this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
447 points (91.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1136 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

One of the most aggravating things to me in this world has to be the absolutely rampant anti-intellectualism that dominates so many conversations and debates, and its influence just seems to be expanding. Do you think there will ever actually be a time when this ends? I'd hope so once people become more educated and cultural changes eventually happen, but as of now it honestly infuriates me like few things ever have.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Had a discussion about hydrogen cars on Lemmy the other day

The discussion involved:

  1. Easily provably wrong claims ("Hydrogen isn't getting any support for the government, thats why it's not succeeding"). 2 second google click, and article directly from government showing how they support it.
  2. Kept telling me that a HUGE part of the argument should be ignored (efficiency). Science doesn't allow you to simply ignore parts of the debate. And, the efficiency difference wasn't even a small amount (apparently the difference in efficiency was 30%-40% or more, so not a small amount).
  3. Character attacks against myself and any references I posted (oh, she's a physicist, even they're wrong sometimes).
  4. Conspiracy theories against battery companies or whatever
  5. Nitpicking arguments. I posted a youtube video, and 1 point was incorrect (or outdated). They pretended that invalidated the entire argument (and when i posted references which added credibility to a few of the other arguments, they just dismissed me).
  6. They kept saying "batteries are obsolete and are an old idea". Water pipes are also old, but, they get refined constantly. Batteries are also evolving constantly. This is borderline common sense..
  7. They kept saying I wasn't understandable or rambling or whatever.

The internet has emboldened people who barely passed school because on the internet, they're anonymous and nobody knows who they are. People who know them however in real life would likely ignore their comments.

I think the problem is, its less time consuming to make up nonsense and shout over people, than actually provide accurate, well-referenced information

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a debate, the idiot will try to pull you to their level so they can beat you with experience.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

idiots cite cliches

now you respond touchΓ©

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

telling us how you argued with another idiot on the internet doesn't really tell us much about anti-intellectualism

it honestly just looks like you're one of the emboldened.

and now me too! maybe this framing isn't the most helpful.... not the "smartest" framing

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you can provide a way to approach that example differently, I'm open to suggestions. It's an example of my experience, where my comment includes many of the common techniques they employ

Your comment is

  1. A character attack (point 3)
  2. You're saying case studies and examples aren't relevant to the conversation (point 2). That's dismissing evidence.

Why isn't my experience relevant, and why can't we post our experiences? Are we required to simply say "yes" or "no" and not why?

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wow so you actually think this is evidence, okay. I'm not even sure how to approach this. I was pretty gentle with you and your character too. I was a fucking asshole to a Hexbear user in another thread.

It does come down to character though. By putting one person as "intellectual" and the other "anti" it's creating a hierarchy between perspectives. So then the question is an ethical one, is it justified to dismiss another perspective based on XYZ. I'm guessing in this case, dismissing you is the "anti", right? Based on whatever criteria you've chosen. But what happens if we select different criteria?

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Congratulations on being an asshole. But being subtle doesn't change anything (even Trump tried, and got a gag order).

What criteria would you pick to change character attacks, blatant assumption, dismissal of evidence (without counter evidence), incorrect comments, or marketing nonsense (like "water battery" or "greenwashing") into intellectual arguments?

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your points dispproving hydrogen as a viable energy solution for the future are a bit silly. It's like saying the future isn't possible because what is available now. I would actually say you're being anti-intellectual because you're not being open minded and solution oriented, which are intellectual traits.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You might need to read the discussion, as I was being solution oriented (Hydrogen has many good uses, and I agreed with that based on evidence).

But, the original poster started using buzzwords (I blocked the guy, so don't remember them fully, but there was a lot), character attacks, and dismissing major evidence. Character attacks aren't a valid debating technique...

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

Fair I don't have enough context.