/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11579674]

How to argue with dumb people?
I know people say they drags you down to their level of stupidity, so it's best to get silent at one point. But that would give them the illusion of winning and I don't want to grant them the pleasure.

[Anonymous No.11579677]

>>11579674
you dont lol

[Anonymous No.11579683]

>>11579674
Don't waste your fucking time. Spend it leveraging yourself into a position where you don't have to argue with some fucking nobody.

[Anonymous No.11579709]

Successfully arguing with or speaking to dumb people is the ultimate test of intelligence and coherency. If you only speak with intelligent people, you can end up with something like modern academia's handling of thinkers like Lacan and Hegel: whole departments of people speaking a frankenstein language that means something different to any given person, and that can only be adapted to by learning the relationships between the signs and not that which is signified. It's something like a Chinese Room. They know how all the parts fit together but no one knows what the fuck the parts are.

[Anonymous No.11579716]

>>11579674

Don't fall for the "debunk faulty logic and provide sound evidence" meme. Use the Socratic method to help them question their own assumptions

[Anonymous No.11579734]

>>11579709
Liked your response anon

[Anonymous No.11579742]

>>11579716
What's the socratic method?

[Anonymous No.11579759]

>>11579742
What do you think it could be, anon?

[Anonymous No.11579838]

>>11579709
You can't successfully argue both with the intelligent and the dumb. You have to choose any one. Arguing successfully with the dumb won't keep your brain in a state where you would be able to argue successfully with the intelligent and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.11579847]

>>11579838
>you can't do both of those things because only doing one of them will make you worse at the other
What the fuck are you on? Drink some water and take a nap, anon

[Anonymous No.11579870]

>>11579847
I know because I've observed my brain from a third person perspective. These two kinds of people has different patterns of arguing. When you argue with one kind too much, your brain gets used to his kind and gets lost when faced with the other

[Anonymous No.11579871]

>>11579838
False. For the intelligent, you just use logic and poetic speech. For idiots, you use fallacies and poetic speech. Stupid people care more about the credibility of words and the emotion behind them, while intelligent people just care if the content is accurate or not. It’s like how in high school it was stressed that you must have credible sources and prove their veracity.
If you are arguing with someone stupid about Freud for example and you are against him, just point out that he was a coke addict and hated women. Then if you agree with Freud you must hate women and be a crazy drug addict. If you are arguing for Freud, just say that all these scientists and psychologists from the 60s based their work on him or something. Then you disagree with Freud you disagree with scientists and you are stupid and uneducated.

Basically smart people want logos and care a bit about ethos while idiots want ethos and pathos. That’s why all the great speakers and debaters used all three, to convince everyone they speak to.

[Anonymous No.11579889]

>>11579870
Why exactly is a balance of both not an option here?

[Anonymous No.11579930]

>>11579871
I know how arguments work with dumb and smart people. I am just saying that in an argument, it's all about your momentary thoughts and you can't train your brain to generate both at the same time: insightful views with smart people, and fallacy, poetic views for dumb people. If you argue with fallacies too much, don't expect your brain to turn around and give you all intelligent, foolproof arguments all of a sudden.

[Anonymous No.11579940]

>>11579742
Make them define the words they are using. What is Justice? What is common sense? What is morality? Then try to make analogies to help each other understand why their definition is wrong. End the conversation after an hour of defining various words to make the dumb person realize that neither of you know anything

[Anonymous No.11579943]

>>11579889
Because brain easily gets used to stuff. As I said above, when you argue with fallacies too much for the sake of winning arguments, it will make your brain look for fallacious arguments to present with all kinds of people.

[Anonymous No.11579953]

>>11579943
You don't have to use fallacies to talk with dumb people. I don't, at least. You just have to walk around the perimeter of the point you're trying to make until you finally find the path that they're capable of being lead down.

[Anonymous No.11580204]

I am sorry to tell you this, but if you argue with dumb people it is because you are also dumb as well.

