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.

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    1·
    1 year ago

    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 I posted a youtube video, and 1 point was incorrect (or outdated).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

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 year ago

      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
        0·
        1 year ago

        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
          0·
          1 year ago

          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·
            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?