Go for a walk after downloading Four Thought episodes from BBC radio 4

>go for a walk after downloading Four Thought episodes from BBC radio 4
>a show that has talks from "intellectuals"


Holy shit. What a joke. There was a Jewish sounding woman economist who called everyone who disagrees with her irrational (she was literally talking about promoting big government and indoctrination of kids for SJW values). There were some literary types that gave it their best shot but ultimately had nothing more than "muh smartphone taking attention muh modern fast paced life muh feels". And a philosopher who did the same as the literary types but with a framework that produced zero insight.


Is the intelligentsia really so intellectually bankrupt? I always joke it is but this was shocking.

holy shit a woman globalist SJW liberal Jew communis?

I can just tell you're a libertarian.

>I bought a kilo of bananas yesterday
>they were all black inside and tasted horrible
>are bananas really such a shit fruit?
This is you.

It's time to take the Бecы-pill

You need to accept that it's possible for someone you disagree with to be an intellectual.

Back to leftypol

>upboat for Фeдopa Mихaйлoвичa

Hey stupid, in case you didn't notice the image in your post is ridiculing people with exactly your mentality. If this is bait (which it probably is), not bad. You got a rise out of me.

If someone disagrees with me then they cannot possibly be called intellectuals in the true meaning.

Why do you and others do this? You know what. Deliberately misrepresenting a situation that so opposing views look silly. Your post and the comic in OP are great examples of this. Anyone can reduce a complex issue to a trivial one if they use low enough resolution. This isn't a merit on your part. It's lazy and unproductive. You want to really think? You want to really find out something? Examine all the ways that your description fails to capture everything that OP did.

I know that this is greentext I am talking about, but still. Something about the OP pic in conjunction with your post made me speak out. If you're just shitposting, move right along. No one can be bothered to type shit every post. But when people (like the pic's artist, apparently) believe that this is a legitimate form of arguing or thinking it really agitates me.

>why
It's way easier than thinking, but to most onlookers it looks the same.

Don't conflate the agenda of the media with actual intellectuals. The BBC is a joke.

This has literally nothing to do with books or literature, radio isn't literature. And considering how much you mention jews, SJW, anti-intellectual and say MUH like 3 times, I'm guessing this is /pol/
So fuck off

any intelligentsia of real actual intelligence realize that radio and media is a signal-broadcasting device where your status as an expert in your field will be warped and distorted to perpetuate the goals of the system. This makes the actual content you wish to bring to the show totally moot and meaningless.

>Listen to three intellecutals
>Doesn't like them
>Are all intellectuals shit?

This is literally logically the same thing as
>I bought a kilo of bananas yesterday
>they were all black inside and tasted horrible
>are bananas really such a shit fruit?

OP's reasoning is shit, therefore to reduce it to its basic relationship of its premises will make it look even more shit, since nothing is obscured.

>Something about the OP pic in conjunction with your post made me speak out.
That something was your weak ass emotions being triggered. There is nothing logical incorrect in that posters response and it served an argumentative purpose.

>It's lazy and unproductive
No, it's concise and it blows OP out of the water.

>believe that this is a legitimate form of arguing or thinking it really agitates me.
Highlighting terrible logic is a legitimate form of arguing.

>Examine all the ways that your description fails to capture everything that OP did.
Sure, there are differences. The differences are all unessential. To boil down what OP said to its most basic parts you get I had an incredibly small sample size to X, that is too small for any overview, not liking it, and then having the unjustified suspicion that all or almost all Xs are shit.

rekt

I suppose for the sake of discussion we should be generous and assume that the OP has a point and intellectual discussion is bankrupt. However, which discussion?
It would be whatever one he listened to, and any program of that nature has people who think seriously about very specific things. Disagreeing with their argument isn't a value judgement of the content provided, even if you go on to say that the content isn't worth listening to.
Therefore, even in the strongest possible argument, OP wants everyone to believe that his sample size represents the nature of intellectual discourse for the whole of humanity.
Meanwhile, that discourse produced substantive gains in every sector possible, and OP is focusing solely on humanities based intellect which is feeling based.

BBC is infested with SJW types, of course you will only get trash from them. Just broaden your scope a bit.

> listening to the Big Black Cock
You deserve everything you get.

This. The BBC is basically a broadcast version of the Guardian. Made by, and for, metropolitan elitists.

>not listening to In Our Time

thisssss

You should know by now that rape is illegal, user.