Things you'd consider "common knowledge"

[Cannot think of a name]

But with all the shit that I don't know I'm not going to get smug about the shit other people don't know that I happen to.

Get off the internet.

Sorry, wait...I know this one...

"Why is everyone stupid but me, an unappreciated genius who hasn't shared my brilliance with the world because those unwashed masses wouldn't know a good thing if I was slapping it against their faces..."

Better?

[United Dependencies]

I wouldn't say there is anything that we should expect everyone to know. I suppose knowing how to eat and behave in public are some of the few exceptions.

[Neo Art]

Get off the internet.

Sorry, wait...I know this one...

"Why is everyone stupid but me, an unappreciated genius who hasn't shared my brilliance with the world because those unwashed masses wouldn't know a good thing if I was slapping it against their faces..."

Better?

It'd be more convincing if you put some fucking pants on.

[Cannot think of a name]

Sorry, wait...I know this one...

"Why is everyone stupid but me, an unappreciated genius who hasn't shared my brilliance with the world because those unwashed masses wouldn't know a good thing if I was slapping it against their faces..."

Better?

It'd be more convincing if you put some fucking pants on.

You ask too much.

[United Dependencies]

It'd be more convincing if you put some fucking pants on.

Pants are for the sheeple who need to conform to feel good about themselves.

[Tmutarakhan]

A friend of mine had one date with a girl in a coffee shop. He told her how he had spent several years as a child in Brazil. "Where's Brazil?" she asked.

The coffee shop had a large map of the world on the wall. He gestured toward it, saying "It's the largest country in South America."

"Which one is South America?"

At this point he was becoming a bit concerned. "It's below North America."

You guessed it. "Which one is North America?"

He gave her one last chance. "The one with the United States in it." No, that didn't help. This is why there was no second date.

[The God-Realm]

Sadly knowledge isn't common.

Is this another one of those threads where we get to gather around with smug satisfaction and talk about how much smarter and more sophisticated we are than those dirty hoi polloi?

Yup, that it is.

Never said I was smart.

[Laerod]

Get off the internet.

Sorry, wait...I know this one...

"Why is everyone stupid but me, an unappreciated genius who hasn't shared my brilliance with the world because those unwashed masses wouldn't know a good thing if I was slapping it against their faces..."

Better?

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

[Terra Libertas]

The idea that capitalism doesn't actually exploit workers seems to be common knowledge. Of course common knowledge isn't reliable... but that's the point I'm making.

[Cannot think of a name]

Sorry, wait...I know this one...

"Why is everyone stupid but me, an unappreciated genius who hasn't shared my brilliance with the world because those unwashed masses wouldn't know a good thing if I was slapping it against their faces..."

Better?

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

[Laerod]

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

Especially for not having seen the simple solution to all of life's problems before I, the internet supergenius, enlightened them.

[Bottle]

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

[Falcania]

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

Vulcan chicken is a hell of a sport.

[United Dependencies]

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

Exclamation points

you lose

[Pennswald]

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

Because if you can take the middle path, then there were at least 3 equally valid sides to the argument...

It's like that old joke about Scottish sheep where the mathematician laboriously explains that "there exists in Scotland at least one field which contains at least one sheep which is black on at least one side". Precision is difficult. People tend to generalize--we evolved to see patterns and react to them. As long as erroneous generalizations do not directly affect survival, there is no evolutionary pressure to modify that behavior.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

I cannot sufficiently express how much I love (and am going to steal) "Vulcan chicken" as a description of that particular internet-argument tactic.

[Khadgar]

Only if we can, in the process, insinuate that the advocates of both of the 'sides' are either crazy, stupid, or both.

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

Honestly though, why get worked up over an internet debate? I've been on here too long, there's nothing people can say that will make me care anymore.

[Bottle]

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

Honestly though, why get worked up over an internet debate? I've been on here too long, there's nothing people can say that will make me care anymore.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't see why "internet debate" would be any different from any other discussion.

