#anti-intellectualism

[rjalker]

anti-intellectualism, classism, and capitalist bootlicking go hand in hand

[ID: The meme from Spongebob of Manray attempting to return Patrick's wallet, while Patrick insists it's not his. Manray asks, "So you agree with this?", while holding up Patrick's ID card, which has now been edited to read, "Books should be accessible to everyone", with the word everyone underlined for emphasis. Patrick replies, "Yes, I do." Manray: So you agree that libraries are good." Patrick: Yes, libraries are good." Manray: And you also agree that if I buy a book, and let my friends borrow it, that's good too?" Patrick: Yes, that's good too. Manray: You agree that letting my friends borrow a book I paid for isn't stealing from anyone? Patrick: Duh. You paid for it, you can let anyone borrow it you want. That's not stealing. Manray: And you also agree that if people are able to borrow a book for free to see if they like it, they're more likely to buy their own copies? Patrick: Yeah, obviously. People buy books if they like them. Manray: So, to be clear: If I buy a book, and let 10 friends read it, one at a time, you agree none of us are stealing, because I paid for the book and my friends are only borrowing it. Letting people borrow something you bought isn't stealing. Patrick: It's not stealing. You can let people borrow your stuff. You own it, it's yours. Manray: So to reiterate: You agree that books should be available to everyone. You agree libraries are good. You agree its fine to let people borrow books you own, and you agree letting people borrow books from you isn't stealing anything from anyone. Correct? Patrick: Correct. Manray: So you agree the Internet Archive's lending library, made up of books they own, is good. Patrick: No. The Internet Archive is evil for lending out books they own for people to read. That's stealing. End Id.]

#long post #libraries #books #reading #bibliophile #internet archive #web archive #anti intellectualism #anti-intellectualism #capitalism #eat the rich #kill the rich

[rudjedet]

Egyptologists: The pyramids weren't built through slave labour but rather by workmen who received wages

Tumblr randos: Oh my god can you stop being slavery apologists for like one second you filthy fucking imperials??

Egyptologists: The strikes under Ramses III were caused by a famine rather than a deliberate and malicious mistreatment of the workforce. That's projecting a modern bias and uncool for a number of reasons.

Tumblr randos: Jesus christ you capitalist shills, stop sucking pharaoh dick like royalists

Egyptologists: You all need to stop claiming ancient artefacts of non-white people are cursed and need to be put back, that's fucking racist

Tumblr randos: Well yeah you're colonialist racists the lot of you!!

Egyptologists: ...you really have no idea what words mean do you

#and people wonder why we get crabby #anti-intellectualism

[positively--speculative]

The thing I don't like about the 'artists are not responsible for your emotional well-being' argument is that it often gets hijacked by people who want to write/read shitty edgy things with no substance and horrible framing and have a sense of intellectual superiority for doing so. And everyone who treats it as art (bad art is still subject to analysis and criticism) get treated as people who 'just don't get it.' And suddenly, people are arguing that art and the world outside of it have absolutely no influence on the other.

If you want to be an artist, you have to accept that it is subject to criticism, some people will be triggered and they're allowed to voice their discomfort, and not everyone will like your work. And you have to be open to the idea that your art can just be bad. And readers need to accept that they can like something that isn't that good and people criticizing it aren't "dumb" for "not getting it."

#Art #Writing #Anti-intellectualism

[describe-things]

new meme format.

[ID: A chart labeled, "Fragility scale", with three colums down the side. The first is labeled "Fragile" in yellow, and reads, "Glass". Next is "Very Fragile" in orange, for "The tail of a Batavian tear". Last is "The most fragile thing in the world" in red, for "Fandom when you criticize racism, misogyny, ableism, and other bigotry in media.". End ID.]

Download the HD template from the internet archive here. The image description should be copied and pasted whenever you use the meme, just edit whichever parts you're changing. No credit is necessary as long as you make your post accessible.

