Transcription
Would you like to see my mask? Yo, what's going on people? So I saw Asmin Gold reacting to this anti-intellectualism video by Professor Dave. I wanted to give my own critique on some of the claims and ideas presented in the video. There are some aspects I do agree with, but overall, I think there is a high degree of projection, contradiction, lack of self-awareness, and outright strawman untruths being displayed throughout the video. It's ironic, to say the least.
But I do think there is a serious problem online with anti-intellectualism, or just stupidity, which isn't the same thing. Terrence Howard is a Dunning-Kruger idiot. I agree 100%. The prominence of flat-earthers on social media is disturbing. I agree 100%.
But with that being said, in the video, Dave gives three principles of anti-intellectualism: one, religious anti-rationalism, which is rejection of reason, logic, facts for emotions and religious absolutes. The first bullet point, I find to be ironic when scrolling through some of his comments, given he displays extremely emotional responses to anyone who even slightly questions anything he has stated in the video. Name-calling and perpetual ad hominem mixed with massive assumptions and absolutes about the person he is attacking. He comes off as infallible. How dare anyone question him, which is religious-like dogmatic behavior in my opinion. How can he possibly know in totality what the person he is responding to who does or doesn't know on a particular subject? That's impossible. This is why I tend to favor agnostic thinkers over atheistic, generally less arrogance and ego. I'm sure he would argue these are not ad hominems, they are just proper descriptors because these people are actual morons. But I think they are right to criticize him as he's engaging in projection and hypocrisy. As I will go through, emotionally unstable zealotry in the name of so-called scientific theocracy is how I would label this behavior. But that's just because I'm an irrational idiot.
So I just wanted to point out the irony of emotional instability of someone with 3 million subs personally attacking anyone who even slightly questions anything he claims, while claiming to be an example of hyper-intellectual rationalism. So I'll give my specific points of reason and an effort to place a mirror in front of Dave. Start.
I had hoped to work in this quote from Isaac Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant threat, winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." I would argue that arrogant, pompous intellectualism can be just as dangerous, if not more, than ignorance. To paint anyone you disagree with as merely being ignorant is within itself a form of ignorance. This is largely a false dichotomy. Even the most hyper-intellectual experts are subject to be ignorant or just being incorrect or biased at times. And as you'll see, Dave, that's you many times. The most ignorant are those who claim to be entirely immune from it, which is how you seem to present yourself. And not every human is even obligated to be an intellectual. People have a right to be ignorant or stupid or just neutral. It sucks, but it's true. Dumb people exist everywhere throughout all of time, not merely in the United States.
This quote is from 1980, and it's been echoed by other great thinkers like Carl Sagan, who spoke about the public being unable to grasp the technology we all use every day and having no ability to set their own agenda or ask the right questions, culminating in a celebration of ignorance. I agree. I think the technology we have at our fingertips is beyond what any of us can truly comprehend and how it's affecting us. Let me ask you, Dave, who is screaming about trans hobes and his comments as I saw? Do you think the obsession with pronouns would have even come about if social media and smartphones didn't exist? Thinking your social media B supersedes objective biological, genetic, chromosomal reality? Go back 20 years, Dave. No one on planet Earth was thinking about pronouns and gender as a social construct. This did not exist in the popular lexicon at all. Why did you turn off comments on this video, Dave? I thought you were all about asking the right questions. Dave, he said that in 1995, even these two could not have foreseen how bad this has gotten in the 21st century with people now questioning the shape of the Earth and the validity of basic arithmetic. This anti-science fervor makes us easy to manipulate because any contrarian message is bought on M. I agreed to a point. While most people saw how outright insane and stupid Terrence Howard is, it's disturbing how many people have no ability to distinguish between actual scientific reason and word salad. And in regards to Flat Earth, I think it was popularized on YouTube on purpose, personally, to make any form of conspiracy theorizing look dumb. I don't see that term as derogatory in all cases, per se, but I would bet my life that you do. That's just a guess, though. Getting people to comprehend and perceive the Coriolis effect is how I've snapped some flat-earthers out of their delusions and stupidity. It really is tough, though. Sadly, I do admit that it's disturbing and scary. No matter who is telling it or what their motives are, we are witnessing a multimodal anti-science empire operating through mass media and legislation, moving towards state-sanctioned pseudo-science. Um, we're looking at over 220 million Americans who just in the last several months died. 220 million Americans, Dave. Is this pseudo-science, Dave? Why didn't you call this out? Crazies, you can't stand it. We're looking at over. Okay, you're not going to. You're not going to get. You have. Hasn't he had it many times? Times. So did he lie about the science? The, as you state, state-sanctioned