41–50 of 100 posts
These are great. I've always used a rule of thumb. Dumb = ignorant, seems to get better with more knowledge Stupid = confidently wrong to the point of net negative for everyone, seems to get worse with more knowledge
No definition of stupidity is given, no criteria for identifying stupid behaviour, no evidence for any of these ramblings. I checked out a few other article. More flat statements with little or no reasoned or evidentiary support, and what references are given if you actually read them, in the cases I found are being mis-interpreted. They often don't actually support the position taken. The whole thing is stupid. Havi…
> No definition of stupidity is given From the article: “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.”
OK, fair enough its a sort of definition or has the superficial form of one, but it's not actually saying anything.
This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
I used to host this article. Somebody in Italy claimed to own the copyright ("literary heirs" of Carlos), and demanded I take it down, despite that Carlos clearly wanted it distributed far and wide. He's dead now, so he gets no say anymore.
This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
But it’s not quite that. It’s a long form semi-comic screed from a time when it wasn’t especially controversial to put plain words to one’s frustrations.
I don’t share these particular frustrations. I don’t resonate with what’s being said. I think it comes from a pretty alienated experience where you’re convinced that there’s a lot of bad in the world and that it can be attributed to a few conceptual scapegoats that are simple and identifiable and that things would be so much better if not for this one (or two or ten) darn things.
But a lot of people do feel that way, and I’m not ready to hold my different experience over theirs. It would probably be stupid of me to do so.
This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
I feel like we must have read two entirely different articles. The author has a very precise definition of stupidity. He very explicitly states that level of knowledge/education is completely orthogonal to being stupid. (As prevalent among Nobel laureates as it is among blue collar workers.) Stupidity, in his definition, appears to be an attitude more than anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a satirical piece, you are allowed to not like it but you don't have to peer review it.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article defines stupidity in a very precise way No, it doesn't. The part that you mention is "law" 3 of 5. I stopped reading mid-way into the first "law" up to which the article already used the term "stupidity" multiple times as if it's obvious what that is and was so unbelievably presumptuous regarding people that are somehow less worth than the author that it became unbearable.
You have to admit, that's kind of funny you based your criticism off an incomplete reading of the source material. I think complaining about clarity is something that should probably happen after one has contemplated the whole of the thing.