To mock a midwit using their own bad logic to make an ironic argument in a way they would, but also in a way where most of them will actually agree lest they expose themselves to the wolves that are the other stupider less-aware midwits.
This works so well, because a vast majority of midwits are on the less-aware end and generally care more about agreeing with something they already agree with especially if many other midwits already agree they all agree with it!
Dissenters to the midwits ideals are thus automatically labeled, "bad" for X emotional, fallacious, or nonsensical reasons. Legitimate refutations of takes or disagreements are labeled as "hit-pieces". Anecdotal experiences with a single person from another disagreeing group automatically means that person and anyone who agrees with them is also "bad", etc. The reason The Midwit Trap works so well is to disagree with your agreeing yet mocking take is to open themselves up to the same "out group bad" mentality they and the others they surround themselves with have. This is The Midwit Trap.
This works so well, because a vast majority of midwits are on the less-aware end and generally care more about agreeing with something they already agree with especially if many other midwits already agree they all agree with it!
Dissenters to the midwits ideals are thus automatically labeled, "bad" for X emotional, fallacious, or nonsensical reasons. Legitimate refutations of takes or disagreements are labeled as "hit-pieces". Anecdotal experiences with a single person from another disagreeing group automatically means that person and anyone who agrees with them is also "bad", etc. The reason The Midwit Trap works so well is to disagree with your agreeing yet mocking take is to open themselves up to the same "out group bad" mentality they and the others they surround themselves with have. This is The Midwit Trap.
An example of executing The Midwit Trap: Responding to a midwit online with "I agree." updoot and all, and then use the most openly blatantly stupid midwit logic they all would use to come to a conclusion that they would actually agree with. The trick here is the argument has to be so openly blatantly stupid/circular/hypocritical that even some of the midwits might notice. The trick here is it will never be the majority of the hivemind so any midwits who actually do notice and call you out, you can just turn around and throw them to the wolves that are the other 90% of midwits who were too dumb to get it. By doing this they will now be labeled as part of the out-group and therefore in the hivemind of the midwits, bad.
by ApplesPotatoGardner October 16, 2023
Woke progessive leftist, and current podcaster on Youtube. He created and hosted the half-hour truTV show Adam Ruins Everything, based on the CollegeHumor series of the same name.
Adam has faced significant criticism for being perceived as entrenched in a 'woke' ideology, leading to accusations of science denialism. Critics argue that he selectively chooses experts, distorts data, and promotes a form of "science worship" while maintaining an appearance of objectivity. Despite asserting the factual basis of his views, he is accused of neglecting dissenting evidence and failing to withstand scrutiny, as demonstrated during his appearance on the Joe Rogan show where his ideology quickly unraveled. Instead of engaging in open debate, he is seen hosting a podcast that serves as a platform for reinforcing woke ideologies among the like-minded, akin to a Sunday church meeting.
Adam has faced significant criticism for being perceived as entrenched in a 'woke' ideology, leading to accusations of science denialism. Critics argue that he selectively chooses experts, distorts data, and promotes a form of "science worship" while maintaining an appearance of objectivity. Despite asserting the factual basis of his views, he is accused of neglecting dissenting evidence and failing to withstand scrutiny, as demonstrated during his appearance on the Joe Rogan show where his ideology quickly unraveled. Instead of engaging in open debate, he is seen hosting a podcast that serves as a platform for reinforcing woke ideologies among the like-minded, akin to a Sunday church meeting.
Regular Guy #1: Did you see Adam Conover ruined billionaires?
Regular Guy #2: Doesn't that dude have like 100 million dollars?
Regular Guy #1: Only people who are richer than him are automatically bad, as is anyone who disagrees with his ideas.
Regular Guy #2: Classic woke lefty cultist behavior.
Regular Guy #2: Doesn't that dude have like 100 million dollars?
Regular Guy #1: Only people who are richer than him are automatically bad, as is anyone who disagrees with his ideas.
Regular Guy #2: Classic woke lefty cultist behavior.
by ApplesPotatoGardner December 31, 2023
The Midwit Paradox is a phenomenon where a midwit or group of midwits cannot understand an out groups arguments, because they can't spot fallacious arguments that they and their own in group makes. How can anyone expect them to understand out group concepts & ideas when they can't spot the most blatant and openly fallacious mistakes of their own ideas?
Example of The Midwit Paradox:
Midwit: Significant disparities between racial groups can only be indicative of environmental or genetic reasons, and that any environmental factor must be racism!
Rationalist: That's a black & white fallacy. That is erroneous because many environmental factors such as culture, religion, and the differing traditional values, or various nuances that come with them are based on free choice. Anyone spouting what you are arguing via reductio ad absurdum would be forced to conclude that free will is somehow racist... which is ridiculous.
Midwit: No it's not, you're just rambling nonsense! The experts agree with me! That's not the consensus! SOUUUURRRCEEE? You're bad and a newtsee! Anyone else who agrees with you is also bad and a newtsee/boogeyman! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Rationalist: *Facepalm*
Midwit: Significant disparities between racial groups can only be indicative of environmental or genetic reasons, and that any environmental factor must be racism!
Rationalist: That's a black & white fallacy. That is erroneous because many environmental factors such as culture, religion, and the differing traditional values, or various nuances that come with them are based on free choice. Anyone spouting what you are arguing via reductio ad absurdum would be forced to conclude that free will is somehow racist... which is ridiculous.
