Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Trunkage]

The word "anti-intellectualism" came about not from people being against intelligence or education. It wasn't (anti-intellectual)ism, it was anti-(intellectualism), where the intellectualism is a synonym for rationalism, the idea that human reason is the chief source of truth and knowledge. As a religious person, I may have a different perspective on that than most of this board, but even setting all that aside, you shouldn't like that idea. Rationalism is in contrast to empiricism, the idea that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Anti-intellectualism, from it's etymology, is not criticism of having or obtaining knowledge, it's criticism of those who act as though their facilities of reason are capable of independently assessing all the truths of reality without outside influence.

That the word has molded instead into being opposed to knowledge or intelligence is a real shame. Exceptionally few people are opposed to knowledge or intelligence, but any reasonable person is against know-it-alls rationalizing their positions. As an intelligent person myself, I can say with confidence that faith in pure intellect is a horrible trap, as intellect is just as capable of rationalizing dumb beliefs as it is of obtaining valid ones.

Yeah... maybe I would have called it anti-scientism. Far too many believe that everything science currently says is fact and not understanding how the scientific process actually works (including the fact that science needs to continually update what is true because new evidence is uncovered.) Or maybe you could call it anti-empiricism.

Maybe that doesn't match so maybe I would call it anti-expertism, which is I see far too much especially in politics. They go in with a belief and deliberately ignore any expert that says otherwise.

But I'm only really doing any of these distinctions because many of the people you could class as 'anti-intellectual' usually ignore outside influence themselves and make up rationalities based purely on belief. They usually are worse and more out of touch from reality than most intellectuals. I.e. anti-intellectual is just identity politics. More being based NOT being something rather than doing something. See also - antifa. They just care about not having fascist. There are a lot of philosophies that can also fit under antifa, even capitalists.

I.e. I personally don't think anti-intellectualism today means either of those definitions you gave any more. I think its been co-opted and lost its meaning. But that may just be my dislike for most -isms and antis-

 

[Gergar12]

So, education and specialised knowledge bad? Just say you're an anti-intellectualist.

There are deep problems in academia, and the government. These theories don't match up to the real world. I see it every day in economics, I see it every day in political science. The people who have good theories are shunned. For example a professor I knew stated drones are the future, and will replace warfare as we know it. Despite the fact that he works for the government, they decided to side with fighter jet pilots who wanted drones as in-air refueling. These are the good ideas that need to go to the top that doesn't. Every time I argued that people can't afford X when discussing X, the professor would just say it's a theory.

Edit: More examples

Means-Testing, Washington loves means-testing right? Well, the problem with it is that you have to jump through many hoops like applying, and qualifying for the programs which leave people out, and they fall into the crack of society. They also kick out people in edge cases where you make say 30K a year, but since a program is 29K a year and below you don't get it despite needing it almost as much as someone making 29K a year. Also, they are less politically popular due to not being universal, and require more bureaucratic waste, and delay. And guess who supports means testing M4A in 2020 dem primaries, academic Elizabeth Warren vs Bernie Sanders who is more in touched with people.

Complex weapon systems: The US military despite trying to cut costs buy so much dumb shit. They buy missiles and ammunition that costs too much(Zumwalt railgun ammo for example), so unless we fight a total war where costs aren't a factor, which we can't for moral, and ethical reasons as well nuclear weapons. We would be paying high costs for little return. Meanwhile, China just slaps a bunch of cheap loitering munitions in an MLRS for example and calls it a day.

Healthcare: every time I argue with people on the left on healthcare regulations. It's basically Europe good, the US bad. Well, it's more complicated than that. Europe does have universal healthcare, but their approval for new pharmaceutical drugs is insane, and it takes too many years to get a drug approved compared with the US. The more people have to wait, the more people die. So you have to weigh the costs and benefits of rapidly approving a new drug with side effects and deaths. Do you want to wait 8 years for a drug on X disease, or do you want to expedite the process?

 

[AnxietyProne]

Healthcare: every time I argue with people on the left on healthcare regulations. It's basically Europe good, the US bad. Well, it's more complicated than that. Europe does have universal healthcare, but their approval for new pharmaceutical drugs is insane, and it takes too many years to get a drug approved compared with the US. The more people have to wait, the more people die. So you have to weigh the costs and benefits of rapidly approving a new drug with side effects and deaths. Do you want to wait 8 years for a drug on X disease, or do you want to expedite the process?

Actually, I'm a leftist who's more in favor of simplifying our payment systems ala Concierge and Flat Rate Clinics. The bureaucracy has smothered what should be a fairly simple thing.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Most of the payment bureaucracy exists due to private insurance, third party middlemen who contribute basically nothing besides bureaucracy.

