More Stupid People!

Well written piece... And i have to say, i really agree with you on this, but who is the stupid person? the leader? the follower, or the person that gets out of the way?

The stupid people are the people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing, and are just doing it to be doing.

name calling wont get you anywhere.

I agree this post is good for the thinking. Have you ever heard of Ayn Rand? she was founder of the philosophy termed, 'objectivism'. She addressed these thoughts in her work, "the fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" and also, "Anthem". Her school once included a psychotherapist named, Nathaniel Brandon. Brandon made the statement, "Individuation and separation mark the birth of the human being." He also went on to observe that a majority of people will live their entire life and never be born.
The observations of this generation you make, are also the observations of the wise throughout all history. People have always been 'sheeple' and every man telling them what their God says to do, will testify to this. The large part of the problem is that those who are so neurotic as to NEED to lead others have been the leaders. When we view the standards of judgement used to make decisions as to who will lead whom, it all becomes more clear. The President or other Politician is the best liar and most amoral. The Supervisor is the butt-lick for the owner, again often being amoral. Even the 'teacher' is the ultimate conformist, having accepted the rule that they will teach and learn only as told to.
from their earliest moments, people are told they, "Can't beat the system" to "go along and get along", or to not be a 'Smart alek' or 'embarass' US. Yet, these things serve a purpose of Governmental structures such as ours. Without going into it too deep here, the entire education system we have today was based upon a Prussian who found he could not raise an army for his war. By mandating education, he mandated indoctrination and made a servile people who would serve as he taught them. The same is true here in the U.S.A.
You cannot lead a people who think for themselves. If you ever saw the humorous movie by Monty Python, "the Search For The Holy Grail" you've seen the scene where the King goes up to a peasant working at finding roots to eat, and announces "I am your King". The man says he has nothing to do with a King if he isn't helping him eat ( the lines are funnier but I won't spoil it). Without having been taught to 'follow' the people will just get on fine by themsleves. This is exactly what the Kings and Politicians fear, a people who don't view their self-importance as anything but delusion and neurosis, treating them as the next 'averagejoe'. Hence the need for 'public education' and 'registering' with a Party, subscribing to a specific theology, making the collecting of green paper a 'goal' and standard by which we judge each other.
Most people, you know since you've been a leader, CHOOSE to be followers, and this is convenient to the neurotics who need to lead 'lesser' people to feel adequate in themselves. I spent not a few years refusing to lead, finding followers loathsome, and my path too rigidly mapped by such compromising of my life energy. Still, leadership can be a good thing, as in war where the 'command' is more important than life itself, and likely will save the follower by fact he follows the leader. A Ross Perot is the type of business leader who does so by example. He talked of having contract negotiations and after the offer is made to him in 3,000 pages of legalese, sat back and said, I trust you have to have made a good deal here because now I'm going to turn the table and you take my terms and I will take yours under this thickly worded contract. More than once the imposter left the table I assure you. But Ross was good on his word and never made a deal he wouldn't turn the table on and take himself.
Those who have 'Party' affiliation politically, have the rationalization for social injustice that unjust people need for peace of mind. Their Party never does wrong because they do it to either stop the other Party doing it to them, or because they are 'right' in their thinking. Yet ask a Republican why he would support setting up a'Democracy' in Iraq and not a 'Republic' and you'll get a blank stare. Ask a Democrat how they can oppose a majority vote for a Republican and you get the same. In truth, most people don't give a damn about social 'Justice', only social equality of opportunity. They don't care if you rip off a dollar from someone's Grandma in an Arkansas Savings& Loan scam, only that they should be able to do it in Denver also.
Sadly, the end of all this blather I've put forth is that I do not believe things are going to magically change any time soon. There will be leaders and followers forever, and the more crowded it gets, the less the individual will be able to escape the gig, unlike Thoreau, who went and bought some woods. If you have individuated and separated you are alive my friend, and we can't go back to the fold, for we've seen too much of the greener pastures of freedom of mind and life. We can pity those blinded by Party, Theology, and green paper, but we can't be part of them, and that is reward enough. To laugh at those who say 'You can't beat the system" and tell us to 'compromise' is our gift to those who we raise and who will someday look up to us and KNOW it can be done and they too can be a 'majority of one' as they walk through life, for we have shown the way. [the art of leading without leading] Carry On.