pseudo-science? Obviously, you are entirely pro. You know what? So what exactly do you specifically mean by state-sanctioned pseudo-science? Every single person I know that got the, you know what, got the vid many times. I know that's an anecdote, Dave. Don't worry, I know it's an anecdote. This doesn't exactly match up with the scientific claims repeated over and over at the time. Is the irony of what you're saying here lost on on you? And we don't have to speculate as to how harmful this can be. We have history to reflect upon. Persecution of scientists under Stalin was widespread. Lysenko was a non-scientist who was promoted to a high scientific position under Stalin's regime and who convinced Stalin that genetics and relativity were evil. He denied the existence of genes. All right, I already know where this is going. He's going to compare this to Trump. You ready for it? To address agricultural problems, he promoted a pseudoscientific practice called vernalization, and millions died of starvation as a result of crop failures. Scientists who refused to renounce genetics were left destitute or even executed. Are we at risk of repeating such events? Absolutely. Let's face reality. Trump is going to win the election. Could he bring a Lysenko-like figure into his cabinet and begin persecuting real scientists? Absolutely. Will he try to expand executive power and abuse his position to the point of authoritarianism? Probably so. You really just compared Trump with a pseudo-science-induced mass famine? Really? Do you know he was already president for 4 years, right? Did he persecute and arrest any scientists then? No. You know there are other branches of government, right? And generally, the pro-American types are interested in upholding the American government and the Constitution. You do realize that, right? You do recall he was for Operation Warp Speed? Isn't that in alignment with the science you follow? I'm confused. So I think you're being a little hyperbolic to be honest to make such a comparison. Usually, it's a famous German analogy that is used, but a Stalinite pseudoscientist famine analogy. I give you credit on creativity. But if something like that is going to come about, I think administering gene therapy to livestock or replacing meat with some lab-grown synthetic crap to save the planet is more likely to have unforeseen consequences on humanity, as that seems to be one of the primary focuses of experimental science as it relates to the food supply currently. But that's just because I'm a pseudo-intellectual dum-dum. And there are plenty of wealthy people who will help him try to do that. I won't go into detail about Project 2025, but it's not a conspiracy. It's a real plan to move America into the first stages of Christian theocracy, and it's already underway. This is the evil upon our doorstep. What do you mean it's not a conspiracy? By your own definition, you believe it is a conspiracy. Conspiracies can and do exist. Your fear of Project 202 confirms that you do in fact believe they are conspiring to do those things. Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. The action of plotting or conspiring, which is what you believe is happening. So by definition, it is a conspiracy, and it's already underway. This is the evil upon our doorstep. No, Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025. No, a Christian theocracy is not coming in the age of the internet, I assure you. I think law in other parts of the world should be of a much greater concern. There is separation of church and state here. Okay, bud. I think you've been watching too much Righteous Gemstones or something. Trump is a hotel casino owner who had a reality television show, The Apprentice, with every race of people competing for over a decade. You know, when the entire media establishment loved him, including The View. He's not exactly John Goodman's character in The Righteous Gemstones, okay? Dave, not everyone on the right is even religious. You do realize that, right? Many people have been pushed to the right because they don't think boners should be in female swimmers' locker rooms and tampons in high school boys' bathrooms. If you truly think there is a possibility of Christian theocracy, you are delusional and you've been watching too much TV. You're probably a big fan of The Boys. It's just feeding into your blue-pilled conspiracy theory paranoia. I know it's easier to argue against unrealistic straw men in your neurotic worldview, but try and stay in reality here. Trump was already president, okay? Being against him and not liking him is fine. Great. Dave, can you tell me what the [ __ ] this is? Can you admit that half of society was pretending the emperor had clothes for 4 years? Can you admit that, Gite Dave, and be balanced? Maybe try and form rational arguments and criticisms against Trump rather than your outrageous theoretical doomsday claims of mass arrests of scientists and mass starvation that's bordering on schizophrenic. And while it should receive far more attention than people like Terrence Howard, we should recognize that it's all different shades of the same phenomenon. Far more attention. I've heard it repeated countless numbers of times across every media source. I think people are aware of it. It's constantly all over social media. You're a perfect example of it. So what are you talking about? Trump and Vance commented on it. They said they have nothing to do with it, but everything they say is a lie, right? Wonder what J is going to do with his Hindu wife when the Christian theocracy takes over the planet? I heard they're going to send all the agnostics like myself to re-education camps and have the nuns put me on a stretcher until I reject science and knowledge and [ __ ]. Can you believe it, Dave? Isn't that evil?
