I do think “smooth-brained” is a bit ableist. Westerners believe bourgeois narratives due to complicity, rationally, not out of lacking mental faculties. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” is a good article explaining that process. The masses aren’t stupid, gullible, intelligent, or righteous, but rational, including acting in what they percieve to be their self-interest.
I’m loath to admit it, but I do think that if we don’t hold ourselves to extremely high standards, reactionaries will exploit any crack in rhetoric to obfuscate the logic of our beliefs and arguments. We should take no easy victories.
Let’s go with credulous then. I agree that ultimately it comes down to these narratives working because it’s what these people want to believe already. It’s just confirmation bias. All that said, I do think ridicule has a place as well. Engaging with obvious trolling ends up validating them, as if the point they’re making has enough merit to be engaged with.
That works much better, I agree. I’m not in favor of tone-policing, just reigning in what can be ableist and making sure we don’t leave narratives logically uncontested. Ridicule has its place, ableism does not, and I think credulous is a much more useful term rhetorically as it doesn’t repeat Yogopnik’s recent critical error.
If we leave weak arguments uncontested, then we lose out on a learning opportunity for onlookers, even if the one raising the argument has no intention of changing their mind.
I do think “smooth-brained” is a bit ableist. Westerners believe bourgeois narratives due to complicity, rationally, not out of lacking mental faculties. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” is a good article explaining that process. The masses aren’t stupid, gullible, intelligent, or righteous, but rational, including acting in what they percieve to be their self-interest.
I’m loath to admit it, but I do think that if we don’t hold ourselves to extremely high standards, reactionaries will exploit any crack in rhetoric to obfuscate the logic of our beliefs and arguments. We should take no easy victories.
Let’s go with credulous then. I agree that ultimately it comes down to these narratives working because it’s what these people want to believe already. It’s just confirmation bias. All that said, I do think ridicule has a place as well. Engaging with obvious trolling ends up validating them, as if the point they’re making has enough merit to be engaged with.
That works much better, I agree. I’m not in favor of tone-policing, just reigning in what can be ableist and making sure we don’t leave narratives logically uncontested. Ridicule has its place, ableism does not, and I think credulous is a much more useful term rhetorically as it doesn’t repeat Yogopnik’s recent critical error.
If we leave weak arguments uncontested, then we lose out on a learning opportunity for onlookers, even if the one raising the argument has no intention of changing their mind.
yeah that’s a fair call out
Yep, I really enjoy your comments and posts, this was just a bit of hopefully useful critique so that we can better expand.
The critique is very much appreciated, and on point as always.
Thanks, comrade! Keep up the good work! 🫡
O7
🫡