[Anonymous No.11581004]

>>11580204
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.11581025]

>>11579930
>you can't train your brain to generate both at the same time
Yes you can, anon. This is the entire practice of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11581040]

>>11579674
Just tell them that God loves them, and if they're a Christian, tell them that Satan loves them.
Going doing this, and reassuring them that they're "going to be okay."
This will make them so angry they'll either leave, or strike you.

[Anonymous No.11581068]

>>11579871
>idiots want ethos and pathos
100% this. Former parli debater. You had to make snap judgments like this when looking at who your judge was. I remember shifting my entire policy position to a retarded green energy policy with no downsides whatsoever (lol cost) just because my judge that round was a hippie who gave us flowers before the debate started.

[Anonymous No.11581076]

>>11581068
This, I often listen, mirror and then feign the 'majority opinion' within any given social situation.
I use this to collect information and network in a way in which I can use to force apart the social bounds around me.
Chaos is truly the most sublime of universal forces.

[Anonymous No.11581238]

>>11579674
>I know people say they drags you down to their level of stupidity
Only average IQ brainlets who get ruffled by the vigorous ingenuity of the stupid say this. The truly intelligent respect the masterful sophistry of the retarded

[Anonymous No.11581254]

>>11579940
>mfw I do this and people call me a sophist

[Anonymous No.11581265]

>>11579674
You need to let go of your ego. There are a million stupid people around you. What do you have to gain from winning a debate. You are in the exact same position you started in

[Anonymous No.11581270]

>>11579674
Use fallacies and plenty of ethos and pathos arguments. For the intelligent use logos. It’s that simple.

[Anonymous No.11581295]

>>11579674
it's not about being dumb, dumb people can have honest discussions, it's about whether the person actually cares about figuring out the truth, or if it's just social posturing to them

[Anonymous No.11581356]

>>11581295
>dumb people can have honest discussions
Yet to see an example of one desu

[Anonymous No.11581363]

>>11581356
That's true, most of it just seems to be some form of posturing. All about social ladders.

[Anonymous No.11581371]

>>11581356
i talk to dumb people quite a lot, a good deal of my friends in my life have been 90ish iq petty criminal types, and they will 100% open up to conversation if you approach them in the right way, given that they are honest people. The dishonest ones are hopeless, because their stupidity is compounded by their mendacity, and talking to them is literally almost painful.

Nothing will ever be as bad as talking to 120 IQ hyper socialized leftists though, jesus christ I dont think they even have the concept of truth in their minds, everything is just filtered through this agonizingly complex set of parameters based on what is acceptable to think or say, and how you have to think or say it. Those people are mentally ill as far as Im concerned

Obviously the best conversations are those with someone on a similar level of intellect as you, who is both respectful enough to engage, and informed enough to have interesting contributions.

[Anonymous No.11581397]

>>11581371
idk where are you from but where I am, right wingers will suddenly burst to platitudes or grand standing about country, institutions in a very dishonest way. As for the dumb people, I guess I spent too much time on the internet but most dumb people often speak past one another.

[Anonymous No.11581422]

>>11581397
i have literally never known any right wingers. I grew up in Toronto, right in between the rich kids and the ghetto kids. My social milieu was basically Jewish kids in 10 million dollar homes communing with somali or arab pseudo gangsters because those two demographics were the ones that pulled girls. And people like me, hyper white, doesnt really matter what socioeconomic stratum we come from because we all acted like homegenous retards regardless. I am essentially glorified white trash, my parents are academic but i behaved like white trash most of my life. I think i horrify my parents

What i had extensive contact with was Leftists, I was raised leftist, but my sort of innate white trashiness compelled me to reject it for essentially criminal mores, that slowly evolved into outright moral apathy. I am not right wing in any real sense, i just dont know enough right wing midwits to hate them the way I do leftists. Im well aware they exist, and who knows maybe theyre worse than the leftists, i have no idea.

