saying that discussing aggregate phenomena is beyond rational reach?

And I have to say - there you are, AS USUAL, engaging in your anti-intellectual propaganda. Refusing to discuss the topic. Turning every discussion into an ad hominem attack. Making claims for which you provide no evidence, or reason.

You are the poster child for that article.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JO753

Sunday, August 2, 2015 7:02 AM (P)

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.

No. This iz you not understanding wut the word meanz and applying it shot gun style to everything you disagree with.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Sunday, August 2, 2015 7:06 AM (P)

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, therefor we rely on apathy and ignorans to avoid calamity.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Sunday, August 2, 2015 9:05 AM (P)

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.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JO753

Sunday, August 2, 2015 4:29 PM (P)

Surely you misinterpret.

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

Certainly you can argue that its kuz he had no real talent for the job, but then you need to consider wut woud happen if sumwun with that talent but below averaj intellijens coud end up doing. The money grabbing portion uv our society alwayz takes advantaj uv the gubmint and idiots in office make it eazy for them.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SECOND

Sunday, August 2, 2015 7:31 PM (P)

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?

Here is a short piece about a very specific example of American anti-intellectualism. I did not run an opinion survey of all 321,362,789 Americans alive this Sunday morning, but all Texans I asked (5) are wrong about the facts, yet will not change their minds.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/inflation-paranoia-as-a-tr
ibal-marker/
Inflation Paranoia as a Tribal Marker

Derp — views that just keep being repeated in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence — has always been with us, but the derp quotient has really soared since the crisis of 2008, which made nonsense of doctrines too dearly held to be reconsidered. This is especially true of inflation derp: has any prominent figure who warned of runaway inflation from the Fed’s efforts admitted having learned anything from being wrong year after year?

It seems increasingly clear to me that what we’re looking at here has nothing to do with intellectual discourse as we normally understand it. It is, instead, about tribal identities: there’s a certain kind of person who rails against policies that debase the dollar, and that kind of person admires others who do the same no matter how wrong their predictions and disastrous their financial advice. As I said in a brief note on Ron Paul, it’s a form of Madoff-style affinity fraud, even if the perpetrator of the scam believes his own derp. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/the-old-man-and-the-cpi/

As you might guess, I’ve received some mail from Ron Paul admirers deeply angered by the suggestion that they are not engaged in deep intellectual argument. By and large the mail reads like this:

Dear shmak, Paul Krugman!
Stop insulting Ron Paul!
You are low level Socialist/Liberal who should be jailed for Life
your insulting writing style.
Ron Paul is Real Man with Capital M
and you are nobody!

But the thing is, it’s not just the libertarians who do this sort of thing. Awesomely, Richard Fisher, now retiring as president of the Dallas Fed, is apparently regarded as an intellectual giant — he “rose to the status of being a deity in Texas” — despite a track record of being wrong again and again. www.newrepublic.com/article/118870/five-times-richard-fisher-has-wrong
ly-warned-inflation-2011

A brief aside: the WSJ engages in a fairly common practice when describing inflationistas, namely that of whitewashing what they have actually spent year after year warning against. No, Fisher didn’t warn against “frothy financial markets”. He warned against inflation — inflation that kept not happening. www.wsj.com/articles/dallas-fed-struggles-to-fill-fishers-big-shoes-14
38281953?mg=id-wsj

Why all the respect for what would ordinarily be considered a record of repeated bad judgment coupled with a lamentable unwillingness to learn from experience? The answer, surely, is that within the conservative tribe issuing dire warnings against inflation is considered virtuous whether or not they are right; it’s a way of showing that you’re their kind of guy, that you belong to the tribe.

Of course, saying things like that means that I should be jailed for life.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 2, 2015 8:55 PM (P)

JO753

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

You've made two critical errors.

Your first error is in thinking that Bush Jr was running the show. GWB was a sock puppet, Cheney was the hand. The nation was being run by Cheney. Cabinet members say that Bush often appeared glazed, dazed, and confused during Cabinet-level discussions, and would only emerge with a "decision" after he's disappeared behind closed doors with Cheney. That's why Bush Jr refused to appear before the 9-11 Commission unless Cheney could hold his hand.

Do you recall who selected Cheney as the VP candidate? Cheney was put in charge of the selection committee. After an exhaustive search, he found the only person who was really qualified was- himself! It was Cheney who haunted the Old Executive Building in the run-up to the Iraq destruction, pressing the analysts for ANY evidence of Saddam's WMD, and "stove-piping" (sending it directly) to Bush without further analysis. Cheney was the one who vetted the appointment of Rumsfeld (a middle east neocon) and Rumsfeld was the one who brought other neconons into the Bush admin. In total, the important in the Bush admin were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. NOT brought in by Bush.

Your second mistake is that you think that Clinton and Obama administrations are any better than the Bush administration. Yes, Bush was in office when the financial system collapsed.

But it was CLINTON who signed many of the bills that made the collapse of the financial system possible.

Why do you suppose that your hard-earned bank account was at risk in 2008? Those deposits were at one time required by law to be invested (by the bank) ONLY in "safe" investments. Suddenly, regulators found out that banks had poured their cash deposits into mortgage tranches and Credit Default Swaps (CDSs). That's because Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, which had previously separated your hard-earned bank deposits from those kinds of risky investments.

Why do you suppose so many jobs fled to Mexico and Haiti? That's because Clinton pushed for - and got- the "free trade" agreements of NAFTA and CAFTA. That "giant sucking sound" of jobs that Ross Perot predicted?? It happened.

Why do you suppose that Enron occurred, and that Credit Default Swaps played such a large role in the financial collapse of 2008? That's because Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Trading Act, which "modernized" futures trading to legalize those risky investing practices.

Why do you suppose that gays had such a hard time getting the right to marry? That's because Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Why do you suppose that Microsoft and Apple have been able to establish and maintain near-monopolies in their respective areas? That's because Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which virtually eliminated the "fair use" provisions formerly granted to hardcopy content.

I could go on and on about what Clinton did that was awful. I voted for him once- but not more than that.

OBAMA IS NO BETTER. Obama is pushing for MORE "free trade" acts ... TPP (trans-Pacific) and TTIP (trans-Atlantic). While Bush has Iraq and Afghanistan notched in his belt, Obama has Libya, Ukraine, and Syria. The surveillance that Bush started? It used to include a few million people under Bush, now - under Obama- it's virtually everyone. The bank bailout that Bush started? Doubled-down ... by Obama. Obamacare? A big w

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 2, 2015 9:23 PM (P)

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

I refuse to take YOU seriously. Nobody is saying that "all" Americans are anti-intellectual. However, 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?

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."

No, YOU are the one who doesn't understand aggregate phenomena. There are aggregate phenomena, and what it consists of is what a nation chooses to do in response to a problem.

So, what was our aggregate response to 9-11?

To pass an authorization bill which allowed Bush to militarily engage anyone, anywhere. To authorize widespread constitutional breaches. To invade Afghanistan and then Iraq. To spend a trillion dollars to destroy a WMD threat that didn't exist. "Because terrorism". THAT was our "aggregate" response, despite the fact that individuals disagreed with it. That's what "aggregate" means.

I DID question the article. I questioned the definition of the word "anti-intellectualism". I questioned the specific examples. I questioned whether or not America was specifically subject to the phenomena, or whether it was pretty worldwide.

Now, I'm questioning you.

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.

Polls show that the majority of Republicans don't think evolution occurred, and don't think that global warming is happening. It's more than "just a handful". If people were UNIFORMLY thoughtful and engaged, we would not have the clusterfuck that we currently have. If we were more often than not thoughtful and engaged, we would be seriously talking about how to solve our problems, not plugging our ears and going "Nyah nyah nyah! I can't hear you!". 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. But if it makes you feel any better, it's not just the USA. IMHO, it's a worldwide phenomenon.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JO753

Monday, August 3, 2015 4:49 AM (P)

Sig.

I wuz trying to avoid a long post, so simplified my point down to Bush Jr.

Thingz are way the hell more complicated than just a particular guy, administration, or time period. If you want to learn how thingz got so unfair, Les Leopold'z The Looting uv America iz a good start. But really, it goez back all the way.

