"They doesn't speek no gud English like whut we does." 😂 Appreciate this for both making me laugh and for demonstrating effective satire for fighting stupidity (I see what you did there).
I like your idea of the CSC, but the realpolitik of it is that the partisans won't agree on the definition of "stupidity" (which is, in and of itself, a reflection of the rampant stupidity of our time), just as they cannot currently agree on the definition of "disease" when it comes to the CDC. There was a brief time when gun violence was considered a public disease by the CDC, but as soon at they started to do studies and reports, they were shut down by congressional conservatives, backed by the gun lobby. That was the 90s, I believe, and look where we're at in the country right now when it comes to gun violence, especially school shootings.
So the only chance for the CSC would be nonprofit/NGO, perhaps funded with equal seed grants from 2 billionaires--one on the left and one on the right--such that they'll have no strings attached and no perceived bias. Alright, that's my contribution. Next! Who knows any billionaires?
Do you read Michael Shermer's Skeptic magazine? I think he does a terrific job of sticking it to the absurdities both of the looney left and the ridiculous right. He is not afraid of incurring the wrath of cancel culture, as by arguing that transgender women should not be allowed to compete with cisgender women in athletic events. Likewise, he has taken on the religious right many times, for instance by debating creationists. So, it can be done.
Alas, that, by definition, is the monoparty duopoly, or whatever it's called today. You won't satisfy them without the billionaire on the right being Elon the Egregious.
"He is the tinpot pope of the Coca Cola belt and the friend of those preachers who belabor halfwits in corrugated iron tabernacles behind the railroad tracks." This quote from Mencken regarding William Jennings Bryan is to me a perfect example of what not to do. The plague currently infecting, and possibly about to overwhelm, the United States thrives on feelings of victimhood, and resentment at being looked down on by intellectual elites. Every time stuff like this is repeated, a Trump loyalist is born.
I agree that there is risk of such--but not at all that it is inevitable. Ridicule and satire can just get people dug in and feeling condescended to and put upon--but it can also be a key to enlightenment.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that I'm dangerously stupid myself at times. So I do my best to bear that in mind, and attack the concept but not the person. I also try to imagine what it's like to hear what I'm saying in the context of the recipients. Would Mencken's remarks have made anyone at all in Tennessee more supportive of the teaching of evolution?
Ha ha! Thanks, Paul. Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump said, and we have all done our share of stupid things.
I am not sure, though, that you can separate criticism of the concept from criticism of the person. Stupid beliefs are not held dispassionately, but as an essential element of personal and tribal identity. In that case, criticism of the belief is, de facto, criticism of the person.
Ridicule, like physical force, is a blunt instrument. True, being ridiculed will not make someone a better person, but it might get them to shut up for a while. More likely, it will alert others just how dangerously ridiculous these people are, and motivate them to vote against them. Stupidity also can be bad for business. In the movie Inherit the Wind, the town's businessmen, though fundamentalist Christians themselves, warned that incurring ridicule in the national press would disincline investment in the region.
DeSantis went out of his way to fight Disney and the FL higher ed system. McCrory paid for the NC bathroom bill, but they're back as part of the backlash to the backlash; the ridicule of the ridicule.
I"m not sure who will "see how dangerously ridiculous these people are" because if it were possible they already noticed it.
More importantly, ridicule plays into the accelerationist plan of "flooding the zone with shit" and further erodes civic discourse.
It *may* shut them up, but coming from your or me it only validates them.
There are millions of people who say that they will vote for Trump, but are not the hardcore MAGA zealots. They are appalled at the price of eggs and hamburger, or the housing market is making it hard to find a home. Some of these may be reached by argument, satire, or ridicule. Real satire contrasts with flooding the zone with shit because the essence of satire is truth. Sometimes people recognize the truth, but it takes prompting to get them to really feel it, to really see the emperor's nakedness. A belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms, as Mencken said.
I've never met any people like that, though I've met their opposite -- people upset about prices who aren't willing to vote for chaos because they're feeling pinched. TBH, I don't particularly believe in their existence, and I suspect better questioning would give a fuller picture of who they are and what they believe. Rather like the Christians who suddenly decided that it's not necessary to vote for the devout person (biden) because there's precedent in the bible for the Lord using someone with a checkered (at best) past to do His work. (C'mon, dude, just say you're voting for the racist and leave Jesus out of it.)
