Discuss: Anti-Intellectualism

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well, um...I just don't get it. I don't really have much to say about it yet, except to declare that while there sometimes have been good critiques of intellectuals, usually they are not made solely on behalf of anti-intellectualism.

Yeah, so...anyone wanna have at it?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 29 March 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Dude, you think too much.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

what is anti-intellectualism?

Is it just like how someone would rather go and relax on a beach then calculate complex math equations?

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

This is rich.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Whatever anti-intellectualism is, I'm anti that. I think.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Inside the Intellectual, It's often that the mind is taking over and there is lose of contact with the heart.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

That's really one of the only valid criticisms of being a intellectual, I think.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

wrong!

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Right!

Or Maybe Not, But Explain Your Position!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Make me, smartypants!

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I think this thread is getting pretty anti-intellectual.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Says you!

(that's the point I'm illustrating, btw)

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

http://quest.cjonline.com/images/101700/bush.jpg

Og-or OA-I, I guess

― Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Monday, 29 March 2004 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Books make me nervous. Bossy smarty-pants make me nervous.

― andy, Monday, 29 March 2004 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

What is the definition of "intellectual" upon which we are basing this?

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Whoops, I read this as "Discuss: Anti-Intellivision"

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, speaking of Bush, the first thing I thought of w/r/t "anti-intellectualism" was the American public's distrust of Al Gore in 2000 for seeming too smarty-pants. Bush won because he seemed more like a "regular guy," a guy you'd want to hang out with at barbecues -- never mind the fact that that's a terrible criterion for choosing the leader of the free world.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Anti-Pseudo-intellectual is where it's at, mfar.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Antipasto is more like it though.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Mmmmm. Antipastalicious.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Antipasto Spread

ingredients for 7 servings :

2 x 4 oz cans mushroom stems and pieces, drained and finely chopped
1 14 oz can artichoke hearts, drained and finely chopped
1 10 oz jar pimiento stuffed olives, drained and finely chopped
1 6 oz can ripe olives, drained and finely chopped
1/4 c Chopped green pepper
1/2 c Chopped celery
3/4 c Vinegar
3/4 c Olive oil
1/4 c Instant minced onion
2 1/2 ts Italian seasoning
1 ts Onion salt
1 ts Salt
1 ts Seasoned salt
1 ts Garlic salt
1 ts Sugar
1 ts Cracked black pepper

preparation:
Combine first 6 ingredients, mixing well; set aside. Combine remaining ingredients in a saucepan;
bring to a boil. Pour dressing over vegetables; place in a large jar with a tight fitting lid. Shake jar to
stir ingredients; refrigerate overnight. Serve spread with assorted crackers.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Clinton certainly played up the anti-intellectual good old boy thing alot... I think you have to in Southern politics. Apparently he was a closet Faulkner scholar though and bought first editions.

I don't think Bush is hiding anything like that.

― andy, Monday, 29 March 2004 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

clinton was a rhodes scholar!

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar wasn't he?
xpost!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

so was Weird Al!

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

and Kris Kristofferson (who might be the same guy as Weird Al...think about it!)

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

see, I meant Bush was the standard for anti-intellectualismaw, forGET it

― Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush won because he seemed more like a "regular guy," a guy you'd want to hang out with at barbecues

What's sad is that people who think that obviously didn't get the opportunity to meet too many smirky stupid frat boys, because I think GWB is actually a cliche.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, okay, Kerry.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I am kinda curious though, what's the primary difference between anti-intellectualism and dumbassism? Is it just stubborn will-full ignorance?

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Are the anti-intellectuals the dumbasses who have the potential to rise above their idiocy but refuse to? Or is it something FAR MORE SINISTER!?!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Dumbassism is wallowing in your ignorance, and ant-intellectualism is trying to pull everybody down with you.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

aesop's fable about the fox who lost his tail to thread

xpost otm

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

My shoes hurt.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, I think Clinton's genius was that he played up both his fierce intelligence and his good ol' boy upbringing. I mean, late-night monologues notwithstanding, you never weren't aware that he was a really shrewd guy.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Especially when he was sticking a Cohiba in yr coochie!

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Me, fail English? That's un-possible.

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

shrewd guy ~= grifter.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure why I changed "smart" to "shrewd" at the last second. I guess my point was that even if you have that take on Clinton -- that he's a total snake oil salesman and the worst kind of slimy politician -- you've got to at least admit it takes some smarts. He's no toothless Southern fool.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 29 March 2004 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

"clinton was a rhodes scholar! "

Yes, he did receive a Rhodes scholarship. But privately, and well into his political life, he was quite fond of William Faulkner's Southern writings. I think he and Havel bro'd out on the whole literature thing.

