Coronavirus

[Red]

Wait, what?!? You think anti-intellectualism has been the dominant American trait since colonial times? As in, that is the strongest trait, there are no traits in America that have been stronger. You believe the country that created the greatest university system the world has ever seen, the country that invented nearly all of the computational/networking infrastructure enabling the information age, the country that invents the overwhelming majority of medications, the only country to have ever landed people on the moon, you believe that country has no trait in all of its culture that has been more front and center than anti-intellectualism since colonial times? I think you are deluded. I think that is a really stupid opinion, but please do attempt to provide some backing for that claim. Or are you just pulling nonsensical statements of hate for your country from your backside?

I was a big fan of American historian Daniel Boorstin’s trilogy “The Americans”. By far my favorite American historian. In describing the early development of our nation, he pointed out the simple fact that in frontier environments, intellectuals really brought no useful skills to bear in building a frontier. Sure, institutions of higher learning were established in colonial times, but suspicion of intellectuals has run throughout our history. And the frontier experience nurtured that, as we grew as a series of frontiers, an environment in far less need of book learning that settled cities. I’ve seen this anti-intellectualism my entire life, been subjected to it at times. Of course, he’s not the only scholar to realize that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life

Really, I don’t know why you sound so angry!? The fact that I believe, I know, anti-intellectualism runs through our history does not mean I’m pulling nonsense from my backside. If you really want to dig into that one trait, it will be described well in the first book of Boorstin’s trilogy. Probably the most influential study of American history in my experience. At least in influencing me, and in teaching history. You’ll find many who agree with recognizing the anti-intellectual sentiment of the American public. How the hell you get “Or are you just pulling nonsensical statements of hate for your country” out of that is beyond me. You’ll find many scholars of the American scene who know exactly what I’m describing. You’re way the hey off base in understanding what I’m saying...It grew out of our frontier experience….And, BTW, there you go making things up. Again! Putting words in my mouth. I specifically said anti-intellectualism was A dominant trait in our character, not, as you lied, by stating: THE dominant trait. And, Boorstin was taking about the common man, not actual American intellectuals!

I grow tired of you twisting my points just to suit your opinion of me. His trilogy The Americans is not a political history. It’s a history of how “the American character” developed. The frontier experience was part of that development. The two best works describing the uniqueness of America and Americans that I’ve read would be The Americans by Boorstin, and the classic early study of America, Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.

Can you see how your blanket, and unfounded assumptions about me are all wet?

The Americans: The Democratic Experience - National Book Foundation

www.nationalbook.org

Hey, I don’t know, you might actually enjoy Boorstin’s American history. Great influence on many historians…Best work describing the American experience I read, way back in the day.

Daniel Boorstin Against the Barbarians

Yet more than any other consensus historian, Daniel Boorstin counter-attacked radical New Left critiques. He was unabashedly patriotic, and his books are works of wonderment and curiosity about America, its land, and its people. (essay by Michael J. Connolly)

theimaginativeconservative.org

Cimments on The Colonial Experience, first volume of the trilogy:

The Americans, Vol. 1: The Colonial Experience

Winner of the Bancroft Prize In this brilliantly origi…

www.goodreads.com

Amazon.com Review​

The first book in a trilogy--and in many respects the best of the bunch--The Colonial Experience is an essential interpretation of how the habits of people who lived more than two centuries ago shaped the lives of modern Americans.Boorstin shows how an undiscovered continent shattered long-standing traditions and utopian fantasies with the hard demands of everyday life far from the sophisticated centers of European civilization: "Old categories were shaken up, and new situations revealed unsuspected uses for old knowledge," writes Boorstin. He starts with a series of penetrating essays on the Puritans of Massachusetts, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the philanthropists of Georgia, and the planters of Virginia, then tackles a set of diffuse topics that range from astronomy to language to medicine in fascinating vignettes.
The Colonial Experience is must reading for anybody interested in the development of the American character. --John J. Miller
—————————————————————————-

Further research on the idea I threw out there is up to you, just pointing out why you had no idea what I was talking about. Oh, and I do not hate my country. Ha! I just now realized I even said my last statement was not really a subject for these threads! But, guess I needed to clarify anyway…..

