Here’s an appropriate quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant leader of the German resistance who died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, speaking about the nature of stupidity and how it’s more dangerous than evil:
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless.
Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what “the people” really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from peoples’ stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.”
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Christian Gremmels et al., trans. Isabel Best et al., vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 43–44.
In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.
Every time I hear someone parrot things like 'woke' 'radical left' or any other nonsense nickname given to zeitgeist by Donald (super idiocy) Trump, it makes me sick. It's the laziest possible ensheepening of the self.
He understands it the way a jellyfish understands how to migrate, its just an autonomous response to his environment that he lacks the ability to introspect on
I think this is an interesting frame to look at it, though. This idea that a person has (maybe willingly) given up their internal independence and signed over their speech and actions to another person... It feels very reflective of the way seemingly "smart" people sometimes fall to Trumpism. Their intellect didn't fail, but instead their will to think independently against a tide of social pressure and 'convenient opinions' like scapegoating immigrants.
It feels very reflective of the way seemingly "smart" people sometimes fall to Trumpism. Their intellect didn't fail, but instead their will to think independently against a tide of social pressure and 'convenient opinions' like scapegoating immigrants.
There's the modern media angle of it too. Before the rise of social media and MAGA, Fox News filled this void. It seems that the odds of getting someone to give up their internal independence just through focused propaganda may be low in any given moment, but it's not zero. So simply spamming focused propaganda all over the place, and getting people to hear enough it, is enough in many cases. Bonhoeffer was one of the few who could be immersed in an environment like that and still not internally swayed by it. But most people do not have that much internal strength, and modern media provides ways to pressure that internal strength in inhumanly consistent ways.
I imagine there's a sense of relief which comes with it, when you pick a person or group of people and decide to simply parrot whatever they say. You no longer have to put any effort into assessing whatever it is you're discussing or reading or hearing about, or perform any sort of introspection or critical appraisal of the society you live in or humanity as a whole. You don't really need to seek out a single alternative source. You simply allow someone else's ideas to flow through you, and can retire the portions of your brain which would otherwise need to be kept in working order to generate and maintain your own.
The phrase 'Choice Fatigue' was coined some time ago. I think it might have been during the Obama era. It has stuck with me for years as a bit of a catch-all for why so many complex issues are reduced to their most basic forms. As much as it is weaponized/exploited by those who need to divide the public into binary arguments it's also just a natural force of nature. Desire lines for language so-to-speak.
It pisses me off when people i grew up with, of my generation (40s) use the term 'woke' unironucally, like we grew up making fun of people calling being a decent person 'political correctness' and it's the exact same fucking thing.
It's the neutral unit that immediately joins the team of whoever finds them in a strategy game - only in human form.
They have five lines of dialogue and they will unquestionably go wherever they're told and do whatever they're told by whoever has granted themselves enough authority.
I'm curious if you have the same reaction when you hear the words "far right" or "fascist"? All four terms are more frequently used to blanket entire hemispheres of political opinion than they are to accurately refer to the extremes of both poles. Its not that "radical left" (or far right) doesn't have a reasonable use, there are people on both sides who take things to far. One thing they have in common is that they blanket everyone outside their faction with the same epithets, even people who are on their own side who believe in pluralism will be framed as 'useful idiots'. And pluralism is what is needed, right and left, capitalist and socialist, rich and poor, understanding that neither side can be excluded from a healthy, functioning society (this isn't to suggest a balance or 50:50 split is in any way necessary). There is a real danger in believing that the stupidity Bonhoeffer spoke of exists only on one side of any given social division.
When mainstream conservatives are perfectly happy to align themselves with overt fascists, defend overt fascists from being called fascists, and support Fascist policy, then it is perfectly understandable to call them fascists.
If mainstream republicans actually had a spine and stood up to the fascists id defend them, but they don't, they support them.
I think it's very clear in the US right now which "side" (if you want to put it like that) is closer to Bonhoeffer's description of people giving into stupidity. The broad leftist movements in the US, for all their faults, when they have power to wield, almost always show restraint and compromise with differing views. Look at Mamdani, he's obviously quite far left in his political views, and he seems to have used the power he gained to implement a pretty broadly popular set of policies. He has some of the highest approval ratings of any politician in the modern age
My question and point wasn't about who might be closer but rather the fact that if you look at issues like that in terms of 'sides' (as Reddit has an overwhelming tendency to do) you end up playing into the problem itself, i.e. gradual polarization. Even your response plays into the binary split of us vs them left vs right, rather than the pluralism you suggest Mamdani represents. My own view is that non-extremists of either side have far more in common with one another, in terms of shared interests and general views, than they do either of the extreme ends of the spectrum. They are, however, becoming noticeably rarer.