Still,you know way more detail about the resent events than I do, so thanks, good stuff.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 3, 2015 6:01 PM (P)

I just look at existence of Fox News (or has Jo might write it = FuksNewz)and it fills me with despair. Who would have thought a Boy from Oz could wreak such havoc in the world with his media empire - the Kingmaker Murdoch.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 3, 2015 9:00 PM (P)

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

The author uses the term "Americans" four times, "many Americans" once, and in one case "[some] American schools" is implied. ("[some] American schools, claiming to uphold traditional values..." doesn't implicate all American schools, just those claiming to uphold traditional values. That statement ties into the Bible Belt, which isn't all of America.) In one case, the word "America" is used appropriately, in the other cases it could be read as an unwarranted generalization. So, sometimes the author generalizes inappropriately.

HOWEVER...

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.

Uh huh, and then ...

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.

Ok, how about some critical thinking on YOUR part?

WHY was Congress able to make such bone-headed decisions?
Is that because Congress is mostly full of boneheads?
WHY is Congress full of boneheads?
Is that because AMERICANS elected them?
WHY did Americans (as a whole) elect boneheads?
Is that because Americans generally don't pay any attention to their candidates, unless they're involved in some sort of televised smackdown?
Is that because Americans mostly elect candidates they feel they could "have a beer with", ones that present themselves as intellectually unmotivated as most of the electorate?
Is that because Americans are typically moved by advertising, especially the expensive fever-pitched last-minute kind?
Is that because Americans as a whole are fed ... an buy into ... a load of horse shit?

The problem with trying to unload all of our problems onto corrupt politicians is that we have a democracy. EVERYTHING ... from the role of money in elections (would go away if people stopped responding to advertising) to roster of bad candidates to corruption in office... that would all go away by consistent, widespread, application of the thoughtful vote. The fact that we do not ... that we routinely engage in careless, emotional, thoughtless voting means that what "Congress" and what "Washington" do ... no matter how boneheaded ... IS the people's aggregate response.

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 be

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:14 AM (P)

"Do you think we make decisions based on some collective thought? You certainly suggest as much with those words."

Aggregate doesn't mean the same thing as collective.

Is this yet another one of your strawman arguments, is your English really that bad, or are you just that stupid?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:55 AM (P)

WHY did Americans (as a whole) elect boneheads?
Is that because Americans generally don't pay any attention to their candidates, unless they're involved in some sort of televised smackdown?
Is that because Americans mostly elect candidates they feel they could "have a beer with" ...?
Is that because Americans are typically moved by advertising, especially the expensive fever-pitched last-minute kind?
Is that because Americans as a whole are fed ... an buy into ... a load of horse shit?

"Do you think we make decisions based on some collective thought? You certainly suggest as much with those words."

So, speaking of stupid 'G'string - there is nothing in these words that indicates collective behavior. And aggregate doesn't mean the same thing as collective.

Is this yet another one of your strawman arguments, is your English really that bad, or are you just that stupid?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, August 5, 2015 2:36 AM (P)

So are you saying that it's never appropriate to refer to a country as a whole as it generalises? You can't talk about Germany's role in the European Union, or Saudi Arabia being a country of Islamic extremists, or Greece for rejecting austerity measures?

1KIKI

Wednesday, August 5, 2015 10:12 AM (P)

Do you think we make decisions based on some collective thought? You certainly suggest as much with those words.

And again, where did I say it meant the same?

Probably in the first quote where you re-characterized what she said was an aggregate response as a collective one.

And aggregate doesn't mean the same thing as collective.

Is this yet another one of your strawman arguments, is your English really that bad, or are you just that stupid?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, August 6, 2015 2:55 AM (P)

Meh, it's just a discussion piece. It seems to me it's saying that there are some trends happening in the USA right now, trends which incidentally exist in other parts of the world including here as well, but because you are on alert from (written) attacks on America, you respond as you do.

Here is the definition of trend

noun
noun: trend; plural noun: trends

1.
a general direction in which something is developing or changing.
"an upward trend in sales and profit margins"
synonyms: tendency, movement, drift, swing, shift, course, current, direction, progression, inclination, leaning; More
bias, bent
"an upward trend in unemployment"
2.
a fashion.
"the latest trends in modern dance"
synonyms: fashion, vogue, style, mode, craze, mania, rage; More
informalfad, thing, flavor of the month
"the latest trend in dance music"
3.
a topic that is the subject of many posts on a social media website within a short period of time.
"for more than 20 days in a row, most of the top Twitter trends were Olympics-related"

verb
verb: trend; 3rd person present: trends; past tense: trended; past participle: trended; gerund or present participle: trending

1.
change or develop in a general direction.
"unemployment has been trending upward"
synonyms: move, go, head, drift, gravitate, swing, shift, turn, incline, tend, lean, veer
"interest rates are trending up"

I believe it's perfectly acceptable to discuss trends in politics, economics, social values and most readers would be fine with that and understand that nobody means 'every single person in ........'.

Let's see what the author says that offends you so much

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.

The author is speaking of the concept of American Exceptionalism, which I see in buckets on the Internet. It's a very real (and to me offensive) set of values that lots of people display. Of course, not everyone does. But those values are real and prevalent.

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).

Whoa lookey here. Not even a discussion of all America, but ackowledging differences in different areas. However the real point is the

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.

Big tick as far as I can see. Otherwise why would EVOLUTION still be a controversial topic, for crying out loud. The only arguments against evolution are based in a book of faith.

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 corporatio

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, August 6, 2015 4:57 AM (P)

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,

Looks like you have accidentally veered into the truth, as proven by the elections of Carter, Clinton, Clinton II, Obama, and Obama II.

JO753

Thursday, August 6, 2015 5:46 AM (P)

And you deny being a republican!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Thursday, August 6, 2015 1:01 PM (P)

Do you think we make decisions based on some collective thought? You certainly suggest as much with those words.

And there you are, after your question, re-characterizing what she clearly said was aggregate as collective. So you obviously didn't JUST ask a question - because you then supplied your answer.

"probably?" So you don't even know what you're referring to?

You need to look up the definition of 'probably'.

Thesaurus says "aggregate" is a synonym of "collective".

The NORMAL, PREFERRED AND MOST ACCURATE synonyms are: concerted corporate cumulative mutual shared and unified - which imply a decision reached by a group of people after mutual discussion. So, if you wish to improve your English - or your honesty - and I strongly suggest you should - perhaps you should focus on the more normal word usages.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, August 7, 2015 2:17 AM (P)

You never had anything to contribute on the topic anyway, so meh...

SIGNYM

Friday, August 7, 2015 7:58 PM (P)

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

YES, you did.

A fine example of G, not even taking responsibility for the words he posts.

What a weenie!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 8, 2015 2:11 AM (P)

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

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, August 8, 2015 5:28 AM (P)

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...

I thought it important to define the word trend as you seemed too stupid to understand that a discussion of them does not mean 'every individual thinks this way' - which is how you have dismissed this entire thread. Because seemingly if it doesn't apply to every single person in the US, it isn't a valid argument. And that was basically the only thing you had to say, and you've said it over and over, which makes you kind of a troll.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, August 9, 2015 5:17 PM (P)

Do you see the difference in this:

"Anti immigration sentiment is on the rise in Australia and led by politicans promoting and exploiting culture of fear as a means of winning votes"

and

"All Australians are racists"

or do I need to explain trends to you again?

The problem with you, G, is that you get so goddam defensive whenever I post anything about the US.

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.

Despite the fact that in my first sentence, I said that this was something affecting Australia and the UK as well. OMG, now I'm generalising about the WHOLE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD. Maybe you would feel better with a few percentages thrown in....

"More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process."

I found this quote somewhere. Does breaking it down make it more paletable.

Here is another quote

"Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it."

Doesn't that sound like there are lots of stupid people out there. I think it does. Isnt that interesting

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, August 9, 2015 7:03 PM (P)

7% believe the moon landing was a hoax. Ho ho ho.

67% of Republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim.

45% of labradors will be obese by the time they are 4.

I am making some of these up....

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 9, 2015 8:52 PM (P)

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.

Yeah, G gets so goddamn defensive he can't even apply a dictionary definition.

Son, go re-read the definition of "collective". Look at as many dictionaries as you choose ... in fact, the more, the better. Then come back and demonstrate, using the dictionary definitions, how your statement isn't the same as "collective".

I know you won't, because I know you can't.

And you might want to wonder why you wind up being so defensive over such pointless points, where you argue over things where you are CLEARLY in the wrong. You're just like RAPPY, who argued that (1) Saddam had WMD which he (a) hid (b) shipped to Syria before the invasion. He argued that UN Resolution 1441 authorized use of force in Iraq, despite numerous examples of resolutions which DID authorize the use of force (and look nothing like), and detailed discussions about the fact that UN resolutions supersede (I had to go get a dictionary definition of the word for him) each other.