I genuinely like dumb people, it's partly a matter of feeling like i can control them, but it's also that they have less pretensions and neuroticisms, and being who i am I have those two in spades, and talking to them is like being reminded of what reality is to people who operate less abstractly.

[Anonymous No.11581462]

>>11581422
This post is utterly degenerate, and not in a good way.
The absolute state of the modern world, it's not functional anymore.

[Anonymous No.11581481]

>>11581462
the modern world is fine dude. yes itll collapse eventually, but everything does, and suffering and hatred are always everywhere in every type of society.

if the Christians got one thing right it's that the Devil inheres

[Anonymous No.11581491]

>>11581481
You're living proof that "the modern is fine" is a total fucking lie.
When the world was functional in innovative expansion and economic expansion, people actually functioned within their bracket and sometimes escaped it to betterment.
You actively lowered your social class, what the fuck? That doesn't even compute. You ACTIVELY lowered your SOCIAL CLASS.
The modern world isn't fine, and post-modernism is to fucking blame. Modernism is too, their architecture is shitty as well.
>WTF Baroque as fuck, but Baroque is now kitsch (and not in a good way).

[Anonymous No.11581496]

>>11579674
they can have all the fucking illusions they want you mong. they still have to live their shitty lives. illusions is probably one of the definitive words for being dumb.

[Anonymous No.11581504]

>>11581491
i lowered my social class to fuck hot girls, i didnt think in literal terms like i do now as in 'being productive and lawful is pussy anhedonia' i just followed the people that were like that, and i was instinctively rebellious. to be fair there was also a good deal of self-loathing involved but who doesn't hate some part of themself

I ask you though, what would i have gained by following a normal path? to become indoctrinated by leftist bullshit, maybe becoming a fucking Marxist, clinging to hopeless delusions of a coming utopia?

And you really think shit was better at one point? You think the civil society in England in 1690 understood fuck all about anything? it has always been a massive fucking joke dude, none of it is real, it's a scam.

I am a big fan of traditional art, for example I think Handel is almost metaphysically better than anything European music has produced in the past 200 years, but art and religion, and basiclaly esoteric things like that are one thing, whereas the facts of material reality follow predicatble courses, and they are ruled by the harsh dictations of natural law. Not to be pessimistic, we are such that those harsh dictations appeal to us in a lot of ways, we were formed by them, and we are them, and so they are fine, but the idealistic hopes people have are laughable.

[Anonymous No.11581509]

>>11581422
I know right wing mid-wits more than any left wingers though and they are insufferable with their constant spewing of common rheortic and platitudes.

desu you sound a bit sociopathic with the 'a matter of feeling like i can control them'. My interactions with them have only made me misanthropic in a way. I care about them, but I don't care what they think.

[Anonymous No.11581524]

>>11581509
>they are insufferable with their constant spewing of common rheortic and platitudes.
ive heard a lot of this said on the internet i just have never encountered these people so i dont have the visceral distaste i do for university leftists

>desu you sound a bit sociopathic
i was diagnosed with aspd when i was a teenager after a certain incident, but i do have empathy, im not one of those guys who doesn't feel for people. I do feel for people 100% for example a lot of the dumb sort of ugly people ive known, ive been really nice to them without any need to be, just because i wanted to cultivate them into a better sort of thing, like you would tend a garden

[Anonymous No.11581525]

It needs to be the opposite tho, atoms first, heat as a consequence of it.

[Anonymous No.11581529]

>>11581504
>I find trash class shanks attractive.
>There's nothing wrong with me.
Wrong, you're a class fetishist, friend.
Reminder, once you're in the intelligentsia, like we are, you must AT LEAST uphold middle class ideals. Even if you don't believe in them.

[Anonymous No.11581535]

>>11581524
As a pointless (though possibly interesting aside), I have Asperger's syndrome and score highly on both sociopathy and schizotypal index(es).

