this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
94 points (98.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43791 readers
1098 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find your comment interesting because you are implying that some people believe being stupid or clever is a permanent unchangeable state. Presumably one is born as either one or the other?
I would say that some ways of thinking are stupid. In particular when one does not challenge one's assumptions. It's possible to build a whole world of stupid on top of bad assumptions. If someone's entire worldview is built in this way - a whole load of bad assumptions held together with poor logic and wishful thinking - I don't think they're even living in the real world any more, they're living in a fantasy land.
Oh, yes. I am fine with the idea that every human -- regardless of their occupation or their results on an IQ test -- can engage in something that could be called "stupidity."
Absolutely everyone makes stupid mistakes. Absolutely everyone holds at least a few stupid beliefs.
But I also think when we encounter those aspects of a person, we can use better words to describe the concept. Words that don't have a social darwinist connotation. Words that no one mistakes for "permanent, unchanging" attributes.
Like: I don't like Trump supporters, but "Trump supporters have an impressive resistance to information that might challenge their worldview" is so much better than "facts don't work on them: Trump supporters can't read."
The former describes a choice these people repeatedly make. The latter is immature name-calling.
And to be honest, my main gripe with conservatism in general isn't even how its proponents handle information. (Everyone has to use heuristics to quickly estimate the reliability of a news article before believing the headline. They take as much issue with our heuristics as we take with theirs.)
My main gripe is that conservatism is a social darwinist philosophy at its core.
Giving up on people is practically the bedrock of modern conservatism. I would accuse them of being cruel before I would accuse them of being unable to read. I would accuse them of ignoring information that does not justify their cruelty before I would accuse them of being too stupid to process that information.