He argued about GLOBAL WARMING. He argued about the economy being ON FIRE! in early 2008, despite the fact that I was telling him it was going to crash. He argued that reducing tax rates increased Federal revenues (despite decades of data on tax rates and revenues showing otherwise).

RAPPY argues FROM EMOTION. He WANTS certain things to be true. He MORTALLY FEARS other things. (He panics.) He wants and fears things so badly that he .. literally ... can't think straight. The only difference between you and RAPPY are the specifics of what you want and fear. Your belief in America being "good" and "right" makes it impossible for you to imagine that the USA might have ever done anything immoral.

Dial you emotion down several orders of magnitude. I know you feel these things deeply and the strength of your feelings make your opinions seem so true, but isn't arguing from emotion the essence of anti-intellectualism?

---------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 9, 2015 9:42 PM (P)

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

You're the one who's arguing with online dictionaries, not me. Sheesh. Take a chill pill for god's sake.

ETA: Ok, yanno what? I'm just poking you to get you wound up, which is way too easy. I'm going to stop now.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 9, 2015 10:17 PM (P)

G, poll after poll ... and it doesn't matter which poll, who took it, or when (within the past three decades or so) say that far too many Americans ... too many, for a supposedly developed nation with a universal educational system ... are blithering idiots.

80% believe in an invisible being who rules over the universe
80% believe in angels
Unfortunately, the Harris poll website is down for these

45% believe in ghosts
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-des
ign.aspx

73% believe in god-directed evolution, or god-created creatures
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-des
ign.aspx

In my many decades of life, I've come to understand that there seems to be an irreducible percent (30-35%) of Americans who believe in the strangest stuff. But if it makes you feel better, almost every nation has its set of beliefs. The question is whether these beliefs can be overturned by evidence, and whether they get in the way of constructive problem-solving.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JO753

Monday, August 10, 2015 1:20 AM (P)

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.

I'm just sitting here twiddling my thumz waiting for you and all the suppozedly lojik and sientific evidence based problem solving progressivez to join me.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Monday, August 10, 2015 3:31 AM (P)

I'm just sitting here twiddling my thumz waiting for you and all the suppozedly lojik and sientific evidence based problem solving progressivez to join me.

You want us to join you and solve - Global warming? Overpopulation? The ongoing mass extinction? Human aggression? Anything at all important?

Or do you want us to help you masturbate to your little obsession?
Eeewwwww ....

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 10, 2015 5:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Do you see the difference between "All Australians" and "Australians?" I only see a very subtle difference, one that allows someone to paint an entire nation, culture, race, society with a broad brush and then deny it.

You're arguing for the sake of argument. You're offended because you think that somehow the article says 'G, you're an anti intellectual who doesn't believe in evolution and global warming' and that I'm posting it because I think all americans are stupid and you're rushing to defend both yourself and your fellow country men that have been unfairly criticiqued.

Quote:

I think you get a slanted view of the US because it SELLS. Lots of people outside the US like to read how the "mighty have fallen." Does that seem unlikely to you? I'm not sure you believe that is a fact.

Nothing to do with my views on the US at all. I posted an article, mused that the premise applied to both Australia and the UK and said that I saw evidence of this kind of thinking on these boards, where over the years I've seen a variety of posters post nonsense directly attributed to right winged shock jock commentators in a parrot like and simplistic manner.

I actually know very little about the US, and apart from coming on these boards and joining in the odd conversation, have very little comment or thought on american society or politics. I'm interested in how US foreign policy impacts on the world, although less interested now that I was say 10 years ago, and some broad interest in trends that appear to develop within the US and get spread elsewhere, but that's about it. I mostly don't have strong feelings one way or another....vaguely interested would have to be about as strong as it gets. Sorry to disappoint.

Quote:

No, saying something effects Australia is not the same as saying "Australians think."

Semantics again?? The article doesnt say "Americans think..." and nor did I.

JO753

Monday, August 10, 2015 6:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

You want us to join you and solve - Global warming? Overpopulation? The ongoing mass extinction? Human aggression? Anything at all important?

Or do you want us to help you masturbate to your little obsession?
Eeewwwww ....

See?

You only like to gripe about and argue with conservativ idiots. You dont want to DO anything real.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Monday, August 10, 2015 9:07 AM (P)

Like your little fantasy is real. HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Btw - I've done more to help the planet than you've ever done about anything at all. I guarantee it. Total up family and volunteer work as well, and you'd have a hard time catching up to all the real things I've changed.

But hey, just go back to your mom's basement, and keep repeating to yourself you're in service of a Great Cause. Because it's easier to immerse yourself in an ego-stroking fantasy of your own creation than deal with the real world.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JO753

Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Like your little fantasy is real. HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Btw - I've done more to help the planet than you've ever done about anything at all. I guarantee it. Total up family and volunteer work as well, and you'd have a hard time catching up to all the real things I've changed.

Such az?

And your lojik iz flawed. 1. You doing sum good duznt = my project iz bad. 2. Wen did it bekum a competition? You are saying 'my good deedz are better than your good deedz so I dont hav to do anything.'

Quote:
But hey, just go back to your mom's basement, and keep repeating to yourself you're in service of a Great Cause. Because it's easier to immerse yourself in an ego-stroking fantasy of your own creation than deal with the real world.

See?! You just cant help yourself!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 13, 2015 9:39 PM (P)

JO753, YOUR logic is flawed.

Quote:
your lojik iz flawed. 1. You doing sum good duznt = my project iz bad.

No, that's not what KIKI is saying, that's what YOU'VE been saying.

Because, in your humble opinion, YOUR project is SO important that unless people buy into it they're "conservative" and "illogical" and "anti-intellectual"... despite the fact that they may be progressive, logical, and intellectual on every other project except yours. So in your humble opinion, YOUR project is SO important that whether or not someone participates in it or not trumps whether or not they're doing ANYTHING ELSE in politics, the environment, inter-relationships, food safety, education, war, or the myriad of OTHER things people might be doing on their own behalf and that of others. Just look at how you attacked MAGONS for being conservative just because she doesn't buy into your scheme. I have to say .... really??

Quote:
2. Wen did it bekum a competition? You are saying 'my good deedz are better than your good deedz so I dont hav to do anything.'

And your single-minded (some might say monomaniacal*) focus on phonetic spelling reveals itself right here, in your wording...

The sentence that you wrote says, in essence I'm already doing something so I don't have to do anything. Since the person is already doing "something", how is it that they don't have to do "anything"?

Oh, you mean "anything ... along the lines of phonetic spelling" ! You failed to put your specific project in context, which I think that reveals a personal lack of context as well.

----------

I think that you're looking for a key that will unlock a new and better way of thinking for people, and while I agree that people need a new and better way of thinking (or maybe just a reliable way of engaging the thought process) I'm fairly certain that it'll take a lot more than phonetic language to get there. The reason why I say this is because, looking at the actions of societies which ALREADY have phonetic languages (German, French, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Hungarian etc) a lot of illogic still occurs on a personal and social/national scale: war, economic crises, power hierarchies, overpopulation, empire-building, and other self-created disasters. Phonetic language hasn't seemed to have prevented all that. I wish it was that simple.

Its not that phonetic languages are without merit. Phonetic languages do have several possible advantages: they're easier to write, teach, and learn, and because of that it's easier to have a more-universally educated population. (I note that "educated" doesn't mean "intellectual".)

For example, my guess is that with idiographic languages like Mandarin, writing is an art form: each "word" is an individual complex picture which can't be constructed from simpler forms. Because of that, it's hard to reproduce thru mechanical printing: you can't just lay in blocks of letters, each word has to be hand-crafted (calligraphy) and there are potentially thousands of individual pictures which would need to be crafted, not just 26. Because of lack of distributed written material, entire past generations have not been formally educated, and entire memes about knowledge have been embedded in society.

After all, what was Martin Luther's big idea? It was that each person should have an individual relationship with god, not mediated by the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Each person should read and interpret the Bible. That would have been impossible without the printing press. It's only the advent of photocopy and computers which have made teaching and distributing idiographic language possible.

In addition, it's difficult to add new words to account for new things. I've been told that Mandarin doesn't have plurals or possessives or past o

JO753

Friday, August 14, 2015 12:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JO753, YOUR logic is flawed.

Severely! But less than most other peeplz.

Quote:
Because, in your humble opinion, YOUR project is SO important that unless people buy into it they're "conservative" and "illogical" and "anti-intellectual"... despite the fact that they may be progressive, logical, and intellectual on every other project except yours.