 

[Red]

well i started off Covid very much part of "your team" approach. I only started seeing things and changing my mind about some things about a year into it when i observed sooooo many lies and misrepresentations and lack of facts in things that were being pushed. Irrationality swings in many directions. For example your brain dead friend Thriller who when Joe Rogan talked about taking Ivermectin and other such options rather than the Pfizer treatment banged on about it being "horse wormer" I have no idea of whether that is in any way effective but what i do know is that it is one of the most used medications of all time primarily in humans and that has an extraordinarily good safety profile. And gained a nobel prize for the person who invented it for it's use in humans. There has been incredible irrational belief in certain parts regarding the pros of the vaccines without specific replicable data across all age groups and a refusal to even consider the cons particuarly for kids and young healthy people

And i'll have you stand corrected i haven't said "vaccination kills" at all. Rather i am on the view which is now quite widespread outside of the US where your healthcare system is so deeply corrupted that it is often unnecessary and pointless and carries some risks. I find it staggering that people blindly believe your medical industry in some of these matters. The excess deaths is a big issue because it's very much been swept under the table and the lack of proper safety long term studies of these new injections before being released to market. I don't know what the causes actually are. But if you don't consider whether they may or may not have a part in some of this issues it's wilfull ignorance or just stupidity.


and please see above where i clarified the hives thing was meant in humour if that wasn't clear.

I want to add something to my reply. I believe you are so speaking from a position of earnest belief. That is something I would never want to belittle. From such a position, one often feels an urgent need that others understand your concern as you do. I’m sure I’m in such a position a lot. That may be why my friends sometimes run when they see me coming. But, seriously, I believe it’s simply as I said originally, that we lean in the direction that we feel is best for ourselves. And we live in information overload. Did I read every piece written warning of the dangers of the Covid vaccines? No, I did not. Should I take your concerns ever bit as serious as you do? In truth, I don’t really know, I went with my instinct. Which is really just a lifetime of being a human being, and included examining the current public climate in the United States, and that I did in spades, and I went with the Moderna and its boosters. I respect your opinion, and I commiserate with the frustration that often results when one sees one’s sense of urgency is not heeded by others. Because I believe the vaccines are safe does not mean I flat out dismiss your concerns, nor do I think you’re foolish for feeling that way. Of course you’re not.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

I want to add something to my reply. I believe you are so speaking from a position of earnest belief. That is something I would never want to belittle. From such a position, one often feels an urgent need that others understand your concern as you do. I’m sure I’m in such a position a lot. That may be why my friends sometimes run when they see me coming. But, seriously, I believe it’s simply as I said originally, that we lean in the direction that we feel is best for ourselves. And we live in information overload. Did I read every piece written warning of the dangers of the Covid vaccines? No, I did not. Should I take your concerns ever bit as serious as you do? In truth, I don’t really know, I went with my instinct. Which is really just a lifetime of being a human being, and included examining the current public climate in the United States, and that I did in spades, and I went with the Moderna and its boosters. I respect your opinion, and I commiserate with the frustration that often results when one sees one’s sense of urgency is not heeded by others. Because I believe the vaccines are safe does not mean I flat out dismiss your concerns, nor do I think you’re foolish for feeling that way. Of course you’re not.

mate solid post I never doubt the integrity of your intentions and efforts and own person beliefs, and i appreciate your efforts to tackle issues.

i think you're right in that the political and cultural climate the US is in can give some mixed / crossed understanding from something coming from a place not mired in such mud.

cheers dude

 

[Red]

I think that is a really stupid opinion, but please do attempt to provide some backing for that claim. Or are you just pulling nonsensical statements of hate for your country from your backside?

Ignorance on your part. Assumptions on your part. You didn’t know practicality was part of the American character…..I said it was not a subject for this thread, but you had to go with your assumptions about me in your reaction to a simple observation on my part. So, you got two replies with the “backing” you no doubt assumed could not exist. Assumed because…me.

From that one short sentence of mine, you concluded it stemmed from my hatred of America. Do you see what you are doing? Assumptions born of your opinion of me.

Boorstin’s study illuminated the development of American character, he illuminated what he felt was unique in Americans, and in the first volume of the trilogy, he tried to shed light on how the frontier experience helped shape that practicality-minded character. From a review:

“The reader of a book with a title like The Americans and a subtitle like The Colonial Experience might typically expect a linear history that starts with Roanoke Island, Jamestown, Plymouth, and Massachusetts Bay, and proceeds steadily forward until it ends with various Signers fixing their signatures to the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776 – but that is not how The Colonial Experience, or any of the three volumes of Boorstin’s The Americans, works.