"They doesn't speek no gud English like whut we does." 😂 Appreciate this for both making me laugh and for demonstrating effective satire for fighting stupidity (I see what you did there).
I like your idea of the CSC, but the realpolitik of it is that the partisans won't agree on the definition of "stupidity" (which is, in and of itself, a reflection of the rampant stupidity of our time), just as they cannot currently agree on the definition of "disease" when it comes to the CDC. There was a brief time when gun violence was considered a public disease by the CDC, but as soon at they started to do studies and reports, they were shut down by congressional conservatives, backed by the gun lobby. That was the 90s, I believe, and look where we're at in the country right now when it comes to gun violence, especially school shootings.
So the only chance for the CSC would be nonprofit/NGO, perhaps funded with equal seed grants from 2 billionaires--one on the left and one on the right--such that they'll have no strings attached and no perceived bias. Alright, that's my contribution. Next! Who knows any billionaires?
Do you read Michael Shermer's Skeptic magazine? I think he does a terrific job of sticking it to the absurdities both of the looney left and the ridiculous right. He is not afraid of incurring the wrath of cancel culture, as by arguing that transgender women should not be allowed to compete with cisgender women in athletic events. Likewise, he has taken on the religious right many times, for instance by debating creationists. So, it can be done.
I'll have to check that out, sounds like my kinda guy. Thanks!
Alas, that, by definition, is the monoparty duopoly, or whatever it's called today. You won't satisfy them without the billionaire on the right being Elon the Egregious.
"He is the tinpot pope of the Coca Cola belt and the friend of those preachers who belabor halfwits in corrugated iron tabernacles behind the railroad tracks." This quote from Mencken regarding William Jennings Bryan is to me a perfect example of what not to do. The plague currently infecting, and possibly about to overwhelm, the United States thrives on feelings of victimhood, and resentment at being looked down on by intellectual elites. Every time stuff like this is repeated, a Trump loyalist is born.
I agree that there is risk of such--but not at all that it is inevitable. Ridicule and satire can just get people dug in and feeling condescended to and put upon--but it can also be a key to enlightenment.
So, how should we respond to the dangerously stupid? Being nice does not seem to work.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that I'm dangerously stupid myself at times. So I do my best to bear that in mind, and attack the concept but not the person. I also try to imagine what it's like to hear what I'm saying in the context of the recipients. Would Mencken's remarks have made anyone at all in Tennessee more supportive of the teaching of evolution?
Ha ha! Thanks, Paul. Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump said, and we have all done our share of stupid things.
I am not sure, though, that you can separate criticism of the concept from criticism of the person. Stupid beliefs are not held dispassionately, but as an essential element of personal and tribal identity. In that case, criticism of the belief is, de facto, criticism of the person.
Ridicule, like physical force, is a blunt instrument. True, being ridiculed will not make someone a better person, but it might get them to shut up for a while. More likely, it will alert others just how dangerously ridiculous these people are, and motivate them to vote against them. Stupidity also can be bad for business. In the movie Inherit the Wind, the town's businessmen, though fundamentalist Christians themselves, warned that incurring ridicule in the national press would disincline investment in the region.
DeSantis went out of his way to fight Disney and the FL higher ed system. McCrory paid for the NC bathroom bill, but they're back as part of the backlash to the backlash; the ridicule of the ridicule.
I"m not sure who will "see how dangerously ridiculous these people are" because if it were possible they already noticed it.
More importantly, ridicule plays into the accelerationist plan of "flooding the zone with shit" and further erodes civic discourse.
It *may* shut them up, but coming from your or me it only validates them.
There are millions of people who say that they will vote for Trump, but are not the hardcore MAGA zealots. They are appalled at the price of eggs and hamburger, or the housing market is making it hard to find a home. Some of these may be reached by argument, satire, or ridicule. Real satire contrasts with flooding the zone with shit because the essence of satire is truth. Sometimes people recognize the truth, but it takes prompting to get them to really feel it, to really see the emperor's nakedness. A belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms, as Mencken said.
I've never met any people like that, though I've met their opposite -- people upset about prices who aren't willing to vote for chaos because they're feeling pinched. TBH, I don't particularly believe in their existence, and I suspect better questioning would give a fuller picture of who they are and what they believe. Rather like the Christians who suddenly decided that it's not necessary to vote for the devout person (biden) because there's precedent in the bible for the Lord using someone with a checkered (at best) past to do His work. (C'mon, dude, just say you're voting for the racist and leave Jesus out of it.)