My opinion iznt humble. I tried the humble thing long ago and it duznt work. You gotta be bold and loud or you will be ignored.

Like Mal sed to Safron "50 odd planets spinning round the Verse & not a 1 haz ever been inherited by the meek".

In the case uv the Nooalf Revolution, there iz no reazon to be agenst it. Being agenst sumthing without having a lojikl objection iz quintessential conservatizm.

Quote:
So in your humble opinion, YOUR project is SO important that whether or not someone participates in it or not trumps whether or not they're doing ANYTHING ELSE in politics, the environment, inter-relationships, food safety, education, war, or the myriad of OTHER things people might be doing on their own behalf and that of others.

No. You can do other thingz. I'm just saying therez an opportunity here for anybody to help that takes very little effort and time for potentialy huje benefits.

Everybody needz to consider their ability to shape the future, not just billionairez. Doing sumthing pozitiv, even if its not sumthing that directly affects you.

Quote:
And your single-minded (some might say monomaniacal*) focus on phonetic spelling reveals itself right here

I believe we'v gon over this point befor. You dont win the Olympics by casually training on weekendz wen you dont hav anything else to do. The obsessed guy (sum mite say monomaniacal) with the most talent will take the gold. The less talented obsessed maniacs will take silver, bronz, and all the other plasez. The non-obsessed weekend guyz are not in the competition. At best, they are in the audiens thinking "I couda dun that".

Quote:
I think that you're looking for a key that will unlock a new and better way of thinking for people, and while I agree that people need a new and better way of thinking (or maybe just a reliable way of engaging the thought process) I'm fairly certain that it'll take a lot more than phonetic language to get there.

True. Humanz on averaj are barely better than animalz at thinking, and thats only bekuz uv the small % uv outstanding jeniusez. Most are basicly herd beasts who benefit by being compatible with the teknolojy being created.

The brain power iz there. The software iz crap. Nooalf iz better software.
Where do you think America woud be now if English alwayz had fonetic spelling? The fact that other nationz hav fonetic systemz and havent dun az well duznt mean bad systemz work better for society.

You talk about China. It wuz stagnent for 5,000 yirz and their low literacy rates were a key part uv that. You probably know the story uv the Emperor who executed an advizor who segjested they create an alfabetic system.

Quote:
In fact, the ability to add new words ... to make concrete new ideas ... seems to have enhanced our ability to pass along stupid, baseless ideas, as well as useful ones.

Dont you think it helps the spred uv nonsens if peepl dont expect thingz to make sense? That emperor sure did!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SIGNYM

Friday, August 14, 2015 9:26 PM (P)

Quote:
JO753, YOUR logic is flawed.- SIGNY

Severely! But less than most other peeplz-JO

Hmmm... are you sure?

Quote:
Because, in your humble opinion, YOUR project is SO important that unless people buy into it they're "conservative" and "illogical" and "anti-intellectual"... despite the fact that they may be progressive, logical, and intellectual on every other project except yours.- SIGNY

My opinion iznt humble. I tried the humble thing long ago and it duznt work. You gotta be bold and loud or you will be ignored.irony.

Like Mal sed to Safron "50 odd planets spinning round the Verse & not a 1 haz ever been inherited by the meek". -JO

You didn't recognize irony.

Quote:
In the case uv the Nooalf Revolution, there iz no reazon to be agenst it. Being agenst sumthing without having a lojikl objection iz quintessential conservatizm. - JO

I agree. Or maybe my more political friends would call it being reactionary. Which in some ways is opposite of being intellectual. (Not a total antonym, some of the shades of meaning are off, but close.) However, just because a person is conservative in one area doesn't mean they're convervative everyhwere. I know some very conscientious progressive scientists who still believe in god. Everybody's got a bug in their thinking somewhere. Even you.

Quote:
So in your humble opinion, YOUR project is SO important that whether or not someone participates in it or not trumps whether or not they're doing ANYTHING ELSE in politics, the environment, inter-relationships, food safety, education, war, or the myriad of OTHER things people might be doing on their own behalf and that of others.-SIGNY

No. You can do other thingz. I'm just saying therez an opportunity here for anybody to help that takes very little effort and time for potentialy huje benefits.-JO

There are three points wrapped up in that paragraph.

The first is that there are things that can be done. Other than being generally supportive of the idea, what is there to do?

The other part is that it takes little effort. That's where an explanation of what there is to do would help, then people could judge the effort for themseveles.

The third is the potentially huge benefit. That is where I think I disagree the most. I see a real benefit ... I watched my MIL, husband, and daughter struggle with spelling (for different reasons) and I think written English is a bear to learn. But I don't see a potentially huge benefits, because phonetic languages have not proven themselves to be able to deliver on that.

Quote:
Everybody needz to consider their ability to shape the future, not just billionairez. Doing sumthing pozitiv, even if its not sumthing that directly affects you.

I wholeheartedly agree. But many people are ALREADY doing something positive, just not in your area of concern.

Quote:
And your single-minded (some might say monomaniacal*) focus on phonetic spelling reveals itself right here- SIGNY

I believe we'v gon over this point befor.- JO

Possibly. If so, I apologize for making you go through it again.

Quote:
You dont win the Olympics by casually training on weekendz wen you dont hav anything else to do. The obsessed guy (sum mite say monomaniacal) with the most talent will take the gold. The less talented obsessed maniacs will take silver, bronz, and all the other plasez. The non-obsessed weekend guyz are not in the competition. At best, they are in the audiens thinking "I couda dun that".

OK, you're on a mission.

Quote:
I think that you're looking for a key that will unlock a new and better way of thinking for people, and while I agree that people need a new and better way of thinking (or maybe just a reliable way of engaging the thought process) I'm fairly certain that it'll take a lot more than phonetic language to get there.-SIGNY

True. Humanz on averaj are barely better than animalz at t

JO753

Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hmmm... are you sure?

Yes. Nature and nurture, but mostly luck. My brother haz a higher IQ than me but haz weaker lojik.

Quote:
You didn't recognize irony.

I did, but wanted to expound on the point.

Quote:
I know some very conscientious progressive scientists who still believe in god.

You can count me amongst them (exept for the sientist part). And also Christopher Langan.
http://www.docdroid.net/f02b/christopher-langan-a-new-kind-of-reality-
theory-2002.pdf.html

Quote:
Everybody's got a bug in their thinking somewhere. Even you.

I know I do, but at least theoreticly, sumwun coud be able to alwayz be rite within the limits uv human cognitiv powerz.

Quote:
The first is that there are things that can be done. Other than being generally supportive of the idea, what is there to do?

There are bunchez uv thingz that coud be dun to help that are beyond my capabiltyz. Selling iz my biggest weakness, but all aspects uv primary education, especially literacy uv course, need peeps working on them. The opportunityz for products such az educational toyz, software and programz. A big wun that I'v wanted to do iz a Nooalf keyboard wich woud include several non-nooalf spesific improvements.

Quote:
The other part is that it takes little effort. That's where an explanation of what there is to do would help, then people could judge the effort for themseveles.

Just spredding the word helps. Getting sum measurable level uv public awareness woud be a huje boost. Rite now 'nooalf' gets a microscopic number uv rezults in a Google search even tho I'v been yammering about it for 14 yirz. Seriously - your cat coud attack a dog and get 1,000,000 x more publisity than I'v gotten.

Quote:
The third is the potentially huge benefit. That is where I think I disagree the most. I see a real benefit ... I watched my MIL, husband, and daughter struggle with spelling (for different reasons) and I think written English is a bear to learn. But I don't see a potentially huge benefits, because phonetic languages have not proven themselves to be able to deliver on that.

Its sumwer around a trillion dollarz per yir now, just to put a $ measure on it. Its really a massive human potential dizaster, but how do you measure that? The thing iz that wen you spred it over the whole world and its 'just the way thingz are' kuz everybody grew up with it, the sheepl dont recognize the problem. (the old pajez on the website go into this a little more)

Think uv it this way; How much do you think handedness costs humanity? (az oppozed to ambidexterity)Its a handicap that virtually everybody haz so it iz rarely questioned. Same with goofed up orthografy exept we created that problem ourselvez.

Quote:
I wholeheartedly agree. But many people are ALREADY doing something positive, just not in your area of concern.

Thats wut bugz me. ISIS iz sumhow able to recruit peepl to their insane & idiotic 'cauze', but ask peeps to help with spredding lojik and I get laffed at, insulted, reprimanded, banned!

Quote:
No, I didn't.