Midwit: No it's not, you're just rambling nonsense! The experts agree with me! That's not the consensus! SOUUUURRRCEEE? You're bad and a newtsee! Anyone else who agrees with you is also bad and a newtsee/boogeyman! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Rationalist: *Facepalm*
by ApplesPotatoGardner October 18, 2023
When you are promised something amazing, and encourage/work/pay to make it happen, but are really numb to the probability that it's inevitably going to be a let down, or not come to fruition at all.
Kickstarter Syndrome defined:
Person A: Did you see the new Kickstarter for Megamanolamarama?
Person B: Yea! I'm already a $100 tier backer!
Person A: Me too! AWESOME!
- Scenario A -
Release day: Person A & B: This game... sucks! Why did we back it again?
-Scenario B-
Person A as an old man: Remember when we gave money to some people online to make something cool we could experience?
Person B as an old man: Yea we were stupid back then weren't we?
Person A: Did you see the new Kickstarter for Megamanolamarama?
Person B: Yea! I'm already a $100 tier backer!
Person A: Me too! AWESOME!
- Scenario A -
Release day: Person A & B: This game... sucks! Why did we back it again?
-Scenario B-
Person A as an old man: Remember when we gave money to some people online to make something cool we could experience?
Person B as an old man: Yea we were stupid back then weren't we?
by ApplesPotatoGardner July 26, 2016
This type of fallacy is a mix of the "hasty generalization" fallacy and the "association fallacy."
Village Idiot Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when Person A highlights a foolish argument made by Person B and criticizes it. Person A then wrongly assumes that anyone remotely associated with Person B also holds the same foolish belief. This fallacy is often applied to entire groups, especially in online discourse. The term "Village Idiot Fallacy" comes from the idea of pointing to the village idiot and then assuming the entire village shares his beliefs, illustrating guilt by association.
Hasty Generalization: This fallacy occurs when someone makes a broad generalization based on a small or unrepresentative sample. (Person A is making a generalization about a group of people based on the beliefs or actions of one individual, the "village idiot.")
Association Fallacy (Guilt by Association): This occurs when someone asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. (Person A is claiming that the whole group shares the same beliefs and qualities of the "village idiot" simply because they are associated with him.)
Combining these concepts this is how "The Village Idiot Fallacy" manifests itself.
Village Idiot Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when Person A highlights a foolish argument made by Person B and criticizes it. Person A then wrongly assumes that anyone remotely associated with Person B also holds the same foolish belief. This fallacy is often applied to entire groups, especially in online discourse. The term "Village Idiot Fallacy" comes from the idea of pointing to the village idiot and then assuming the entire village shares his beliefs, illustrating guilt by association.
Hasty Generalization: This fallacy occurs when someone makes a broad generalization based on a small or unrepresentative sample. (Person A is making a generalization about a group of people based on the beliefs or actions of one individual, the "village idiot.")
Association Fallacy (Guilt by Association): This occurs when someone asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. (Person A is claiming that the whole group shares the same beliefs and qualities of the "village idiot" simply because they are associated with him.)
Combining these concepts this is how "The Village Idiot Fallacy" manifests itself.
The Village Idiot Fallacy Example:
Person A: "Person B didn't recycle their plastic bottle after lunch. Can you believe that?"
Person A (later): "People from that apartment complex are so irresponsible. They're all like Person B, not caring about the environment at all."
Person A: "Person B didn't recycle their plastic bottle after lunch. Can you believe that?"
Person A (later): "People from that apartment complex are so irresponsible. They're all like Person B, not caring about the environment at all."
by ApplesPotatoGardner July 09, 2024
To destroy something through incompetence while also being oblivious that you are doing so, usually gradually over time.
An unfortunately common issue that arises in many companies and games which often leads to their eventual demise or subjects them to self-mockery, reflecting a departure from their former glory.
An unfortunately common issue that arises in many companies and games which often leads to their eventual demise or subjects them to self-mockery, reflecting a departure from their former glory.
"The once-beloved gaming studio, known for its innovative titles and passionate community, eventually rosewatered into obscurity after succumbing to forced and unintuitive crossover branding. In an attempt to chase short-term profits, the company's decisions, marked by incompetence and a lack of understanding of their core audience, led to a gradual decline, self-mockery, and an ultimate departure from the quality that once defined their games."
See "Blizzard."
See "Ghostcrawler."
See "Magic the Gathering."
See "Blizzard."
See "Ghostcrawler."
See "Magic the Gathering."
by ApplesPotatoGardner October 09, 2023
When a bunch of people protest something they don't understand, simply advocating for change from points of extreme outrage or emotion rather than rational thought. They believe they have a monopoly on compassion and justice. They will never attempt to have an honest discussion about what they are protesting as they are too either cowardly, misinformed, mentally ill, or indoctrinated to do so. They will shout down, shame, or demonize any other point of rational thought or view that conflicts with their own rather than try to understand, listen, or learn. They aren't actually protesting, they are having an outrage party.
Guy 1: Did you hear about that mass shooting the other day?
Guy 2: Oh yea, it was horrible.
Guy 1: There's going to be a protest against guns again.
Guy 2: Oh boy, here we go again.
Guy 1: You should go down there and try to talk some sense into them.
Guy 2: There's no point, it's not a protest. It's an outrage party.
Guy 2: Oh yea, it was horrible.
Guy 1: There's going to be a protest against guns again.
Guy 2: Oh boy, here we go again.
Guy 1: You should go down there and try to talk some sense into them.
Guy 2: There's no point, it's not a protest. It's an outrage party.
by ApplesPotatoGardner May 31, 2022