In regards to the left being more tolerant, you only have to look at Germany where the Social Democrats (SPD) are pushing to ban the far-right AfD from participating in politics in any way. Extreme beliefs and efforts to enforce them on others exist on both sides of the divide.
I do. Almost all forms of Nationalism makes me ill at ease. Any form of language that is used to divide without insight is regularly a disservice to the truth that even the worst among us is a reaction to what came before.
These kinds of comments showing someone actually thinking critically on reddit are an oasis, thank you. The broad pattern I've noticed is you have the government acting as the burglar or the traitor, depending on your alliance. Right now, Trump is the obvious burglar to the left and the traitor (that supporters haven't/don't want to discover) to the right. It was the opposite with Biden. So when your side "wins," all you're really getting is deception obscured by the same sense of elation as if your sports team won.
People just want a fall guy. They placed all their vitriol on Madoff instead of the CME, and all this Trump bashing signals that he is exactly what the left and right need him to be- a fall guy so the government (ruling financial institutions) can proceed with whatever they want to do while we fight each other.
Bonhoeffer speaks of the word of God as the source of wisdom, but what happens when we don't have that? We live in a society where one man's stupidity is another's intelligence, and no matter how deep we search it's almost impossible to find common ground upon which we can agree the foundation of wisdom could be established.
Not only that, unlike developing the skill of say, scientific intelligence, political and socio-economic intelligence are often developed without immediate feedback as to whether or not a hypothesis is valid and thus leave many common assertions, some even supported by the majority of academia, unsubstantiated. If stupid people are "mindless tools," perhaps intelligent people whose intellect has been favorably curated are mindful tools, but regardless they all end up being tools.
Simler and Hanson's 'Elephant in the Brain' is a good look at how even smart people are capable of tricking themslves into believing what is good for them personally is also the right or moral thing to do (because nobody likes to see themselves as the bad guy). As far as polarization goes, personally, I think a broad axial shift from a horizontal focus on policy priorities to a vertical focus on power structures is the only thing that can save us but it so under-appreciated that populists are able to sell a shallow and disingenuous version of it to the public (e.g. draining the swamp) which touches on people's frustrations with the power imbalance but does nothing to educate them to how it actually functions in practice. In regard to the latter James Burnham's 'The Managerial Revolution' and 'The Machiavellians' are two books that should be far more widely known, they're both 80 years old now but still contain lessons that we clearly haven't taken on board properly.
Don't listen to this boorish mayo nerd. He doesn't know shit about it. And even if he did who the fuck would want to learn off this condescending prick? Nobody has ever recommended boiling yolks/eggs before making mayo. You can heat it during the process if you wish... which large manufacturers do.. but if yr making it at home just use the WET ASS YOLKS and the other two WET ASS INGREDIENTS. Because mayo is fucking wet.
Lol. Look, I'm sure this creepy little 'gotcha' moment is quite satisfying for you, but I'm really just not that interested. You seem like a smart guy.. perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere?
Unless you'd like to discuss Mayo, then by all means, continue...
As is blindly defending 'woke' and its own flavor of discrimination and disenfrenchisement. The near-religious virtue signalling of the woke movement did a lot to help push moderate right voters over the edge. I'm still convinced the whole woke movement was manufactured to this end entirely.
Perhaps it's just that I'm not American but anyone using the term 'woke' isn't taken seriously and never was. Regardless of who uses the term. The 'reality' of it was generated by people who spent far too much time debating their opinions with those that they never met. Much like we are now. If I could sit down with you and bring up the term 'woke' like we are doing now the conversation would most likely be over just from our body language not being particularly invested in semantics. Or how stupid the term is.
Okay so first of all Zeitgeist means its something of its time. "Given to zeitgeist by trump" is really a strange way of using the word.
And at the same time completely throwing under the bus normal people using normal language of the time. Being woke refers to people being aware of social injustice, where in the zeitgeist of 10's-20's it's the excessive caricature of that.
Radical left has not changed context Trumps usage of it doesn't devalue it as a saying. So lumping those 2 together as equal is lazy because one is an actual old saying with a modern spin the other is just what it is. And most importantly neither is coined by Trump.
Actually, yourself condemning people based on the usage of those 2 terms implies you as prejudiced and hypocritical; engaging in the same dismissive slop you lash out at.
4.7k
u/NicolasCageFan492 18h ago
Here’s an appropriate quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant leader of the German resistance who died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, speaking about the nature of stupidity and how it’s more dangerous than evil:
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless.
Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what “the people” really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from peoples’ stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.”
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Christian Gremmels et al., trans. Isabel Best et al., vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 43–44.