The problem with calling someone an idiot is that everyone is an idiot. So if you say that someone believes something dumb because they're dumb, well yeah! Of course! They're human; I already knew they weren't the brightest. So it's not a full explanation of their beliefs.
When I saw the headline, I thought this was going to be about “ablest language.” In my (very woke) world, you get scolded for even using the words idiot, dumb, crazy, moron, lame, and so on. You also can’t say stuff like “blind to the consequences” or “fell on deaf ears.”
I’ve been so conditioned by the scolds that I wouldn’t call any politician a moron. I’d think it and then remind myself I’m supposed to say something like, “He doesn’t know many facts, and his ideas are bad.”
Are you familiar with H.L. Mencken? Because I think he nailed it about 100 years ago.
"All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. ... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Bayard vs. Lionheart, The Evening Sun, Baltimore (26 July 1920)
I believe we have reached that lofty democratic goal! Several times in fact.
We desperately need to reign in democracy, we let the masses make far too many emotional, rash decisions. Democracy is only as strong as the handcuffs you put on it.
Often stupidity is a reaction to humiliation. People will double-down on the stupid, even perfectly intelligent individuals. Have you read The Status Game excerpt from Will Storr on Quillette? Trigger warning that it describes extreme examples of gruesome killers. He describes how in response to humiliation, people will either rebuild an alternate life away from the village where the humiliation occurred, or burn the village down. This is best captured by my favorite life quote, which I learned from a group of Vietnam Vets: "You can't save your face and your ass at the same time." So, what looks like stupid, is often really a bunch of face saving. I think there is a part of Trump that is sheer genius in his ability to mine the humiliation of his supporters to garner frenzied unflagging support for his brand. And the Left has played a perfect role by subjecting anyone-who-dissents-to-their-orthodoxy to a constant stream of contempt (the Left's own version of doubling down), so the Right is happy to build their own king-baby Trump fantasy village. My question is, how did this politics-of-stupidity become so mainstream? One hypothesis is the McCain-Palin ticket, and that the patriotism and statesmanship of McCain gave legitimacy and status to the face-saving Palin fantasy village. When McCain gave his concession speech, I remember thinking, "why the hell didn't he talk like this during the campaign?" So the Palin phenomenon let a terrible genie out of the bottle.
I wish you’d put your support of the Harper’s letter near the top. That way I would’ve known immediately that you support hate speech and may in fact be a nazi.
Speaking of which, can we add calling anyone to the political right of Chesa Boudin nazis to the list of unproductive dialogue?
While I very much appreciate your line of reasoning and advice on not using the characterization of stupid, dumb, moron or other similar terms, I am confounded to find a more appropriate descriptor for Tя☭mp supporters. Seeking a more acceptable characterization for someone repeatedly performing and failing the mental equivalent of the milk crate challenge to justify not only their support for Tя☭mp but determination to restore him to the White House is to me a conundrum I simply cannot accept. So I guess I am left with no alternative but to refer to them as the malevolent dumb fucks they show themselves to be repeatedly. My apologies for being so judgemental.
On second thought, if you feel I have violated the rules of civil discourse by use of the dumb fuck description for these idiots ... well, fuck you too, you moron.
I think it's a good rule overall (BTW, it also applies to Corporate America as much as it does in politics) but for a different reason: By avoiding blanket, non-descriptive terms, it forces the not-so-dumb to find more precise words to describe what they believe. Precision is a value that I hold in high regard -- especially in discussion and debate of political issues.
The moment Lord Grantham said something like, "But Murray, we were SURE this investment would not fail!" was the moment I knew Downton Abbey had jumped the shark.
Why doesn't this all apply to morality, too? Not a new idea; Gee, Officer Krupke and all that. Many social scientists use "prosocial" and "antisocial" instead of "unselfish" or "skanky." But your moral nature, just like your intellect, is the outcome of a mix of nature and nurture and there's not much you can do to move that legendary needle, the needle that just never moves anymore. You shouldn't be able to call Trump a dirtbag any more than you can call him an idiot. But people don't complain about it as much.
Yes to your White Lotus comment. I'm a low information tv viewer. I'll hear through my friends and media diet that a particular show show be watched. I'll watch it. It'll be fine. But what I found curious about White Lotus was that it didn't fit into the little I knew about it beforehand. I was expecting a show of awful rich people doing a thing to goodly poor people. There was some of that but not really. It was a lot more ambiguous and subtle. There was no one root for. Everyone was flawed and broken.
I'm also a low intelligence tv viewer. I can never seem catch all the plot points of a show. So afterwards I'll read reviews and hot take essays about the show. But they all seemed to reiterate my initial understanding of the show, but they didn't really capture the show I saw.
So yeah, the more I read about it the more my ignorance grows.
Anyway, I enjoyed it and the soundtrack was fantastic.