I wuz trying to find the story, but its hard to do a search for sentensez. The basic story iz that an advizor realized that literacy wuz being hampered by the Chineze logografy so segjested to the emperor that an alfabetic system be created. The emperor, being cognizant uv the problem uv 1 guy controlling millionz uv peepl, knew that not being able to tell hiz subjects anything he wanted woud be very disadvantajous, so he put a desisiv end to that train uv thot.

Quote:
I guess people have two flaws in their thinking, but I think it's hard-wired in,...

Yep! Its an advantaj to be able to identify a tiger befor he eats you. Recognizing a pattern, any sound, smell or tiny hint az quick az possible helps get you to the next level in the game - reproduction. So we are hardwired by evolution to see patte

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:38 PM (P)

Quote:
Dont you think it helps the spred uv nonsens if peepl dont expect thingz to make sense? That emperor sure did! - JO

Let me take another run at this...

There are ALL KINDS of phonetic written languages already in existence. I know this because I can passably read out loud French, German, and even a little Polish without actually knowing what I'm reading. That's because, once you know the rules to convert written language to out-loud sounding, it's fairly easy to reproduce, simply because the rules are fairly consistent. I wish I could say the same for English!

Anyway, my point is that phonetic spelling ALREADY exists in many cultures.

So, where are these vast benefits you keep pointing too? Have these nations avoided war, or made sense of their economies? NOT THAT I'D NOTICED.

Things have to "make sense" in MORE ways than just phonetics, and fixing the pronunciation of the written word isn't going to do away with all of ... or even a tenth of ... the flaws that exist in our collective thinking. Just think of what "making sense" means ... it means, it has to match our senses. All of them- not just what we see-hear, but also how we feel, what we do, how we think. Nor will phonetic writing (apparently) induce a sudden urge in the population as a whole to suddenly demand that ALL things "make sense". Not only that, but it won't help communication BETWEEN languages. After all, phonetic languages are (IMHO) easier to learn than English, and yet I don't see English-speakers taking up the task of learning any language except their own. So ease of use doesn't seem to make a difference.

I think you're overstating the case for phonetics.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JO753

Sunday, August 16, 2015 12:32 AM (P)

Sorry, I wuznt really finished with my previous post but had to do sumthing else, so didnt want to looz it. Posted with the intent uv editing it asap.

A few thingz about fonetic vs nonfonetic languajez:

Even if there were no other languajez to compare English to, the expens iz real. A theoretic ideal orthografy iz the best way to juj rather than thoze for other languajez.

Az I per the added stuf in the above post, I agree that bad spelling iz not the fundamental cauze uv our bad lojik, but it duznt help. You can postulate that human speciez iz jeneticly prone to nonsens, but re-enforsing this tendensy in our critical early formativ yirz iz obviously a bad idea.

The most common example peepl think uv for 'eazy to learn' spelling iz Spanish. But its actually very sloppy, with more deviationz from the fonetic
prinsipl than the number uv soundz it haz! Italian iz much better, but still less than perfect. Same with Polish and Russian. I dont know about Korean and a few other languajez that claim to be fonetic.

Then therez relijun, superstition, constant false info and bad lojik being pumped into our hedz from day 1. All that plus our parents needing to direct us with only 'bekuz I say so' makes it a crapshoot az to wether we will develop any sort uv reliable lojik befor the sement sets.

Given that, you cant claim that a fonetic orthografy woud be no help in improving the level uv lojik in the jeneral public. It can only help, but how much iz a 0 to 100% propozition for each individual.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Sunday, August 16, 2015 2:36 AM (P)

"You talk about China. It wuz stagnent for 5,000 yirz and their low literacy rates were a key part uv that."

During that time Europe and Western Russia were inhabited by warring tribes that had no written language at all, and then later by illiterate fiefdoms - despite the fact that Europe adopted various forms of phonetic alphabets. The last (need I mention illiterate) serfs were freed in historically recent times. "Finally, serfdom was abolished by a decree issued by Tsar Alexander II in 1861." Obviously the absence or presence of a phonetic alphabet wasn't enough to alter millennia of European and Russian stagnation.

If you look further through time and across geography, many places had highly advanced historical civilizations - Central Africa, Egypt, Babylonia, Mohenjo-Daro, the ancient Greeks and the imperial Romans, among others, as well as the Chinese. Some of these advanced civilizations even had phonetic alphabets - the Greeks and Romans for example. And yet, the lack of a phonetic alphabet didn't prevent advanced civilizations from developing. Nor did the presence of a phonetic alphabet secure any from falling. And all of the scientific discovery (the Library of Alexandria comes to mind) didn't give them the power to advance to modern levels.

There are many people who've looked at this question - how did Western Europe make such rapid technological advancements in the last 200 years? None that I've read attributed any outcome to the style of alphabet. If you want to read ideas other than your own, let me recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond.

In any case, off of the topic of phonetic alphabets and on to human mentation, I'm going to posit that a large fraction of what we 'know' comes through language, irrespective of the form of our alphabet, or whether we even have one.

Do you believe that being hit by a car is a bad thing? How did that happen? Have you ever been hit by one? Do you know that that being hit by a car is a bad thing from personal, painful, damaging, frightening, experience? I'm guessing statistically - no. Nearly everybody knows it because they've been TOLD so. In fact, even without personal experience, if they have a close call they'll have an adrenalin surge.

Their - our - experience that becomes hardwired into our biology comes to us through words.

And then there's the vast majority of our experience that never rises to the level of awareness - feelings are felt, biological evaluations are adjudicated, adjustments are made and actions taken, without conscious intervention - without words. And so without alphabets.

The form of the alphabet has, in my opinion, less to do with the human experience than the color of the decoration on a cake has to do with the flavor of the batter. In other words - it's completely irrelevant.

ETA: I think we'd be far less destructive and self-destructive if we could bring those automatic responses up to the conscious level and examine them for veracity.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, August 16, 2015 6:00 PM (P)

This idea that the simplification of spelling will increase literacy is kind of a meh concept. Literacy levels depend upon people sending their children to school, that they have the resources to send them there and not have them working to contribute to family income at an early age. If you look at world literacy rates, its pretty easy to see that poor,developing or war torn countries have poor literacy rates.

Literacy is about economics. Not phonetics.

JO753

Monday, August 17, 2015 10:55 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You talk about China. It wuz stagnent for 5,000 yirz and their low literacy rates were a key part uv that."

During that time Europe and Western Russia were inhabited by warring tribes that had no written language at all, and then later by illiterate fiefdoms - despite the fact that Europe adopted various forms of phonetic alphabets.

Suppoze the 1st Chineze dynasty desided that universal education, including literasy, wuz a good idea. With so many brainz working a few levelz abuv the requirements uv farming and hunting for thouzandz uv yirz, do you think they woud hav made no progress?

Same with your other examplez in spite uv having very little stability.

Quote:
There are many people who've looked at this question - how did Western Europe make such rapid technological advancements in the last 200 years? None that I've read attributed any outcome to the style of alphabet.

Sertainly therez more to teknolojy than the quality uv the orthografy. Motivating peepl to inovate iz wut made America great. You are missing the undeniable point that a bad orthografy hinderz literasy. Many creativ jeniusez are dyslexic. How many uv them never did anything notable simply bekuz they never learned to read? Do you think there woudnt hav been any more Da Vinciz or Newtonz if it wuz eazier to bekum literate?

Quote:
In any case, off of the topic of phonetic alphabets and on to human mentation, I'm going to posit that a large fraction of what we 'know' comes through language, irrespective of the form of our alphabet, or whether we even have one.

Sivilization never gets very far without sum form uv riting.

This fellow makes a strong case that its essential:

Quote:
The form of the alphabet has, in my opinion, less to do with the human experience than the color of the decoration on a cake has to do with the flavor of the batter. In other words - it's completely irrelevant.

Suppoze the system iz so bad that it takes 50 yirz to learn how to read & rite. Do you think orally passing along information will suffise to get potential sientists and inovatorz up to speed soon enuf to take advantaj uv their most productiv yirz? (and dont forget they are spending a major chunk uv their waking owrz learning to read)

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Monday, August 17, 2015 11:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This idea that the simplification of spelling will increase literacy is kind of a meh concept.

It may be soon. Wen computerz can dezine new stuf with no human help, it wont matter if Joe Sixpak can read or not. Too bad for him, but the world wont spin any slower. Up until then, we are dependent to sum degree on each person being able to pull hiz own wate on averaj. A guy driving a forklift who cant read the warning that woud hav stopped him from starting the chain reaction that destroyz a factory will hav a negativ net productivity for hiz life.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Monday, August 17, 2015 11:33 AM (P)

He makes many claims that are on their face untrue.

