User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 93

  1. #51
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Lefties are authoritarian types. If given enough power, lefties become fascists. We saw that with FDR and his micro-managing of the economy and the internment of Japanese Americans.
    Well, a leftist can be either authoritarian(Mao, Stalin, Chavez) or libertarian( Ghandi). Same with right wingers. Right wingers can be authoritarian( Romney, Pinochet, and actually contrary to popular belief, Obama) or libertarian such as Rand or Mises.

  2. #52
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Academics provide intellectual/philosophical "air cover" for fascists until the fascists gain sufficient power.
    Then the fascists purge (literal destruction of people's livelihoods, or death) their one-time, erstwhile allies.
    And then the academics have the nerve to look surprised that the fascists' new-found power has corrupted them
    compared to the pure, wholesome "intentions" the academics had had.


    I'm curious how to parse your claim...

    Do you believe that without intellectuals at all, we would be prevent fascism? Are they intrinsically present? Required? Is there a particular definition of intellectuals you are using?

    I'm also curious in which order you came to see intellectuals like this - did you dislike them before your overall ideological viewpoints matured or is it part and parcel of your ideological viewpoint? I ask because I see libertarian intellectuals filling a very similar (propaganda) role (eg: CATO, Mises), which most libertarians support. So I see anti-intellectual is really anti-what I disagree with. Of course, intellectual here is used lightly - the general libertarian propaganda framework is supported by very politically active parties and doesn't really fit the "intellectual" definition well. CATO is a light version while Mises is generally independent, but the research that they depend on is as bad (and generally considered worse) than "left-ish" intellectuals.

  3. #53
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I'm curious how to parse your claim...

    Do you believe that without intellectuals at all, we would be prevent fascism? Are they intrinsically present? Required? Is there a particular definition of intellectuals you are using?

    I'm also curious in which order you came to see intellectuals like this - did you dislike them before your overall ideological viewpoints matured or is it part and parcel of your ideological viewpoint? I ask because I see libertarian intellectuals filling a very similar (propaganda) role (eg: CATO, Mises), which most libertarians support. So I see anti-intellectual is really anti-what I disagree with. Of course, intellectual here is used lightly - the general libertarian propaganda framework is supported by very politically active parties and doesn't really fit the "intellectual" definition well. CATO is a light version while Mises is generally independent, but the research that they depend on is as bad (and generally considered worse) than "left-ish" intellectuals.

    Do you believe that without intellectuals at all, we would be prevent fascism?
    All your base are belong to us.

    I'm also curious in which order you came to see intellectuals like this - did you dislike them before your overall ideological viewpoints matured or is it part and parcel of your ideological viewpoint?

    Neither one. I *am* an intellectual. Most "intellectuals" cannot think their way out of a paper bag and rely on social shaming, spite, and reflected halo prestige from whatever school they went to or the authors whose names they drop in conversation.

    I ask because I see libertarian intellectuals filling a very similar (propaganda) role (eg: CATO, Mises), which most libertarians support.

    Ah, yes, what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism" -- assume the opponent is wrong, and then go about your business as if everyone agrees with you that they are wrong, without ever showing how or why they are wrong. Rely on implicit social shaming to carry the day.
    Leftists are the masters of propaganda: and they do it by utter, irredeemable dishonesty, based on a Luciferian sense of pandering to people's secret vices, mixed with equal measures of denial and flattery.

    So I see anti-intellectual is really anti-what I disagree with.

    There is an air of sacntimonious fatuity among the left, which they project unto others.
    It is based on what Joseph Sobran called "The Hive" -- a series of subtle name-droppings and hints as to one's holding the "proper, enlightened" view: and if any one member of the hive is attacked, from any quarter, for any reason, the entire hive circles around the attacker, criticizing and attacking from all directions until the interloper is destroyed.
    the research that they depend on is as bad (and generally considered worse) than "left-ish" intellectuals.
    Considered worse by whom; on what grounds; and is the supposition borne out upon examination?
    "I declare myself smug; I decree my views correct; and I define any opposition to be a "hate crime". (crimethink)
    1984 was an instruction manual.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  4. #54
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby
    I'm also curious in which order you came to see intellectuals like this - did you dislike them before your overall ideological viewpoints matured or is it part and parcel of your ideological viewpoint?
    FDR surrounded himself with academics like Raymond Moley (Columbia Law school prof.), Felix Frankfurter (Harvard Law Prof), Adolf Berle Jr (Columbia Law prof.), and Rexford Guy Tugwell (Columbia Law prof). He also bought off the major newspapers of the day.