#described images #describes memes #accessible memes #meme template #meme format #white fragility #fandom racism #fandom misogyny #fandom ableism #fandom bigotry #klandom #memes #new meme template #fragility scale meme #fragility meme #fandom fragility #bigoted fragility #media analysis #media criticism #anti-intellectualism #anti intellectualism #Fallout TV #Fallout show #Fallout TV show

[dearorpheus]

To understand the artistic process is to accept that pretentiousness is part of the creative condition, not an affliction. Pretension is about over-reaching what you're capable of, taking the risk that you might fall flat on your face. Without people stretching themselves and—self-consciously or otherwise—risking failure, most of the major works of art, music, literature, cinema, dance, philosophy, science, clothing, design, architecture, engineering, horticulture and cuisine that we cherish would simply not exist. New discoveries would not be made, or—like many great innovations—accidentally stumbled across. It is the engine oil of culture; every creative motor needs it in order to keep running and not seize up and corrode with complacency.

— Dan Fox, Pretentiousness: Why It Matters

#anti-intellectualism #my upload

[notaplaceofhonour]

i think there is some connection between this post and this post

the increasing tendency to treat flaws as justification to declare something wholly “problematic” is a big piece of the anti-intellectualism on the left

the entire point of criticism in academia is to refine & improve understanding in your field. when you level criticism, you are seeking to create dialogue, not shut it down—you engage in criticism to understand not just that a thing has problems, but to seek to understand those problems so you can contribute to a solution

it’s for that reason that the once valid image of a bunch of rich white dudes sitting around smoking cigars in a white tower isn’t accurate anymore. by no means does that mean all problems of systemic inequality are fully “solved”, but we live in a world where academia can and does adjust to criticism, and is now full of diverse perspectives from all intersections of minority voices

but when your approach to criticism is just finding any flaws to declare something wholly “problematic” and the only solution you have is “throw it all out!” “burn it all down!” the fact that institutions of higher learning are flawed and can be criticized leads you to embracing anti-intellectualism. rather than seeing the limitations of privileged perspectives as just that—limitations, which need to be filled out by combining them with perspectives that historically were overlooked—any perspective that may have been privileged in the past becomes trash that needs to be thrown out entirely

#discourse is the mind killer #the left #leftist #leftwing #leftism #academia #higher learning #education #anti-intellectualism #women in stem #queer studies #feminist critique #literary criticism #media criticism #critique #critical theory

[cup-and-chaucer]

Really the problem with these BookTok books like Romantic Comedy is that...they are commodities. The answer to Fran Leibowitz's brilliant quote, "A book is not a mirror, it should be a door." is that, with advent of a literary social media, we are not reading to engage with a story or an idea but to attain an ideal. Marketing is built on the tension of relatability and aspiration. We see commercials set in clean, pristine suburban homes with happy, well-behaved children because it feels like it something we could attainably be if only we had the right brand of cereal or peanut butter or dish soap or life insurance. We want to see ourselves in those places that feel within our grasp. With the rise of books as a commodity to be marketed, rather than as art or entertainment, we increasingly want to see ourselves in the books we read. We want to see aspirational versions of ourselves either reading the book (aesthetics bloggers like Dakota Warren) or within the pages of the books. This why so many of those romance books feel so...conflict-avoidant. Don't get too close to reality or imperfection.

As the idea of a corporate morality (think: rainbow capitalism) emerges, it comes out in books too. Books have to have queer or PoC characters...not because those characters are essential or interesting or natural parts of the landscape or have their own purpose in the books but because the people reading the books want to feel like they are reading diversely and want to believe they are the type of people who also have queer or PoC friends. It doesn't matter if these portrayals are sanitized or feel tokenish.

A book like Romantic Comedy, where the characters mouth literal Facebook think-piece memes I saw during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 as their political beliefs, without much self-reflection on the fact that these are two culturally powerful white people who are saying those things to signal that they are good people. It feels like a distraction and a benediction so you can support them in their rockstar fantasy romance, white guilt free. They are saying you are a good person for liking this book because the people in it are good the way you want them to be good and in the way you also want to be good. And they don't have to mean a word of it, they don't have to examine themselves any deeper, if the box is checked and disclaimer signed.