[Anonymous No.11581538]

>>11579674
The Universe is just a cell bro

[Anonymous No.11581547]

>>11581529
i dont understand a thing in your post, not even one thing

[Anonymous No.11581553]

>>11581535
aspies i am told are kind of prone to those things, what is it like being an aspie anyway, is it difficult?

[Anonymous No.11581556]

>>11581504
>And you really think shit was better at one point?
I suppose it is really dependent on the context, to be quite frank.
For this, I will employ a strict classism, because it was relatively strict up until the mid-1900s.
If you were in the lower class, you were often limited to local knowledge and likely illiterate.
If you were in the middle class, which was often rather small, you served some "higher function". As a merchant, a priest, a teacher. You were often literate, and privy to external knowledge.
If you were in the upper class, which was often even smaller, you were highly literate and often highly educated. Because of this position, you were often privy to extremely sensitive national and international information.
If you were "By divine right", you were often much like the upper class, though to a higher and nearly untouchable degree.
Now, these disparate classes would seemingly conflict if left for say, a couple of millennia. But they didn't? They stayed almost in this form of civilization up until the 1700-1800s, with some "noise" occurring somewhat sooner in the 1600s (the English Civil War, followed by a restoration.)
I give to you, dear reader, "social place", whether through violence, or faith. And yes, money counts as violence, as private property is enforced through the threat of it.
Now, what happens if we remove that "social place", that "class identity". And we do this via lessening faith, equalization of pleasure, and so on. We remove those boundaries, you allow the flood of ingrates and idiots for the sake of "freedom".
In the process, you remove the need for innovation, unless rewarded with gain. Very few innovate for the sake of it, there is no "collective betterment" anymore. We focus almost ENTIRELY on nothing but the individual.
Man needs a "greater goal" to aspire toward.
Whether that is Marxism, or some fascist ideal, I don't really care. But we need some driving force.

[Anonymous No.11581560]

>>11581547
Meth sure is one hell of a drug, eh?

[Anonymous No.11581565]

>>11581556
no dude we are just going to collapse, have you not read spengler, toynbee, quigley, or anybody who writes on the cyclical and organic nature of individual civilizations? This ' we can change shit' is complete delusion

[Anonymous No.11581567]

>>11581565
Yes, we'll collapse at some point. But this form of civilization has lasted longer than any prior to it, so why not try and extend it? Why swallow the postmodernist pill and sit back? Why? I want to create something of worth, I don't want to go to shit, just because we predict it will.

[Anonymous No.11581573]

>>11581567
>ut this form of civilization has lasted longer than any prior to it,
not true my man, look at china. or if you dont accept their revolutions as being the same civilization look at how long Egypt lasted. even places like Crete put us to shame, European civilization in its modern incarnation started at the very earliest around 700ad

i think technology might accelerate these changes, as the world becomes more powerful and intercommunicated we are more like a storm and less like calm things growing apart from each other

[Anonymous No.11581585]

>>11581573
I was walking about the Occident.
I agree, we should be more like China, they've a (nearing) healthy mix between collectivist and individualist. Although, they still need a little more individualism to spur innovative and creative thinking. - It needs to be a balance.

[Anonymous No.11581586]

>>11581585
>*talking

[Anonymous No.11581587]

>>11581585
i think china are horrific ant people so im not with you there. But the 'occident' sounds ultimately memey to me. Are you including greece and rome in our civilization? Because i can't see that as making sense.

Also the entire idea of praxis formed from thought about politics and history strikes me as absurd. the currents of history dont give a shit about what individual epople think

[Anonymous No.11581600]

>>11581587
>i think china are horrific ant people so im not with you there.
Dude, that's racist.
>But the 'occident' sounds ultimately memey to me.
The Western world, my wigga.
>Are you including greece and rome in our civilization?
Only tangentially, because of their cultural heritage passing through the Greco-Roman tradition. Although, what I really mean is the Italian city-states and the Byzantine Empire.
>the currents of history dont give a shit about what individual epople think
Literally memetics, friend. How do you think tradition and culture is passed along?

