Daily Reminder to ignore RHETORICIANS

Thanks!

Soon to be updated, please leave your suggestions below and I will review them.

This guy. I really don't understand how many people can believe shits like this, " when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it." hahaha

Will be considered!

You should add Cornel West to the pic

Second this.

Pic related

>Daily reminder

repetition is a rhetorical technique
so ok i will ignore you from now on

Haven't you had enough yet? Why not go spam this on other boards now?

>Brother Nathanael
LOL

literally everyone is a rhetorician on some level.

more of a certified faggot than anything

this bitch

"The moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Stefan Molyneux is the greatest living philosopher

...

Bonus points for having TYT on there. The most lop-sided "news source" there is

that's not Glenn Beck's rotting corpse.

...

absolute fucking lol

>who is Richard Rorty?
>who is John Sallis?

Seconded. The picture already has a decent mix of conservative/liberal/ "I'm a speical snowflake" contrarians, but another leftist would be helpful.

Ta-Nehisi Coates
Bob Boilen
Peter Thiel
Deray Mckesson
Kanye West

Strongly agreed

I guess I don't get the concept of Rhetoricians. If their primary purpose is to persuade or entertain, what is a non-rhetorician? Some wholly unbiased who speaks nothing but sage advice delivered from God?

Properly speaking, Kanye West doesn't even register as a pseudo intellectual. He's another tier or two below most of these people, many of whom actually do write books (perhaps with assistance), however interminable. Bill O'Reilly's very quietly stated co-author(s) on his "Killling" books come to mind.

Chomsky, Hitchens, Coulter and Zizek are in the upper crust of this pseud-menagerie insofar as they write books seriously, on multiple occasions, and usually without co-authors (I assume). Of course, that doesn't account for editorial processes. The bottom of the group are the less-serious youtubers and minor television/media personalities who don't actually write, e.g. quinn/sarkeezee/that late show host guy/joe rogan?

Well, their ok I guess. but it's not like they solved the Entire Field of Ethics forever.

Wait, what's Jodorowsky doing here?

if you're not a policy debater you should kill yourself

It's a thread about pseudo-intellectuals. Al is right at home here.

Putting Chomsky and Zizek, both actual philosophers, in with all that drek is unfair.

Other than that, I'm down with this image.

I can believe it. A lot of people agree with him. me included

Why ignore the reminder?

I don't listen to him, I just happen to agree.

Bloom, Self, Vidal and Hedges should probably be removed too. SOmeone will probably call me a libtard for saying this, but they're pretty important figures in their respective fields (literary criticism, fiction, journalism)

What makes someone a pseud?

Opining on things that are outside your field of expertise

it's worth distinguishing between classical rhetoric and psuedo-intellectual rhetoric - if classical rhetoric were still taught to students and practiced as a civil art, there wouldn't be a demand for any of this

Wouldn't everyone qualify?

Varg needs to be added

Maybe to some extent (e.g. everyone has political opinions), but some people are much more egregious than others, particularly those who influence public opinion.

keep chomsky for sure, that guy went from "libertarian socialist" to a full on bernie shill

Chomsky, Dawkins, and to a lesser extent Kaku don't deserve to be there. They have serious academic accomplishments, regardless of how terrible their public personas perhaps are.

nah, keep bloom on. fuck bloom.

>That Orthodox priest on the bottom right.

Lol you clearly belong in the pic more than he does

It's a fraud. The personification of poshlost.

That's also true for Krauss, Tyson and even Thunderf00t.

Yes, but all of those people haven't had accomplishments that are comparable.

At least in Chomsky's case he advanced linguistics as we know it.

...

There's nothing about his support for Bernie Sanders which is surprising at all from his past writings. It's not realistic at all to think that you could expect someone to run for president successfully on an anarcho-syndicalist platform. And it's not like Chomsky's been silent on the fact that Bernie isn't a socialist or that his foreign policy record is tainted. But Bernie is so much closer to Chomsky than anyone who has ever run for president that you don't really know much about either if you think Chomsky has changed his views at all in supporting Bernie.

By the way, when you use the word shill like that it doesn't mean anything. If you actually think Bernie is handing Chomsky a big fat check for the endorsement you're deluded.

>Yes, but all of those people haven't had accomplishments that are comparable.
And you're qualified to say this, why? I doubt you're a scientist in any of their fields. All of these people do legitimate academic research.