It's also why I think there is so much moral puritanism in reading now. We can't read Lolita because most of us don't want to be associated with its content and what we read, because it is now synonymous with what we buy and own and identify with, is a mirror to who we are and what we aspire to be. The problem is that books are not material things, not really, not the way jeans or furniture or cooking utensils are. They aren't forms of self-expression for the reader, the way fashion or make-up or paint is, they are simply a collection of thoughts from the imagination of an individual put into the world to tell of an experience or make an argument for us to read. That's all.

And all of this, all of this, all of this fucking capitalism is going to get conflated with the very real need for representation in literature and media, for more equitable publishing, for uplifting marginalized voices and experiences.

*sighs*

#booktok #anti-intellectualism #books #publishing #curtis sittenfeld #romantic comedy

[redshift-13]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01770-y

In India, children under 16 returning to school this month at the start of the school year will no longer be taught about evolution, the periodic table of elements or sources of energy.

The news that evolution would be cut from the curriculum for students aged 15–16 was widely reported last month, when thousands of people signed a petition in protest. But official guidance has revealed that a chapter on the periodic table will be cut, too, along with other foundational topics such as sources of energy and environmental sustainability. Younger learners will no longer be taught certain pollution- and climate-related topics, and there are cuts to biology, chemistry, geography, mathematics and physics subjects for older school students.

Overall, the changes affect some 134 million 11–18-year-olds in India’s schools. The extent of what has changed became clearer last month when the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) — the public body that develops the Indian school curriculum and textbooks — released textbooks for the new academic year that started in May.

...

Aditya Mukherjee, a historian at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Dehli, says that changes to the curriculum are being driven by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a mass-membership volunteer organization that has close ties to India’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party. The RSS feels that Hinduism is under threat from India’s other religions and cultures.

“There is a movement away from rational thinking, against the enlightenment and Western ideas” in India, adds Sucheta Mahajan, a historian at Jawaharlal Nehru University who collaborates with Mukherjee on studies of RSS influence on school texts. Evolution conflicts with creation stories, adds Mukherjee. History is the main target, but “science is one of the victims”, she adds.

#india #science #anti-science #evolution #education #authoritarianism on the rise #religious fanaticism #cultural regression #hindu extremism #anti-intellectualism #a new dark age always travels by our side

[neon-slime]

strongly dislike when people blame the current rise of anti-intellectualism on the internet and individuals who don't read books as if the far right doesn't spend millions of dollars on thinktank meetings to keep people oppressed and distracted, capitalism stealing people's time and pulling people out of school early to help with their family bills, and crumbling public school systems due to lack of funding.

like I get wanting to encourage people to read and to fight all of the ways fascism is keeping us down, but blame the systems at the root while encouraging people to see the root and fight back where they can.

Don't look at people who are overwhelmingly not to blame for systemic problems and say "the rise in anti intellectualism is because you don't read books"

#anti-intellectualism #the ways people use that word on this site frustrates me to no end

[mask131]

On the one hand I am monstrously sad to be living in a time when the extreme-right and the extreme-left coexist as threats. On the other hand, I am kind of glad, because it allows me to see the exact workings of each of the extremes, and despise them both as much.

I mean, for the extreme-right it is very obvious why they're bad, ever since World War II we know what we're getting. But the extreme-left? It could be a bit harder to see, especially since the left defends the "good" principles like defending minorities, fighting against oppresors, equality for everyone, diversity everywhere... And yet we now have the extreme-left right in our face, showing how it can take those good principles and twist them, abandoning the "equality" and "diversiy" part for hypocritical ersatz.

The most revealing example - which was discussed about and evoked as a threat LONG BEFORE the whole Israel-Hamas conflict reignited itself - is how the extreme-left is known as antisemitic. You start thinking "Heck, why? It makes no sense! The extreme-left defends racial and religious minorities, and the Jews are known as one of the most persecuted and hated minorities in the world's history, so the left couldn't possibly be against them!".

But here's the twist... The left is against the "elite". Real or imaginary. The left is like a Robin Hood defending "the poor, the weak, the helpless", and will as such attack those that look wealthy or seem powerful, even when they're not. Comes in nice Lady Antisemitism, and the extreme-left starts shouting the same conspiracy theory and insane beliefs that the extreme-right used to shout. "There's too much Jews in the finances and the politics" ; "Jews are wealthier than regular folks, everybody knows that!", "Everybody knows the Jews control the media". And so, the extreme-left turns the persecuted minority into yet another elite of wealth and power who secretly controls the media - and decides they are an enemy to be taken down. Resulting in the exteme-left becoming a twin of the extreme-right.