If he wants to define marriage very narrowly as a written contract spelled out by the state that two people enter into, then he's correct - you can't have marriage per se without written language. But since the dawn of humanity people have made all sorts of commitments to each other without written language - alliances, mutual defense, mutual antagonism, childcare, hunting and gathering parties, teaching and learning, and of course men and women bonding together. He claims you can't have property without a written language, but hundreds of tribes that exist even today understand 'this is my bowl', 'this is my hut' without written language. And so on. I'm not going to dispute each and every false claim, but these two examples demonstrate that his argument contains falsities, and is invalid to that extent. It surprises me that you so unquestioningly accepted what he claimed as true, considering the contrary facts are so obvious.

As for written languages that take decades to learn - that's why only a relatively small fraction of people get PhDs, as each field of study is its own language.

And this; 'Motivating peepl to inovate iz wut made America great' is a myth. What made America great, or at least made a stratum wealthy, was having lots and lots of cheap labor. And killing off the natives so as to take their land helped too, I'm sure.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 17, 2015 1:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:

It may be soon. Wen computerz can dezine new stuf with no human help, it wont matter if Joe Sixpak can read or not. Too bad for him, but the world wont spin any slower. Up until then, we are dependent to sum degree on each person being able to pull hiz own wate on averaj. A guy driving a forklift who cant read the warning that woud hav stopped him from starting the chain reaction that destroyz a factory will hav a negativ net productivity for hiz life.

http://www.nooalf.com

So what?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, August 17, 2015 1:36 PM (P)

Quote:
In the main we Australians get along pretty well, as long as we don't try to talk to one another about anything complicated. In that event, the name-calling begins. We're at each other's throats.

Then we try and put things back on an even keel, show that we're a top bunch of blokes and move on as best we can. Because what we really want from, say, the Adam Goodes imbroglio is the same thing we want from asylum seekers and climate change: we want the trouble to go away and for everything to be lovely.

Perhaps the most pressing question facing Australian society isn't: are we racists? Because, no matter the call for a national discussion, we're not ready to pull that one apart.

Rather, the question we need to answer first: are we just a bunch of anti-intellectual hicks who can't see beyond labels and slogans?
Advertisement

Psychology Today published a piece in June that argued anti-intellectualism was the cause of social dysfunction in the United States. To wit, mass shootings, black shootings, climate change denial and the rise of Donald Trump.

It was a sneering and over-reaching piece and the response to it was loudly divided.

When boiled down, the intellectual is simply someone – trakky daks and a paucity of teeth are no barrier – who applies critical thinking to a problem. It takes patience and practice but it's not rocket science.

Yet the view of the intellectual as an airy pontificator remains, and one has to wonder to what extent this serves to discourage people from putting on their thinking caps.

Sure, we may be a clever country as far as scientific and medical innovation go, but we're not fostering generous, creative thinkers who can lead us out of the moral swamp (asylum seekers, Indigenous history and identity, radicalisation of unhappy youth).

Reaction sucks up vastly more oxygen in the public sphere than reflection. And for reflection to do its work, raw-scab opinions must be put aside, at least for the moment, while other possibilities are considered. Not happening. How come?

Five years ago, former Labor MP and bright boy Lindsay Tanner wrote about the value of intellectual life: "Perhaps it's one of those things that should be restricted to consenting adults in private. Few politicians would own up to being an intellectual. In the present age of vacuous populism, intellectual means elitist, theoretical and out of touch. I suspect a new version of Barry Jones would struggle to win community support."

Indeed, 20 years ago, Barry Jones was asked to name the nation's top intellectuals but only managed 17 names.

Joy Damousi? is professor of history in the University of Melbourne's School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, whose research includes the history of intellectual life in Australia, which has flowered periodically.

"During the post-war reconstruction, Australia led the world in social reforms ... and there was a lot of debate around those issues," she says. "Those enduring policies didn't make political or economic sense, but they made social and cultural sense ... there was a commitment to a set of principles and values in terms of what kind of society you wanted to make for the next generation."

For evidence of intellectual decline, Damousi points to the current level of political debate. "Compared to that in France and the US, it's arguably fairly undeveloped, unsophisticated" – a consequence of politicians "electioneering most of the time rather than leading. The whole political landscape has changed".

The complaint that politicians are held captive by a 24-hour news cycle and the tyranny of the sound bite, is old hat. So too the complaint that our leaders lack vision.

Jeff Kennett recently declared Australia has been leaderless for a decade. There's a tendency to shrug and say "way it goes". Not good. The reliance on knee-jerk slogans – "you're either with us or you're against us," to quote our Prime M

SIGNYM

Monday, August 17, 2015 9:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This idea that the simplification of spelling will increase literacy is kind of a meh concept. Literacy levels depend upon people sending their children to school, that they have the resources to send them there and not have them working to contribute to family income at an early age. If you look at world literacy rates, its pretty easy to see that poor,developing or war torn countries have poor literacy rates.

Literacy is about economics. Not phonetics.

I have to disagree here. Both my husband and MIL were immigrants, and our daughter is brain-damaged, and they ALL had problems learning to read, and husband and MIL never could spell correctly. I also recall other kids in my Catholic school learning how to read, and it was a struggle. When I learned how to read, it was the phonetic method, which works well for words like cat and hat and pan, but then you get to the long "a's" and the "silent e's" and then it gets worse from there. The "SH" sound in fish is easy to explain, but how do you explain it in "action"?

Yes, teaching and literacy is a matter of time and effort balanced against resources, but if the time and effort is greater in one system than another, given equal resources you'll have less success with the more effortful system.

The one statistic that indicates this is the general scores of literacy, math, and science across the globe. ALL English-speaking nations do worse in math and science. Is it because English-speaking peoples are inherently stupid or lazy? Or is it because so much time and effort of every day is put into "I before E, except after C, or when sounding like A, as in neighbor or weigh"?

I'm not claiming that phonetic English will suddenly make people logical, but what it WILL do is make learning to read and write English a lot easier.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Monday, August 17, 2015 11:53 PM (P)

I think phonetic English is a perfectly solvable problem that regrettably isn't going to get solved. But in the pantheon of solvable problems that aren't going to get solved - overpopulation, global warming, species extinction, human aggression, to name a few - phonetic English is way down on my list.

And I seriously disagree with JO's solution. I find it EXTREMELY awkward to read. And the idea that we should all just spell out our accents and create a non-uniform spelling will lead to enclaves of people not only not understanding the spoken word, but not using or knowing understandable written words as well.

My solution - the phonetics at the bottom of the dictionary page - was offered tongue-in-cheek. Because while I find it better than JO's idea, I understand it would be too difficult to implement.

We need an alphabet - perhaps something like yours Signy - that uses familiar letters and letter combinations that people who already know and currently use standard English spelling can easily read. AND we need an alphabet that doesn't irretrievably cut off future generations from the information found in today's English.

This is not something I personally am going to do - but I bet if you evaluated modern English, you'd find that at least a majority of words conform to phonetic rules. The problem comes with the exceptions. Those I think could be altered to match the phonetic rules we already have, creating a spelling that mostly matches what we already know.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:47 AM (P)

Magon's

I don't believe that people are logical at our core. Even the impulse to reform is the product of some felt value.

AFAIK people think by heuristics, which are mental shortcuts. And then we have deeply embedded drives and responses which direct our behavior without us even knowing it.

So the problem as I see it is not that we're insufficiently intellectual, it's that we can't examine our currently held paradigms, logical or not, and ask - is this working? And - what do we want instead?

I believe we have a few drives.

One is to identify with a group. Even a died-in-the-wool libertarian like SergeantX, when pressed, would admit a greater identity with the people in his neighborhood than strangers in Africa. And if you select one group over another, than you have a group identity.

We have a drive to corner easily dominated resources, like Goodall's chimps and Kenya's baboons. And we see resource problems as human competition, rather than an imbalance susceptible to other solutions.

We have a drive to procreate more under threat.

We maximize our acquisitions and minimize our efforts, far beyond what's necessary, or healthful.

We accept what we're told about the world, which we then adhere to as our reality - even when it fails to conform to observation.

We trade in abstractions as if they were real.