>And you're qualified to say this, why?

Because Thunderf00t hasn't had accomplishments comparable to Noam Chomsky. I do not qualified to see what's there. I am simply telling facts.

Alright, now it's just obvious bait. Maybe it was originally. Put on Shakespeare or Plato if you just want to be ridiculous.

From 1972 to 1992, Professor Chomsky was cited 7,449 times in the Social Science Citation Index-likely the greatest number of times for a living person there as well, although the research into those numbers isn't complete. In addition, from 1974 to 1992 he was cited 1,619 times in the Science Citation Index.
Not to suck his dick, but come on.

>moving the goalposts
Chomsky is the only one where you might have some semblance of a point in that he's like the Darwin or Einstein of linguistics, but I doubt you're in any position to say that Michio Kaku's contributions to physics are more important to Lawrence Krauss' or whoever

And btw, all of these people are still experts who do legitimate research and devaluing any of their work would be precisely the pseud thing to do

Yeah, I guess if Kaku's on then perhaps Krauss and Thunderf00t should be on. And as much as I hate to say it probably Tyson too.
That's trickier though. I guess Dawkins and Chomsky are the only ones you I'm sure shouldn't be there, though.

Please don't think that image has any validity.

Only images posted under my tripcode are the official charts.

Some people you should add to your pic include Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Benjamin, Gadamer, Lacan, Adorno, Sartre, Levinas, Arendt, Merleau-Ponty, Levi-Strauss, Beauvoir, Ricoeur, Lyotard, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Badiou, Nancy, Rancière, Kristeva, Agamben, Latour, Zizek, Butler.

>Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Benjamin, Merleau-Ponty

Nope.

Don't be pseud and take the real scientists and Chomsky off, then.

Where's that bonafide-intellectual thread I'm always seeing?

>Anno and Miyazaki

Congrats user, you succeeded in triggering me.

fuck anno

>Anno is not a Pseudo-intellectual

Veeky Forums has sunk so low.

I'm happy to say I know maybe 50% of those people, almost none of them the people who I assume are Youtubers (except Badthony Tastetano).

Does Thiel have pretensions to intellectualism though?

Buckley and Bloom are also clearly in that upper crust. Honestly, it's a bit unfair to even put Bloom where he is. Chomsky is crazy smart, but he pontificates on stuff he's not an expert on, so he's a pseud, I get it. But Buckley is actually an extremely well-trained professor of literature. The man is practically the quintessential academic, even if he is also kind of a crusty reactionary in some ways.

Why are Zizek and Bloom on there then?

Are you kidding? Dawkins is probably on there most deservedly. It's not important what their academic accomplishments are, it's that they talk about shit that they know nothing about (that is, Dawkins and theology/philosophy, his work in that area is downright embarrassing regardless of his skill as a biologist).

user's just salty that he helped Hulk wreck a shitty tabloid

ATTENTION Veeky Forums PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL DOES NOT MEAN PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH.

Yeah, it means peopel who write a bunch of pretentious garbage that doesn't mean anything.

Everyone who has ever written for any Gawker Media website should be in yoru pic, OP.

aight lads.

shes done

>marx
>hegel
>zizek

Done? please. where the fuck is this guy

Everything he says is bullshit.

Good point. The MythBusters guys definitely belong in the pic

I don't understand. Why don't you like all these people?

whats wrong with Fantano?

He doesn't know shit about music.

Just put everyone on there then, i think we can fit seven billion

Why? They're just entertainers, the most they claim to know is straightforward engineering, isn't it?

I disagree with Lacan being here

Varoufakis, Chomsky, Zizek and Bloom are serious academics.

What the fuck is your problem?

>Tesla

Not that I'm a fanboy but lmao did he ever even say anything?

Yes, Vidal is no light weight either, and is Veeky Forums to the core.

Only pseudo-intellectuals that have never informed themselves about rhetoric think that rhetoric is something to be frowned upon.

It kills me to say this but OP is sort of right, you should really be forming your own opinions by looking at the data instead of blindly trusting the charismatic and closed idea systems of these figures.

I don't think you need to "ignore them completely" to accomplish that though, that feels kind of sleight of hand, like you're somehow superior to them by blindly ignoring them all, which is an even worse type of not thinking for yourself

It's only for entertainment. If you want to find truth, you look to Logic.