This "We fight against the elite" mindset can explain a lot of what is wrong and awful with the extreme-left, and a lot of its dangers. For example how they actually "pick-and-choose" the minorities they want to defend and that are "worth" taking care of. I already talked about Jewish people, but there's a reason why the extreme-left keeps talking about Black people and Arab people... but almost never talks of Asian minorities and ethnicities. Because they're "too white", because they're "not persecuted enough", because they're too "well-implanted" or come from "too rich, too powerful, too Western countries". And as such, in this same blind and warped, out of reality logic, the extreme-left considers them to be too, part of the "elite" and thus rejects them as a "valid" minority.

And this dangerous anti-elite movement doesn't just have racist repercusions, but also terrible cultural ones. Everybody points out the anti-intellectualism of the extreme-left, but as a literature student who went to a university, I have to support this: yes, the extreme-left has a problem with traditional culture, classic literature, and simply higher-education that isn't about one of their personal topics. They deem that studying Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome for example is a proof of being colonialist, or that by being interested in any classical European author you are inherently racist. Again, it comes from a good and positive logic such as "One should be interested in many cultures, just not their own" or "It isn't because someone is uneducated that they are not a worthy person". But this is twisted into: "Since our candidate was not elected, we will attack the symbol of this hateful elite that obviously rigged the election - like universities, and we will especially destroy precious and rare books from ancient times, or degrade treasured pieces of art, to show that our rightful leaders have been denied their throne". From "You don't need to have an education to be worth something and a good person", we went to "You don't need an education, period. Culture is useless".

Again, the appeal to the masses that believe themselves to be the mass when in fact they are more of a minority. Fucking demagogues who rely on the "blind and mindless mob" to get in power - that's a technique found equally in both extreme-right and extreme-left, and the recent decade has proven us that. When a extreme politician is not elected by a vote, their supporters will start rebelling and rioting and shouting angrily the election is rigged, because "they" are the majority, "they" are the voice of te people, and as such it is impossible for them not to win... And in this blind senseless anger they refuse to admit that, simply, maybe they didn't win the vote because they are not the "majority" they like to think themselves as, but just a loud minority, or a mass of people not as big as the mass of people opposing them.

To return to the extreme-left, I can even extend the topic to genders! This was denounced heavily by the mockeries of the "wokism" movement and its ridiculus excesses, but I will forever recall this incident where someone tried to create a social and working group exclusively for women and "trans people" from which all men were banned - before realizing the problem that, by banning all men, they also banned trans men, and created the paradox of, by accepting trans people denying them any masculinity. It was at the time shared as a ridiculous story to be mocked at, but honestly it was very revealing of the entire warped "goodness" the extreme-left puts into place, and it shows how, as the saying goes, "Hell is paved with good intentions".

The right wants to maintain traditions, a culture, offer peace and security - leading to an extreme-right of xenophobe and racist fascists.

The left wants to put down the elite and care about minorities and open itself to diversity - it becomes an extreme-left of antisemitism, transphobia and book-burners.

I always knew all extremes were bad, but now I actually see in real time how good principles and ideas are warped up into dictatorial and hateful behaviors, and as I said before, it makes me both sad and glad. Sad for the monsters we will have to fight, but glad that I know how the monsters came to be and what their anatomy is.

#my random rant of the day #extreme left #extreme right #political extremes #antisemitism #transphobia #anti-intellectualism #well i guess it is called anti intellectualism? #i need to check if I didn't miscall it #that's always a problem when jumping between languages

[lyledebeast]

Heroes, Villains, and Lies

In most cases, a story’s hero is more honest than its villain, and most people would probably agree that this is true of The Patriot.  However, Benjamin Martin, and William Tavington tell two lies each over the course of the film. Tavington’s lies, like everything else he does, are straightforwardly terrible and meant to shock the audience.  Martin’s, on the other hand, are presented as completely justifiable.  A close examination of these lies, all of which occur in conversations between representatives of the opposing sides, reveal an anti-intellectual bent in the film’s presentation of conflict, argument, and communication

Martin lies to General Cornwallis twice when he goes to negotiate for the release of his men captured by Tavington.  Even though he has requested this meeting, Martin offers Cornwallis an opportunity to air his grievances first.  Cornwallis’s grievance: the militia is killing all his officers.  Martin responds, “As long as your soldiers attack civilians, I will order the shooting of officers at the start of every engagement.” The lie  is the implication that the militia shooting officers is both a response to and concurrent with British soldiers attacking civilians; we’ll return to why this is a lie later.

