'Pedantically Correct': The Key Difference Between Midwittery and Dimwittery

Revisiting the midwit question from a different angle: How does one tell the difference between a midwit, and a dimwit? The answer lies in a common trait shared by midwit takes: pedantry.

======LINKS======
All My Links:

If you want to leave me a tip / support my content:

Follow me on Twitter for channel updates and general bantz:

My Discord:

Odysee Backup:

Rumble Backup:

=================

Game being played: Eco Fighters

==================

Sources:

[TJK]

>Silence helps hate.
but also
>Silence is not consent.
but also
>Silence is violence.
but also
>Be silent when a minority is talking.
etc.
>I have now resolved to scream “loud noises!” at no one in particular whenever I am in an uncomfortable social situation, or when I’m arguing with someone I don’t like.
That’ll stop the bigots.

[DKMperor]

Its honestly an annoying problem, because it is important to agree on definitions before you can hope to have a productive conversation, but some people use that as a crutch from having to think about what they are saying.

[BL]

Dimwits: nonsense

Midwits: antisense

[ZontarDow]

Single data points do not show a trend but trends are a collection of single data points that demonstrate a pattern.

[Supernova]

Nothing like a midnight MentisWave upload

[Devin_Stromgren]

I've been accused of being pedantic many times. Oh God, am "I" the midwit?!?!

[kaiservenom]

I once saw a guy call a communist YouTuber a sophist, so a fan came up and said, "Well, sophists were people who lived alongside Socrates, they charged money to teach philosophy and rhetoric, and because [name of communist YouTuber] isn't charging money to do so, he isn't a sophist."

[TheMightyDozen]

it's honestly kinda amazing how people can sound like they're making sense yet the root logic of their words is often hollow or even nonsensical
now would be a good opportunity to remind the reader to make sure none of your close acquaintances are just a chatbot in a trenchcoat

[twiggledy]

My favorite thing about midwittery is when they are clearly offended by something but will only complain that some other group will find it offensive.

[skylinefever]

I love joking about midwittery with:
Grug: Dey took our jerbs! South Park!
Midwit: You can't do that, borders are racism and xenophobia.
Genius: Here is the law of supply and demand as presented in economics textbooks. This is how it may be applied to labor markets.

[humanbeans]

Now the real issue with people like this, is that not just do they perpetuate these bad ideas, but they genuinely believe them and defend them to the point of just blocking out and gatekeeping any other conclusions or ideas, whether thats by flagging them as hate or just using someone in power to silence them outright. Almost like its some kind of religious doctrine to be protected... (great job on the naming of the "cathedral", btw)

[hoominbeeing]

Thank you for addressing this!

This is what 99% of my debates boil down to. I always ask for their definition but unfortunately, it usually devolves into "there is no 'my' definition b/c my fav 'expert' or dictionary says it's this one so it's objectively correct"

Or their definition is so insane that it's not worth debating them

[CatholicSamurai]

Midwittery can, in a sense, be often identified as a snarky statement the begins with “well, ACTUALLY…”
Often overlaps with examples of Dunning-Kruger Effect manifesting. The most widespread midwittery, in my experience, is people talking about Christianity and the Bible. For a while, Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye were the archetypal Midwits

[SupLuiKir]

Using 'Scientific Consensus' as an argument is stupid, but especially stupid when the scientific community is currently getting filtered by an ongoing moral panic. The data will all get skewed in directions correlated with the moral panic.

[philltheotherguy]

One thing that annoys me is when people will do a “motte and bailey of definitions” where they accuse someone of being something unsavory, then when questioned, fall back on a much broader definition. Like accusing someone of making propaganda, then defining propaganda as “information meant to support an ideology” when that could apply to any argument.

[richard]

I used to be in a relationship with the picture-perfect pedant. Anytime I would bring up a politically awkward subject to that person, usually related to ANTIFA since that was big in the news at that time, her only response would be semantics, or ''How can you REALLY prove that?''. It was deeply, deeply infuriating. It did not help that she did this for preformative reasons, not genuine political belief.

[TheAngel_of_Death]

I agree with your point on "standing up against silence", I find too many uneducated people speak on topics they know nothing about, as you said we need more people who can disprove the basis for the hate not more people speaking about hate, for example after the Simchat Torah Massacre on Oct 7th a Starbuck Workers Union made a statement in support of Palestine and Starbuck Corporate said "We're not in a place or knowledgeable enough to make any comments on this" and stayed neutral. That how it should be I don't need coffee shops to make political statements, make me good coffee that's it, that's all I need from you.

[cosmic]

you are the best part of my day mentis

[nocount]

"You are pedantically correct. The worst kind of correct." - Mr. House.

[DjDeadpig]

So the tankie half of breadtube and the anarchist and or liberal half I guess