[cm2187]

Some of the anti-vax movement during covid (I presume that's what you have in mind) is anti-intellectualism but some of it is not.

You can hold both opinions that an mRNA vaccine is an incredible new technology that has enormous potential, while a new technology that had never been tested on humans shouldn't be forced on people for whom the benefit was marginal at best (kids, healthy population under 50, people who already had covid).

And you can hold both opinions that health authorities clearly misbehaved or acted in a moronic way (lying about masks, origin of the virus, forcing vaccines on people who had already been infected, telling you you can't go outside, except if it's to protest for BLM, etc) while acknowledging that coming up with a vaccine against a new virus in only weeks is a technological wonder.

It's absurd to be systematically anti-intellectual, but also some healthy skepticism is well warranted.

[Propelloni]

It's like poker. You can have this lucky draw on the river, but most often you don't. You cannot built your strategy on lucky draws and those people weren't, even when not everything worked out. You and I are still alive, so I think they did a good job.

[account42]

Right, a lot of the problem with anti-intellectualism is actually the people who define their viewpoint as The Science and try to shut down those who disagree as being "against the science".