Clinton drank beer modestly, but does Bush drink at all? Or is he too good for beer, that no-good...

― andy, Monday, 29 March 2004 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

where the hell is miccio? this is literally his bread and butter

andy have you been to the south? EVERYONE down here is quite fond of william faulkner's southern writings (which leaves out what? that stupid ww1 fable? yeah, bill's right - fuck that shit). don't make you intellectual anymore than being southern and loving gone with the wind makes you a film buff.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

GWB is a teetotaler, word has it, due to being an alcoholic earlier in life.

― Kingfish Hypercolor (Kingfish), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Blount OTM. I love Faulkner and I sure a'int no intemallectual.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)

anyhow anti-intellectualism tied VERY MUCH into 'fuck the rich' sentiments which i wholeheartedly endorse (although change 'fuck' to 'kill' or at least 'indict'). clinton had class cred - he was local po boy from broken home made good: the mutherfucking american dream, and his demeanor showed it. noone doubted dude luvved mcdonalds. gore came from rich powerful stock, had a good chunk of his life handed to him, and his demeanor showed it. dubya's background even more privileged but his demeanor somewhat covers it up/makes up for it - you'd 'never guess' he went to an ivy league school (a good thing)(he did though so fuck him nine times).

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:12 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, bush is a teetotaler and born again due to alkie youth, which as a deaniac i can't impugn entirely, although i sure as FUCK can impugn dubya's drinking nearbeer - WTF? combine this with his being a cheerleader and awol fuck and you get what woulda been my campaign slogan this year - "BUSH = PUSSY".

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

dubya's background even more privileged but his demeanor somewhat covers it up/makes up for it - you'd 'never guess' he went to an ivy league school (a good thing)

So being actually privileged and choosing to act like a dumbass is preferable to accepting your good fortune and making good use of it?

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:19 (twenty-two years ago)

how does 'regular guy' = 'dumbass'?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:22 (twenty-two years ago)

regular guy != dumbass.

George W. Bush = (acts like a) dumbass.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, but i don't think that's what people are reacting to positively - when he goes into 'bushism' mode people chalk it up to 'he's like his dad in that he can't speak for shit' (except noone thought bush the elder was an idiot)(or this kind of idiot at least)(and dubya's delivered at least two good speeches, which is two more than his dad did), the pro-bush splurge i see tends to be about his showing up at churches, other 'he's a regular guy' type stuff, (both sides got mileage outta the 'gimme some ribs' incident). intellectualism = patrician alot of the time, and 'evil fuck' (cf. mcnamara, kissinger) a good chunk of the rest. also 'intellectual' != 'smart'.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

So being actually privileged and choosing to act like a dumbass is preferable to accepting your good fortune and making good use of it?

Most people/Americans don't want to feel like they're being talked down to, regardless of class status (on either end). The feeling is that a rich, connected guy with an Ivy League edumacashun is more likely to patronize you.

Bush covered for his Ivy League education with the aw shucks demeanor and people bought into it. (This comes at the expense of some derision which serves only to reinforce Bush's act.)

Look at that compared to Hillary Clinton and Gore. Both of these are hated hated hated by a lot of people in a completely irrational way. Both come from an upper-middle/upper class background and have Ivy educations, just like Bush.

Gore tried to put on a man of the people act, but many still felt like he was the ivory tower egghead treating them like children. That's why his goofs ("invented the Internet" - no, he didn't say that, etc. etc. etc.) got so much more milage than Bush's. It's okay when the frat boy makes a mistake, no one's expecting better. When the smartest kid in class screws up, everyone laughs.

Hillary fares worse, because she's a woman and because she doesn't even try to fake populism.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Monday, 29 March 2004 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 18 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

All 20th century advances came from the scientists, the engineers, the businessmen, the artists, the statesmen.

Scientists, artists and statesmen aren't intellectuals? wtf? (I'm excluding businessmen from the question not because there aren't intellectual businessmen, but because intellectualism isn't as closely tied to business titans as to major achievers in the other three areas.)

I mean, I guess the achievements of 20th century intellectuals could look paltry if you excluded Einstein, Picasso, FDR, etc. etc. from the definition of "intellectual." But then, I'm not sure what definition of intellectual you'd be left with. People with doctorates in English?

― spittle (spittle), Monday, 29 March 2004 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, maybe I shouldn't FTT, but...