Anti-science sentiment does not arise out of thin air. Science is becoming increasingly more complicated and therefore difficult for the public to understand. The average time to develop a, you know what, was 5 to 10 years previously, requiring long-term double-blind studies. Why people question the immediate release of a, you know what, in a very, very short window of time is because long-term studies were impossible due to the constraints of time. Dave, I think that's a IR rational concern, but that's just because I'm ignorant and dumb, right? And not an intellectual elite like yourself. But I thought you were against state-sanctioned pseudo-science, and wasn't Trump for Operation Warp Speed? You know, state-sanctioned science. I'm very confused. Are you for or against the science under Trump or state-sanctioned Fouchy? What specifically is the state-sanctioned pseudo-science you're trying to refer to? And some people lash out due to the discomfort this produces. I don't understand people being concerned and distrusting over the obvious possibility of long-term, I repeat, long-term double-blind studies. So it's bad, and I'm uncomfortable. I'm not projecting. I believe science, even if it's science that requires years to conduct properly, takes place in just months. If you believe science hard enough, it collapses time itself, right? Dave, but more importantly, there are vested interests in promoting this mentality stemming from Republican-funded think tanks. The deliberate sculpting of a populace that is not only science illiterate but actively hostile towards science. Conflicts of interest when billions or trillions of dollars are involved is impossible. POS. Science is immune from any form of human greed affecting judgment. All medicine and science throughout all of time is philanthropic. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just anti-intellectual, right? Dave, you are using the term science in a very generalized way. Science is not infallible. It's not some monolithic thing where every doctor and scientist ever agrees on everything. Simply labeled science, trust the science, when used in a general, non-specific way, is within itself religious speak. Many brilliant scientists in history have fallen into the trap of pseudo-science themselves. The modern world is not immune from this. To act as if the general modern consensus is infallible and entirely free from blind spots is dangerous within itself and anti-scientific. Labotomy were performed seconds ago relative to the grand scale of history. Denial of climate change is in the interest of energy producers. I wanted to ask Al Gore as to why none of the beach homes in Florida and California have been abandoned or been taken over by rising sea levels yet. I thought we were headed towards immediate calamity. I'm all for eliminating as much pollution as we possibly can and finding alternative energy sources, but you don't see how this potentially could be used as a Trojan horse in different ways? Denial of basic evolutionary biology is in the interest of Christian theocrats. Are the Christian theocrats in the room with you right now? Resist the urge to use an ad hominem. These efforts go all the way up the ladder to figures like the Koch brothers. I'm not saying Terry's funded by the Koch brothers, but he rides this prevalent attitude of reality denial and hostility toward any form of expertise to this bizarre prominence that now has people questioning second-grade math. I think Terrence is just a mentally ill narcissist traumatized by what happened to him in the S-line slang and losing his role in Iron Man. And Rogan was just star-struck because he liked his acting, so he let him do whatever he wanted to do on his podcast. I think you're severely underestimating the fact that most people see him as insane and dumb. I do not think Rogan took him seriously in any real capacity. You should go on the Rogan podcast and discuss horse medicine. To wield an agenda that is in opposition with science, one must popularize the notion that science is wrong and evil. Who is saying that? I have never heard anyone aside from you in this ridiculous straw man say that. If you watch this video, you better not say that I'm saying that because I could see you doing that. Universities, the places where you gain knowledge, are evil. Don't go there and learn things so that you can figure out how to resist our brainwashing and also how to organize and topple our political structures. These political structures were born out of a Western Christian society, you do realize that? And who is stating outright universities are evil? You are misinterpreting the context. Questioning the behavior and beliefs of students and/or the faculty in today's world is not the same as calling all universities outright evil. That is some fallacious [ __ ]. Universities are famously places that stand up against the powers that be, so they must be demonized. I'm pretty sure the people from the universities usually go on to become the powers that be. And the criticism of universities do not usually come from the STEM fields. Engineering is not what people are really concerned over. You again are straw-manning perpetually. It comes from the gender studies, Marxists, woke lunatics. Oh, wait. Oh, I see now. It all makes sense now. Are, are you a Marxist? It comes from those who attack someone like Riley Gaines for not wanting a 6'4 dude with a half-boner in the woman's locker room. That type of madness and normalization of mental illness is largely where the criticism is stemming from. But pretend like that's all normal. Tell me, Dave, man of science, do you think people with XY chromosomes should be boxing XX chromosomes? That's a rhetorical question on my part. Of course, you do because you're a high-class appeal to the current approved authority, god-level intellectual. It is a successful campaign because many people are happy to have a reason to not learn anything and cling to primitive beliefs without basis or self-scrutiny. Self-scrutiny. How ironic. Anyone who criticizes the neo-Marxist extreme left running rampant through the university system, Hollywood, and even the Sweet Baby video game industry, putting literal propaganda in everything, is just an idiot anti-intellectual who hates learning. I didn't know that I hate science. I was a 4.0 honors math and science student all throughout school with a high IQ. I didn't know that I hated learning. I do know that I hate fallacies and false dichotomies, though. Dave, thanks for educating me with your generalities and fallacious assumptions. You're an intellectual giant. I am not worthy. Truly, forgive me for I have sinned against science. And that's you. Well, you and Fouchy have become science itself. All hail.
