XPost: comp.os.linux.misc   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 26/12/2025 03:20, c186282 wrote:   
   > On 12/25/25 17:05, Lars Poulsen wrote:   
   >> On 2025-12-25, c186282  wrote:   
   >>>     "Intellectuals" generally love subjects with   
   >>>     a zillion potential fine points they can argue   
   >>>     for eternity. Does not matter if the subject   
   >>>     is "important" or even particularly real. Some   
   >>>     people like chess, 'intellectuals' love the   
   >>>     arguments, it's their favorite game.   
   >>>   
   >>>     Unfortunately they sometimes SOUND significant   
   >>>     and profound - and horrible "-isms" are born.   
   >>   
   >> It is true that academics like to find trivial little edges   
   >> to invent controversy about, because that is a precondition for   
   >> writing a paper that can get published in a journal that nobody   
   >> reads, which again is a precondition of staying employed in   
   >> a tenure track position.   
   >>   
   >> It is equally true that right-wing think tanks are even more   
   >> adept at creating superficial bullshit that SOUNDS sorta   
   >> common-sense until you think about it for a few seconds.   
   >   
   >   
   >    In my experience, the 'left' is even better at   
   >    that, and more prolific.   
   >   
   +1   
      
   >    Maybe old Will should have added 'intellectuals'   
   >    along with 'lawyers' eh ?  :-)   
   >   
      
   IIRC it was Stalin who called them useful idiots and consigned them to   
   the gulags once their usefulness expired...   
      
   --   
   “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the   
   other is to refuse to believe what is true.”   
      
   —Soren Kierkegaard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)