    Obama surrounded himself with academics and intellectuals like Christina Romer, Cass Sunstein, and Samantha Power. Krugman and Reich also provide plenty of cover for Obama's stupid policies.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #55
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n
    Same with right wingers. Right wingers can be authoritarian( Romney, Pinochet, and actually contrary to popular belief, Obama) or libertarian such as Rand or Mises.
    I've taken that quiz and I've seen the names on that graph. I don't agree that Obama is a right winger. He's a lefty statist. He supports big government social programs, high taxation, gun grabbing, abortion, gay marriage, and every other issue that we associate with lefties.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #56
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Neither one. I *am* an intellectual. Most "intellectuals" cannot think their way out of a paper bag and rely on social shaming, spite, and reflected halo prestige from whatever school they went to or the authors whose names they drop in conversation.
    What is the definition of intellectual are you using? It seems like you have an idea of what fits but I feel like the fuzzy definition lets you demonize anyone simply by placing them in that category. I note you have no problem mocking mistakes* and define yourself as an intellectual... it seems you fit in well, but don't include yourself...? what definition allows that?

    Ah, yes, what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism" -- assume the opponent is wrong, and then go about your business as if everyone agrees with you that they are wrong, without ever showing how or why they are wrong. Rely on implicit social shaming to carry the day.
    Leftists are the masters of propaganda: and they do it by utter, irredeemable dishonesty, based on a Luciferian sense of pandering to people's secret vices, mixed with equal measures of denial and flattery.
    There's something about you saying this after your intellectual rant that makes you seem very "intellectual" from your description of them*. Anyay, you created a strawman but I'll clarify;

    I see you both as equal, least as far as the mechanics, in this ideological war. And really, your answer reinforces my impression is that you are displaying all the things you accuse the other side of.

    There is an air of sacntimonious fatuity among the left, which they project unto others.
    It is based on what Joseph Sobran called "The Hive" -- a series of subtle name-droppings and hints as to one's holding the "proper, enlightened" view:
    Your post seems to include a lot of "name dropping" and rhetoric*. There's a weird duality to "proper, enlightened" - the implied evil of group-think to a group so governed by individualism is great doctrine.

    Considered worse by whom; on what grounds; and is the supposition borne out upon examination?
    "I declare myself smug; I decree my views correct; and I define any opposition to be a "hate crime". (crimethink)
    1984 was an instruction manual.
    That quote seems more applicable to libertarian arguments*... I find almost all libertarian arguments innately righteous (in line with very extreme fairness arguments).

    ---

    * You can address these all at the same time explaining why it is "different" when you do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    FDR surrounded himself with academics like Raymond Moley (Columbia Law school prof.), Felix Frankfurter (Harvard Law Prof), Adolf Berle Jr (Columbia Law prof.), and Rexford Guy Tugwell (Columbia Law prof). He also bought off the major newspapers of the day.

    Obama surrounded himself with academics and intellectuals like Christina Romer, Cass Sunstein, and Samantha Power. Krugman and Reich also provide plenty of cover for Obama's stupid policies.
    Not quite clear - are you saying this is part of your ideology? Or do you mean that you believe they create false legitimacy to a ruler already motivated in a certain way, so academics are always around when a leader needs justification? Or did the academic leader simply bring more academics in?

    How would you differentiate academics and say... hawks or big business for conservatives? Same thing?

  7. #57
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    What is the definition of intellectual are you using? It seems like you have an idea of what fits but I feel like the fuzzy definition lets you demonize anyone simply by placing them in that category. I note you have no problem mocking mistakes* and define yourself as an intellectual... it seems you fit in well, but don't include yourself...? what definition allows that?
    Mine. There's a bumper sticker that says, "Those of you who think you know everything, annoy those of us who really do."

    The problem is twofold: one, intellect is a number (IQ), but *applied* intellect is not just a vector, but a tensor. It makes a difference what ideological starting point you're at, and what you're aiming for relative to that starting point.
    But the left finds it convenient to conflate the two, and then to borrow prestige by quoting those of its members affiliated with "elite" institutions such as Universities and think tanks.
    But since the ones they quote are ideological echo chambers, the odds of them coming up with truth (even were they allowed to seek much of anything besides groupthink) are low. Try reading the book "The Madness of Crowds"
    to see necessary and sufficient conditions for loosely bound groups of people to come up with results far more accurate than even the smartest individuals. Universities simply don't allow the fresh thought from outside which is one of the conditions for the approach to work: the ideology on a typical University campus varies from RED all the way to pink.