The problem with calling someone an idiot is that everyone is an idiot. So if you say that someone believes something dumb because they're dumb, well yeah! Of course! They're human; I already knew they weren't the brightest. So it's not a full explanation of their beliefs.
When I saw the headline, I thought this was going to be about “ablest language.” In my (very woke) world, you get scolded for even using the words idiot, dumb, crazy, moron, lame, and so on. You also can’t say stuff like “blind to the consequences” or “fell on deaf ears.”
I’ve been so conditioned by the scolds that I wouldn’t call any politician a moron. I’d think it and then remind myself I’m supposed to say something like, “He doesn’t know many facts, and his ideas are bad.”
Are you familiar with H.L. Mencken? Because I think he nailed it about 100 years ago.
"All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. ... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Bayard vs. Lionheart, The Evening Sun, Baltimore (26 July 1920)
I believe we have reached that lofty democratic goal! Several times in fact.
We desperately need to reign in democracy, we let the masses make far too many emotional, rash decisions. Democracy is only as strong as the handcuffs you put on it.
Often stupidity is a reaction to humiliation. People will double-down on the stupid, even perfectly intelligent individuals. Have you read The Status Game excerpt from Will Storr on Quillette? Trigger warning that it describes extreme examples of gruesome killers. He describes how in response to humiliation, people will either rebuild an alternate life away from the village where the humiliation occurred, or burn the village down. This is best captured by my favorite life quote, which I learned from a group of Vietnam Vets: "You can't save your face and your ass at the same time." So, what looks like stupid, is often really a bunch of face saving. I think there is a part of Trump that is sheer genius in his ability to mine the humiliation of his supporters to garner frenzied unflagging support for his brand. And the Left has played a perfect role by subjecting anyone-who-dissents-to-their-orthodoxy to a constant stream of contempt (the Left's own version of doubling down), so the Right is happy to build their own king-baby Trump fantasy village. My question is, how did this politics-of-stupidity become so mainstream? One hypothesis is the McCain-Palin ticket, and that the patriotism and statesmanship of McCain gave legitimacy and status to the face-saving Palin fantasy village. When McCain gave his concession speech, I remember thinking, "why the hell didn't he talk like this during the campaign?" So the Palin phenomenon let a terrible genie out of the bottle.
I wish you’d put your support of the Harper’s letter near the top. That way I would’ve known immediately that you support hate speech and may in fact be a nazi.
Speaking of which, can we add calling anyone to the political right of Chesa Boudin nazis to the list of unproductive dialogue?
While I very much appreciate your line of reasoning and advice on not using the characterization of stupid, dumb, moron or other similar terms, I am confounded to find a more appropriate descriptor for Tя☭mp supporters. Seeking a more acceptable characterization for someone repeatedly performing and failing the mental equivalent of the milk crate challenge to justify not only their support for Tя☭mp but determination to restore him to the White House is to me a conundrum I simply cannot accept. So I guess I am left with no alternative but to refer to them as the malevolent dumb fucks they show themselves to be repeatedly. My apologies for being so judgemental.
On second thought, if you feel I have violated the rules of civil discourse by use of the dumb fuck description for these idiots ... well, fuck you too, you moron.
I think it's a good rule overall (BTW, it also applies to Corporate America as much as it does in politics) but for a different reason: By avoiding blanket, non-descriptive terms, it forces the not-so-dumb to find more precise words to describe what they believe. Precision is a value that I hold in high regard -- especially in discussion and debate of political issues.
The moment Lord Grantham said something like, "But Murray, we were SURE this investment would not fail!" was the moment I knew Downton Abbey had jumped the shark.
Why doesn't this all apply to morality, too? Not a new idea; Gee, Officer Krupke and all that. Many social scientists use "prosocial" and "antisocial" instead of "unselfish" or "skanky." But your moral nature, just like your intellect, is the outcome of a mix of nature and nurture and there's not much you can do to move that legendary needle, the needle that just never moves anymore. You shouldn't be able to call Trump a dirtbag any more than you can call him an idiot. But people don't complain about it as much.
Yes to your White Lotus comment. I'm a low information tv viewer. I'll hear through my friends and media diet that a particular show show be watched. I'll watch it. It'll be fine. But what I found curious about White Lotus was that it didn't fit into the little I knew about it beforehand. I was expecting a show of awful rich people doing a thing to goodly poor people. There was some of that but not really. It was a lot more ambiguous and subtle. There was no one root for. Everyone was flawed and broken.
I'm also a low intelligence tv viewer. I can never seem catch all the plot points of a show. So afterwards I'll read reviews and hot take essays about the show. But they all seemed to reiterate my initial understanding of the show, but they didn't really capture the show I saw.
So yeah, the more I read about it the more my ignorance grows.
Anyway, I enjoyed it and the soundtrack was fantastic.