As I said, intellectualism as most popularly understood in the US seems to mean anyone who is interested in 'effete' things like, you know, lowering your cholesterol, not going to church, watching PBS, or enjoying any film that's not an action movie.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 29 March 2004 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

They're a drain on human kind.

So much for the lip-service paid to Arendt, then.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 29 March 2004 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

The track listing for Slade's greatest hits comp, "Feel The Noize"... the anti-intellectual's house band:

1. Get Down And Get With It
2. Coz I Luv You
3. Look Wot You Dun
4. Take Me Bak 'Ome
5. Mama Weer All Crazee Now
6. Gudbuy T'Jane
7. Cum On Feel The Noize
8. Skweeze Me, Pleeze Me
9. My Friend Stan
10. Everyday
11. Bangin'Man
12. Far Far Away
13. How Does It Feel
14. In For A Penny
15. We'll Bring The House Dow
16. Lock Up Your Daughters
17. My Oh My
18. Run Run Away
19. All Join Hands
20. Radio Wall Of Sound
21. Merry Xmas Everybody

― andy, Monday, 29 March 2004 20:49 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.juvalamu.com/crust/images/ucmain3.gif

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 29 March 2004 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Delicious!

― Prude (Prude), Monday, 29 March 2004 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

ya'all need to make the distinction between "intellectual" and "professional academic"

― Ian Johnson (orion), Monday, 29 March 2004 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

No, you do.

― andy, Monday, 29 March 2004 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

mmm, victory by definition

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Monday, 29 March 2004 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Now think of all the advances in our society that are directly the result of 20th century intellectuals. Think of every positive, concrete “plus” added to the civilization board by Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Arendt, Edmund Wilson, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Barthes, Foucault, Habermas, Freud, Lacan, Weber, DuBois, Buckley, Nozick, Rosa Luxemburg, Immanuel Wallerstein, Gore Vidal, etc.
Just being familiar with their work makes you knowledgable. Pontificating about their alleged contributions to society makes you an intellectual.

;-)

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 29 March 2004 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

intellectualism as most popularly understood in the US seems to mean anyone who is interested in 'effete' things

Yeah, I saw an ABC News report on the start-up liberal talk radio network, and at the end of it the female anchor said something like, "Well, the question is whether liberals are just happy sipping their lattes and reading the newspaper or if they'll actually listen to talk radio." And I thought, first of all, how come you only hear of people "sipping" latte? No one ever gulps it or bolts it or swigs it. And second, where did this liberal/latte thing come from? There are now Starbucks in every Republican suburb in America, and there are a lot of conservatives out there sipping latte grandes (and even saying it "la-TAY gran-DAY" when they order). It's all part of this myth of effete, elite and -- yes -- intellectual "liberals" that the American right has been exploiting so well for the last 20-odd years.

Which, really, is what a lot anti-intellecutalism is about, redefining political stereotypes to uncouple the historical (and economically logical) association between the working class and liberalism.

― spittle (spittle), Monday, 29 March 2004 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)

at this point, i should probably drop in a link to this older thread:

"¿Quién es más macho, George Bush o John Kerry?"

― Kingfish Hypercolor (Kingfish), Monday, 29 March 2004 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

DO NOT fucking get me started on the Upper Crust and that Clinton speechwriter dork in the band.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 29 March 2004 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)

spittle otm!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 March 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

And I thought, first of all, how come you only hear of people "sipping" latte?

Because they're hot! FFS.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 29 March 2004 22:25 (twenty-two years ago)

yossarian U R A JACKASS.

as if contrasting a list of philosophers from 200 years ago w/ a list of still-living / just died philosophers is meaningful.

― vahid (vahid), Monday, 29 March 2004 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

where the hell is miccio? this is literally his bread and butter

in rock reviews, maybe (though my beef is more with excessive use of jargon and relative inaccessibility), and that depends on my mood. When it comes to, you know, shit that matters, I'm definitely not anti-intellectual.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 29 March 2004 23:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Think of every positive, concrete “plus” added to the civilization board by Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Arendt, Edmund Wilson, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Barthes, Foucault, Habermas, Freud, Lacan, Weber, DuBois, Buckley, Nozick, Rosa Luxemburg, Immanuel Wallerstein, Gore Vidal, etc.

what the fuck is wrong with camus? i can see how you'd argue that sartre was a deluded stalin-apologist jerk (and i'd agree), but CAMUS? he wasn't no ivory tower type, he was a soccer player, for chrissake!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Whatever it is that distinguishes us from monkeys, intellectuals have it in spades.