 

[Gergar12]

Actually, I'm a leftist who's more in favor of simplifying our payment systems ala Concierge and Flat Rate Clinics. The bureaucracy has smothered what should be a fairly simple thing.

We tried doing something like that with healthcare clubs in the 19th, and 20th century where they paid a doctor and got services for a monthly subscription. Sadly the AMA or Australian medical association lobbied against this in the early 19th, and 20 the century, and I think they also shot down the idea in America. Unless you fight off the AMA or American medical association you cannot achieve any healthcare reform unless you pay the medical professionals as much as you would pay them right now which in the US is higher than average. Same with big pharma, and dentists as well.

Since I mostly mentioned government officials being out of touch I will mention left-wing academics being so. Case in point Richard Wolff. Richard Wolff argues that the Soviet Union outgrew the US(true) in raw economic growth(But not the total economy), but he states the USSR was the fastest for this period of time and basically cherry-picked which period of time. That's like a climate denier cherry-picking a set of years to argue that climate change doesn't exist (Ted Cruz for example does so with NASA data, but excludes years closer to 2010). The Soviet Union grew fast because it had room to grow in the 1950s and 1960s. Also, the reason I mentioned this is because the USSR was top-heavy with lots of academics. And they lost to the US. The democratic party and some lefties worship academics because they conflate education with competence.

 

[Agema]

There are deep problems in academia, and the government. These theories don't match up to the real world. I see it every day in economics, I see it every day in political science. The people who have good theories are shunned. For example a professor I knew stated drones are the future, and will replace warfare as we know it. Despite the fact that he works for the government, they decided to side with fighter jet pilots who wanted drones as in-air refueling. These are the good ideas that need to go to the top that doesn't. Every time I argued that people can't afford X when discussing X, the professor would just say it's a theory.

These are big problems everywhere. Established power exercises that power to keep things in line with their own interests, and are essentially conservative (by which I mean slow to novelty, not politically right-wing). The military particularly is often famous for conservatism, although to be fair to the military, perhaps it should be liable to risk-aversion given the high stakes nature of its work. A great deal of advances are based on breaking down the resistance of traditionalism that would keep the comfortable and well tested in place.

 

[Gergar12]

These are big problems everywhere. Established power exercises that power to keep things in line with their own interests, and are essentially conservative (by which I mean slow to novelty, not politically right-wing). The military particularly is often famous for conservatism, although to be fair to the military, perhaps it should be liable to risk-aversion given the high stakes nature of its work. A great deal of advances are based on breaking down the resistance of traditionalism that would keep the comfortable and well tested in place.

But it does not have to be that way, look at Israel. They have lots of moral issues and are horrible towards Palestinians, but their military is not conservative, they teach their recruits skills that are applicable outside of the military. And no not every innovation is worth pursuing, but drones are an obvious one.

 

[McElroy]

Europe does have universal healthcare, but their approval for new pharmaceutical drugs is insane, and it takes too many years to get a drug approved compared with the US. The more people have to wait, the more people die. So you have to weigh the costs and benefits of rapidly approving a new drug with side effects and deaths. Do you want to wait 8 years for a drug on X disease, or do you want to expedite the process?

A new drug that can really cure something before incurable is a unicorn. Usually new drugs either extend life expectancy a little bit or they improve the QOL of certain hard to treat patients. At the same time those drugs are often prohibitively expensive and that's why it takes long to approve them -> EU has to negotiate a price that their members can afford. A decent solution is for these rare patients to volunteer for trials. I'll also admit that there is more dollars to go around in the US healthcare system, but spending that on drug treatments for patients with rare illnesses that cost 100k per year is something the critics of that system might be willing to trade for more basic stuff.

 

[Agema]

Healthcare: every time I argue with people on the left on healthcare regulations. It's basically Europe good, the US bad. Well, it's more complicated than that. Europe does have universal healthcare, but their approval for new pharmaceutical drugs is insane, and it takes too many years to get a drug approved compared with the US. The more people have to wait, the more people die. So you have to weigh the costs and benefits of rapidly approving a new drug with side effects and deaths. Do you want to wait 8 years for a drug on X disease, or do you want to expedite the process?

The delay in Europe is largely because the EU is nearly 30 different nations each with their own national systems. The centralised system in Europe helps in all sorts of ways, but it also means aspects of the approval process have to rattle through these national systems, whereas the USA can just streamline it through the one. The normal delay is about 3-9 months, however, not years.

