On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:05:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>>     Why are such smart people so stupid at the same time?
>>>
>> Don't remember who said it, but they explained it like this (their
>> version being a lot shorter than this), "More knowledge/intelligence,
>> when applied badly, leads to more plausible sounding explanations for
>> the ridiculous, since they have more to work from, when constructing
>> their gibberish. This makes them better able to defend their position,
>> unless you are nearly as knowledgeable, and not heavily invested in the
>> same errors." The original was directed at the question of why a
>> scientist may hold, simultaneously, idiotic ideas, not directly related
>> to their own field, while managing to do a good, or even exceptional,
>> job at things that *are* in that field. The answer being, "Because they
>> can construct better stupidities."
>
> Of course it also helps when people have no memory of what these
> 'reporters' have said before.  Quite often they contradict themselves and
> count on the fact that nobody remembers what they said earlier.
>
Yeah, there is that too. Though, personally, the idea that you can hope 
to get by with that in any sort of long terms shows a great deal of 
blind stupidity as it is, in an day when doing *anything* in the TV is 
likely to end up with copies of what you *actually* said, both times, 
pasted into Youtube, Media Matters, and just about every other place 
imaginable, where someone might archive the shit.

The only reason they can get by with it is that not enough people on the 
other side of the fence are willing to *show* it happening, relying on 
the news media itself to report it, like anyone that watches Fox is 
going to turn on MSNBC, to watch their segment on, "What stupid shit Fox 
said this week, which they said the exact opposite of two days ago." 
Damn people need to get some guts, grow some balls, or something. The 
only competition they seem to present is, "We won't sink to your level 
of lies, by exposing the truth about all the stuff you are lying about." 
Wait, what? Really seriously irritates me.

Hint to the politicians: The press isn't going to do your job for you. 
You can either stand up for the truth, and maybe look bad to a few 
idiots, or you can waffle, and look bad to the people that know what the 
truth is. The later is a 100% certain way to lose *everything*, not just 
the next election, due to looking like someone raking mud.

> That's why Jon Stewart is so successful - he shines a bright light on
> that kind of idiocy, and it all starts with "Roll 2-12". :)
>
> Jim

Well, the other solution is Palin's fans, which is, "If the history 
doesn't reflect what your glorious leader claims, change history." Mind, 
Wikipedia isn't likely to put up with it, but I am sure Conservapedia 
would accept it. And, I do wonder how they plan to redo all the history 
books out there. lol

Post a reply to this message