/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18252743]

>“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

>“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

These quotes are just pure brainlet cope. If someone's dumb, then you should have no problem winning an argument against them. Unless you're saying that you're even dumber than they are? People use these all the time to justify anti intellectualism and not wanting to hear another side and it's just sad.

[Anonymous No.18252749]

>>18252743
Arguments have never been about convincing the other person, it is about convincing the people watching the argument.

[Anonymous No.18252759]

>>18252743
>If someone's dumb, then you should have no problem winning an argument against them.
Even if you have the best arguments, you can't win against entitled people because they are retarded. (e.g antivaxs, flat earthers)
Sometimes it's just better to let them shimmer in their own shit and educate the people that ask for it.

[Anonymous No.18252767]

>>18252759
Against retarded people because they are entitled*, but yeah, it also works

[Anonymous No.18252774]

>>18252743
Dumb people are incapable of seeing alternative viewpoints, which means they're unable to attack their own arguments in the way you need to in order to end up with a logically sound, cohesive viewpoint. By the time someone with brains has opened their mouth or committed a word to paper, there's a good chance they've already quickly taken account of the major, logically viable objections to that statement would be and accounted for them. A stupid person is unable to do this, because it requires holding too many concepts in their head simultaneously. Being smart is like having a constant background argument with yourself in your own head.

An idiot isn't even aware of other possible viewpoints. They don't systematically and obsessively—by a literal imperative beyond conscious control—whittle down their own beliefs and check them against other possible beliefs to end up with the most sound argument they can manage. They just believe things.

Because of this dynamic, it's impossible to convince an idiot of anything. If they can't even challenge their own beliefs in their own heads, what chance do you have? The only things an idiot respects are status and charisma. Neither of those things have even a passing relationship with the bread and butter of intelligence. Therefore it is categorically useless to argue with an idiot. They always win because they just aren't interested in actually interacting with information. They just see it as a function of personality.

[Anonymous No.18252789]

>>18252774
>Dumb people
You mean arrogant people. Some highly intelligent people are equally as arrogant and stubborn as extremely dumb people.

[Anonymous No.18252807]

>>18252749
>arguing to convince rather than to realise the Truth
never ever gmi

[Anonymous No.18252818]

>>18252789
Arrogance is inherently stupid. Intelligence doesn't always result in non-stupid behaviors. But yes, there are exceptions to every generalization.

[Anonymous No.18252854]

>>18252789
Ben Shapiro springs to mind.
Ostensibly intelligent but also vindictively stupid.

[Anonymous No.18252871]

>>18252854
Shapiro is more enamored with rhetoric than he is with anything else. I know his type from personal experience. His great talent is in locution, and his ability to generate it mostly impromptu from a base of thought/information which appears compellingly to be probably-not-entirely-spurious. It's the rhetoric itself which is his focus rather than anything the rhetoric addresses.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.18252893]

>>18252743


IT IS EVIDENT THAT YOU HAVE NEVER ARGUED WITH ANYONE, OR THAT YOU ARE DUMB YOURSELF; AN ARGUMENT NECESSITATES AT LEAST TOPARTIES ENGAGED IN RATIONAL DIALOGUE; IDIOTS ARE IRRATIONAL, THEREFORE THE DIALOGUE THAT ENSUES IS NONSENSICAL, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE WON, BECAUSE WINNING AN ARGUMENT ENTAILS REACHING A DISCURSIVE TERMINVS: A RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.18252898]

>>18252893
>… AT LEAST [TWO PARTIES]…

[Anonymous No.18252901]

>>18252818
>Arrogance is inherently stupid.
No, actually it is a tendency of people who have been right (ie intelligent) about most things for most of their life. It is a common, but fictional, trope created by our society which correlates agreeableness with intelligence; the purpose of this is to foster agreeableness and conformity in the desirable human type of our economic system (which is based purely on wealth creation through general conformity). In reality, the less assertive and more "reasonable" a person is, the less likely they are actually of higher intellect. The only exception to this rule is when idiots are grouped up, which allows the group to support the weak opinions of unintelligent individuals who could not stand by themselves.

[Anonymous No.18252968]

>>18252901
>No, actually it is a tendency of people who have been right
The perception of being correct doesn't necessarily have a casual link with actually being correct, and it's the self-perception of correctness which is operant here rather than the correctness itself.

[Anonymous No.18253024]

>>18252743
The only brainlet part of those quotes is thinking that the loser of the argument has to realize they've lost and admit they've lost. Gigachads (like me) know they've won an argument right from the start and I usually don't even bother replying to the other person more than once or twice.

[Anonymous No.18253101]

>>18252774
Well said. Meanwhile I have been silently imagining overflowing cups in restrained frustration.

[Anonymous No.18253434]

>>18252871
Based Ben

[Anonymous No.18253456]

>>18252774
Alright, now that you've given us a definition of the intelligent, tell us where they are to be found.

[Anonymous No.18253919]

>>18252743
Those quotes substitute stubbornness for stupidity in order to give the target audience a false feeling if superiority and discourage dialogue, and ironically bolster the speaker's own stubborness in the process. Not good.

[Anonymous No.18255211]

>>18253456
not here, intelligence differs in kind and you con only express that much on the internet