Cornwallis immediately moves on to the next order of business: Martin's request that his men be released.  When Cornwallis refuses, Martin claims to have nineteen British officers in his custody who will be shot if the militiamen hang.  This is revealed to be a lie at the end of this scene when the camera pans back from the freed militiamen riding out of the fort to the men in the field Cornwallis had looked at through his spyglass who are surrounding scarecrows dressed in British uniforms. Martin’s lies are effective because their primary audience believes them.  He offers Cornwallis “proof” of the second one by encouraging him to see for himself, trusting that he will not look long enough to realize that these men are all standing at attention more perfectly than any human soldiers ever have. Cornwallis also reposes a great deal of trust in Martin considering that he knows nothing about him and that Martin has provided no specific information about either of the groups of British soldiers he describes.

Tavington’s lies are received very differently. The first one is an interpretation of a rule of war Martin cites in defense of his son Gabriel: “A dispatch rider carrying a marked case cannot be held as a spy.” In Martin’s interpretation, most likely the correct one, to prevent a dispatch rider with a marked case from reaching his destination is forbidden. Tavington interprets it differently, or at least pretends to. “Well, we’re not going to hold him. We’re going to hang him!” His specious reasoning is that because he is not “hold[ing]” Gabriel, he is in compliance with the rule even though what he is doing instead is much worse.

He offers a similar equivocation after his speech in the Patriot church he ends up burning with its congregation trapped inside. Initially, Tavington makes the offer that “anyone who comes forward [with information about Benjamin Martin’s whereabouts] may be forgiven their treason.” But after one man provides him with information, Tavington thanks him and orders the doors to be shut. When the man reminds him of what he’d said a moment before, Tavington replies, “And indeed you may [be forgiven], but that’s between you and God.” Obviously, “forgiven” has two different meanings here.  The man in the church correctly understands Tavington to mean worldly forgiveness, in this case, from the crown.  The forgiveness is for treason, after all. Once Tavington and his horse are outside the church, though, he changes his meaning to divine forgiveness, which his victims must ask for themselves in their final moments.

While Martin’s lies offer up facts without evidence, Tavington’s lies distort meaning.  Both render honest communication impossible, but Tavington’s are presented as being much worse.  When a story features a very violent hero, as The Patriot does, it has to convince the audience that the hero is the one to root for by some means other than making the villain violent.  It is almost a genre convention in American action movies to give the villain a certain loquacity, a pleasure in putting together elegant sentences and playing with meaning, often with cruel effect. Tavington’s equivocations are perfect examples of this, and Jason Isaacs delivers them with evident relish.  It is delightfully appropriate that Tavington favors equivocation, a logical fallacy stereotypically associated with lawyers, when the actor who plays him has a law degree. While “We’re not going to hold him; we’re going to hang him” is in Robert Rodat’s pre-filming screenplay, Tavington’s manipulation of “forgiveness,” and the entire exchange in which it appears, was added during filming.  Perhaps Isaacs argued for a second one because the first was so fun and so revealing about his character, or even wrote it himself.

While Tavington’s lies are accompanied by an almost ecstatically animated bitch-face, Mel Gibson delivers Martin’s lies like he is playing poker, with the same stony expression he has when telling the truth.  Unlike Tavington’s lies, Martin’s are meant to be believed, at least temporarily, by both their primary and secondary audiences. As unlikely as it is that Martin could capture so many officers, including a colonel, without Cornwallis’s knowledge, it is no more ridiculous than things we have seen him do onscreen by that point. And since this scene also comes after one where Martin tells his men what to do with British soldiers not killed outright by their attacks, the audience is primed to see some in the flesh.  

