91–100 of 100 posts
Wait. "The First Basic Law prevents me from attributing a specific numerical value to the fraction of stupid people within the total population: any numerical estimate would turn out to be an underestimate." If that held true for any estimate, the only correct answer is one hundred percent of the total population is stupid.
I think that's the implication
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He needed to put it in the public domain or something similar if he really cared.
> STATED by the Author in its 1986 version as intended for the public domain (and yes, stated again in 1992, despite having re-published this text in 1988, slightly modified, in his "Allegro ma non troppo" copyrighted collection). Small print at the bottom of the page.
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. ...
https://americandigest.org/dietrich-bonhoeffer-on-stupidity/>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> STATED by the Author in its 1986 version as intended for the public domain (and yes, stated again in 1992, despite having re-published this text in 1988, slightly modified, in his "Allegro ma non troppo" copyrighted collection). Small print at the bottom of the page.
Then how is it that his heirs control the rights? Once in the public domain, it stays there.
They don't.
If you read this and think it is serious I suggest you read it thinking about it as an elaborate joke, which is how it comes across to me.
Maybe read it in Patton Oswalt's voice?
> This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you.
> I would propose a more measured approach to this subject.
> This is so horrible on so many levels
> "stupidity" I'd rather think of this as "wasted potential"
> This article is bad.
> This is one of the most pretentious things I've read all year.
> [It's] a Hitler trap.
> No definition of stupidity is given
(This last one is particularly rich because a definition is, of course, given in the "third (and golden) basic law" in bold text outlined in it's own box!)
I don't really have anything to add to the discussion. To me TFA seems like a dry but funny satire. There's an element of truth to what it's saying, sure, but as far as any deeper meaning goes... "Be careful."?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think it's satirical? Read the other articles on the blog, they're all like that. Dull, plodding blobs of boorishness. Check out the screed on gay marriage.
> Why do you think it's satirical? I'm not the person you were replying to, but I think it's satirical because it's kind of funny, it's written in a style of exaggerated confidence, it's worded in an unnecessarily inflammatory way, and it has amusing diagrams. That doesn't mean I think it's just meaningless nonsense; a lot of satire does have something interesting to say about people or society. But I also don't thin…
Given that reality, accusing gay people who want that right as well as being hypocritical, a right I have enjoyed as a heterosexual for 20 years next week, in order to get some level of parity is vile victim blaming.
The homosexuals get derided and belittled for daring to ask, while heterosexuals that comfortably enjoy all the benefits get a pass. Yes he criticises the institution, but the only group that gets criticised are LGBT. Utterly despicable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in the UK and have driven on various European countries and all down the US West coast. LA had easily the worst and most aggressive drivers of all. It was terrifying; one moment you're trying to squeeze onto the highway between two cars that absolutely won't budge an inch, the next moment you're being overtaken on both sides simultaneously by cars going over the speed limit. I also passed two fresh car-totalli…
That's my point. I think my mistake was not defining what a good and bad driver means. I don't mean safe, cautious, polite - I simply mean competent in moving the car where you want it to go. Drivers in America and even more so in China are aggressive, but they also can control their cars better because they have to! No one will let them in, they have to force their way. If someone in my country of origin drives at t…