There is knowledge as in what someone knows, then there is knowledge as in what is known to be true. The internet has an abundance of both. And there is a clear

There is knowledge as in what someone knows, then there is knowledge as in what is known to be true. The internet has an abundance of both. And there is a clear intellectual divide between those that can and cannot distinguish these two. For the most part, what we know says more about us, and the truth value requires proper validation. What is known, on the other hand, is what has already been properly validated. It's the objective evidence and insights that have scientific integrity. Studying the subjective knowledge of masses leads not to any advancement of facts, but to anthropology. Today, if I say something racist it just paints me a racist. Yet there are those who still take the words of random people, detach them from the speaker, and attempt to validate them themselves with gut and instinct. Or worse yet, take common sentiment and intent as validation. To them, it's about kinship and common sense, about right and wrong, though for the most part they don't know what the hell they're talking about because they are incapable of proper validation. These two forms of intellect are incompatible. Ultimately, all it boils down to is knowing that your gut cannot recognize the truth.