
Work Harder, Not Smarter
First published: Sunday August 11th, 2024
Report this blog
"I sometimes think that the 90 minutes of a game are almost an inconvenience to some people who just want to praise the winners and talk shit about the losers." - Juan Manuel Lillo
I'd say that easily, my favorite hobby is soccer. I watch the sport nearly religiously, like to keep up with the news, tune in to every major tournament, and play recreationally. Beyond my real-world passion for the sport, my excitement around soccer bleeds into my general online discourse through debate; arguing about who peaked higher than whom, which players teams should sign, which teams have a chance to win their respective leagues, etc.
However, something I've learned through my countless online debates, whether they've been about soccer, or not; whether I've been right, or not; whether they've remained civil or not, is that most people on the internet aren't very bright (myself included!).
Most people on the internet aren't looking to engage with you properly. They don't bother meeting you at your level, and a lot of the time, they make bad-faith arguments. So, in this segment of my extremely sporadic blog series, I'd like to look at the phenomenon of anti-intellectualism and how it seeps into debate culture and general discourse.
Thinking Inside the Box
My last post (however long ago that was), focused on a concept I called "niching down." It covered the idea that social media's hyper-aware, ever-vigilant nature has forced individuals to condense their personalities into boxes or "niches" to conform to larger social culture. Although that blog and my ideas within that blog are, at least I believe, sufficient enough to be a standalone examination of daily online and social interaction, niching down has also led directly into this anti-intellectual phenomenon.
Here's how I view it. Social media, especially with the rise of TikTok, has forced individuals to condense their personalities into neat boxes and "sell" them to their viewers, largely for two reasons. First, because of the fast-paced nature of TikTok and other social media, niching down is the quickest way to emphasize your relatable traits to others before they scroll past. The second reason is that social media's hyper-vigilance has forced people to be anti-intellectuals; the idea of liking something to the point where you could be seen as a "nerd" on that topic is potentially damaging to your online persona.
This may sound like a continuation of my last blog rather than a critique of online debate culture. Which, at this point it is. However, I don't view these phenomena as existing within vacuums, but as sort-of extensions of one another.

Since being too knowledgeable on a topic is now a detriment to one's image, online debate culture has shifted to meet that standard. Hell, even if it's not a debate, but just a discussion of virtually any media, someone will butt in to dumb down the argument. If you spend a decent amount of time writing anything of substance in a comment section on most social media, you'll instantaneously be met with someone dropping one of these:

Before I continue, I can't lie; this is pretty funny. But it's also quite annoying because it gets at the underlying issue. People don't want to engage with you anymore because they know that, when they do, there's a good chance they're met with ridicule. If not that, you might be told that you're "yapping," or speaking to speak. The absolute worst response is "It's not that deep." This 4-word phrase irks me the most because a lot of the time, it is that deep.
The anti-intellectual movement, as I'll sarcastically call it, has made online discourse and debate culture extremely dysfunctional. You cannot properly debate in a space where being knowledgeable and well-informed about a topic is seen as a detriment; it is the antithesis of what is needed in debate.
It's Not that Deep
There are certainly moments where something isn't that deep (like right now, for example!). Over-analysis of anything can be tedious and annoying. However, there are certainly times in which intellectual conversation is, if not by chance, then by slight necessity, the requirement of conversation.
I watch lots of movies, so many, to the point where I log them on Letterboxd; much of my feed, whether Instagram or TikTok, in particular, deals with film. I cannot count the number of times when someone (including me) will be talking about the literal themes of a movie, and someone will comment, "It's not that deep."
What does anyone gain from making that statement? Especially when it's not true? The idea that writers and directors, who have spent countless hours on their craft, layering their writing with symbolical imagery, metaphors, and the like, somehow fraud their way into making a 90+ minute movie with a cohesive structure and themes is nothing short of disingenuity. And for what?
I would be a little less annoyed with the idea that some things aren't that deep if online discourse/debate culture was structured like actual debate culture, where points were tallied for refutes and strong arguments; yet, nobody is actually measuring the "aura points" of those engaging in TikTok comment sections about The Prestige (great movie by the way).

Although this example doesn't use my most hated phrase, it should hopefully get the point across. I was scrolling on TikTok a while back and came across a video about The Boys. The creator was saying that they don't like Hughie's character. That's a little surprising, but good and well. There is no obligation to like everyone in the show, even if Hughie is one of the main characters. However, the problem came, in the caption where she said, "I skip his scenes." Huh?
It doesn't make sense to skip Hughie's scenes because he's one of the main characters (if not the main character), the catalyst of the Boys' fight against Homelander, and virtually everything is structured through him; how do you even understand a show's narrative if you skip scenes with main characters in it?
So, we're scoring points for who, exactly? Saying it's not that deep or being unbothered to engage with narratively dense and important scenes for the sake of not being "too invested" in something gives you nothing in return. It's counterintuitive when you think about it. You can't even engage online about something you like if you don't fully understand it.
Let's Argue
Moving beyond the screen and into the real world, I'd like to talk about the shortcomings of general debate culture. First, because of everyone's cognitive dissonance, being objective while debating is difficult. But beyond that, the structure of debate is in direct opposition to having a productive conversation.
Being in a competitive environment, such as a debate environment, increases your cognitive dissonance. One of the most important traits when engaging in debate is open-mindedness. But place two open-minded people in the context of a debate? You'd see how that trait diminishes quite quickly. In competitive debate, there are two sides, for and against, which automatically creates a binary, even if the topic at hand requires much more nuance. Then, this binary is compounded by splitting up each argument into timed statements. When I'm in a debate and it's my opponent's turn to speak, I'm not genuinely listening to their points. Why in the world would I do that? All I'm doing is considering how what they're saying weakens my argument and how I can spin their words to make it weaken their argument. Then, someone is eventually crowned, the winner; all of which seems to me, to at least be a little inorganic.

Let me be clear. Debates are NOT useless. Competitive debate, of course, can open you up to new perspectives, even if winning does take precedence. Additionally, being the third-party spectator of a debate can provide those same new perspectives while also being a very engaging form of entertainment.
I love debating. It's the reason I wrote this blog. It's the reason I continue to engage with others online, even with the slight expectation that it might be disingenuous. But hopefully, from my blogs, you will be able to tell that I also love flippantly thinking about trivial things. At the end of the day, I just want to see an honest perspective.
Work Harder
So, what's the solution, you ask? Be disingenuous. Be an anti-intellectual. Don't engage with the material or others honestly. Push narratives. Lie, even! Buy into propaganda. Be afraid of being well-informed about anything to avoid being cringe-worthy. Work harder, not smarter.
One problem I think I have with comment sections is that often times a debate really isn't necessary. Somehow someone finds a way to feel attacked or maybe someone wants to express a unique opinion to seem big-brained. Heck, maybe someone is even just trolling and trying to get other people upset (this is probably the most likely lol).
But in my opinion, people will want to just start arguing over nothing or even just arguing over things that are strictly opinionated. Very rarely do you see a genuinely uplifting and positive comment section.