Anyway, it's my belief - without any proof I might add - that these things are addressable. I believe what we need to do is bring them to the fore, and ask specifically and concretely 'does this work?'. What circumstances trigger these responses? What circumstances will alleviate them?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I have to disagree here. Both my husband and MIL were immigrants, and our daughter is brain-damaged, and they ALL had problems learning to read, and husband and MIL never could spell correctly. I also recall other kids in my Catholic school learning how to read, and it was a struggle. When I learned how to read, it was the phonetic method, which works well for words like cat and hat and pan, but then you get to the long "a's" and the "silent e's" and then it gets worse from there. The "SH" sound in fish is easy to explain, but how do you explain it in "action"?

Yes, teaching and literacy is a matter of time and effort balanced against resources, but if the time and effort is greater in one system than another, given equal resources you'll have less success with the more effortful system.

The one statistic that indicates this is the general scores of literacy, math, and science across the globe. ALL English-speaking nations do worse in math and science. Is it because English-speaking peoples are inherently stupid or lazy? Or is it because so much time and effort of every day is put into "I before E, except after C, or when sounding like A, as in neighbor or weigh"?

I'm not claiming that phonetic English will suddenly make people logical, but what it WILL do is make learning to read and write English a lot easier.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

It doesn't matter whether it was a struggle or not. The end result is that you are literate - not sure about your daughter but disability would be a key reason in weston countries for not be able to read and write. The statistics still indicate clearly the nations that have high literacy rates are economically well off. They also indicate that literacy rates are high, in that there are high rates of tertiary education in the population.

So really the key questions are whether your country has a good enough school system, whether people can afford to send their kids to school and ultimately whether people can afford tertiary education.

JO753

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/is-antiintellectualism-killing-the-n
ational-conversation-20150801-gipidj.html#ixzz3j3VEPHgn]

Good article. Did Rupert Murdoch hav az big a role in dividing & stupifying the political prosess in Australia az he did here in the US?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Magon's

I don't believe that people are logical at our core. Even the impulse to reform is the product of some felt value.

Agreed. Duznt mean the reformer iz rong.

Quote:
AFAIK people think by heuristics, which are mental shortcuts.

Not alwayz. Maybe sum peepl, maybe most, but sum peepl can occasionaly prosess information sufficiently well to make progress.

Quote:
So the problem as I see it is not that we're insufficiently intellectual, it's that we can't examine our currently held paradigms, logical or not, and ask - is this working? And - what do we want instead?

I did it. Yet you cant see it kuz uv your attachment to your "currently held paradigms".

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:46 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
He makes many claims that are on their face untrue.

I dont agree with all hiz conclusionz either, but hiz jeneral theory iz undeniable - no riting, no sivilization.

My extension uv that iz better riting, better sivilization.

All other factorz being equal, a nation that iznt hindered by a louzy spelling system will do better than wun that iz.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:27 AM (P)

I did it. Yet you cant see it kuz uv your attachment to your "currently held paradigms".

troll

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

RAHLMACLAREN

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 6:57 PM (P)

Just out of curiosity, how does Nooalf spell 'onomatopoeia'?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 7:55 PM (P)

Quote:
It doesn't matter whether it was a struggle or not. The end result is that you are literate -

First of all, it DOES matter. For many children (and adults) for whom reading is difficult, they NEVER learn how to read, or never learn how to read WELL. IF you're spending your reading time picking through the vagaries of spelling, simply trying to identify the words ... how much of the content do you think you're going to get? How much do you think that person will be reading? Will they ever read for pleasure? Or will their difficulty with reading will be a LIFELONG BARRIER to knowledge?

And for those that DO learn how to read, the hours, days, weeks, months, and years spent on learning that particular information, what about all of the time they could have spent on OTHER things, like mapping (in our DD's case) or arithmetic?

Quote:
not sure about your daughter but disability would be a key reason in western countries for not be able to read and write.

Immigrants, especially adult immigrants, ALSO have a hard time. You yourself said that you know an immigrant - and Ethiopian woman- for whom reading and writing is impossible. Maybe it would be less impossible if it was a lot easier?

Because of our daughter, I know many disabled people, but my ENTIRE FAMILY is made of IMMIGRANTS. My dad was an immigrant, my maternal grandparents and all of their cousins and in-laws were immigrants, my husband and his entire family here are immigrants. While I know many disabled young adults, I know far more immigrants than disabled people, and I know that there are prolly at least as many immigrants as disabled. Plus, the slow readers who don't fit into either category. Its a very clear and felt issue with me, since I've witnessed it throughout my life starting with my grandmother who would read and write Polish but not English, the 10% of my classmates for whom reading was a struggle, my dad, hubby and all five of my in-laws, and our DD and her classmates. Evidence of a problem abounds.

Quote:
can afford tertiary education.

Who's talking about tertiary education? We're talking about reading and writing.

Improving the school system is a tremendous and worthwhile goal. I agree with that. Still, it would be help to make English less painful.

Quote:
The statistics still indicate clearly the nations that have high literacy rates are economically well off. They also indicate that literacy rates are high, in that there are high rates of tertiary education in the population.

Comparing education outcomes among wealthy nations is indicative of the effect of English.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JO753

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Just out of curiosity, how does Nooalf spell 'onomatopoeia'?

oNUMaTUPEU

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/onomatopoeia

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:47 PM (P)

MD,

You may hav missed this:

Quote:
Suppoze the system iz so bad that it takes 50 yirz to learn how to read & rite. Do you think orally passing along information will suffise to get potential sientists and inovatorz up to speed soon enuf to take advantaj uv their most productiv yirz? (and dont forget they are spending a major chunk uv their waking owrz learning to read)

Exajerating sumthing helps to understand it better.

You are literate, so its hard to see English from the perspectiv uv a 4 yir old or an immigrant. You cant see wut a big tangled obstacle course it looks like from where they are standing.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, August 19, 2015 3:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

First of all, it DOES matter. For many children (and adults) for whom reading is difficult, they NEVER learn how to read, or never learn how to read WELL. IF you're spending your reading time picking through the vagaries of spelling, simply trying to identify the words ... how much of the content do you think you're going to get? How much do you think that person will be reading? Will they ever read for pleasure? Or will their difficulty with reading will be a LIFELONG BARRIER to knowledge?

And for those that DO learn how to read, the hours, days, weeks, months, and years spent on learning that particular information, what about all of the time they could have spent on OTHER things, like mapping (in our DD's case) or arithmetic?

We're coming at it from different perpectives, you are talking about the personal and I am about the global. Sorry that probably made me sound like an arsehole, which wasn't intended. I didn't mean to say that the struggle doesn't matter to the individual, but it doesn't impact on rates of literacy.

Regarding immigrants, Melbourne is a city of immigrants. We have had waves of new arrivals over the years. Immigrants, or at least children of immigrant families, consistently top the scores in both school and the university system. One of the most delightful experiences I had was graduating as an adult and being amongst this sea of diversity, African, Asian cultures with their large and proud families.

So I'm not seeing a shocking illiteracy amongst immigrants. Granted the first generation may struggle, but they would probably do so anyway regardless of a phonetic alphabet.

I really feel like I have spent enough airspace on this topic, once again a thread hijacked by our resident spelling zealot. Of all the ideas for change in this world, for making it a better place, this one seems small and paltry and ineffective. Not worth the airspace.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:36 PM (P)

MAGONS, I agree that phonetic English isn't a world-shattering idea. Nonetheless, it would still be a useful tool for making ENGLISH literacy easier. I work with immigrants for whom English is a third or fourth language, and they all say that learning English spelling is difficult. YOUR immigrants sound like the sons and daughters of the wealthy, who can afford to spend a lot of time and effort on something other than working for a living. For the many poor - especially women- easier English may mean an easier pathway to learning.

So what I'm talking about is global, not personal, and you have not changed my mind.

OTOH, you're right, this discussion has been threadjacked. I'm ready to move off the topic pf phonetics.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JO753

Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

We're coming at it from different perpectives, you are talking about the personal and I am about the global. Sorry that probably made me sound like an arsehole, which wasn't intended. I didn't mean to say that the struggle doesn't matter to the individual, but it doesn't impact on rates of literacy.

Your perspectiv iz dependent on not thinking.

If it takes 1 person a year to do sumthing that shoud take a few weeks, thats 26 x the cost. Multiply that by everybody who iz doing it.

Thats the educational part uv the trillion$ per yir English iz costing the world.

Your perspectiv also iz dependent on ignoring everything Sig & I hav ritten.

Sooooo.... wuts the topic title agen?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAGONS, I agree that phonetic English isn't a world-shattering idea. Nonetheless, it would still be a useful tool for making ENGLISH literacy easier. I work with immigrants for whom English is a third or fourth language, and they all say that learning English spelling is difficult. YOUR immigrants sound like the sons and daughters of the wealthy, who can afford to spend a lot of time and effort on something other than working for a living. For the many poor - especially women- easier English may mean an easier pathway to learning.

