MENSA_IQcel said:
You are clearly of a low IQ because my post contains clear structured arguments from start to finish and clearly ties the validity of the history of anti-intellectualism to its cause.
My outline of the history of anti-intellectualism is to demonstrate that anti-intellectualism is not based on any form of valid or rational inquiry but merely based on hatred of the the intellectually superior. That bit about Nazi Germany was to show that the German people supported the persecution of professors with ZERO reason behind it, and how that made the roots behind anti-intellectualism vivid to the whole world: IRRATIONAL HATRED OF THE INTELLIGENT FOR ITS OWN SAKE
My writing style is based on Caroll Quigley. His literary collection was bringing up different topics in a fleeting way to demonstrate his points. That's how you have to make arguments. I don't have time to write an essay on literally every topic I bring up, that's why I make quick references. You first complain my post is too long and then claim I don't delve into the topics enough.
If you wish to confirm or fact-check my work. Go right ahead. I can guarantee you you'll find truth in all the factual statements if you actually bothered to look. My interpretation and analysis is subjective, but that's where reasoning and logic come in. Maybe you should try adding something of your own to my work rather than criticize your obvious superiors.
But you being dismissed is rational because you don't say anything. Also, you're not a real "intellectual" so dismissing you or shitting on you isn't "anti-intellectualism".
>
Contains clear structured arguments
No, it's a large meta-narrative which implies a vague assertion. Your second paragraph explains what is obviously implied by your writing, you're just assuming I didn't understand that message.
>
My writing style is based on Caroll Quigley. His literary collection was bringing up different topics in a fleeting way to demonstrate his points.
Caroll Quigley's writing style sucks. He eschews data and details just to "bring up points", a flaw endemic to human argumentative writing. Pick one narrow topic at a time so that you can actually substantiate things with data. That is actually good writing.
>
You first complain my post is too long and then claim I don't delve into the topics enough.
These things are not contradictory. In fact, they go hand in hand. By "too long" I should have said it "brings up too many topics". If you do this, because of time and length limitations, you won't be able to actually argue anything with efficacy because you never bring real data or sources to the table.
>
If you wish to confirm or fact-check my work.
Chug my shit. Either provide sources or GTFO, just like any other actually good scholar (REAL intellectuals) would do.
