:V
I was a nice guy and never got shit for it aside from the douche bags.
Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
vigilantly taxonomish
If kids want to bully one another they'll use any excuse. That said, anecdotally, I don't recall anyone being bullied for being too smart. "Nerd" was used as an insult, but it was only jokingly applied to people who were only intelligent, and didn't have some other characteristic that they were bullied for.
I saw kids bullied for being too studious, too pious, too self-righteous, too introverted, but not for intelligence specifically.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
I see the Awesomeness.
I can somewhat understand it when some people considered to be intellectuals treat something nobody else cares about as Serious Business and then start calling them idiots get serious dislike.
Fight smart, not fair.
WHARRGARBL
Gonna have to agree with salad here. The only people who hate you for not being "cool enough" are the aforementioned douche bags whom no one likes in the first place.
We are as one.
Frankly, I would rather have intellectuals around me than anti-intellectuals who, more often or not, tend to be uncultured lemmings.
The Southpaw has no brakes!
I won't kill you.
Would you say it would be reasonable to postulate that there was a concerted effort into instilling them with mistrust for intellectual ideas?
You think someone put them up to it?
"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."
We are as one.
Mainly I think it's because intellectuals are often seen seeking those that the average man considers too deep to fathom... From where I'm from, such people are dismissed as "elitist," and their thoughts "only for the wealthy."
The Southpaw has no brakes!
I see the Awesomeness.
Lemmings are fun to boss around. And they don't have any of that icky culture on them. Culture is something to outgrow and purge, not to preserve.
Fight smart, not fair.
vigilantly taxonomish
Then you still have a culture, just a boring culture defined by a rejection of anything remotely colourful or intellectual.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Laugh it off, everybody
Honestly? I'd have no problem being around intellectuals if it wasn't such that assuming any position they don't like will get you branded "anti-intellectual".
For instance, I am, suffice it to say, not a fan of Death of the Author. We're not going to go into why, here, but I'm just not. I will note here that not everyone does this, but whenever I mention this fact, there are always the types who will just go "Oh you're just anti-intellectual" and not bother to actually try to convince me of anything. As though I was somehow inherently incorrect, and more offensively, stupid, by being "anti-intellectual".
Another problem I have is that, like a lot of things, no one seems to know what these terms mean.
I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....
I won't kill you.
You Keep Using That Word and Personal Dictionary can be a serious problem with some "intelligentsia" members who want to go Feigning Intelligence.
"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."
Trivia Depository
^^ I really fucking hate Death Of the Author too, but I sure as hell am not anti-intellectual. I dont consider myself an intellectual either, but I'm not against using my brain.
I won't kill you.
Some people can take Death of the Author too far and bring out interpretations that are based on scarce evidence. On the other hand, the content of the work might imply things the author didn't intend, but which are still there, iether because of his subconsious assumptions, or because of those of the public. Hence why no matter how much Ray Bradbury insists Farenheit451 is a book against the growing role of television, the story is actually about censorship. It just so happens that the television of his time was extremely censored, and that, if that was a book against television itself, he made a piss-poor job of attacking it, because no matter how stupid people are about televeision, it doesn't motivate them to burn it. In fact, it is obvious he didn't like TV because of the censorship and Lowest Common Denominator crap, which ultimately is not inherent to television at all. All that stuff can be inferred from his work, with evidence to support it, against his own word.
Death of the Author is a very legitimate method. Some people just are a bit stupid about it.
"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."
That, and some seem to hate it, when they actually dislike Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory and the like.
vigilantly taxonomish
Death of the Author: there are no right answers, but there kinda are wrong answers. A wrong answer being something you just made up with little to no textual basis.
The reason I tend to regard criticism of it as an anti-intellectual thing - not saying it always is, but it often seems that way - is because quite often people are just like "This is just Fan Dumb, this is just an excuse to make your Harry/Hermione pairing canon, etc." when DOTA has nothing to do with canon and is not a fandom term. It makes the people criticising appear as though they haven't even tried to understand what it's actually about, or perhaps they found it confusing so therefore it must be nonsense. "This confuses me, therefore it's a waste of time" is one of my least favourite kinds of anti-intellectualism.
Again, not saying that's what any people in this thread have against Death of the Author, but it often seems to be the case.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
I won't kill you.
Laugh it off, everybody
Deleted, because this is absurdly off-topic and I don't want to get in trouble.
edited 5th Feb '11 9:46:54 AM by SpainSun
I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....
Heading for tomorrow
The only thing I hate about this, and I've run into it here and in real-life is that,
"I am a part of X group, therefore, anything I say about X will be correct because you are not part of X"
And what do I hear it most for? Feminism of all things. :V
Laugh it off, everybody
Explain.
That seems like a valid reason to be pissed to me.
I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....
Heading for tomorrow
The argument of "You cannot say something about ____ because you are not part of ___" is a fallacy, not objecting to such an argument. This argument is most infamous for being used by postmodernists.
edited 5th Feb '11 10:24:44 AM by WoolieWool
Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"
Laugh it off, everybody
Oh.
I thought you were talking about the objection, not the argument itself.
Yeah, that's a very wide-ranging problem.
I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....
How exactly is "you aren't experienced in the subject matter, therefore you can't comment on it" a logical fallacy?
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
Laugh it off, everybody
That's not the statement.
The statement is "You are not a part of Group X, and thus cannot comment on Group X".
I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....
edited 5th Feb '11 10:32:30 AM by Wicked223
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
"I'm not sure what crazy school you guys went to where people were persecuted just for getting good grades or whatnot, but in my school, there were plenty of really brilliant people whom everyone liked because they were nice and pleasant to be around" - zoulza
It depends on the kind of intelligence, I guess. Plenty of people who are "nice" end up being unfairly hated because they aren't cool enough. The obnoxious personality they develop is in some cases a result of THAT.