So what I'm talking about is global, not personal, and you have not changed my mind.

OTOH, you're right, this discussion has been threadjacked. I'm ready to move off the topic pf phonetics.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

happy not to talk about phonetics, but the migrants aren't necessarily wealthy - just your hard working, sacrifice everything for the kids education kind....

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Deakin University anthropologist Rohan Bastin suggests anti-intellectualism in Australia "is a result of a value we hold very dear: a deep sense of equality. But how can a racist be egalitarian? Well, it's easy when they confuse equality with sameness and immediately create an in-group."

In other words, our famed egalitarianism relies on assimilation, a flattening out of identity and a failure to recognise, value or simply cope with difference. Professor Bastin says anybody "who refuses to assimilate for reasons of their history of suffering at our hands or because they subscribe to their own sense of identity and, within that, their own concepts of equality," is on the outer.

This for me is the crux of Australian anti intellectualism. I wonder if it has a different cause in the US.

As much as I love the idea that egalitarianism is a core value, I see that it's got a flip side that strangely unpleasant. It really is about 'everyone is equal as long as you follow the same team. If anyone complains about unfair treatment, or points out prejudice http://mashable.com/2015/08/04/adam-goodes-speaks-out/ then they are a whinger or a sook.

If you do too well, or are too smart and know it, people will try to take you down a peg. The fact that we have expressions such as 'take down a peg' and 'tall poppy syndrome' (you cut the heads off the tall growing poppies) says a lot about our beliefs. Now I'm uncomfortable with some of the more recent changes - talking yourself up or bragging about your achievements - but I also think that we shouldn't only value the ordinary, 'the mums and dads of australia' white, suburban dwelling, two cars and a caravan, football watching, cat, dog, two point five kids. And anything else is at worst a threat and at best dismissed.

JO753

Friday, August 21, 2015 2:16 AM (P)

YOU are the crux uv Australian anti-intelectualizm!!!!!!!!!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Friday, August 21, 2015 7:59 AM (P)

Sorry.

I apolojize for my insulting outburst. You are not the crux. You are not a crux uv anything. Who wants to be a crux? Thats just gross. No more name calling from me. You are completely within your rites to disagree with me wether you hav a reazon or not.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Friday, August 21, 2015 10:06 AM (P)

This for me is the crux of Australian anti intellectualism. I wonder if it has a different cause in the US.

I very definitely get a flavor of what you're saying. It's a kind of affable, lowest-common-denominator friendliness to everyone who conforms. A 'we're all just blokes' attitude. (I hope I'm understanding it, and not misusing your English too terribly.)

I think in the US it's a lot more brutal and unforgiving. It's EXTREMELY racial. It's EXTREMELY sexist. It's EXTREMELY religious. It's EXTREMELY hate-filled. People who don't or can't conform because of skin color, sex, accent, intellect or talent aren't merely excluded, they're targeted. There's a reason a lot of conservatives viscerally hate Obama that has nothing to do with his political party, or his actions in office.

But I THINK it has the same social function, which is to define a group of people who are to be relatively privileged. I think whenever there is bias, it has to do with making up reasons why the haves should have, and the have-nots should be without. Maybe the original defining haves determine the characteristics of the group, leading to different profiles of haves around the globe due to purely historical reasons. But I think it's the same function.

So to address your question, I think it's superficially different, but essentially the same.

BTW, I find it interesting that people who denigrate the 'out' groups the most are also the same ones who truly don't seem to believe in equal opportunity. You'd think that if they truly believed in their own innate superiority they'd have nothing to fear from everyone having equal education, equal employment based on their abilities, and equal status and recognition based on their contributions.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JO753

Friday, August 21, 2015 2:05 PM (P)

Brutal iz the rite word for it. Just look at the size uv our prizon population. Its like the system iz set up az an obstacle course - so many wayz to fall down and so hard to get up agen.

The anti-intellectual aspect iz sumthing TPTB rely on to keep everybody down. Note how quickly they commandeered the Tea Party movement and uzed it to thwart Obama. It wuz no accident that the politicianz that rode that wave into office were all chowderhed wackoz.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SIGNYM

Friday, August 21, 2015 10:34 PM (P)

I didn't realize there was a strain of anti-intellectualism in Australia, altho I did notice that a lot of men are sports fanatics and drink beer.

OOC, MAGONS, is anti-intellectualism as prevalent in women?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, August 22, 2015 4:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This for me is the crux of Australian anti intellectualism. I wonder if it has a different cause in the US.

I very definitely get a flavor of what you're saying. It's a kind of affable, lowest-common-denominator friendliness to everyone who conforms. A 'we're all just blokes' attitude. (I hope I'm understanding it, and not misusing your English too terribly.)

I think in the US it's a lot more brutal and unforgiving. It's EXTREMELY racial. It's EXTREMELY sexist. It's EXTREMELY religious. It's EXTREMELY hate-filled. People who don't or can't conform because of skin color, sex, accent, intellect or talent aren't merely excluded, they're targeted. There's a reason a lot of conservatives viscerally hate Obama that has nothing to do with his political party, or his actions in office.

But I THINK it has the same social function, which is to define a group of people who are to be relatively privileged. I think whenever there is bias, it has to do with making up reasons why the haves should have, and the have-nots should be without. Maybe the original defining haves determine the characteristics of the group, leading to different profiles of haves around the globe due to purely historical reasons. But I think it's the same function.

So to address your question, I think it's superficially different, but essentially the same.

You have nailed it perfectly. In some ways it's more insidious that rage and hate filled racism/sexism because it's so affable on the surface. It's harder to name and harder for people to acknowledge. It's all done with humour, but underneath its still hateful.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, August 22, 2015 4:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I didn't realize there was a strain of anti-intellectualism in Australia, altho I did notice that a lot of men are sports fanatics and drink beer.

OOC, MAGONS, is anti-intellectualism as prevalent in women?

Men and Women tend to be obsessed with sport. In my state its Aussie Rules football throughout winter and cricket all year round, but particularly in summer. But any sport fascinates, don't know why.

Beer driking is on the decline. It was the culture of the past. More likely that people drink wine now. Although a cold beer in hot weather is kind of nice.....

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, May 9, 2021 8:07 PM (P)

surprise that it's taken this long.

Perhaps more of a copyright thing

The FBI is going after the founder of Sci-Hub
https://twitter.com/dgmacarthur/status/1390867150986874882

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:50 PM (P)

Dangerous Ideas by Eric Berkowitz — how speech has been suppressed through history

https://www.ft.com/content/6969afe3-9149-4be2-a2f1-83490187c975

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, May 13, 2023 12:31 AM (P)

Georgia eliminates final remnants of Common Core standards

https://www.times-herald.com/news/georgia-eliminates-final-remnants-of
-common-core-standards/article_512a4c30-f041-11ed-9c9a-8fa1d71ac04f.html

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, May 13, 2023 5:49 PM (P)

Bids to ban critical race theory have come in every state except one, database shows

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/04/17/critical-race-
theory-database-ban-attempts/11666965002/

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:06 AM (P)

House speaker once won taxpayer funds for Noah’s Ark park accused of bias

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/26/mike-johnson-noah-arc-
amusement-park-tax-money?ref=upstract.com

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, May 28, 2024 6:42 PM (P)

Jack White Roasts Joe Rogan and Terrence Howard

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/jack-white-roasts-joe-rogan-and-terra
nce-howard

and one time kids learned better science

now its all quota and diverse culture and LGBTQRSTWXY + political nonsense

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 29, 2024 12:30 AM (P)

It's still "feelingz" over "thought".

Today, DNC and other "liberals" are pushing arrant nonsense (you can be any sex you want to be!) and nobody's prepared to think their way thru that either.

At this point, the major media is pushing their agenda 24/7/365 and the last thing they need is for anyone to question, to parse their way thru the lies and bullshit.

Just like nobody is supposed to parse their way thru adverts or knee jerk oppositional POV or Bible thumping.

Even scientists are behaving like thought police.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, June 17, 2024 7:13 PM (P)

France begins accelerated election campaign after Macron poll gamble

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240617-france-begins-accelerated-electi
on-campaign-after-macron-poll-gamble-national-rally

and Britbongistan, the French caliphate, Swedistan etc

but maybe some protests are genuine and not screaming 'Death to Jews'

Jacob Rees-Mogg says university protests against him were ‘legitimate, if noisy’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/jacob-rees-mogg-cardi
ff-university-protests

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE