16
People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies (lemmy.ca)
submitted 4 weeks ago by SenK@lemmy.ca to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Inheriting their worldview from consensus or comfort, never having to earn it through actual thought.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SpiffyPotato@feddit.uk 2 points 4 weeks ago

Whilst this statement has some merit, its problem is that you’re setting up a precursor to a straw-man argument. This is because who defines “challenging ideas”. This allows anyone to come up with a supposed challenging idea, then call anyone who doesn’t engage in it “an intellectual nepobaby”.

For example, should I engage in the “challenging idea” that the world is run by lizard people?

What about the “challenging idea” that throwing bricks in peoples faces will fix their teeth?

[-] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

This is the same "good faith" argument that cultists, religious recruiters, libertarians, and racists use.

You don't have to engage with morally abhorrent arguments out of loyalty to some platonic ideal of intellectualism. You're allowed to tell people to fuck off.

[-] SenK@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I get what you’re saying, but you’re kind of setting up a strawman yourself here here. Not every idea deserves endless debate, sure, it’s about the habit of dismissing things as "stupid" without even considering them. Sure, lizard people and bricks fixing teeth are absurd. But those examples are extreme on purpose, and they don’t really address the core of people rejecting ideas out of hand just because they’re unfamiliar or uncomfortable. If an idea is actually bad, it will fall apart under scrutiny. But if the default response is just "that’s dumb," we’re not thinking critically, we’re just avoiding the work, and worse, we are participating in a culture where it's okay to do so. Which is exactly what leads to people getting (and abusing) terrible ideas.

Remedy to stupidity isn't LESS critical thinking.

[-] SpiffyPotato@feddit.uk 0 points 4 weeks ago

But those examples are extreme on purpose

Yes they were! And you’re right, we need to allow ourselves to be challenged, to consider ideas outside of our comfort zone, but we also need to able to reject ideas that are not being posited in good faith.

This is the joy of debate, to question statements and receive nuanced answers in reply.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

How do you determine what's not in good faith?

I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

How do you determine what’s not in good faith?

I personally always assume good faith. I can't read people's minds. On the Internet, I can't even see facial expressions or hear how they're saying it. It's like that Key and Peele text message sketch.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that's ever-present online?

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

I think it's fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The analogy you're providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we're actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it's a waste of time and energy, and it'll just put one in a bad mood.

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Even with an ethical element tied to the statement, an accusation of bad faith is a bit of a non sequitur.

A: We should torture ducks and masturbate to their suffering because they have three feet.

B: You are acting in bad faith.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is still a fallacious analogy because it's clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:

A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.

B: You are acting in bad faith

Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ''good faith'' discussion, it's plain common sense that they aren't.

If you want to argue in terms of strict ''logic'', ''faith'' isn't even something that would ever ''follow'' from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ''you're acting in bad faith'' is a ''non-sequitur'' is a meaningless statement. Unless you're reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ''hey everyone, I'm acting in bad faith!'' (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

I'm trying to discuss things in pure logic so as to emotionally unload the reasoning. Bad faith means they are being deceitful. Whether someone says "Hello. You look nice to day." or "we should torture indigenous people" how can one glean that they don't truly believe that? Though the second one is so outlandish, I would assume it's satire since I assume innocence.

Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.

It's been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they're acting in bad faith, that's going to drive them up the fucking wall that I'm so dumb that I don't assume bad faith like they do.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

someone says “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that?

It's generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise. People make hateful and racist remarks all the time, sadly, and it's almost invariably a consistent pattern of behaviour that goes beyond plausible deniability. The line of reasoning you've provided me reads as strangely apologetic and bordering solipsistic.

I would assume it’s satire

Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ''a joke'', I don't think that's any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.

It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.

Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It’s generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise.

The sentence you're replying to completely agrees with this. I think you misread it.

Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ‘‘a joke’’, I don’t think that’s any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.

I was thinking in terms of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal or someone adopting a Colbert-style character, like the one from his old show.

Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?

With politics, it usually comes in the form of verbal abuse.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

How do you respond to verbal abuse without assuming bad faith?

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

That's what I'm saying. If someone is verbally abusing you, it's a sign they are being deceptive.

[-] Yliaster@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

makes sense.

Do you extend this reasoning to corrupt institutions? Eg: people saying, "fuck ice".

[-] roundup5381@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[-] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

That's like 95% of humanity

[-] Pinetten@pawb.social 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yep. It's especially cringe when people ignore centuries of philosophical discussion. Often smugly.

Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins' books as proof that there is no god. Nothing like a Reddit atheist to make me embarrassed to not believe in god.

[-] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 0 points 4 weeks ago

I've never witnessed an atheist making such an argument. Usually it's the theists getting hung up on him because they are used to appealing to authority figures and project.

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 4 weeks ago

It's the MAGA slogan: Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up.

[-] presoak@lazysoci.al 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It's 99% of Lemmy and everybody else too. It's how people are.

[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yep, whole lot of people echo what they read in they're social media echo chambers. Feelings and opinions thrown around like they are facts.

Granted this problem has always existed but I believe the overuse of the internet and social media has made it worse.

Prime example, bunch my friends who would definitely be Democrat voters (just bring it up as they are very much not maga supporters), despite me bringing up research showing the very clear negative side effects that Facebook had on people even 10+ years ago... Every last one of them ignored it and each one thought they were the exception.

[-] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I watched a video of a guy complaining about something similar and it ended with a really good phrase: don't even bother engaging with non-apple rotators

[-] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago

What are non-apple rotators?

[-] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 weeks ago

People who can't rotate an apple in their head. In the context of the video - people who don't interact with abstract arguments and think you're talking about specific things or people instead

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

I interact with abstract arguments but can't rotate an apple in my head because of aphantasia. I can easily handle the concept of rotating an apple though.

Funny enough, my ability to estimate how three dimensional objects fit into real space is really good despite not being able to visualize it.

[-] BladeFederation@piefed.social 0 points 4 weeks ago

This is crazy to me. I would have gone insane as a child if I couldn't have imagined badass scenarios in my head when I was bored.

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

I drew a lot and made physical things!

Also read a lot, but had concepts and not images. Like a car in a story might remind me of a car I had interacted with even if I couldn't picture it. Like a sports car feels fast and nimble even if I can't picture the curves. Maybe it is rounded or has sharp angles on that model, but I can't picture the actual curves or angles.

[-] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 4 weeks ago

It's pretty normal.

Maybe there's a way to present the strange idea as gently and sweetly as possible, to avoid triggering their rejection reflex.

[-] upandatom@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

I like your theory.

I was a pretty big believer in inception approach. If they think it is their idea they will be on board.

Now I think people only want to learn/believe things they see from their own personal bubble of "trusted source(s)". Anything else can't be correct or I'd have heard about it already.

[-] presoak@lazysoci.al 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Yeah "it came from me or my people" means that it is harmless and everything else is Satan. There's probably a psychological breakdown of that somewhere.

(Flip that assumption and you have the plot for half of all horror movies)

this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
16 points (90.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

41292 readers
205 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
SuperEars@lemmy.world