Even in the absence of actual wounded or surrendering soldiers, we are meant to believe Martin enforced his his rule about giving quarter.  After all, when Major Villeneuve makes his “joke” about killing wounded redcoats when Martin is not looking, Martin laughs nervously. Perhaps, then, we are also meant to believe the British soldiers attacking civilians exist even though we never seen any do so but the ones commanded by Tavington. I interpret this claim as a lie because not only is there no evidence of continuing attacks, when Tavington’s attacks on civilians resume with Cornwallis’s implicit permission, Martin is so shocked and rattled that he sends the militia home rather than attempting to mount any kind of strategic defense.  If these attacks had been ongoing, surely he would have a better contingency plan than that.

 I have concluded, though, that expecting The Patriot’s hero to provide evidence in support of his claims positions me well outside its intended audience.  What makes Martin the hero, after all, is not that he’s good with words but that he avenges his sons’ murders and  . . saves America from the British, apparently.  I suppose that’s one reason why I’ve always felt such an affinity for Tavington.  Like Jason Isaacs, I enjoy his cunty equivocations. He does not have to have these arguments with Martin and the man in the church; he holds all the power in both situations.  He does it because there is nothing more devilishly fun than a good bad argument.   

The best way to respond to a bad argument, though, is with a good one.  A good argument requires honest communication between participants, and sometimes that means finding someone more reasonable to engage with.  Martin has his pick of literally any other British officer we do meet to fill that role, but he gives up after one conversation with Tavington. After that, his only goal with respect to any British officer is domination, whether by killing or, in Cornwallis’s case, humiliating him. And yet we are meant to find this response reasonable and the man who chooses it implicitly trustworthy. How terrifying, and terrifyingly common even in our modern world, to use the words or actions of a few to justify rejecting honest communication with an entire group.

#the patriot #benjamin martin #william tavington #jason isaacs #anti-intellectualism #close reading

[rjalker]

These people neither know what "unintentionally trans coded" means, and simultaneously think that not knowing what it means makes them more intelligent and means they're "winning" the debate. Which they literally cannot even participate in because they don't even know what they're trying to argue against.

#Anti-intellectualism

[rudjedet]

ancient history truthers: it's so very telling that egyptologists just completely ignore [conspiracy theory] about the [any high profile ancient Egyptian monument], when it's SO CLEAR that [vague proclamation that is either based on cherry-picked details or simply utterly made up] egyptologists: so here is some comprehensive info on why [conspiracy theory] is incorrect and how the evidence cited is misrepresented and/or forged, plus also the clear and inescapable origin of this particular conspiracy. do you want some sources? here are some easily accessible sources. feel free to ask questions if something is unclear! ancient history truthers: *crickets* ancient history truthers, elsewhere on the thread: egyptologists just don't want to engage with the truth.

#every fucking time #lord on high we WISH we could ignore that bullshit #like there's only one kind of ignoring going on here and that's the truthers' ignoring of common fucking sense #anti-intellectualism

[positively--speculative]

I feel like AI bros are the same as conspiracy bros in that they're highly insecure and want to be perceived better than they perceive themselves. They hate intellectual conversations because they cannot keep up with them. They hate artists because they cannot make their own art. It takes work to be smart and it takes work to make art, but they don't want to put in that work. They just want to be able to say they created something. It must be depressing to think like that.

#Anti-ai #Anti-intellectualism

[critical-skeptic]

Social Media's Cancer: The Shameful Currency of Stupidity and Shock

The fact that someone had to put the seconds or minutes of effort into deciding and coding this option into a "sort by" drop-down, tells you everything you need to know about the current state of affairs with social media networks and how stupidly shitty the bulk of the content and demand for it are. It's not just an eye-opener; it's a goddamn indictment of a system gone utterly mad.

Allow me to be clear: I'm talking about the "controversial" sorting option in Reddit posts. It's just one microcosm of a greater disease plaguing the virtual space that was once a utopia of information and connection. Now, it's become a circus of idiocy, driven by the shock factor, and facilitated by the very mechanisms that should promote intellect and dialog.

