h a l f b a k e r yAlmost as great as sliced bread.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The leaders of this new religion believe in the right to remain
uneducated, and rely on pseudo-truths gleaned from reading
article headlines only, or watching conspiracy theory videos.
This religion looks down at intellectuals of any sort, and
despise research of any kind. It is a political
and cultural
movement that advances brutality and stupidity as the "wish of
god". Their moto: If god wanted us to be smart why did he
create us stupid?
[link]
|
| |
Take a look at Roman Catholicism, they've been doing this for a thousand years ... |
|
| |
What [8th] said. Baked by any religion you care to
name. |
|
| |
Where do I sign? I can do stupidity on an
industrial scale. |
|
| |
Head for Syria. ISIL are looking for people just like you. So are the drones, but not in a good way. |
|
| |
//and rely on pseudo-truths gleaned from reading article headlines only, or watching conspiracy theory videos.//
Is this what religions do? One of the advantages of a dogma is that your position on headlines and tinfoil youtubes is already determined for you (and almost invariably in support of existing power structures) rather than the inbuilt flexibility of a dynamic collage-based conspiracy religion, which seems to me to be what's proposed. |
|
| |
That said, paragraph 2 of the idea is close to the practical manifestations of many organised religions (and is therefore by some margin the less interesting of the two), so maybe that's what's prompting people to ignore para 1 and do the Ol' Halfbakery Religi-lol. |
|
| |
// It is a political and cultural movement that advances brutality and stupidity as the "wish of god". // |
|
| |
Actually, paragraph 2 sounds remarkably like unreconstructed National Socialism. Or Maoism. Or any other dictatorship... |
|
| |
Sorry [pashute] this idea is against individual liberty, liberty might seem stupid, but usually things that are done freely people who would form a disciplinary order otherwise, or assume the implicit naivete as a way to control. Nietzche comments on this as antithesis of value in metaphysics and is included in a very special axis. |
|
| |
This Idea doesn't really consider stupidity in an accurate
way. Consider the IQ scale, which is presumed to
measure how smart (non-stupid) people are. (Yes, I
know that there are arguments about the accuracy of
THAT, but bear with me for a bit.) Well, it is logically
obvious that that scale automatically measures
stupidity, too. The lower the IQ (or whatever
equivalent scale you choose), the higher the stupidity,
see? Nobody is 100% smart, so everyone is at least
somewhat stupid. |
|
| |
The point of the preceding relates to the title of this
Idea. Since everyone is already somewhat stupid, no
"conversion" is necessary! |
|
| |
Reminds me a bit of Discordianism. |
|
| |
We clever people often conflate being uneducated with being stupid. It's a dangerous mistake to make. |
|
| |
I don't think that there are many more 'stupid' people than there are 'smart' people. There are far more conditioned than non-conditioned people though. Maybe they will not take the same offense to being told they are wrong as will the few 'less than smart' people who tend to follow the crowd. |
|
| |
I don't know. I never assume that someone with an opinion different from one I hold is less intelligent than me.
Maybe they know something I don't which makes them feel that way.
Maybe my assumptions are faulty and their opinion sways me.
Maybe mine sways them. |
|
| |
Group size opinion ratios shouldn't matter one whit to open discussion. I'm almost certain that every 'truth' we hold as known was fought for first by a single individual against all of whichever society surrounded them at the time.
Were every one of these individuals 'stupid' to dig in their heels against the tide?
Was Rosa Parks stupid?
Was Galileo?
Gandhi? |
|
| |
If might made right... empires would never fall. It is that cycle which needs to, (and will be), broken. |
|
| |
// I never assume that someone with an opinion different from one I hold is less intelligent than me. // |
|
| |
But that is likely to be because you are yourself intelligent. That is how, and why, science works. |
|
| |
You observe a white horse. You conclude "All horses are white" on the basis of the available data. |
|
| |
You are then presented with a field containing animals that fulfill all your criteria for "horse", except that not all of them are white. |
|
| |
You can then conclude either (a) "Some, but not all, horses are white", or (b) "There exist creatures resembling horses that are not actually horses because they are not white" * |
|
| |
In either case you are willing to modify your conclusions as and when more verifiable data are available. |
|
| |
Stupid people do not do this. |
|
| |
Stupid people persist in their opinions despite all evidence to the contrary. |
|
| |
Stupid people fall back on non-sequitur or hermetic arguments when confronted with facts. |
|
| |
* In this case, (b) is actually correct. If you look closely, the large brown herbivorous quadruped over in the far corner by the fence is in fact a cow. |
|
| |
//In either case you are willing to modify your conclusions as and when more verifiable data are available. |
|
| |
Stupid people do not do this.
Stupid people persist in their opinions despite all evidence to the contrary.
Stupid people fall back on non-sequitur or hermetic arguments when confronted with facts.// |
|
| |
Yeah... conditioning can be a bitch to overcome.
Actual mentally deficient people I've met just want a village to belong to. |
|
| |
//Was Galileo?//
Well Galileo certainly was stupid. He wrote his book in a way that was calculated to make the pope look like a prize imbecile even though that same pope had been supporting Galileo's efforts at doing science. |
|
| |
See... now I've got to go see if the pope during Galileo's day deserved to look like a prize imbecile or not.
{heavy sigh} |
|
| |
m'yes, not much listening to reason going on I see...
...man, I would have been SO burnt alive back then. |
|
| |
Yes, sad how all the old skills are dying out ... |
|
| |
//I've got to go see if the pope etc//
2fries, I expect that he probably did deserve it but that isn't the issue. The issue is, was Galileo notably dumb to go ahead & do it, thus turning an all-powerful ally into an all-powerful enemy. It's not even that Galileo was bravely revealing truth to the world in the face of religious persecution, because the Pope was already letting him do it (within limits) & not persecuting him.
[For those not familiar with Galileo's book, it is presented as a dialogue. The character defending the papal doctrine is named Simplicio.] |
|
| |
From what I read, the pope insisted that his own words and arguments be placed into the book after it had already been written, so Galileo placed these words in Simplicio's mouth rather than interweave another perspective. |
|
| |
Yeah, probably not his brightest move, but history sees which men sought truth even to their own detriment and which men sought stagnation.
From the record of his thought processes I'd say he probably felt he had a pretty good reason for angling things the way he did, even if nobody else understood, (or yet understands) why. |
|
| |
I think the dude totally rocked. The balls it must have taken to make the journey to doorstep of the second most powerful man in his society to basically tell him to go piss-up-a-rope for not taking a rational stand when the evidence could be seen and tested by all is... epic.
How long would Heliocentrism have languished had he truly recanted? |
|
| |
E pur se mouve indeed.
Nope. Not a stupid dude, just a reeeeeally stubborn smart dude. |
|
| |
//How long would Heliocentrism have languished had
he truly recanted?// For the record, Aristarchus
invented the heliocentric model back in the -300's. I
mention this only because he was a really cool guy
who also invented the combover and nail-polish. |
|
| |
Well, yes, fair enough, but his discus-throwing was never prize-winning, and he never put quite enough seasoning in his mousakka. |
|
| |
Paradoxically, Galileo's belief in his own genius made him
somewhat stupid regarding heliocentricity; in particular, he
completely ignored Kepler's improvements to the model,
because he, Galileo, not Kepler, had to be the genius. This
is a pity, because, IIRC, he really was a genius in other areas
(I'm thinking of mechanics). |
|
| |
I suppose it can be argued from this that self-belief, as well
as religious belief, can engender stupidity. |
|
| |
Spare him his life from geocentricity ... |
|
| |