>>24537579

If you want to argue anti intellectuals are stupid that that's fine but the concepts I lend to anti intellectualism are real and you're not addressing them so to say anti-intellectual isn't real you need to actually say why the phenomenon I am describing isn't accurate. Like I already said in my post all anti-intellectuals are idiots. Not all idiots are anti-intellectual. The purpose of the phrase is, again, to account for intent not just failure to understand or aptitude for recognizing patterns. Why is that not functional. "Not an intellectual position" doesn't mean anything to me. What does that mean.

>>24537580
True.

>>24537597

>You'd have to be insensitive to the emotional quality of words and their associative subtleties to use words as weights and counters

I agree and try not to be. I just also don't want to be taken advantage of which I realize is mostly an internal struggle. This year is the year of rhetoric. We're going to work on vocabulary and efficiency, for my sake first and foremost.