Comment by Arkhaine_kupo
1 day ago
> Then how about empowering them to - speak?
The strain of anti intellectualism has been a constant thread... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge - Isaac Asimov
Being able to speak is not the same as having something to say. Knowing when to shut up is an important part of being a rational adult.
> I'm talking about the practice of democracy, by the way.
North Korea practices your democracy, they get to vote. Is that enough?
> he wikipedia article I linked
and I gave you a 3 paragraph explanation on the case. The police never said that, a neo nazi and a failing politician did. You are actively repeating lies while saying people are smart enough to never fall for them, are you just not aware you are being duped?
> You can't close your eyes on the evidence each time it doesn't follow your totalitarian narrative and expect that people will just shut up. Or you have to pass laws to do it, which ends up with the toxic situation of the UK, that has nothing to envy to the USSR.
yeah yeah if we dont allow racists to repeat lies then we end up like Venezuela. I get the vibe, but howabout we jail neo nazis, and hold youtubers to the same standards as news so we dont allow misinformation to spread so wide that people are repeating their narratives years later?
> Which is kind of funny given that you have laws to punish people who said something "creating anxiety", which is ... a feeling and totally subjective?
Those laws were passed by the "anti woke" party to have vague sentencing to punish people like Just Stop Oil and the black rights marches. It is not the kind of "cancel culture gone mad" you think it is, it is the exact kind of entitled, feelings > reality nonsense I am arguing against. You just dont like when the "woke" judges use the rules you wanted passed to hurt others
> Given that you seem to like etymology, I'm sure you'll enjoy to know that the modern acception of "intellectuals" was coined by Maurice Barrès. Here is a translation:
"Nothing is worse than these gangs of half-intellectuals. A half-culture destroys instinct without replacing it with consciousness. All these aristocrats of thought are keen to show that they do not think like the vile crowd. We see it all too well. They no longer feel spontaneously in agreement with their natural group and they do not rise to the level of clarity that would restore them to a considered agreement with the mass."
Which is quite in line with your thought that the masses are not to be trusted they must shut up!) and should be shepherded very closely by gifted individuals (like you) to avoid any wrongthink.
> Regarding democracy "empowering" certain people creates as well power imbalances. Thus, you need institutions and boundaries such as a constitution. And freedom of speech allows to express yourself when those imbalances become too strong. Poor white people speaking out in the UK is often bellitled by elites as racism. In reality, it's the result of decades of discrimination against them, starting at school. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-com...
> Regarding the grooming gangs, if you had read the wikipedia link, you would have known that Tommy Robinson has nothing to do here and that the case was brought by a feminist activist. Maybe feminists should shut up, too?
> I get that you want to jail many people for thinking and saying things you don't like. Sounds like a totalitarian regime to me. Don't whine because Trump jails pro-palestinian protesters, then?
> I don't care who passed those ridiculous gagging laws in Britain. It doesn't matter. As with Weimar, the same laws were passed by well-meaning centrists, and then used by nazis. History rimes.
> Which is quite in line with your thought that the masses are not to be trusted they must shut up
Did you just quote a Nazi about how intellectuals are a problem and we should get rid of them? Like how ar eyou so intune with fascism that you somehow quote one of the fathers of ethnic nationalism, a guy who came up with incredible heinous stuff about the jews and had some weird hard on about spain being some kinf of African enclave in europe.
You know he believed the same anti intellectualist nonsense that gave birth to "lets shoot people with glasses" in east asia right?
> and should be shepherded very closely by gifted individuals (like you) to avoid any wrongthink.
god no, its so much better to let a dude tell you that the jews want to replace you with black people and should be all murdered. That is certainly a better political theory after all the mass is right and we write for a newspaper that does not influence public opinion. Do you see the grift being repeated nowadays or are you still not noticing?
> And freedom of speech allows to express yourself when those imbalances become too strong
somehow its always predominantly powerful groups who both feel they have been hurt by the imbalance. spending 400 million a year on a think tank about how your 300 million a year tax bill is too high is certainly a strategy that only the Koch brother could understand. Then again Robert Murdoch spent almost no money in making a jewish person the next evil mastermind with Soros and that worked with almost no effort, he actually made billions of fox and daily mail so I guess some hatred does pay off.
