Anti Intellectualism is Killing America
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Monday, July 13, 2026 01:26
VIEWED: 26774
PAGE 11 of 21
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME