Uphillbothways,

the brain develops in a chronologically similar fashion among members of the same species. even more so when exposed to similar cultural stimuli. that is correct.

SaddieTheMad,
@SaddieTheMad@lemmy.world avatar

Learning philosophy (and sciences, arts, etc.) is great. I think their real problem is to be dogmatic or arrogant, which is ironic.

Stuka,

People in this thread take themselves wya too seriously

sentient_loom,
@sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works avatar

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

ICastFist,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

what if we live in a simulation

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

Hazdaz,

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,
@Arsecroft@lemmy.sdf.org avatar
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">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.
</span>

Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

joyjoy,

Isn’t the phrase closer to “what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”?

OrnateLuna,

It could also be a reference to boondocks

x4740N, (edited )

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

x4740N,
letsgocrazy,

You forgot “logic” and “mushrooms” 🙄

massive_bereavement,
massive_bereavement avatar

I love mushrooms, it's the only logic approach to tendering rabbit for a stew.

PopularUsername,

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.

moonmeow,

basically a casestudy example on how NOT to conduct a study

flashgnash,

Sex raft go brrr

SweetSitty,

It’s an experiment in the way that Love is Blind is an experiment. They think if they just use the right words often enough it can become one.

PopularUsername,

Lol great analogy

pinkdrunkenelephants,

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?

angrystego,

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.

Xkok,

How dare young people not appreciate the intricacies and nuance of the world? Harrumph! I say.

x4740N, (edited )

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,

What does any of that have to do with atheism?

pinkdrunkenelephants,

He’s stereotyping atheists as the kind of people to act the way the character in the meme does.

x4740N,

No I’m saying that athiests also typically post these kinds of memes typically the athiest Community on reddit and the side of the athiest Community that attacks, mocks argues in bad faith and enact online witch-hunts

And just to make it clear I’m not athiest and I do not support religons

x4740N,

The athiest Community particularly on reddit liked to frame things negatively and mock and attack people through generalisations

This image shares that and that’s what I noticed and decided to make my comment on that

I probably should have mentioned in my previous comment that I noticed the similarities

These topics mentioned in the image have no reason to be framed in a negative light because they are not inherently negative

Anyone can use them for any intention, good or bad

And some of them can be used in discussion about scientific topics

I’ve noticed that athiests claim they support science but they still mock and attack anyone using science to constructively criticise them or scientific claims they support

Science needs to have criticism, praise and discussion from all sides, not just one

BraBraBra,

So you’re an atheist, right?

x4740N,

No I’m not

BraBraBra,

Which god do you believe in?

Leviathan,

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.

Holzkohlen,

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

Leviathan,

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

gAlienLifeform,
@gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

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,
@sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works avatar

I think you’re being extremely generous to OP.

gAlienLifeform,
@gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

Fair enough, just to be clear this was just my own initial reaction to this meme and I have not done any investigation into whether OP is an asshat or not, and this is the sort of thing an asshat-y person could say

niktemadur,

“Think different.”
“YES! WE ALL THINK DIFFERENT!”

In unison, of course, like Life Of Brian.
Bonus points for bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe.

philthi,

“I don’t…”

pythonoob,

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.

Imgonnatrythis,

OP, please add “epidemy of weaponized ignorance” to the meme!

noodle,
@noodle@feddit.uk avatar

Do we do flairs here yet? 😂

ShustOne,

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.

noodle,
@noodle@feddit.uk avatar

Exactly. It’s taking the piss out off wannabe “deep thinkers” who’ve speed ran philosophy 101 videos on Youtube. Being well read isn’t the joke. The joke is the neckbeards who have to smugly let everyone know that they read a Wikipedia article.

Ironically, this stereotype probably fits most of the ones who are kicking off. Hell, it’s essentially a profile of me. 10 years ago I was that guy saying “hey have you heard about iambic pentameter?”. That’s why I laughed so hard lmao

imPastaSyndrome,

You’re just projecting onto an image that has two people you’re “supposed to dislike” and a bunch of words

pinkdrunkenelephants,

Being that kind of person isn’t bad or a negative though, and framing being confident in having knowledge as a negative is what drives tyranny, discourages education and critical thinking, enables propaganda to be so effective, and destroys society.