The Currency of Stupidity

You see, this isn't just about an inconsequential sorting option; it's about the insidious way these platforms encourage and profit from the worst human instincts. Controversy, misinformation, and conflict - these have become the damned currencies of the online world.

And it's not a glitch; it's a fucking feature.

In a rational world, we'd strive for reason, logic, and discourse. But what do we find instead? Knee-jerk reactions, baseless opinions, and a willingness to burn down the house over the smallest disagreement. Platforms like Reddit and others are now slave to the almighty click, the adrenaline rush of the angry mob, and the shallow instant gratification that controversy provides.

The Monetization of Misinformation

Take a closer look, and you'll see the true colors of social media giants: a disturbing eagerness to monetize misinformation and stupidity. What are they if not arms dealers in an intellectual war? Selling the weapons of ignorance to the highest bidder, and bathing in the profits, all while the world drowns in a sea of disinformation.

This must stop.

The Need for Global Action

If we don't act soon and force governments, not just in one country, but globally, to standardize both people using the same ID/username across the internet and stop social media networks from monetizing conflict and misinformation, we're doomed. The very fabric of our societies will unravel, torn apart by the selfish desires of a few tech moguls who turned stupidity and shock into a currency.

Yes, we need a global response to a global problem. Regulation, oversight, and a strong stance against the manipulation of human weakness for profit. We need to reclaim the internet as a space for intellect, compassion, and human connection.

The controversial sorting option is just a symptom of a system rotting from the inside. We need to reclaim the internet as a space for open communication and fact-based consensus!

We cannot, and must not, let stupidity win. It's time to act, and time to bring sanity back to the very platform that once promised to elevate humanity. Let's not allow it to be our downfall.

#the critical skeptic #social sciences #critical thinking #dystopia #black mirror #social media #facebook #reddit #twitter #monetization #youtube #misinformation #disinformation #anti-intellectualism

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"...at a revolution two paths are possible. So indeed they are in evolution – one can either stay still and be classical, academic and null, or go forward. But at a time of revolution it is not possible to stay still, one must either go forward, or back. To us this choice appears as a choice between Communism and Fascism, either to create the future or to go back to old primitive values, to mythology, racialism, nationalism, hero-worship, and participation mystique. This Fascist art is like the regression of the neurotic to a previous level of adaptation.

It is D. H. Lawrence’s importance as an artist that he was well aware of the fact that the pure artist cannot exist to-day, and that the artist must inevitably be a man hating cash relationships and the market, and profoundly interested in the relations between persons. Moreover, he must be a man not merely profoundly interested in the relations between persons as they are, but interested in changing them, dissatisfied with them as they are, and wanting newer and fuller values in personal relationships.

But it is Lawrence’s final tragedy that his solution was ultimately Fascist and not Communist. It was regressive. Lawrence wanted us to return to the past, to the ‘Mother’. He sees human discontent as the yearning of the solar plexus for the umbilical connexion, and he demands the substitution for sharp sexual love of the unconscious fleshy identification of foetus with mother. All this was symbolic of regression, of neurosis, of the return to the primitive.

Lawrence felt that the Europe of to-day was moribund; and he turned therefore to other forms of existence, in Mexico, Etruria and Sicily, where he found or thought he found systems of social relations in which life flowed more easily and more meaningfully. The life of Bourgeois Europe seemed to him permeated with possessiveness and rationalising, so that it had got out of gear with the simple needs of the Body. In a thousand forms he repeats this indictment of a civilisation which consciously and just because it is conscious – sins against the instinctive currents which are man’s primal source of energy. It is a mistake to suppose that Lawrence preaches the gospel of sex. Bourgeois Europe has had its bellyful of sex, and a sex cult would not now attract the interest and emotional support which Lawrence’s teaching received. Lawrence’s gospel was purely sociological. Even sex was too conscious for him..." - Christopher Caudwell, "D. H. Lawrence: A Study of the Bourgeois Artist,” in Studies in a Dying Culture. First published posthumously by Bodley Head in 1938.

#christopher caudwell #communist party of great britain #d. h. lawrence #literary criticism #marxism #marxist criticism #literary quote #bourgeois culture #bourgeois society #anti-intellectualism #capitalism #fascism