If anti-intellectuals advocated a return to monkey-hood -- de-industrialisation, ecological harmony -- I would be more sympathetic to their cause. Unfortunately what they tend to be advocating is conformity and the very middlest of all the worst human middlenesses.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

You talk real funny.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 07:40 (twenty-two years ago)

THEY SAY the only good story is a story about stories

THEY SAY a painting with eyes that follow you around the room is old hat

THEY SAY we've had enough of Shakespeare, Dickens, Dixon of Dock Green!

and who are these COMMISSARS OF CULTURE?

A PACK OF CHARLIES!

three things made Britain great: a strong navy, the white race, and narrative closure. Don't let's throw them away.

THE SUN SAYS: COME OFF IT!

― Richard Littlejohn, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 08:02 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a thread to print out and enjoy.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 08:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Whatever it is that distinguishes us from monkeys, intellectuals have it in spades.

so intellectuals love more and appreciate beauty more than the rest of us?

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 08:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Good one oops!

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Monkeys love and appreciate beauty plenty, it seems to me. But when it comes to opinions on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, they can't offer much.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:34 (twenty-two years ago)

what type of monkeys are you hanging out with?
guess I'm less human than you since I have no opinions on Mnsr. Bordieu.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)

being attracted to beauty and appreciating beauty are two seperate things

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Who would win a fight between a horse and a monkey?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Wikipedia defines Intellectual in 175 words. Its definition of Anti-intellectualism runs to 870. This may be because anti-intellectualism is more complicated than intellectualism, or because it's more popular, or because it's more passionately interesting, filled as it is with hate and derision. Then again, it may be that people who write about anti-intellectualism are just more long-winded.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Or maybe it's because, this being Wikipedia, the definitions were written by two different people who didn't think to consult each other.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:27 (twenty-two years ago)

'Anti-intellectualism is found in every nation on earth, but has become associated in particular with the United States of America. It existed in the US before the nation itself; the New England Puritan writer John Cotton wrote in 1642 that "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee." In 1843, Bayard R. Hall wrote of frontier Indiana, that "(w)e always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness."'

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:29 (twenty-two years ago)

dude's talking to bees for chrissakes

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Richard Hofstadter's 'Anti-Intellectualism in American Life' (1963) seems to be the definitive survey.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Intellectualism on ILX = taking a simple question and parsing it in semantic, politic, philosophic ways rather than answering the fucking question.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:41 (twenty-two years ago)

'It is ironic that the United States should have been founded by intellectuals, for throughout most of our political history, the intellectual has been for the most part either an outsider, a servant or a scapegoat.' Richard Hofstadter

(It seems to me that the construction 'either/or' should have only two elements, but perhaps Hofstadter is following Kierkegaard here.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:56 (twenty-two years ago)

or discovering that the apparently 'simple question' conceals semantic depth, as well as political and philosophical nuances that not only bear thinking about but also put a question mark over the naive idea that the question could be answered in any straightforward way without referring to the complexities of close reading?

x-post

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

We want more Barry.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Barry is like an enthused independent campaigner for local council.

I'LL MAKE YOU A BARGAIN TO CUT THROUGH THE JARGON.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Anti-intellectualism on ILE = Barry throwing a tantrum because someone points out his question is not all that simple/contains potential dubious assumptions/may not mean what he thinks it means.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Anti-intellectualism on ILE = Barry talking about ILM.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Bullshit RickyT. The question to which I am referring was SUPPOSED to cover all bases, yet despite me trying to make this clear you decide to pick and poke at it without seeing beyond your semantic blinkers to consider any of the concepts to be discussed. THAT's what I'm talking about.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Et tu, Ewing?

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

How is a given individual person supposed to cover all bases? Even if you think about the metaphor you're using this seems fairly clear.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

You take one of the concepts and discuss it. Then, another preson discusses this with you OR considers another concept. I specifically DIDN'T want it to be a thread about one narrow definition of "dumbness", so why do you feel the need not only to make it one but criticse me for doing so?

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:21 (twenty-two years ago)

xpost

Sorry Baz it was just a joke!

The simple qn. here seems to be "Discuss: Anti-Intellectualism". How you do that without talking politics and philosophy (and probably semantics too) is beyond me, maybe I'm dumm.

Unless you're talking about some other thread I haven't read.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that a you plural or what?

(I was wondering if this was a thread I hadn't read either)

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, yes we are. How to deal with stupid people or somesuch.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)

He's talking about another thread.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah OK. Bloody ILE, always fighting.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't try it.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.