I totally agree with everything on this page, but also particularly with Wahkonta. I too have read Ayn Rand-Atlas Shrugged- and agreed with it, but onew thing is that Rand never presents both sides of the story. She talks about the sufferance of the leaders, the ines with the mind but not about all the logic which really does exist on the socialist side. See, the only problem with it is that it presumes all men are idealists:which ofcourse they arent

Wahkonta yes I have heard of her, and I actually had to study objectivism, but I now remember very little of it. Thank you for your reply, you put it into words far more eloquently than I did, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Stevens, I tend to thing all men really are idealists. Its just so varied that it may not always be obvious. But I have yet to meet any man that is not one in some way.

American children were made to think independently of our peer groups and our elders

I disagree. Why is it then a majority of the children want the exact same materalistic items i.e. game systems, clothes, shoes, etc.?

Our society does not create independent thinking. Desegregation is not the same as independence. I also believe personally that the mass reality must have seperation from the seperate reality or we would all be robots of the "controlled media" It is an illusion that one thinks they have conceived a unique thought. Religion is a by product of ancient times that has been allowed to exist because it makes money for some while making others feel resolved.

There are always exceptions to every rule as well as the exceptions to the exceptions ~winks~

Occult wanting for the same things is not reflective of independent thought. Everyone wants a car but that does not mean that everyone thinks the same. Wanting a diamond does not make you more shallow.

You pose something interesting, can a multicultural society be multicultural? This sounds dumb I know, but given the way so many "values" and perceptions are defined today, is it possible to accept that the US is one society that is multifaceted?

Can you, OccultPizza, really say that we are all the same?

Here is the problem. Think of it this way people need to feel part of something its all psychological. People who think themselves as rebels tend to also think they somehow are enlightened. Who can define the right way to live. Truelly I believe no one can set guidelines on how the correct way to carry oneself is. Therefore everyone stating this is the way it should be is nothing more than an opinion. Opinions can be educated if it is based of facts. So why do rebels deep down inside truelly believe they are enlightened. It is human nature that is all. I feel like a rebel often I don't go with what eveyone thinks or does and I truly think that the media is responsible for all the gray that you know see. Unfortunately if peace were ever to be truelly established it would probably mean that everyones identity would either wholly or partly have to be similar.

One big reason why people can seem stupid is that some people seem inclined to make sweeping statements with nothing to back it up.

In some cases I'd be satisfied with them simply being specific.

When someone wants to start bitching about the United States would it really be so hard for them to actally be specific about why they think the US is so bad rather than stating it broadly?

instead of someone snidely saying "You know, maybe the US should think about why 9/11 happened." maybe, just maybe they could try to put forth an actual theory of their own.

As an American, I don't really care what the terrorists reasoning was. There is nothing that justifies murdering thousands of innocents. But by all means, ifyou want to argue in favor of the terrorists, put forth your reasoning.

But you almost never see anything put forth. It's just mindless relfexive anti-American dribble. At best, you get a littany of political blunders spread over a few decades. Errors that have little in common or do little to justify murdering thousands of Americans.

It's as if these people believe there is some sort of cosmic national karma in play which is why they seem so stupid IMO.

Exactly Brad! People come online and rant about "ignorant" Americans, and then do absolutely nothing but show how stupid they are. Its aggravating.

People will call me a "sheep" because I am not writing something that they want to hear, regardless of where they are from. I can know everything there is to know about the subject matter, and I am being attacked, but not given anything relevant.

Its so funny though, because (I think) most of these people are at least adults, but they are not just showing disrespect, some of the stuff I have read is akin to nazi propaganda.

The irony of it all is that these "Supremely Educated" individuals are too blinded by themselves to even see what they are actually showing about themselves.

Brad and damouse I think you both would enjoy this reply I made to another critic of America;


