[AshamedCaptain]

> Calling people idiots isn't going to help the discussion.

Ironically, when we are at the point that the alternative is for subtle manipulation of the information that is being given around (which is my complain), I'd personally prefer the former, and I guess many people would, too. I'm not sure if it is really going to "help" anything but, given the doubt, I think brutal honesty is the more humane option.

In any case, I only put that disclaimer to avoid attracting the usual trolls (plus downvotes from the other side), but I see it attracted the usual trolls anyway. I hope a mod deletes it.

[mewpmewp2]

Claiming someone is an "idiot" is not brutal honesty.

Are you claiming that you think they have low IQ, or what exactly are you being brutally honest about?

What is even definition of an idiot for you?

This word only exists as a tool to either manipulate or shame or simply live out your emotional rage, it's not about brutal honesty. It's not about being truthful or even trying to understand the truth.

Generally, if someone calls someone else an "idiot", I can give benefit of the doubt few times if this happens, okay it's an emotional outburst, but otherwise I would lose trust in their general resolve.

[AshamedCaptain]

To put it simply, I think most people would prefer being directly called an idiot versus "we question so much your ability to make decisions that we are going to try to censor the information that we provide you without telling you anything".

It's actually wiser, strategically, to do this silent manipulation (and most definitely it's not strategically wise to call one an idiot), but, as the receiver, I'd prefer the honest approach myself.

[mewpmewp2]

Both is happening. And both are dispelling me emotionally from the mainstream. While this is going on though, I still believe I can see through my emotions, that I also feel towards people who pressure unvaccinated and think the issue is binary and understand data I'm seeing with reasonable accuracy.

I don't know if the silent manipulation is benefitting the world, maybe it is getting more people to vaccinate, but I can guarantee that this only makes me personally dig deeper and distrust most things coming from the same sources that silently manipulate the information. Also given a "good to be true" view of mainstream or anything I disbelieve it. If something is too good to be true, like how current vaccines are portrayed, it deserves further inspection.

All in all when you are classifying someone "an idiot", is there any other correlation that this person would likely have in their characteristics?

E.g. let's say is definition of "an idiot" to you someone who "didn't take the vaccine".

Or is "an idiot" someone who generally has poorer mental capabilities? What do you think it correlates to?

Below average memory?

Below average comprehension? Of what?

Below average scientific understanding?

Below average abstract reasoning?

Below average working memory?

Do you think being an idiot means at least few of those? How do you think they reached their conclusion? Can you even understand how they reached their conclusion or are you just speculating in your head how they reached it and therefore they must have poor comprehension or memory?

I mean you can't see in their head.