    In other words, intellect alone is neither necessary nor 'guaranteed' to be sufficient; the left acts as if it is both.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    There's something about you saying this after your intellectual rant that makes you seem very "intellectual" from your description of them*. Anyay, you created a strawman but I'll clarify;
    No, the left creates strawmen. I'm just setting them ablaze as they are tools of sociological control, not of ascertaining truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I see you both as equal, least as far as the mechanics, in this ideological war. And really, your answer reinforces my impression is that you are displaying all the things you accuse the other side of.
    That's because you didn't read the material I mentioned, *apparently* preferring to go for cheap debating points by ignoring it and name calling. See the next answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Your post seems to include a lot of "name dropping" and rhetoric*. There's a weird duality to "proper, enlightened" - the implied evil of group-think to a group so governed by individualism is great doctrine.
    No, you're wrong as usual. When the left includes a name, they are doing it to invoke argument by authority: usually by borrowing prestige from another person or a person affiliated with a particular institution.
    When I include a name, I do it because the named person has encapsulated a thought more succinctly than I could have put it; and so that the reader can investigate the quote for themselves.
    As far as "proper, enlightened" -- you deserved the mockery for claiming on your own say-so, but vacuously making an implicit appeal to authority, that both Cato and von Mises were libertarian propagandists, and that their research was considered not as good as the left's. I explicitly, specifically asked you, "Considered worse by whom; on what grounds; and is the supposition borne out upon examination?"
    You can't pretend you didn't see the question, for you quoted it. But you sidestepped it, instead pretending that my quote of Sobran about the Hive was itself a type of the individual character assassination undertaken *by* the hive.
    If you had read his essay by that name, and you were intellectually honest, you 'd have seen how the left operates en masse, and how such operation differs from mine.



    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That quote seems more applicable to libertarian arguments*... I find almost all libertarian arguments innately righteous (in line with very extreme fairness arguments).
    Who cares how *YOU* find them? What difference do your OPINIONS have on truthfulness?

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    * You can address these all at the same time explaining why it is "different" when you do it.
    It's different because I'm right; I'm not merely echoing PC sentiment in a grand circle-jerk.
    Recall Larry Summers being thrown out as President of Harvard for heresy.
    Namely, that men and women might differ innately in some cognitive skills.
    Never mind that at the time, Summers was the youngest person EVER to have received a PhD from Harvard;
    according to all and sundry on the left, that is necessary and sufficient proof of intellect ("proof by intimidation").
    Except that, once he committed heresy, all that wasn't enough to save him; rather it wove the noose tighter--
    ("Didn't you get the memo? You of all people should have known better!")
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  8. #58
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby
    Not quite clear - are you saying this is part of your ideology?
    I haven't stated my ideology. I'm a pragmatist and my ideology is simply to do whatever works (by looking at what's already been done in the past).

    Or do you mean that you believe they create false legitimacy to a ruler already motivated in a certain way, so academics are always around when a leader needs justification?
    There is no difference between FDR and his lefty friends in academia and in the media. These people believe in stupid ideas and they are able to maintain the delusion that these ideas work by giving each other praise. The media praises and supports FDR's failed policies; FDR gives a bunch of academics important positions in his administration; other lefties give out pulitzers, nobel prizes, academy awards, etc to other lefties so everyone is happy and everyone else is screwed by their stupid policies. This is nothing more than one big circle jerk. We're also seeing this today with Obama. Does anyone really think Obama deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  9. #59
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I haven't stated my ideology. I'm a pragmatist and my ideology is simply to do whatever works (by looking at what's already been done in the past).
    What if nothing of what has been done in the past worked?

  10. #60
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan
    What if nothing of what has been done in the past worked?
    Use the Thomas Edison approach.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 08:58 PM
  2. Ignorance must be brought to the light. It must be eradicated.
    By iNtrovert in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-19-2014, 03:06 PM
  3. [NT] I must be crazy.
    By Haphazard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 09:16 PM
  4. I'm this, so you must be this
    By tovlo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO