Yes, the average person isn't very smart, but you simply can't deny that their trusts were broken by "experts" over and over again. Bringing in Alex Jones of all people into this is genuinely missing the point. It also comes off as a cheap way to discredit the parent comment, very similar to how these "experts" often do.

Meta: I’m tempted to flag any broad characterization of the human population as stupid. This is mostly because such a statement clearly violates the central limit theorem. However, such a statement might be very accurate in specific cases of things that all humans are truly bad at, or the notion that crowds tend to adopt patterns of behavior that might reflect lower intelligence than a sample of individuals from the crowd. I think it particularly feels inappropriate if a comment is perceived to suggest that the negative characterization of ‘the public’ does not apply to the commenter, and no support is suggested as to why they would be exceptional.

> " I’m tempted to flag any broad characterization of the human population as stupid."

don't just be tempted, just do it. that heuristic will be correct approximately 99% of the time. those kinds of comments tend to be cheap and shallow, wasting our time and attention, rather than being interesting and considered. when humans seem broadly stupid, it behooves the commenter to at least attempt to understand and explain the underlying motivational landscape before making sweeping generalizations, a process that should impel the comment toward the interesting and considered.

  don't just be tempted, just do it

Rightly or wrongly, it's rather awkward to respond to a comment exhorting people to flag me. I'll bow out here :)

> "That sounds like a load of received ideas from Alex Jones and other internet dingbats. The problem is misinformation. Each passing year since the dawn of social media has made it clearer and clearer that 'the public' has the intelligence of a fucking shoehorn."

to be clear, there's no rationale in your prior comment, only sweeping, derogatory value judgment and unsupported assertion. it's asking the reader to brainlessly agree with an identitarian position (ironic, given the subject of the article). i'd suggest humanizing your targets before rushing to judgment, to develop perspective and depth. otherwise, it'd be better to simply not press that 'reply' button after fulminating.

That's fair criticism, but it takes my comment more literally than I intended. I'm tempted to defend my use of hyperbole by rattling off a list of spectacularly dumb ideas social media have made popular. I'll resist the temptation because you can all predict which examples I'd use; people have talked them to death.

Bringing someone like Alex Jones into a thread like that is exactly what is killing any intelligent discussion a out the subject? Why? Imagine if every topic about lab grown near would be filled that *that's what Hitler wanted" - it is boring and tiring.

Then I suppose I've inadvertently bolstered my argument: you shouldn't look to the internet for 'intelligent discussion'

He's a distraction and drop in the ocean compared to the volume of misinformation, fear mongering and propaganda coming from the news business every day.