Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jttIII t1_ir66obs wrote

Reply to comment by Jimithyashford in Just me or are we getting a way bigger influx of people moving here? by [deleted]

how is it that you're so confident of my depth and breadth of knowledge on the subject?

Seems like you're making the confidently gross generalization with only minimal knowledge available to you champ...

−4

Jimithyashford t1_ir6g8ow wrote

I will give you an honest and not snarky answer.

There are some things that a person can say that instantly lets you know that they have only enough knowledge to be confident in what they want to believe, and not enough knowledge to actually know what they are talking about or have to arrived at earnest insight. I will give some examples of things you and I probably (I hope) agree on.

​

Example: The earth is flat.

Example: Vaccines cause autism.

Example: The civil war was about state's rights not slavery.

​

There are many many others, but those are just three easy ones you hopefully agree with. The kind of thing someone says cause they have done some selective research of sources that already agree with them, enough, to feel confident and informed, but don't actually have a good understanding of the subject.

"You're only getting downvoted cause you're speaking the truth (implied: about how liberals ruin the area they live in and then invade other parts of the country)."

Is also a very good example of such a statement. Obviously you don't agree with me, otherwise you wouldn't have said it, but hey, all of the flat earthers out there have extreme confidence in their position too, that's why they say the things they do.

​

Also, while it's not quite the same as being in the Dunning-Kruger valley, as a general rule, any time someone applies a broad statement with a clear and distinct ideological angle to a large scale and complex scenario, they are probably an idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about. Not always, there are some rare exceptions, but generally that is the case.

​

So there ya go, that's why I said what I did. Cheers.

3

jttIII t1_ir6m9ju wrote

I just think it's hilarious that you invested all that time to talk AT me in a screed vs simply asking a question or two to test the veracity of my statement and explore an alternative viewpoint to find out of I was a vapid stupid redneck or not...

0

exhusband2bears t1_ir6rtfs wrote

> invested all that time to talk AT me in a screed vs simply asking a question or two talking more shit and ending your comment on an ellipsis because deep

1

jttIII t1_ir6selq wrote

Thank you for your contribution.

0

Jimithyashford t1_ir6vpjy wrote

Screed? My first response was 3 sentences. Hardly a screed. The longer response was only cause you asked and I was trying to be respectful and give you a real answer instead of some dismissive one liner. And even my longer response would be difficult to accurately call a "screed".

But whatever, that really doesn't matter that much.

If you want to know why I made assumptions instead of asking probing questions, I thought I explained it quite well before. Because the statement was the kind of thing only someone with the confidence of only a little knowledge would say.

That's not the kind of person you go to for insights or to enlighten yourself. That's not the knee you sit at to gain wisdom. That's the kind of person you tease and then go about your day. I only engaged further cause you asked what I chose to interpret as a good faith question about WHY they got teased, and I tried to give you a decent answer.

Also, I have no idea if you're a redneck. I wasn't "picturing" a redneck in my head for what it's worth.

1