More like 90% of human actions are stupid, as I'm not sure if there's an even split of "the stupid" and "the smart", and plenty people mix both. (E.g. being oddly competent at something specific, only to vomit assumptions on something else.)
In special I feel like four types of stupidity became a bit too common, too harmful, too egregious. They're the failure to handle:
uncertainty - or, "how your belief might be wrong, and you'll need to handle the case that it is wrong"
complexity - or, "how small details have a profound impact on everything"
undesirable possibilities - or, "how nature gives no fucks about your fee fees, and things don't become true because you roll in wishful belief"
context - or, "how things are never isolated, and you need to look outside the thing to understand the thing"
They're intertwined, I think. And perhaps there's something more important than those, but those four are the ones that I notice the most.
You do realise that this reads a lot like an implicit acknowledgement that you're a failure to counter any argument contradicting your claim... right? "Run to the hills!"
It's true but keep in mind that the other user is ignorant on the difference between "ignorance" and "dumbness", as this comment shows. So he'll likely distort what you said into "you think that people in the past were dumb?" like he did there.
That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you're imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.
Appeal to popularity and/or authority carry a good deal of weight, actually.
Fourth fallacy / irrationality: argumentum ad nauseam. Repeating it won't "magically" make it truer.
If a smart guy sees it, and you don’t, it’s fair to conclude that the error is yours.
In this situation, you wouldn't be concluding, only assuming.
But this is obvious.
Nope.
You are merely straining to refute me.
Here's a great example of why assumptions are not reliable - you're assuming why I'm uttering something, even if you have no way to know it. And it happens to be false. [I don't care enough about you to "refute you". I simply enjoy this topic.]
The sensible conclusion is that we really do see things differently these days. That we have gained and lost.
We see things differently, but "we gained and lost" is yet another fallacy: moving the goalposts.
Also, it's rather "curious" how you skipped what I said about the Romans, even if it throws a bucket of cold water over your easy-to-contest "smart people in the past believed it!".
The logical conclusion is that there’s something wrong with that one person.
No. That's a fallacy (lack of logic) called "argumentum ad populum" (appeal to the masses). Truth value of a statement does not depend on who or how many utter it; you need to analyse the statement itself to know which side there's something wrong with.
Note that claiming that "the smartest people did it, so there's something wrong with us" is a related fallacy called "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority). And another too, called petitio principii (begging the question) - did they do it?
Based on Roman history I don't think that they did; the smart people were always a bit more cautious about this sort of superstition, but still "played along" when convenient for them. Octavian seizing Mark Anthony's will, Constantine using Christianity as a political move, the general tendency to interpret gods as abstract aspects instead of actual "big humans in the sky", so goes on.
Dunno about "we", but "I" do. I got plenty malice to watch them suffer! MWAHAHAHA [/evil villain laughter]
Serious now: if the person can't be arsed to help themself, or if their request for help sounds like a demand/whining/passive aggressiveness. A noob saying "pls help how do i shoot web tnx" is 100% fine in my book, a "waah, why isn't this community helping me? [insert easy-to-websearch question]" is not.
And this happens often?
Can't recall doing it in Lemmy. But I did all the time in a certain other platform.
Yup, basically. They'll throw whatever they have near them at you; and this is just my guess but I think that they have enough of a theory of mind to think "I don't like poop smell so you don't like it either".
I also feel like the time when the other guy grabs the cage he was trying to find a way out, to get rid of the annoyers.
The chimps were not dancing, or playing. They are clearly pissed. The "dance" and noises are ways to say "this is our territory, not yours, back off". Throwing the ball is an act of aggression, but since nobody took a clue he made it even clearer with poop.
For more sociable interactions between humans and other apes check this video ("Human, you have you baby! I'm going to show you mine!").
They can pull it - most users in Threads will be interacting with other Threads users and content. Mastodon will be simply "that ideologically weird corner", and in practice they won't miss it.
For scale: Threads currently has 100M users. The Fediverse as a whole has 1.5M.
The core of the software will be intact, but the community will be broken - because once Threads pulls the plug (EEE), instead of a stable community you'll have a shrinking one.
Apologies, I suppose. I read it as “perhaps, except in Twitters case.”
Apology accepted. I also apologise for the tone.
If you want my opinion on Twitter: I'm not too informed on the platform but I think that he did it on purpose, and due to stupidity. He is a right-wing sociopath and a moron with enough money to become too big to fail.
A smart but malicious person in Musk's shoes would've likely introduced the changes slowly, boiling the frogs there, shifting the Overton window to the right, in a way that benefits rich people in detriment to everyone else - because that would benefit Musk himself. Twitter as "the international commons" makes it valuable for anyone to spread shitty discourses there, in a way that they reach governments directly.
But instead of seizing the tool for his own purposes, he broke it.
This is just a guess, but I think that the likelihood of Twitter federating is almost to zero, unless forced by legislations to do so. It simply doesn't benefit from that, since every group and individual leaving Twitter might as well defederate it, and odds are that the upper echelon there knows it.
Instead I think that Twitter will try to associate the Fediverse with terrorists and what have you, to indirectly smear shit into its competitor Faecesbook/Threats.
Lvxferre @ lvxferre @lemmy.ml Posts 17Comments 1,115Joined 4 yr. ago
Wine is wine, bread is bread. Let us not conflate lack of reasoning (stupidity) with lack of knowledge (ignorance).