Our own Blixa added a nice comment on The Foyer regarding this article. I will quote her here:
I have little tolerance for anti-intellectualism. Brother SPAM is full of it. The pompous and self-righteously ignorant are beneath contempt. By turning their minds from intellect they have squandered the riches of humanity...
"The Foyer" seems to be full of people who have a hard time functioning in normal society.
So, you are saying that Blixa, as a member of "The Foyer", has a hard time functioning in normal society? That's rich. She is a highly regarded professor and author, and undoubtedly makes more money than you do. I'm positive that she has more education....and class.
Haha! Thanks, liz!
Actually you should check back with that site and see the ginormous retort my rather small remark has generated. Holy cats! Here's some of my favorite bits:
In particular, I was struck by this comment:
"I have little tolerance for anti-intellectualism. Brother SPAM is full of it. The pompous and self-righteously ignorant are beneath contempt. By turning their minds from intellect they have squandered the riches of humanity..."
First of all, it's an open admission of intolerance. The individual who made the statement obviously considers religion, Mormonism, and apparently S.P.A.M. to be anti-intellectual. To me, there's nothing more anti-intellectual than to declare that God does not or cannot exist.
Hmmm...I'm stumped how those remarks "obviously" indicate that I consider religion and Mormonism to be anti-intellectual. Or even SPAM itself for that matter; my few words were directed only a single post on that website. It's pretty fascinating that Mr. West understands comments directed at him
as being equal to an attack on all religion and/or all of Mormonism.
It's also puzzling how my criticizing anti-intellectualism means I'm saying God doesn't exist.
But Mr. West is adept at reading between the lines, apparently:
When our detractor wrote: "By turning their minds from intellect they have squandered the riches of humanity..."
This tells me that the individual is probably young, narcissistic, and very self-centered. (I don't know if the person is male or female, so according to English convention, I'll default to the masculine here.) He has not lived long enough to truly know what love is. He has not yet had children, or if he has, he lacks natural affection for them.
Well, there's more here than just "English convention." If one really wanted to avoid assigning gender one could do it quite easily---in fact, I've done it right here! The male gender is assigned in this case because of the overall ideologic of his argument: here and in the earlier post the underlying assumption is men leave/women stay, a binary that neatly fits a patriarchal and essentialist gender code: men think/women feel.
The title of this recent post is "We've Struck A Nerve Again--comments on Anti-Intellectualism."
500 words +, and a rhetorical display that drags in brave marines, the pyramids at Giza, Bishop Tutu, Sir Isaac Newton, bigfoot, Judas, Brutus, Benedict Arnold, Lillburn Boggs, William Law, and generations of mothers and babies to counter only 33 words of off-the-cuff personal criticism
? I think the lady doth protest too much.