Towards the thesis that the only thing safe from ridicule is evil
(Originally on Twitter: Thread towards the thesis that the only thing safe from ridicule/derision is malice/evil/ill-will — 17 June 2026)
1. The relativity of ridicule
(13 June 2026)
The other day I saw an incredibly long tweet full of platitudes posted by some Asian young man whose nickname was So-and-So, IQ 244578903 (whatever).
Today I saw someone, for the third time in a month, parading his very long curriculum vitae of common academic degrees, in order to respond to a dissenting opinion.
It is impossible that these two men don’t know that the world hasn’t only had idiots and mediocre people, but also a child like Gauss, or an adult like Handel who composed Messiah in three weeks. One could consider oneself exempt from cringiness when one knows that one is only exposed to witnesses without the intelligence and/or knowledge that would allow them to perceive the cringiness in question, but it is impossible that these two men don’t know that anyone, including people capable of noticing such cringiness, can read their tweets and nicknames. Tweets aren’t just for idiots; anyone can read them, and these two men know it, yet they still post those tweets, say the things they say, and do the things they do. It is truly astonishing.
(16 July 2026)
It often happens that a person knows many words with similar meanings, but chooses to repeat only one of them, if that is the one that most accurately conveys what he wants to say, given the circumstances that he needs to frequently refer to what that single word describes.
Misinterpreting this person, whether out of ignorance or in bad faith (mala fides), another person might assume that the former does not use other words simply because he doesn’t know them.
Does the IQ test, or any other test, distinguish between a prior desire for precision and mere lexical poverty? — And you?… Would you be able to discern it?
2. On the meaning of good versus stupid
(28 November 2024)
‘Every time: “Endearing” is code for “foolish”’
(Seen on Twitter and replied by me with the words that follow)
Yesterday I said of a woman that she was winsome. I guess that word could also be considered code for ‘foolish’, as well as ‘charming’, ‘cute’, ‘innocent’, ‘adorable’ or even ‘lovely’.
According to Nietzsche, wherever slave morality becomes preponderant, language tends to bring the words ‘good’ and ‘stupid’ closer together.
Inspired by his reading of Dostoevsky’s novel, The Antichrist refers to Jesus as an idiot.
In this way, Nietzsche places himself among those in the crowd that Prince Myshkin meets: by agreeing with those people on the core idea that goodness does not exist and every form of goodness can properly be reduced to some form of stupidity, ignorance, inexperience, weakness, cowardice, social self-interest, etcetera.
I merely wanted to clarify that I do not share the idea. For me, words like ‘foolish’ and ‘endearing’ (or ‘winsome’) refer to different realities — just as goodness or good will has nothing to do, in itself, with stupidity, ignorance, inexperience, weakness, cowardice, social self-interest, etcetera.
3. The relativity within the same individual’s reasoning (by the mere use of reason): Las gallinas que entran, por las que salen
Anything, even the most unequivocally good or beautiful, can be thought of in awful, disturbing, depressing terms (Hope as evidence — Not about feelings, Section 1.)
‘People that unironically believe smart people have lower wellbeing on average don’t realize the extent to which below-average people are victimized by their own stupidity.
‘If you’re stupid, you’re constantly being victimized by forces beyond your comprehension.
‘If you’re genuinely stupid, you don’t have the introspective capabilities required to dig yourself out of a hole. You don’t even realize you’re in the fucking hole.
‘You feel the negative consequences of your actions without comprehending their source.’
‘I am always suspicious of people who claim to be smart but are miserable. If they really were that smart, they would have figured out how to live a joyous life.’
(Seen on Twitter)
•
An equally widespread intuition points in the opposite direction: that extraordinary intelligence often goes hand in hand with extraordinary suffering — that, if anything, the truly intelligent are less able, not more, to ‘climb out of the hole’.
The tormented genius…
It is curious how often people take such strong positions on these questions, since, at first glance, one might expect that the greater the intelligence, the greater the capacity both to refute distressing ideas and to conceive them.
Las gallinas que entran, por las que salen
(What you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts.)
•
The issue might be framed as follows:
WELLBEING (uplifting focus or vision) and INTELLIGENCE:
— Is wellbeing favoured by a clear, orderly, and true understanding of reality — or hindered by it?
— Or does wellbeing depend instead on some prior disposition: divine, instinctive, physiological, neurological…?
•
Years ago, I read someone on Twitter referring to long eyelashes by comparing them to a carnivorous plant. From which I inferred that
— anything, even the most unequivocally good or beautiful, can be thought of in awful, disturbing, depressing terms.
I do not know whether such cases reveal that what ultimately matters is faith, hope, and charity — or, if one prefers, some fundamental optimism rooted in temperament, mood, or another underlying disposition — or whether they merely illustrate mistaken ways of thinking, susceptible to correction by the proper use of reason.
4. Thesis
Filled with rage and sadness at all that was good, beautiful, true and noble that I had seen ridiculed, I wondered if there was anything so absolutely good that could remain untouched by ridicule, and I concluded that there’s not.
One might even infer that, on the contrary, the better something or someone is, the more exposed it is to ridicule: the more comical and humiliating the crown of thorns on its head, the purple robe upon its shoulders, will appear.
Just as anything, the same thing, can be perceived, through the mere use of reason, as
— either beautiful and inspiring
— or ugly and depressing,
depending on what criteria beyond reason the thinking subject employs, so too can anything be understood as
— either ridiculous
— or not ridiculous.
And the better it is, the more ridiculous it potentially is.
And the more evil it is, the less ridiculous it potentially is?
That’s what I thought. That was what my thesis asserted.
Yes, there was one element completely immune to ridicule, to humiliation through laughter, to mocking contempt, but that element is EVIL.
Armed with sufficient knowledge, wit and willpower, anyone can laugh at anything, EXCEPT evil.
One can successfully laugh at someone evil, but only to the extent that the person is not ABSOLUTELY evil and that non-evil elements remain within him, and are therefore susceptible to being ridiculed.
It would be impossible to laugh at someone or something constituted by PURE evil.
(So, if your primary objective, dear reader A, is to avoid being ridiculed, you know what you have to do.)
(As for you, dear reader B, don’t worry about A planning to become an absolutely evil being whom no one can ever laugh at: for even if A becomes someone of absolute and constant ill will, there will necessarily still be elements in him and in his life outside his will and control — elements that won’t be evil and therefore, will be susceptible to being used to laugh at him.)