Rather, this book calls to mind works like Andrew Malcolm’s The Canadians (1985), John Hooper’s The Spaniards (1986), Marion Kaplan’s The Portuguese: The Land and Its People (1992), or Patrick Oster’s The Mexicans: A Personal Portrait of a People (2002). Such works invoke history, to be sure, but their primary purpose is to provide insight regarding the national character of a people. Boorstin’s The Americans works in much the same way.

The reader of The Americans: The Colonial Experience will perceive very quickly that Boorstin sees a focus on the practical rather than the theoretical as being a core trait of the American character – and that he feels that the demands and pressures of colonial life fostered in colonial Americans this pragmatic mindset that remains central to the thinking of contemporary Americans”.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

he feels that the demands and pressures of colonial life fostered in colonial Americans this pragmatic mindset that remains central to the thinking of contemporary Americans

Being practical or pragmatic is not the same thing as being anti-intellectual. An example of an anti-intellectual society was the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They pretty much wiped out the educated class.

American practicality is more along the lines of holding medical doctors to account for their work. We generally hold medical doctors in high esteem socially and we praise medical advancements, but when one harms a patient through incompetence, we sue the crap out of them and if it’s really bad then we pull the license to practice medicine. In practical America, holding the title of doctor is not in and of itself enough to absolve you of responsibility for malpractice. That does not make America anti-doctor. It makes America practical, pragmatic, holding the evaluation of effectiveness of performance above the evaluation of title.

Being practical or pragmatic was not what you accused American of being. It was being anti-intellectual like the Khmer Rouge. You ignore all the evidence I mentioned earlier, such as building the greatest university system and the advancements to the sciences that exceed every other country in the history of Earth, to stick to your America-hating tripe. Okay, so you found someone who wrote some things you’ve twisted into believing supports your ideas of America’s dominant trait being opposition to the pursuit of intellect. I think you are wrong and that you are ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence that proves just how much pragmatic, practical America has done to advance humankind’s collective intellect.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

Interesting. FDA forced to remove it's posts on Ivermectin as part of a legal settlement

FDA settles lawsuit over Ivermectin social media posts

The FDA said it will remove social-media posts that indicate ivermectin is for animals, not humans.

www.newsweek.com

 

[One Brow]

Interesting. FDA forced to remove it's posts on Ivermectin as part of a legal settlement

FDA settles lawsuit over Ivermectin social media posts

The FDA said it will remove social-media posts that indicate ivermectin is for animals, not humans.

www.newsweek.com

Unfortunate

 

[Red]

Being practical or pragmatic is not the same thing as being anti-intellectual. An example of an anti-intellectual society was the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They pretty much wiped out the educated class.

American practicality is more along the lines of holding medical doctors to account for their work. We generally hold medical doctors in high esteem socially and we praise medical advancements, but when one harms a patient through incompetence, we sue the crap out of them and if it’s really bad then we pull the license to practice medicine. In practical America, holding the title of doctor is not in and of itself enough to absolve you of responsibility for malpractice. That does not make America anti-doctor. It makes America practical, pragmatic, holding the evaluation of effectiveness of performance above the evaluation of title.

Being practical or pragmatic was not what you accused American of being. It was being anti-intellectual like the Khmer Rouge. You ignore all the evidence I mentioned earlier, such as building the greatest university system and the advancements to the sciences that exceed every other country in the history of Earth, to stick to your America-hating tripe. Okay, so you found someone who wrote some things you’ve twisted into believing supports your ideas of America’s dominant trait being opposition to the pursuit of intellect. I think you are wrong and that you are ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence that proves just how much pragmatic, practical America has done to advance humankind’s collective intellect.

I just think you have a lot to learn about this subject, that’s all…..

Understanding Anti-Intellectualism in the U.S.

Understanding Anti-Intellectualism in the U.S. Written by: Edric Huang, Jenny Dorsey, Claire Mosteller, Emily Chen Edited by: Lesley Tellez, Zandie Brockett, Hannah Seabright Graphic by: Ian Farrell Last Updated: 6/1/2021 If you want a downloadable PDF of this document, please enter your email...

www.studioatao.org

I agree with this definition:

“The concept of anti-intellectualism has changed and evolved over time, without one single definition. In historian Richard Hofstadter's groundbreaking book, Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), anti-intellectualism is explained as “a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life”.

And this attitude was summarized by Issac Asimov in this well known observation.