Opinions are great aren't they. Anyone can say anything about anything and hide behind the cover of "it's my opinion", but truelly have no real facts or basis for their opinion. Everyone should create their own ideals but people should base it off some sort of fact or events. The sad part is Muggaz there are many people who have the exact same way of thinking as you do. That way of thinking, that is impulsive opinions, have not helped the world yet. So lets look at it logically. The world is looking at the United and opposing the war but why are they opposing the war? Easy, it is no longer in their interests to ally with the United States. Alliances after World War 2 is what made the world what it is today. Today these countries have not helped before the war, during, or after the war. France tried to rally the world to stop the U.S. from ousting Saddam. Russia was sending night-vison goggles to Saddam. None are helping with the rebuilding. Some Americans are bitter about this, others just can explain it. Democrats think it's our fault. They blame Bush which is easy. They lack vision and theirs is an etymological problem. There is no real communication. These countries are not allies. It is just optimistic thinking to count Russia or France as allies, naivete that counts Russia as a new one. It doesn't suprise me. All countries have different interests. For half a centure sentiments against communism papered those differences, but communism is all but gone. As such nations no longer have permanent allies but permanent interests. Alliance with the U.S. is no longer an interest. These countries are content to leave the U.S. out there twisting in the wind. Most countries don't want us destroyed, they aren't crazy, but they are not hurt to see us distracted, diminished and occasionally defeated. When the existential and powerful enemy was nazism or communism, the world stood behind its American defender. But Muslim extremism is different. Its hatred is wider, but the main focus is against the U.S.A.. Its calling card is Ground Zero (WTC). and last time I checked that wasn't in Australia. These countries "allies" know that eventually they might be threatened but for now they are happy to see the U.S. fight the new enemy alone. We were attacked the U.S. will carry the fight regardless, we must. For many countries , the war on terrorism offers a free ride and a strategic bonus, which is American diminishment. France has declared before the the U.S. dominance is intolerable, many other countries believe this but don't have (pardon my French :-P) balls to say it. The facts are the facts we continue to fight on many fronts and its consuming us. We spend blood and money in faraway places like Baghdad while some countries like China build up their military and economic power strengthning themselves to be the superpower of the future. Europe is conforming into a continental giant and the rest of the world goes about their business while making inferences on the Americans. The neutral countries may rant poetically about Americans and their sins, but they really don't hate us truelly that is. The problem isn't that they care but its simply calculations. They do what they believe is smart for their interests. Different countries have different interests and thats the way the world turns there is no use for the U.S. to cry about it. We will go on alone if we must. It is the ideals that drive this country to do what it is that they do. Look at the Japanese after decimating them we rebuilt them into one of the strongest countries on the planet with a democratic way of doing things. The same goes for Germany. The Germans would not be what they are today if it wasn't for the Americans but alas interests are what matter not actual loyalty. How can you teach what is the right way to a people that would not understand the right way. Poverty and no education leads the people in the last few remaining communist countries into oppresion. In lamens terms the people do not know that life can be better because they are restricted from learning of a better way of living so they live out their lives blindly believing it is the right way. When given two choices you choose one or the other what if you didn't know about the other choice or thought it possible. There are two sides two everything and you are trying to understand that which is alot better than most people who only see one side of the story. I am just letting you know how the world and why the world is in reacting the way it is.

One of the things I've been surprised about on forums, and I wrote a post about this recently, is just how poor at debating many younger debaters are.

I'm only 32 so I was young enough still to grow up with computers and BBSes and such. But today's young adults have had the Internet for most of their lives. You would think their skills would be sharper.  They think that debates are pointless. They're not.  Debates offer a way for us to exchange ideas, thoughts, and opinions. They aren't there to "win" or "lose". They are there to make us think about things.

Unfortunately, it seems many younger debaters see debating as purely a win-lose proposition and as a result put little thinking into their position but instead just focus on trying to "win" the argument.

Being good at debating isn't really that hard. There are basically 3 rules:

(1) Target subject matter that you have an interest in and have sufficient back ground knowledge.

(2) Backup your assertions with evidence if the assertion isn't one that is commonly understood by others who are reasonably famliar with the subject. Also, be specific. Avoid vague generalities in your assertion.  I.e. don't say "America is a bully." say "I think America is a bully because of the seeming arrogance displayed by this administration with its high handed treatment of the UN during the Iraq crisis. There doesn't seem to have been a compelling reason to attack Iraq when it did."  I would disagree with that statement but it at least has enough meat to have a discussion about.  By contrast, impression does the "America is a bully" give off? To me, it sounds pathetic and simpering. The words of someone jealous of American power and success.

(3) Offer alternatives. Nit-pickers quickly earn the contempt of other debaters. Who wants to deal with people who just sit around bitching about what other people have done. Offer an alternative action. Tell them what should have been done instead.

These 3 rules will help create better debates with people and accomplish what debating is really about -- thinking about things in new and interesting ways.

In psychology there are 11 defense mechanisms we use. One of the more interesting ones is the intellectual debater. If I remember correctly they hate losing debates and will go to the extent of their knowledge to solve something logically and analytically, from what I remember