[Anonymous No.11581619]

>>11581600
im racist as fuck, and always have been, ive always told black guys to their faces that white people are smarter than them, it's just they have that masculine thing that bitches like, you just have to frame it as 'white boys have the school smarts and you guys have street smarts' and theyll agree. a lot of them know that. and chinese people are 100% ant people, even the chinese guys i like are ant people, they evolved like that
> the western world
Its a fucking meme, it's nothing
>italian city states
you are treading water, you realize that is complete bullshit, we have no more connection to Rome or Greece than the Arabs or Russians have, read actual sensible history
>literally memetics
No dude, history is a metaphyscial process on the level of biology emerging from inanimate matter, our ideas dont matter at all, we are like cells in the beast that is coming

in that sense egalitarianism is really true, we are all just humans compared to what the language-technology complex has been creating, our races and classes are indisintguishable when you zoom out and see what we are making, it's fucking insane

[Anonymous No.11581664]

>>11581619
I'm sick and tired of your shit bro! My dad slapped me once and I cried and pooped on the toilet for 7 hours. FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! I"M A FUCKING COWARD!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11581723]

>>11579759

Hah. Well done.

[Anonymous No.11581978]

>>11581619
unironically more based and redpilled than any of these self-proclaimed 'right wingers' - lower than midwits. muh west muh west!! wtf is that shit. spooked by JPGs. fanatics for illiterate conception of western civilisation alien to itself. mcdonalds politics. do they read the reactionaries they tout... none of them are as pathetic or as mired in dissimulation...

[Anonymous No.11581989]

>>11581619
>history is a metaphyscial process on the level of biology emerging from inanimate matter, our ideas dont matter at all, we are like cells in the beast that is coming
Imagine unironically believing this and spending all of your time on an anonymous imageboard where the ONLY thing that matters are ideas and memetics.

[Anonymous No.11582000]

>>11581989
4chan is the prisoner rather than the master...

[Anonymous No.11582017]

>>11581619
You literally don't understand the liberal arts you proclaim to study.
Also, you aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are.

[Anonymous No.11582020]

>>11579674
Incline them to think broader without giving away your supposed power level.

[Anonymous No.11582032]

>>11579674
Call them a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11582034]

>>11581978
Because ideas matter, you fucking idiot. If you don't think they do, don't browse /lit/, pretty obvious.
And, I don't think you understand what a ring-winger is, I literally said I don't care if we have a Marxist government, as they rely upon a "grand ideal".
You guys really are too stupid to see how stupid you are.

[Anonymous No.11582050]

>>11581004
Spoken like a real dummy.

[Anonymous No.11582109]

>>11582034
I meant to convey that the obsession with the Occident comes from nnumales who define themselves as right-wing, as some kind of political identity. Western chauvinist. Cliches.

[Anonymous No.11582122]

>>11582109
You need labels for things, and the concept of the Occident has existed for FAR LONGER than modern alt-right.

[Anonymous No.11582148]

>>11579674
degrade yourself and get on the same level with him .warning:intellingent discussion must be avoided at all costs

[Anonymous No.11582159]

I think everyone is stupid to some degree.
My major complaint is everyone's life is so purposeless. Those without God can try to give themselves purpose, but if it ends in nothingness, everything you did was futile and pointless.
Those who believe in God, clearly should have a purpose. If there were a God, He would design everything with perfectly rational reasons in mind.
The question is, is there a more worthwhile intellectual pursuit than that of the purposefulness of God? You know, the only thing left to ponder.

[Anonymous No.11582173]

>>11582159
You do know that a philosophical stance ISN'T objective, right?

[Anonymous No.11582269]

>>11579674

read this, and work from there

[Anonymous No.11582317]

>>11582173
Did I say that? Wait what? How can two contradicting philosophical stances be objectively true anyway?
I was pointing out that the most rational course of action seems to be determining one's purpose in life.