Dear PSEUDO-individual,

I was totally unaware that you had coined the term 'pseudo-intellectual', as you explain in your post on page 13.

Thanks for letting us know and I am really sorry for using your term 'pseudo-intellectual' without seeking your permission.

And WOW you must be really really really smart to have come up with 'pseudo-intellectual'. You are an absolute genius.

Dear Banjo P.,

Thank you for the parable of the elephant.

And so true. How we see things depends on
so many variants, lenses, and perspectives.
And each of us may have different takes on what's
important to us. In the case of the elephant -
if size was what mattered - he would be king of the
jungle!
(smile).

The term "pseudo-intellectual" has existed for many decades. see: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudointellectual - this dictionary gives its origin between 1935-40.

But that aside and back on topic. For me in general the discussions on this forum very rarely convince me to change my views. Very few comments here ever present cogent well reasoned arguments. Many people, myself included sometimes, just repeat ad nauseam their own personal statements about their general political stance or opinions as though it is the ultimate truth, or give anecdotal/distorted/biased/out-of-context tidbit facts and quotes to justify their claims, or they just in effect cut-and-paste comments/opinions from other websites . The number of comments which give a well-reasoned fact-based argument that supports their position are in the minority.

thinkabit,

No, you are wrong.

PSEUDO-intellectual told us above that he coined the term.

Credit given where credit due.

You're probably upset because he beat you to it.

But that aside and back on topic. I think that the likelihood of being influenced by what others tell you is dependent on the extent of your own knowledge.

David F asked- I was wondering if these discussions have changed anyone’s views.

Answer-

Interesting comments on this thread. The question is broad.
I see the issues as more subtle than many postings.

The discussions while they don't usually change my views- do sharpen my delivery. Everybody goes through times in their lives where they question long held principles. Sometimes it's enough just to help people understand that some believe in a certain way and it has it's own logic.

Questions such as "what is truth" have been around for thousands of years. Some parts of these have been "answered". Cultural complexity makes the nature of truth more complex and unstable- this points to the idea that truth is cultural. Sometimes we try to find truth where there is only perspective- like "the elephant in the dark"- sometimes there is "no truth" only tradition.

Then there are those that seek to obfuscate.

I use a combination of subjectivism, empiricism, and rationalism.

Zealot's preach before they teach.

Truth is written by the survivors

Antifa cells seem to have similar characteristics to paramilitary teams and sharing tactics with other teams, opsec. Their flag represents the black of anarchism and the red of communism. Those on the left try to downplay the sophistication of antifa and similar groups.

I find antifa and similar groups have sophisticated tactics for example at the recent Washington protests.

This is not surprising given their links with communism and the philosophy of Communist Total War and Military Intelligence and Trotskyist Permanent Revolution.

I'm sure the cellular structure, training, and operational security is useful in many contexts for achieving team goals. Even companies have been known to hold "boot camp training".