Podcasts about anti intellectuals

It's ELECTION DAY and everything is about to be flipped upside down! Listen in as the fellas discuss Bakari Sellers advice to the Democratic Party, the Dodgers winning the World Series and if Women should date on potential. BLACK DADS CLUB HOODIE - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ORDER TODAY(03:30) Gavin reacts to a podcaster saying Photographers will soon be extinct due to social media desire for video content - (13:00) Dad Tip of the Week: Stop punishing yourself for mistakes - (21:00) Happy Election Day: Congrats to Joi Mayo of Charlotte District 3 - (27:45) Bakari Sellers lays out a plan on how Democrats should prosecute lawbreakers vs turning the other cheek, Pastor Mike Will totally disagrees - (34:30) Tiffany Cross of the Native Land Pod tries to walk back her criticism of the Joe Budden Podcast, which sparks the debate of Anti Intellectuals vs Elitist - (55:06) Malik Yuself doesn't believe Kanye West is a bigger musical genius than Jay-Z - (01:03:45) ASK A BLACK DAD: Should I date a Man on potential? - (01:14:10) Sports Time: Dodgers win World Series, Ja Morant is letting his NBA dreams slip away and more!SUPPORT THE PODCAST - Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow Us On: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠Submit to #ASKADAD: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.blackdadsclub.org/join-the-show⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow Mike: Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/pastormikewill/⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/PastorMikeWill⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow Gavin: Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/iam_gavinb/⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/iAM_GAVINB⁠

Uh oh! The heat is ON! This week we're talking about *religiously affiliated* anti-intellectuals and how to address them going forward. Please watch part 1 for consequence-focused anti-intellectuals and I hope you leave both feeling refreshed, revitalized, and hopeful.  Resources: Vaccine Hesitancy Among Religious Groups: Reasons Underlying This Phenomenon and Communication Strategies to Rebuild Trust https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8858841/ Hydraulic Forces Help to Fill the Human Heart  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170302090839.htm Fluid Identity and Cultural Sensitivity in Youth https://brocku.scholaris.ca/items/4b5dcf1b-23be-467d-8cb4-c830b88ff7cc   Decolonizing Therapy - Jennifer Mullan PsyD If there are any resources missing, please let me know and I'll update ASAP. Thank you! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we're covering anti-intellectualism: what is it, who's involved, is there room to grow? Hope you like *light* mental lifting (don't worry I'll spot you) because we're answering all these questions and more on this week's episode of Schauer Thoughts! Stop putting off those doctors appointments and go to https://Zocdoc.com/SCHAUER to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today.  For a limited time, get Headspace FREE for 60 days. Go to https://Headspace.com/SCHAUER Articles: Anti-intellectualism  https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/anti-intellectualism Exploring the Reasons Behind Parental Refusal of Vaccines https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4869767/ Information Density https://publish.obsidian.md/pkc/Hub/Theory/Sciences/information+density The Development of Concrete and Abstract Thinking Patterns  Blog post but clinically reviewed by Tiffany Lovins, Licensed Mental Health Counselor (LMHC) https://calmerry.com/blog/psychology/the-development-of-concrete-and-abstract-thinking-patterns/#:~:text=Abstract%20thinking%20and%20concrete%20thinking%20are%20two,us%20to%20make%20connections%20and%20see%20patterns Cliche's - What is a cliche? https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/cliches/#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20cliché?,memorable%20contributions%20to%20your%20writing Books: The Knowledge Illusion - Steven Sloman & Philip Fernbach Quoted pages: 175 - 178 Attention: Beyond Mindfulness - Gay Watson If there are any resources I mentioned that are not listed, please let me know and I'll update ASAP. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It actually happened. An episode was recorded with @qjbrushthreep, @kajaccord, @rothbirdian, R.I.P @crowdfundedgov A lighthearted discussion of supposed allies who are too busy pearl clutching and trying to act woke instead of doing anything helpful. 

Byrne and Wade discuss recent chatter online about the apparent rise in anti-intellectualism. What is anti-intellectualism anyway? Has there always been anti-intellectualism? How can you tell the difference between "fake" and "real" news? And why should you trust these guys? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices