If you're in this sub you're probably in the highwit variety or between midwit and highwit.
All I know is I don't know everything, and I run into too many midwits that think they know everything. Reddit is a very good representation of this.
If you try to contradict the SJW authorative opinion on something (i.e. arguing that the election was rigged, or that COVID lockdowns is killing people and destroying lives more than keeping things open) there are too many midwits there that they essentially argue/yell you down/downvote you to a point where you are unable to bring a highwit opinion to the table to prove them wrong.
Lowwits are difficult to convince because they just don't care. I know a LOT of lowwit types on Discord and they unironically post shit from MSM and when I argue against them about bias they say "I don't know, I just look at whatever is on the frontpage of Google News".
They are going to be totally informed by experience. I know a lot of poor and lowwit people who will simply come to me because they know that a) I can be trusted, b) I can do not require that they believe me and I'll walk them through my claims, and c) I've been reliable in the past.
Lowwit people are going to much more heavily rely on their personal experiences, and social groups as a filters of human capital and intellect. They don't really know how to process intellectual arguments, but they also know when they're being taken advantage of, which was the reason for my example "midwit tried that on me last week.". They know a con when they see it... most of the time. They may even be committing them. These social circles provide collectively available human capital to anyone within the group, including to people who are not intellectually capable of having that human capital available to themselves, because someone in the group has had an experience and generated knowledge to share among the group.
On that note, if their personal experience doesn't obviously relate to anyone who is identifying themselves as cultural Marxists; they won't understand the long-winded ideological and historical background that led a Marxist to their little social circle. So, they won't be able to heed a warning if you try to explain it to them from an intellectual narrative.
If you're trying to warn a low-wit person about the problems with trans activist gender camps. You don't explain that the camps exist to isolate kids in an environment that normalizes degeneracy and self-harm through making their self-identification dependent on Marxist collectivist narratives; and that there will be behavior pathologies that emerge from those resentment based narratives. You tell them, "They're poofs and nonces that want your kids to be poofs and nonces, whether they are or aren't." It's true, but eliminated the frill. They'll only believe you, if they can trust you.
The use of proper social networks to filter human capital allows them to be much more difficult to control from a propagandistic narrative. The corporatists and statists have to infiltrate social groups, which is all but impossible at any reasonable scale for a corporation. This is why Marxists infiltrated and attacked social institutions wherever they could find them. It's why we have to go around creating anti-Marxist institutions to replace them with.
All wits of people will be able to rely on our social institutions to protect them from Marxist dogma, and share experiences that will inform that wariness of Marxism.
I always consider those the stupidest. Those throughout history who are considered the smartest people ever (i.e. Tesla, Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Plato) never thought of themselves as knowing everything.
I'm always looking to learn and question things myself. I may or may not come to a shared conclusion with someone else, but at least I thought about it and it came from my own mind.
Seen it in physics too. The only thing you can say is that you're really smart at a couple things. After that, you have to acknowledge the limitations of your knowledge.
If you're in this sub you're probably in the highwit variety or between midwit and highwit.
All I know is I don't know everything, and I run into too many midwits that think they know everything. Reddit is a very good representation of this.
If you try to contradict the SJW authorative opinion on something (i.e. arguing that the election was rigged, or that COVID lockdowns is killing people and destroying lives more than keeping things open) there are too many midwits there that they essentially argue/yell you down/downvote you to a point where you are unable to bring a highwit opinion to the table to prove them wrong.
Lowwits are difficult to convince because they just don't care. I know a LOT of lowwit types on Discord and they unironically post shit from MSM and when I argue against them about bias they say "I don't know, I just look at whatever is on the frontpage of Google News".
I agree with your assessment on Lowwit.
They are going to be totally informed by experience. I know a lot of poor and lowwit people who will simply come to me because they know that a) I can be trusted, b) I can do not require that they believe me and I'll walk them through my claims, and c) I've been reliable in the past.
Lowwit people are going to much more heavily rely on their personal experiences, and social groups as a filters of human capital and intellect. They don't really know how to process intellectual arguments, but they also know when they're being taken advantage of, which was the reason for my example "midwit tried that on me last week.". They know a con when they see it... most of the time. They may even be committing them. These social circles provide collectively available human capital to anyone within the group, including to people who are not intellectually capable of having that human capital available to themselves, because someone in the group has had an experience and generated knowledge to share among the group.
On that note, if their personal experience doesn't obviously relate to anyone who is identifying themselves as cultural Marxists; they won't understand the long-winded ideological and historical background that led a Marxist to their little social circle. So, they won't be able to heed a warning if you try to explain it to them from an intellectual narrative.
If you're trying to warn a low-wit person about the problems with trans activist gender camps. You don't explain that the camps exist to isolate kids in an environment that normalizes degeneracy and self-harm through making their self-identification dependent on Marxist collectivist narratives; and that there will be behavior pathologies that emerge from those resentment based narratives. You tell them, "They're poofs and nonces that want your kids to be poofs and nonces, whether they are or aren't." It's true, but eliminated the frill. They'll only believe you, if they can trust you.
The use of proper social networks to filter human capital allows them to be much more difficult to control from a propagandistic narrative. The corporatists and statists have to infiltrate social groups, which is all but impossible at any reasonable scale for a corporation. This is why Marxists infiltrated and attacked social institutions wherever they could find them. It's why we have to go around creating anti-Marxist institutions to replace them with.
All wits of people will be able to rely on our social institutions to protect them from Marxist dogma, and share experiences that will inform that wariness of Marxism.
I always consider those the stupidest. Those throughout history who are considered the smartest people ever (i.e. Tesla, Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Plato) never thought of themselves as knowing everything.
I'm always looking to learn and question things myself. I may or may not come to a shared conclusion with someone else, but at least I thought about it and it came from my own mind.
Seen it in physics too. The only thing you can say is that you're really smart at a couple things. After that, you have to acknowledge the limitations of your knowledge.