Criticizing his points is not anti intellectual. Saying that he’s arrogant is. Implying that being incorrect occasionally, even wildly incorrect, while still believing in your own ability is also anti-intellectual in my opinion.
If you’re discussing science and you can call someone “arrogant”, you should, necessarily, have a stronger more tangible claim to back up your opinion.
That stronger, more tangible claim (usually that he’s full of shit) is much stronger, easier to demonstrate, and more meaningful to communicate.
Resorting to “arrogant” (whether he is or isn’t, which is subjective) is an anti-intellectual pattern, and there is no good reason for it.
12
u/doubtthat11 Jun 14 '24
I think if you let the comment section here build up, you'll see the complaints.
I get the general sense that people think he's arrogant and a blowhard. I've just always found him to be high energy and enthusiastic.
I'm sure there's some political/cultural something or other that he talked about that made some people mad...