“The strain of anti-intellectualism has been...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

I ignored nothing where your observations were concerned. You still fail to understand where I’m coming from. Khmer Rouge? You’re apparently in over your head with this subject matter. Why am I even discussing this with you, lol…Khmer Rouge…please. Really, you know nothing about the subject, it shows, stop it. Either educate yourself on anti-intellectual attitudes of Americans, throughout their history, or don’t. But please, I certainly left enough to be understood better than this, and not misunderstood in such a silly manner as this. You missed the point entirely, at least based on where I see you coming from in this reply.

“American-hating tripe”. No it was not. It was a presentation of where I was coming from, based on some of my mentors’ ideas. I loved intellectual history, the history of ideas, the history of science, there is simply no good reason to call me American-hating. I distinctly told you I was not speaking of American intellectuals themselves. Think! The “anti-smarty pants”( do I have to use grade school terms with you?) attitude is, and long has been, widespread in this nation. But you chose to focus on something I was not talking about(the intellectuals and scientists produced by our nation). This is about ordinary American attitudes, and you have a great deal to learn on the subject. And your reply is what happens when you miss the point, but instead assume you know not only the point, but the motives, and are not equipped with enough background to understand.

The Tea Party is timeless

Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism In American Life reviewed

archives.cjr.org

“It helps in understanding Hofstadter to know what he takes intellectualism to mean. Here is a passage that comes as close as any in the book to a definition:

It accepts conflict as a central and enduring reality and understands human society as a form of equipoise based upon the continuing process of compromise. It shuns ultimate showdowns and looks upon the ideal of total partisan victory as unattainable, as merely another variety of threat to the kind of balance with which it is familiar. It is sensitive to nuances and sees things in degrees. It is essentially relativist and skeptical, but at the same time circumspect and humane.

“….to Hofstadter, intellectualism is not at all the same thing as intelligence or devotion to a particular set of ideas. It is a distinctive habit of mind and thought that actually forbids the kind of complete self-assurance that we often associate with very smart or committed people. You can see how the all-out quality of fundamentalist religion, or of salesmanship, or of ideologically driven politics, would have been anathema to Hofstadter. Being himself an exemplar of his conception of the intellectual, he saw the essential problem that is the subject of the book as being an unresolvable tension between intellectualism and democracy:

Anti-intellectualism . . . is founded in the democratic institutions and the egalitarian sentiments of this country. The intellectual class, whether or not it enjoys many of the privileges of an elite, is of necessity an elite in its manner of thinking and functioning . . . . Intellectuals in the twentieth century have thus found themselves engaged in incompatible efforts: They have tried to be good and believing citizens of a democratic society and at the same time to resist the vulgarization of culture which that society constantly produces. It is rare for an American intellectual to confront candidly the unresolvable conflict between the elite character of his own class and his democratic aspirations.

Because Hofstadter does confront the conflict candidly, he winds up in a very small category. It’s interesting to think of him in contrast to, for example, Walter Lippmann, who wrestled with the same problem for years and wound up becoming more and more unsympathetic to democracy. Hofstadter’s position is far more morally attractive, because it acknowledges the appeal of both sides and proposes a continual struggle between them, rather than the establishment of an American version of Plato’s Republic. That has the advantages of descriptive accuracy, and of realism. Hofstadter’s lesson is that those who oppose anti-intellectualism should conceive of their lives as a struggle that will never conclude in victory but that also need not ever end in total defeat.

Intellectuals dwell in the realm of ideas and values, where almost nothing is ever right without qualification. So if anti-intellectualism is a natural aspect of a democratic society, humility ought to be a natural aspect of intellectual life”.




Wish I bothered to read your reply when it was posted. Figured it would be a waste. I was right.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

Unfortunate

How ?

 

[Deleted member 365]

lol

 

[One Brow]

How ?

Now there are no official government warnings against purchasing de-wormer paste designed for livestock and the human ingestion thereof as an anti-viral medicine. I presume you support only taking ivermectin as a de-wormer.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

Now there are no official government warnings against purchasing de-wormer paste designed for livestock and the human ingestion thereof as an anti-viral medicine. I presume you support only taking ivermectin as a de-wormer.

anyone purchasing Ivermectin prepared as a de-wormer for horses and taking it is an absolute idiot. I am however in favour of a doctor being able to prescribe it as they see fit with their patients. And the villification of Ivermectin as only a "horse de-wormer" was bizarre given that it's one of the most widely used medications in humans ever with an incredible safety profile, and it's developers awarded a nobel prize for such.