People can say things that get a reaction from me, because how my fellow humans think and act will directly impact my life. And I certainly have emotional reactions to a lot of news and current events, so why would I be "less emotional" discussing them via internet than I would be, say, on the phone? I just don't differentiate that much between modes of communication, I guess.

[Multiflow]

I realized long ago that I do not need to know a lot of things, but knowing of them was very useful. An example would be gardening, I know what it is, but I do not know how to garden. Knowing that I can always look things up, whether in a book, asking someone, or now the internet, I went more with the, 'can I figure it out?'

I make sure I have the basic tools, to be able to make more tools, to find more information about other things. More of a general purpose approach.

I was trained in electronics, after training my father asked me about Ohm's law, I could not give him the equation. Knowing the definition though, given five minutes and a piece of paper I could reproduce it. In the operational repair, it was not required to 'know' the equation, just follow the flow, and swap the parts. I have since memorized the equation, but that is an example of how some people may know the stuff, but not able to sum it up. I knew the definition of Ohm's law, not the equation.

Recently, I have noticed that few people under the age of 25 have ever heard of the 'Golden Rule'. The one that says, do for others, what you want them to do for you. I would consider that common knowledge, and talking with people who do not know it as this, when explained to them go, "Oh yeah, we do that anyways." So they have the knowledge, but at the same time do not. By packaging a piece of knowledge, by giving it a title, makes it is easier to reference, and teach. Most people want to teach their children this behavior, though which is easier to remember, the name or a vague method? If you have the name you have the definition, easier to remember. If you have just the method, harder to remember, harder to break down what you are actually doing.

[Khadgar]

Honestly though, why get worked up over an internet debate? I've been on here too long, there's nothing people can say that will make me care anymore.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't see why "internet debate" would be any different from any other discussion.

People can say things that get a reaction from me, because how my fellow humans think and act will directly impact my life. And I certainly have emotional reactions to a lot of news and current events, so why would I be "less emotional" discussing them via internet than I would be, say, on the phone? I just don't differentiate that much between modes of communication, I guess.

I might just be jaded. If someone shows up in person talking bullshit I might argue with them, but there's no point to that either. People tend not to change their views evidence be damned. It doesn't matter if I point out the truth, they won't believe it. I prefer to argue online, it's much easier to verify things.

[Neo Art]

Sorry, wait...I know this one...

"Why is everyone stupid but me, an unappreciated genius who hasn't shared my brilliance with the world because those unwashed masses wouldn't know a good thing if I was slapping it against their faces..."

Better?

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

OK, fine, we'll kill half the jews.

[Ifreann]

Don't forget "emotional"! Arguments must be conducted like two Vulcans playing chicken, and whoever shows a feeling first loses!

I cannot sufficiently express how much I love...

You had a feeling, 10 yard penalty.

[Ifreann]

Why can't we just pretend every argument has two equally valid sides and then take the middle path? Why does no one see this?

OK, fine, we'll kill half the jews.

That won't do, how do we decide which jews to kill? We'll half kill all of them.

[Neo Art]

I cannot sufficiently express how much I love...

You had a feeling, 10 yard penalty.

You made a sports reference? How completely uncultured.

[Bottle]

I realized long ago that I do not need to know a lot of things, but knowing of them was very useful.

I think this is a great point.

That's what I think schooling should be about, really: giving people a very basic overview of what's out there, and showing them how to access more information when/if they want to learn more. For instance, I think everyone should get a course on how to read a scientific journal article. You don't have to be a scientist, you don't have to specialize in any given field, but you should have a sense for what to look for, how to tell when something is bullshit, and how to filter through all the dense jargon to find the crucial points. That way, if you ever want to read up on any particular field, you know how to get started.

My American History class in high school was useful to me in that kind of way. I don't remember most of the specific facts that we learned, but I absolutely remember all the things I was taught about how to read history, how to examine sources, how to write a document-based essay, and stuff like that. I've applied those skills a ton in my professional life, despite my career having nothing whatsoever to do with history.