Sadly I am not an intellectual but I try to be smart and educated. There are many public intellectuals who are a joke to scholars because many of them seem to be so needy for attention. I think there are several examples Jordan Peterson, Yuval Harari or the German Richard David Precht.
Very recently Slavoj Zizek criticized the German debabe culture for how it handles the Israel-Palestine conflct. Internationally speaking the German politicians side more often with the Israelis and call BDS antisemetic. I don't want to start a debate about controversial topics. I try to remain balanced in this thread otherwise this would get way too heated. But I will give some examples to clarify my position. I am not sure whether I agree with Zizek but fronting even the organizers of this book fair was a bold step.
Taking shots against the elites in media and politics seems bold to me. However there are also a lot of crazy conspiracy theorists who got lost in insanity. So not all contrarian takes are savvy some are ridiculous and pathetic.
Here some more examples where I found contrarianism interesting or impressive.
I considered many takes on side effects of the covid vaccines bogus. There was one German intellectual Richard David Precht (I still don't like him but on this one he was right) who said noone can guarantee there were no longterm side effects of the vaccines. The media ripped him for that into pieces. They called it misinformation or fake news. Well as we all know by now and the media admitted that. There were people will longterm damage after taking the shots. There are many stories of that. Personally I still think it was better to take the vaccines however the experts claimed there was no potential damage and this is verifiably untrue. And doctors admitted they did not speak about it or did not take patients serious because of the heated atmosphere on this topic. I still think there were countless untrue conspiracies about the vaccines and in general about the covid pandemic. However being able to identify between uncomfortable truths which are unpopular or bogus conspiracies is what makes one to an intellectual.
I disagree with many takes of the media on "wokeness" and transgender people. I read some intellectuals with very good analyses on this topic. They also criticize the media narratives on that. Also leftwing outlets take part in that. Personally I agree that some claims about cancel culture are true. But the media paints it way too black and white. One has to see the full picture but in order to explain that it needed a whole thread for its own.
Pointing out corruption in the media system I think Noam Chomsky did a very good job on that.
How billionaires rig the game in their favor and how they influence media companies for example by buying ads or other fundings
Moreover the topic suicide is discussed in a ridiculous way by the media like the reporting about this website. There were scholars who said there is barely research on sites like this one and that the media articles are based on speculations. In general the articles on assisted suicide in Germany are paternalistic as fuck and belittle suicidal people. They make me angry as fuck. I think especially on assisted suicide I completely disagree with the whole German media landscape. There are some outlets from Switzerland with way more nuanced takes. But the bullshit the German media spreads makes me sick as fuck. Future generation will judge the current legislations as dranconian, anti-humitarian and stonage-age like.
I think in general science depends on questioning conventional wisdom. This is why I intentionally read newspapers I heavily disagree with. However I draw red lines. I would not read Breitbart for example. Some spread intentionally misinformation. I am interested in debates. Like in the vaccine side effects example where I was wrong. Or that there was a slight desire for authoritarianism like in China during the pandemic. I read very very interesting and insightful analyses in science journals. But believe me it has nothing to do with what insane conspiracy theorists claim(ed). Science is way more nuanced than this politicial game. For them it was about attention and a game for who looks better. It was about money, attention and influence. Good scientifical debates care more about the truth than the usual political dichotomy and group think.
Very recently Slavoj Zizek criticized the German debabe culture for how it handles the Israel-Palestine conflct. Internationally speaking the German politicians side more often with the Israelis and call BDS antisemetic. I don't want to start a debate about controversial topics. I try to remain balanced in this thread otherwise this would get way too heated. But I will give some examples to clarify my position. I am not sure whether I agree with Zizek but fronting even the organizers of this book fair was a bold step.
Taking shots against the elites in media and politics seems bold to me. However there are also a lot of crazy conspiracy theorists who got lost in insanity. So not all contrarian takes are savvy some are ridiculous and pathetic.
Here some more examples where I found contrarianism interesting or impressive.
I considered many takes on side effects of the covid vaccines bogus. There was one German intellectual Richard David Precht (I still don't like him but on this one he was right) who said noone can guarantee there were no longterm side effects of the vaccines. The media ripped him for that into pieces. They called it misinformation or fake news. Well as we all know by now and the media admitted that. There were people will longterm damage after taking the shots. There are many stories of that. Personally I still think it was better to take the vaccines however the experts claimed there was no potential damage and this is verifiably untrue. And doctors admitted they did not speak about it or did not take patients serious because of the heated atmosphere on this topic. I still think there were countless untrue conspiracies about the vaccines and in general about the covid pandemic. However being able to identify between uncomfortable truths which are unpopular or bogus conspiracies is what makes one to an intellectual.
I disagree with many takes of the media on "wokeness" and transgender people. I read some intellectuals with very good analyses on this topic. They also criticize the media narratives on that. Also leftwing outlets take part in that. Personally I agree that some claims about cancel culture are true. But the media paints it way too black and white. One has to see the full picture but in order to explain that it needed a whole thread for its own.
Pointing out corruption in the media system I think Noam Chomsky did a very good job on that.
How billionaires rig the game in their favor and how they influence media companies for example by buying ads or other fundings
Moreover the topic suicide is discussed in a ridiculous way by the media like the reporting about this website. There were scholars who said there is barely research on sites like this one and that the media articles are based on speculations. In general the articles on assisted suicide in Germany are paternalistic as fuck and belittle suicidal people. They make me angry as fuck. I think especially on assisted suicide I completely disagree with the whole German media landscape. There are some outlets from Switzerland with way more nuanced takes. But the bullshit the German media spreads makes me sick as fuck. Future generation will judge the current legislations as dranconian, anti-humitarian and stonage-age like.
I think in general science depends on questioning conventional wisdom. This is why I intentionally read newspapers I heavily disagree with. However I draw red lines. I would not read Breitbart for example. Some spread intentionally misinformation. I am interested in debates. Like in the vaccine side effects example where I was wrong. Or that there was a slight desire for authoritarianism like in China during the pandemic. I read very very interesting and insightful analyses in science journals. But believe me it has nothing to do with what insane conspiracy theorists claim(ed). Science is way more nuanced than this politicial game. For them it was about attention and a game for who looks better. It was about money, attention and influence. Good scientifical debates care more about the truth than the usual political dichotomy and group think.
Last edited:
