this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
1 points (54.5% liked)

Memes

45646 readers
1041 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Yeah these fuckin nerds are using logic and thought to understand the world.

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Sounds like OP lost an argument and is throwing a clever meme-tantrum.

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

Just so I understand this correctly, is this a post mocking 20-something year olds by showing topics they believe to be niche, complex, or exclusive to an intelligent audience? And that by understanding these topics they are “propped up” compared to their peers?

[–] BushWizard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] graphite@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Image of average Redditor that feels the inclination to write "fuck Spez" every 5 minutes on the Internet

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like you don't like thought so you make fun of those that at least try.

This sounds like the epidemy of weaponized ignorance.

[–] ShustOne@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

For me the meme is that most of these are the very tip of the philosophy and thinking iceberg. And that's fine. What's not fine is taking those basic concepts and trying to use them as defeaters for everything. I think this is what it's poking fun at.

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Turned this into a list without OP's negative framing on them If people genuinely want to look it up later without a negative framing

Because I see no reason to frame them negatively like op has done as these topics are not inherently negative unlike OP's negative bias of them

And bigots using them doesn't make them Inherently negative either

  • Correlation does not equal causation
  • Language shapes thought
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Stanford prison experiment
  • Iambic pentameter
  • Schrodinger's cat
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
  • Biblically accurate angels
  • What if we live in a simulation ?
  • Video essay
  • Nuance
  • Plato's cave
  • Infographics
  • Linguistic prescriptivism

Edit: unnoticed typo

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't see anything wrong with any of it. Why is thinking or speaking of any of those things being framed as a negative?

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

None of those things are negatives, this is just anti-intellectualism. Maybe OP has been corrected by douches in the past. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks OP is trying to normalize shaming critical thinking while finding like-minded individuals.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or this is an attempt at even more critical thinking, i.e. "These are fine concepts, but if you don't reckon with the context of what you're talking about before throwing one of these out because it kinda fits you actually bring conversations down and keep people from exchanging more pertinent ideas and information."

They probably could have communicated that better if that was their intent, but that'd probably kill any humor potential which was probably more of a priority here.

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I think you're being extremely generous to OP.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You must be fun at parties. Maybe it's just self-deprecating humour?

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, I don't talk propaganda at parties, do you?

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly, thinking and talking about these things is perfectly alright and at 20 they are all quite new to you, so it's very reasonable to be excited about them.

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah I've noticed an uptick in atheists on lemmy recently, I don't support religon at all because of dogma but I also will never support atheism either

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

What does any of that have to do with atheism?

[–] PopularUsername@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Just a friendly reminder: The Stanford Prison Experiment was not an experiment. There was no control group, there wasn't even proper procedures set up. It was just some professor off his rocker that had a dumb idea, made shit up as he went along, forced the outcome, then publicized the results. People always compare it to Milgram. This idiot can't hold a candle to Milgram.

[–] AmoldyBuffalo@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, a lot of these things are good things to consider/know about. For example, you do always have to consider that correlation is not necessarily causation. They're not really considering the most deep of philosophy, but thinking is generally better than not thinking.

[–] ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I bet OP thinks that Ben Shapiro qualifies as "thinker"

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

what if we live in a simulation

Matrix (1999) was way ahead of you. Other works of fiction as well.

[–] Stuka@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

People in this thread take themselves wya too seriously

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

how is this so accurate?

Easy. All these people grew up on the internet looking at the same websites, reading the same meme, laughing at the same threads.

[–] Arsecroft@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago
Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man's rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.

Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

[–] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe I’m a dork, but I think“correlation does not equal causation” is actually a good thing to keep in mind.

I’m reminded of it every time a news story says something is “linked” to something else. I hate it when the word “linked” is used in this way. It’s often lazy journalism and/or a scare tactic. Saying that two things are “linked” implies a stronger relationship than may actually exist. I find it deliberately misleading.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Almost everything on the picture is a good thing to keep in mind. But the creator of the meme depicted it as a thought of a soyjack so there is nothing can be done, we now should abandon that logic entirely.

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

It's at its worst when a paper describes how they account for correlation or designed their experiment to confirm causation, but someone doesn't read the paper and says the line anyway.

You don't need to read the paper but don't try to act smart if you can't be bothered.

[–] MBM@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That and "this is worthless, they only tested 10 000 people" are the worst

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mostly agree with you, but it's often used as a phrase to shut down further discussion even when there could be an invisible third event that's the cause for the two seemingly unrelated events. It's gets over used by people who want to be quick to sound smart.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That phrase is used exactly to say that there is a third unseen force influencing both events. It'd be pretty strange to use that phrase to say the opposite.

Typically further discussion of the 3rd event isn't relevant, because they're not trying to find the cause, they're trying to disprove a hypothesis.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I've seen it used to end discussions. People repeat the wisdom of the phrase without understanding what you just said.

[–] BadEgg@lemmy.ko4abp.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This post would have gotten more mileage on Reddit.

[–] Sarcastik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the Reddit crowd would have mostly had the ability to laugh at itself on this one.

Most of the responses on here are acting pretty triggered.

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

You're absolutely right. It couldn't possibly have a bad message or promote anti-intellectualism or anything, it is 100% the fault of people who value philosophy and poetry and meaningful thought. How dare they not walk on eggshells around the proudly ignorant

[–] MelonTheMan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It is anti intellectual. Idk why it has so many upvotes

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Go ahead and post your intellectually superior topics.

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Right, real intellectuals just post memes mocking people who fluently use basic habits of reason and conversation.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 1 points 1 year ago

Why, the topic of our intellectual superiority of course!

[–] Umbra@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I blame reddit for this

[–] hydro033@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol this is so painfully accurate, especially in internet culture where people feel inadequate in real life so they spend their time online wielding their swords of intellect.

[–] RadButNotAChad@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's funny that you're salty about people having philosophical discussions on the internet. It's not just for being advertised to and jerkin it.

[–] hydro033@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm salty about pseudointellectualism, not real intellectualism. The current format of short post communication on the internet is just not conducive to intellectual discussion.

[–] RadButNotAChad@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do they have /c/iamverysmart here?

[–] hydro033@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] RadButNotAChad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And there's coup de grace of the iamverysmart, some sort of dismissive insult calling the person immature/child/buddy.

[–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

You forgot "logic" and "mushrooms" 🙄

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago

Those people are in their 30s now lol