That guy smugly bragging about reading a Wiki article could have legitimately never crossed it before and was genuinely excited in it for the sake of it, and here you are destroying legitimate intellectual curiosity just because society told you that was a no-no. Who’s really more shameful?

noodle,
@noodle@feddit.uk avatar

You’re taking this way too personally lol

Being intelligent isn’t the joke. It’s putting on the facade of being well read that so many nerdy 20 somethings do.

Society isnt saying don’t be smart. It’s saying be less of a sweaty douchebag. You can be nerdy and fun to be around. It’s not mutually exclusive.

If my comment destroys your intellectual curiosity, then you never had any.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

But it is about being intelligent, because people who use those terms are using them in earnest, you just accuse them of trying to sound smart because you want to silence them and make them feel bad for challenging or correcting you, and it works.

People like you destroy intellectual curiosity by doing that all the time, and not just to me. I’ve had to fight to regain what little I was able to, because of people like you. Anti-intellectualism is NOT okay. It is very much its own kind of bigotry, and extremely dangerous.

Society absolutely does tell people not to be smart and it does so largely through people like you. The only way nerdy people are fun to be around to you is when they don’t show it, or only enough to benefit you and certainly never to expose the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

And I’m tired of it. I’m tired of having to walk on eggshells around people like you, shut the fuck up and deal with it when you’re told with evidence you’re wrong.

noodle,
@noodle@feddit.uk avatar

It’s own form of bigotry haha! My sides… Yep, that’s right. You’re the most oppressed. Right up there with gamers and Christians.

Okay mate, I’m gonna leave you be before you burst a blood vessel.

ShustOne,

There’s nothing wrong with being smart. It’s the smugness that is annoying and that’s what this whole thing is about.

If you aren’t one of those people than that’s great and you shouldn’t be bullied.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

The fact that the smugness, i.e., the confidence smart people display is annoying IS fundamentally thr problem. Smart people are allowed to be confident, to be smug, to be arrogant like everybody else, and that doesn’t just go away because it makes stupid smug people feel bad about themselves or inferior.

And ALL intelligent people are falsely framed in this light, because the truth is that other people feeling inferior or jealous of them is all this is fundamentally about, and that is wrong.

Stop telling intelligent people they can’t have positive self-esteem. I will NOT walk on eggshells around you anymore. I will not change who and what I am to spare your feelings. No intelligent person should have to.

noodle,
@noodle@feddit.uk avatar

All this over a meme…

You might be booksmart, not that you’re demonstrating it here, but you certainly have the emotional intelligence of a toddler. If you need to walk on eggshells around people, it would be because you’re a vapid bellend and they’re sick of your attitude.

The way you judge “everybody else” as stupid, as if intelligence is a good way to determine the value of a person, is frankly disgusting. It shows your contempt for other people.

If everywhere you go smells like shit, check your shoes. Now go do some deep thinking about that.

Sarcastik,

epidemy of weaponized ignorance.

Epitome.

Does it still count as weaponized ignorance if the gun goes off in your own face?

sentient_loom,
@sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works avatar

Does it still count as weaponized ignorance if the gun goes off in your own face?

Yes. That just makes it funny weaponized ignorance.

pythonoob,

Thanks, I was definitely drunk last night. The meme is still bad though.

Gerbler,

Epitome

pinkdrunkenelephants,

That’s the joke, silly

Darthjaffacake,

Wait, im 20 something?

AmoldyBuffalo,

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,

I bet OP thinks that Ben Shapiro qualifies as “thinker”

secproto,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • NoTagBacks,

    Oh my god, that’s something that gets under my skin so very quickly and it’s sadly so common. It’s such a specifically arrogant kind of strawmanning where you’re telling someone else what they think sometimes even in direct contradiction to what they say. Like “you’re just jealous” or “you just want to ____”. It just reeks of anti-intellectualism and everyone is worse off with every use. We desperately need more people to learn the principles of philosophy, and maybe even more specifically of epistemology.

    WindInTrees,

    That’s basically what this post is

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • memes@lemmy.ml
  • kavyap
  • ngwrru68w68
  • osvaldo12
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • slotface
  • tacticalgear
  • rosin
  • cubers
  • megavids
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • ethstaker
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • anitta
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines