One of the biggest problems, if not THE biggest problem with society, is people arguing for or against things that they have not engaged with in enough depth to actually understand what they are even really talking about.
Something I see a lot is people railing against strawmen they've concocted based on Wikipedia summary-tier knowledge of a person, subject, political theory etc. Or another thing is when people try to discredit something by saying, for example: "If we allow X there's a very slim chance that Y might happen and therefore we should not give X a chance at all ever."
People don't read books anymore. People will go on twitter and read posts by their favorite e-celebs and formulate their entire opinions on extremely complex subjects/issues based on that, rather than engaging with actual source material, primary texts etc. People will say "X musician is shit" without bothering to listen to a full album by them.
This is how people like Jordan Peterson are able to gain such large followings. Because people will blindly take their word if it appeals to their confirmation bias on things they already believed, rather than thinking "Hm, maybe I should read what Peterson is critiquing myself rather than take his critiques at face value."
An argument between people who don't understand what they are arguing for is virtually meaningless and completely unproductive. It's why politicians are able to get away with so much BS. Because people will listen to their rhetoric and not challenge it, not doubt it, not second-guess it. "If Trump says Mexicans are a threat to America, they must be, because Trump is a conservative and I certainly won't believe what liberals say!"Note: This post isn't targeted at any specific person here, it's just based on my observations of people all over the internet and even IRL.
Note 2: I am far from innocent of doing these things, I'm just trying to point out how dangerous it is to always do it.
This post was edited by its author on .