 

[Agema]

A new drug that can really cure something before incurable is a unicorn. Usually new drugs either extend life expectancy a little bit or they improve the QOL of certain hard to treat patients. At the same time those drugs are often prohibitively expensive and that's why it takes long to approve them -> EU has to negotiate a price that their members can afford. A decent solution is for these rare patients to volunteer for trials. I'll also admit that there is more dollars to go around in the US healthcare system, but spending that on drug treatments for patients with rare illnesses that cost 100k per year is something the critics of that system might be willing to trade for more basic stuff.

This already exists - many Europeans can sign up to "experimental" treatments, including through their health services rather than as private patients.

It is also true that numerous treatments aren't worth much. It should be assumed that any drug worth a damn is available in both USA and EU (bar any small approval delays), and it's only niche or borderline stuff which is in one and not the other. Maybe the EU has slightly stricter standards, but only by a tiny margin. Many drugs are approved but don't last long: one or more of low efficacy, poor safety profile compared to efficacy, or inferiority to existing treatments. They get withdrawn by the manufacturer for there being no money in them, even if the regulator lets them stand.

I was reading about some gastric acid drugs which I think are available in Japan but neither the USA or Europe. And from what I read, nor do they ever need to reach our shores, as they appear to be comprehensively inferior to the existing gold standard of PPIs. I think had quaaludes met a 21st century approvals panel, they'd have never reached market either: zero advantages over benzodiazepines but with substantial disadvantages. On the other hand, the FDA did approve a shit-ton of opioid formulations that no-one ever needed, so maybe they might have done.

 

[Hawki]

Tiger Who Came to Tea ‘teaches boys violence and sexism for life’

Boys who read “harmful” children’s stories like The Tiger Who Came to Tea are more likely to grow up to become rapists and domestic abusers, a charity director

www.thetimes.co.uk

Dear wokeists,

Fuck off.

Sincerely,

Someone who grew up with this book and didn't grow up to be a rapist or domestic abuser.

 

[Agema]

Dear wokeists,

This is completely trivial - a bunch of nobodies in a charity of no significant influence said something of patently dubious merit. It would be better just ignored, to sink without a trace.The Times is covering it precisely to whip up mockery of "woke" (whether deserved or not in the individual case) for the right's culture war.

Save yourself from a stress aneurysm: just recognise these things for the nothingburgers that they are and let them flow off like water from a duck's back.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This is completely trivial - a bunch of nobodies in a charity of no significant influence said something of patently dubious merit. It would be better just ignored, to sink without a trace.The Times is covering it precisely to whip up mockery of "woke" (whether deserved or not in the individual case) for the right's culture war.

Save yourself from a stress anyeurism: just recognise these things for the nothingburgers that they are and let them flow off like water from a duck's back.

Yeh but this keeps happening and then we get "Oh we were just trying to start a conversation by making up bullshit".

 

[Trunkage]

Yeh but this keeps happening and then we get "Oh we were just trying to start a conversation by making up bullshit".

I'm going to pull out this quote of your the next time you 'just trying to start a conversation by making up bullshit'

 

[Breakdown]

Tiger Who Came to Tea ‘teaches boys violence and sexism for life’

Boys who read “harmful” children’s stories like The Tiger Who Came to Tea are more likely to grow up to become rapists and domestic abusers, a charity director

www.thetimes.co.uk

Dear wokeists,

Fuck off.

Sincerely,

Someone who grew up with this book and didn't grow up to be a rapist or domestic abuser.

They're going to really freak out if Sean Lock's The Tiger Who Came for a Pint gets published.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I'm going to pull out this quote of your the next time you 'just trying to start a conversation by making up bullshit'

Well feel free (the bookmark options on the new Escapist forums are rather useful) though I wouldn't bother as I doubt you'll get much use out of it unless you plan to deploy it in threads I make because you dislike the actual subject of the thread itself and don't want that talked about or something for some reason....

 

[Trunkage]

Well feel free (the bookmark options on the new Escapist forums are rather useful) though I wouldn't bother as I doubt you'll get much use out of it unless you plan to deploy it in threads I make because you dislike the actual subject of the thread itself and don't want that talked about or something for some reason....

Your 'subjects' are always painted by you in a certain light and then you ask us to hate them for it.

I just hate people like that

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Your 'subjects' are always painted by you in a certain light and then you ask us to hate them for it.

I just hate people like that

such as?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Fortnite decided to just lift the ideas of AmongUs


and suddenly now after facing backlash over it they're running an MLK event


How this pattern keeps repeating and companies like using woke signalling as a shield.

 

[bluegate]

Fortnite decided to just lift the ideas of AmongUs

and suddenly now after facing backlash over it they're running an MLK event

How this pattern keeps repeating and companies like using woke signalling as a shield.

Who gives a flying rat's arse about Fortnite copying yet another game's idea though?