So who determines what is fake? You? And how do you define intellectualism?
Unfortunately I could not view the whole video - one of the issues with DTube streaming I hope they'll fix.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So who determines what is fake? You? And how do you define intellectualism?
Unfortunately I could not view the whole video - one of the issues with DTube streaming I hope they'll fix.
Exactly. In this video he tries to speak like some authority and then he has coined new concept like Intellectual dark web. What does that even mean? Videos like this say nothing. It's very surface layer and fluff. 11 minutes of nonsense no core arguments to discuss. What he is doing is using Black and White thinking himself to try to label a whole group under some name he created. It's very strange. It's all over the place as well. No clear ideas being brought up. It's like it was designed to confuse you even more.
He didn't coin the phrase intellectual dark web. He's responding to someone that wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
So much fluff and pretentiousness. You can't even respond to it. You need core arguments to state so you can argue back. That is written in a way to try to win an argument by bore the other side.
The video was to dive into the question of why people fall for fake intellectualism, did he not raise these questions and try to give an answer?
If you thought the video was to dismiss each pseudo intellectual then I can understand your confusion.
The idea of put label on humans as pseudo intellectual is just an escape people use to ignore everything they say. It's an oversimplification to state that all that a human say should be ignored. This is living life with a Black and White mindset.
Would be interesting to hear @nonameslefttouse opinion on this. This NYT article reminds me about that other guy on Steemit that wrote 1000 word fluff Steemit comment responses haha.
So can you name even one idea that you would be willing to defend?
I think it's completely fair that if someone is pretending that old, easily dismissable ideas are intellectually provocative then it's correct to call them a pseudo intellectual.
Where does David say that if these people actually started real discourse he wouldn't change his opinion?
David didn't write the article, which I'm not sure you realize is on your side.
First David didn't even make a point that he is defending. So there is no argument I can do in return. It was mainly fluff in this specific video. He has probably done other videos with more clear stuff that get's to the point much faster. But I do feel many in here seems to believe the Intellect to be some magical tool that can solve all. The Intellect is good for survival surely and do some cool things. But it cannot know life so to say.
I would like to apologize for the downvote from Schrosct. I did not intend for anyone else's comments to take a hit. I hope steemit can continue to foster the debate that it has already.
Have a great day and God bless.
What debate are you fostering? I see inane comments being upvoted by you.
I pinned/mirrored both the source and 480p copies to my IPFS, there were other nodes that had it as well, try watching again.