It goes without saying that religion is a primary driver of anti-science mentality because scientific progress, particularly as of late, has challenged many religious narratives, such as immaculate divine creation. This triggers fear of mortality as their narrative is eroded, and they lash out in precisely the same way as one would defend themselves against physical violence with hostility and tribalism. Let people deal with existential dread of existence any way that they please. Not everyone is intellectually elite as yourself. Life's scary, regardless of IQ. I do credit you for standing up against the Sharia law enjoyers, though. But I think that's largely just because you like arguing against, uh, creationism rather than the actual reality of what socially is being implemented by Sharia enjoyers. At the same time, this is not purely a religious issue. It has at this point completely permeated secular politics. I myself am not a Democrat and I no longer vote Democrat out of total disillusionment with the party. Oh, sure, you're not. Whatever you say. Your entire video is built around defending and downplaying the libtards, basically, but you're not one, for sure. I, I totally believe you. Till 120. As it does not have the best interests of the American people in mind. But the Republican party is cartoonishly apocalyptic in comparison. 220 million no-nothing, proudly stupid, in denial of truly all science, actively pushing us back into the dark ages in terms of both ignorance and authoritarian control by the church. Is Christian theocracy in the room with you right now, Dave? How does that make you feel, Dave? Oh, you didn't believe anyone could argue fetuses are humans without using biblical or religious appeal? Interesting. Maybe stop generalizing because that's anti-scientific, anti-rational, and very fellacio. In the wake of this, to pretend that idiots like Terry should be given a voice is preposterous. He is not the culprit, but he exacerbates larger trends already in place. He does not deserve a platform. He is not part of any legitimate conversation. He doesn't deserve a platform. While that sounds pretty totalitarian, you sound like an intellectual theocrat or something. The vast majority of people have been educated by the countless videos on YouTube debunking and making fun of Terry. This is an example of why free speech is good because the act of Terry being debunked actually provided an education for many. Sadly, many of the helpless dumb-dums would be dumb with or without the existence of Terry in the public eye. You sound like a fascist who is anti-free speech. That's pathetic. I support Terry's right to be a Dunning-Kruger dummy so people can learn what not to be and have a laugh. And that's exactly what has taken place online. Grow up, Dave. Stop trying to control everyone in your theocracy. And most of the figures with any kind of expertise that shoehorn their way into the conversation have ulterior motives as well and only serve to further confuse the public. Like Eric. So even Eric Weinstein, who softly and politely showed what a nut job dumb-dum Terrance is on JRE, has ulterior motives. Is Eric's ulterior motives in the room with your right now, Dave? Eric has just brainwashed meathead UFC fans because I don't agree with him. I'm totally not projecting.