> Poor white people speaking out in the UK is often bellitled by elites as racism.
what the fuck are you talking about? Priti Patel,on rishi sunaks goverment, was on TV telling poor whites they were gonna send brown people like her mom to a prision on Rwanda.
Like a billioanire president, with a multi millionaire immigrant minister telling white people they were gonna deport themselves happend. And I dont know what more elite than that you can get.
> if you had read the wikipedia link
You should read the 5 reports on the case. might get you a bit farther than the wikipedia page.
> you would have known that Tommy Robinson has nothing to do here
Why would tommy rbinson show up there? The media was silent so a neo nazi spent 5 years doing youtube videos and tweeting is not something that belongs in wikipedia. Its something that you should look up and think about the repercussions yourself.
The media could not talk about the case, so he tainted the well by creating the narrative. By the time the police inquiry was released it was too late because he had already fucked up all the headlines. In the 2001 Weir inquiery political correctness and race never show up. In the 2020 report the police say it was a key issue. You can trace the before and after of Tommy Robinsons involvement, in the 2 reports before it does not show up weir and haile. In the jay one 2013 it shows up as a potential issue, but not found to be significant in the conclusiosn and by 2020 the internal police report they claim it was a big deal.
The narrative was shaped and the police found a scapegoat. Jayne Seniors who reported the case endlessly from 2002 to 2007 and got an MBE after, said she was met with indifference and no one mentioned the race of the perpetrators.
> the case was brought by a feminist activist. Maybe feminists should shut up, too?
the case was brought up by a thousand people, it went on from the 70s. The police ignored all calls from working class girls, they ignored video evidence, they ignored the findings of Anne Halls in 2004, the report of Weir and haile in 2001 and 2004, they ignored the letter a girl wrote to a judge describing the process and actions taking place. The only person they didnt ignore was the journalist who made the story national news.
> I get that you want to jail many people for thinking and saying things you don't like.
I dont, the law was brought up by conservatives who had their feelings hurt.
> Don't whine because Trump jails pro-palestinian protesters, then?
wait but you said america had free speech and uk is a total ussr hell hole? So now you agree that IT IS happening and free speech does not exist in america and you dont care. So you were pretending all along?
> I don't care who passed those ridiculous gagging laws in Britain
you should, because you spent the entire time talking about the woke brigade, and how america has freedom of speech. and its untrue in both counts
> the same laws were passed by well-meaning centrists,
the laws were passed by authoritarian right wingers who needed vague laws to jail disruptive protests. and as per usual libertarians only showed up when bigots where affected. Only liberty you care is about offending and bieng racist then you dont care about freedom of speech, you care about freedom of consequences
> then used by nazis.
like your friend Barres? The national socialist of france who hated democracy and you decided to use as an example somehow. No to liberal democracy, yes to antisemitism to unite france. What a brilliant thinker you have in your quiver. Is Goebells gonna be your next text? Or do you prefer to use obscure writers so people dont notice, maybe Corradini? Or has stormfront not given you access to the italian writers yet?
> Maurice Barrès wasn't a Nazi, and was a famous novelist of the XIXth century. He was part of the Académie Française, which is the most respected cultural body of the country. In this quote, he isn't against intellectualism, but against intellectuals thinking that they form a second society above the plebs, and who think better than them. Your ad hominem arguments are ignorant here, sorry.
> You seem to lack media litteracy. Pritti Patel did nothing and the UK witnessed its largest immigration flow during the last conservative rule. Saying things is worthless if not followed by actions.
> I talked about Robinson because you brought it up, and now it's my fault? lmao
> I agree that free speech is decreasing in America. However, it's still much better in the US than in UK.
> "I dont, the law was brought up by conservatives who had their feelings hurt." -> You just said that you wanted to jail neo-nazis in the previous post.
> "authoritarian right wingers" - very good example of the overton window theory. UK conservatives are centrists at best.
> Barrès is not my "friend", I'm citing him for the historical perspective on what an "intellectual" is, in the concept of "anti-intellectuallism". Sorry for you if you have a hard time thinking with abstract objects that don't involve qualifiying anyone you don't agree with of being a "nazi".
As a side note, quite revealing that of this flurry of comments, lacks the one regarding the working-class whites being the category that benefits the less from the school system. Maybe UK could have invested more in schools, and less in gender-affirming transitions?
3 replies →