And of course, most of us think it's nice to be nice. So we will "choose away" from facts that suggest that if we're nothing but nice we'll all be first broke and then dead.
And the populace will be edumicaated in such a way that they THINK their opinions are reasonably formed while they are in "fact", nothing but the expression of their teachers' prejudices.
FURTHER, there is a fundamentally "dialectically materialistic" presupposition here, one which acting on the argument will tend to cause to appear to be true, namely: there is no reason as such, there is only rationalization of the quest for power. (If we don't use reaason to try to determine the truth, we will ultimately appear not to be reasonable.) AND: Man is not the rational animal, he is the animal who, like most other animals, seeks power, but is unique in that he lies to himself about doing so.
BLA-A-A-A-AT! I don't THINK so.
For if it is true, then this academic's supposed argument is not mean to be true but only to make hum powerful. That is, if it's true, its being so is unimportant.
For THIS we give tax and other money to schools of so-called "higher" learning?
Could you repeat that?
In other words, one's opinions should not be based on or influenced by facts. One should choose facts to suit one's prejudices.That pretty much sums up the Holocaust denial campaign.