So let's get down to brass tax. What is anti-intellectualism at its core? It boils down to three principles: one, religious anti-rationalism, essentially emotions over facts. Two, populist anti-elitism, or the rejection of intellectual institutions. And three, instrumentalism, the belief that pursuit of knowledge only serves practical means, namely profit. The sheer irony of your video is astonishing, truly. I think the appeal to authority and appeal to anti-authority is essentially two sides of the same f coin. This movement intends to halt the acquisition of new knowledge that would undermine groups with power and privilege. Misinformation that benefits those in power is perpetuated, and those who speak truth to that power are preemptively character assassinated. Who was character assassinated a couple of years ago with that big thing that happened all over the Earth? Who, who was character assassinated then? Again, and are you for or against capitalistic big pharma? I'm confused. Do you not realize how contradictory you are? I'd be curious of what you think of the fact that America is one of the only places in the world where big pharma can advertise on TV. I'm sure it's just, it's all philanthropic science, though, right? I had my life entirely destroyed by this philanthropic medical science at 17 years old. You can find my story on my channel and make sense of why I am the way that I am.
The educational sphere is not completely blameless, admittedly. Part of the disdain towards academia is fostered by the increasingly high cost of education, but this is not in itself a justification for abandoning the sanctity of centers of knowledge. No one is advocating to completely abandon these centers of knowledge. Just like the printing press, the internet changed the dynamic in which knowledge is accessed. So knowledge technically can be accessed anywhere and everywhere now. Your YouTube channel is an example of it. Corporations do not have their financial interests challenged when the public cannot even identify the issues that they are harmed by, thus perpetuating their own subjugation. We can historically blame the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry, and so forth, but we do not extend this to scientific knowledge itself. Politicians, corporations, and religious institutions stand to benefit the most from promoting anti-intellectualism. Are you for or against big pharma? I am so confused. They enact the politicization of nonpartisan issues, polarizing things like climate change so severely that simply acknowledging basic science gets one ostracized. This spills over into the social realm just as easily. Anti-intellectualism breeds nationalism, or the same blind allegiance to a governing body that is actively sowing the seeds of division. You're totally not the one sowing the seeds of division by claiming that the other side are all out of their mind Christian theocrats that want to take over the world and induce famines by arresting scientists. You're totally not the one, um, advocating division. So nationalism equates to anti-intellectualism? I'm sorry, but I think you're out of your mind. So wanting a secure border is anti-intellectual? Valuing a national identity and pride in one's country and culture is anti-intellectual? Tell me, do you think the culture of Sharia law is compatible with you and how you want to live your life? Sorry, under your progressive utopia, the border was completely dissolved, and you've been overrun with the demographics of Sharia law. So now you, in your progressive utopia, now live under Sharia law. Obviously, this is theoretical and applies more to Europe currently, but you can follow my point, right? This is the reason for equating Black Lives Matter or any other kind of social justice with fascism. The BLM riots caused $2 billion in property damage, the most in all of USA's history. Meanwhile, these science believers were locked in their homes, but apparently fighting for two times the lethal dose in system pregnant women. Home invaders grant immediate immunity from all the viruses when engaged in mass arson, looting, and property destruction. It's science. And the justification for this always involves inventing violent intent out of thin air. Mass arson and $2 billion in property damage is just inventing things out of thin air. At least 25 deaths, probably more. CHAZ declaring sovereignty from the United States, an act of literal war, that's just inventing things out of thin air, right? Dave, that's just white supremacists online pretending like they're Antifa in order to stir things up. This in turn is used to justify a militarized police force under the guise of protection. Kyle Rittenhouse's deleting a PDF file who engaged in mass arson and was saying the N-word on camera many times. He had absolutely no right to stop the immigrant of color's car dealerships being burnt to absolute and total ash. That's just a conspiracy theory. And lastly, anti-intellectualism promotes being skeptical towards perceived authority while demanding that people blindly follow demagogues who are amplified by social media. You mean like yourself? I think you're a perfect example of this demagogy. You claim to be against any questioning shall be not tolerated. I am a man of infallible intellect and science. A man of God. I wait, I mean a man of science. I speak on behalf of God. I mean, science. Please viewers, question and argue against every single thing I have claimed in the video. I promise you I won't emotionally name-call you in the comments. I promise.
All right, there's some video left, but I'm just going to cut it there because it's going to be way too long. He talks about a Netflix movie, Don't Look Up, that I have not seen, so I'm not qualified to comment on it. But I think I've got my point across. The dude is a woke mind virus-infected hypocrite, unable to look in the mirror and see his own form of religious-like fanaticism and blatantly irrational, hypocritical thinking. He is everything he claims to be against. The woke mind virus, by definition, is simply put, a state of pathological projection which splits the person into the Orwellian doublethink embodied. Anyways, thanks for watching. Watch out for the state-sanctioned pseudo-science that Dave warned you about. And bye. So when did the nut take over the nut house?