"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
. ..by the simple fact that so very, very many people cannot see the difference between
“All ____ aren’t” and “Not all ____ are.”
The two statements say distinctly different things, but many people (most, in my experience) use the first one when they intend the second meaning.
Mind-boggling to realize that so very many people are so far divorced from simple logic.
The Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind viewpoint exacerbated by an almost complete lack of historical knowledge and perspective in our society exaggerates the effect of reports of current events on public awareness and opinion. The Houston flooding is a current example.
There’s no doubt the flooding in the Houston area is devastating, and is comparable to some of the worst flooding the area has experienced in the last 100 years, but–and this is in no way intended to minimize the property damage and loss of life–while the flooding there has approached record levels, several floods in the past 100 years have had higher crests and been at least as widely spread and devastating.
Of course, Houston is more populous now than it was during what was arguably THE most devastating flood of the past, in 1935, but heck, even though I’m not really conversant in Texas history, I’ve had enough relatives from Texas (including grandparents who were Texas transplants in Oklahoma) to have been aware that Houston has experienced many floods in the past.
As always, when I hear of folks devastated by natural events in locales where such things are common, I have to wonder, “Why were folks so very unprepared for such an event?” (Let alone wondering, “Why live in a flood plain?” *heh*) Now, readers here may recall that in April we were surprised by a flood that affected our own property–even invading our basement, a flood that exceeded “100 year flood” levels and was widely, throughout the county, well above and beyond any flooding in the historical record, cresting over even a 100-year-old “historical” bridge that had never been flooded.
And yes, there were folks living in flood plains who were flooded far, far worse than we were, outside any known flood plain (and I have FEMA maps–outdated NOW!–showing we are not in a flood plain, for that matter). Yes, even with the commonsense precaution we took years ago to deliberately NOT buy a home in a flood plain, though we looked at some nice places that were in a flood plain–we experienced flooding, but. . .
Lil tidbit from the link above, for additional perspective:
“Dec. 8, 1935: Flooding to second and third floors of downtown buildings; Houston central water plant inoperable for weeks. . .”
Non-stupid behavior pays off.
While its nice to be able to depend on the kindness of strangers1, NOT having to depend on it is smarter, IMO. Just sayn’.
But, it’s so much better for Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind ratings to “celebrate” (as it were), or at least not condemn, mass stupidity.
Again, not minimizing the property damage and loss of life (stupid people are people too), just noting: no one who is at all aware of past events finds the Houston flood at all surprising.
1With a tip o’ the tam to Blanche DuBois. 😉
Bedtime Stories Help Kids—So Ban Them?
Yeh, this sort of thing pops up in the Every Child Left Behind bunch every now and then. Key bots from the article:
“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t. . .
“This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps—in the interests of leveling the playing field—bedtime stories should also be restricted. . . ”
And,
“I don’t think that parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children. . . ” but he does think that, from what is presented.
[N.B. The quoted material isn’t from the writer of the article at Intellectual Takeout but quoted from the article she references, Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?, a 2015 ABC, Australia, article..]
Yes, there really are people who seem to think that parents should be less loving and offer fewer opportunities for bonding and for intellectual stimulation to their children, because. . . reasons (that are inhuman and unimaginable by anyone who does very rightly care for their children).
Screw ’em with a rusty chainsaw. Do the right thing instead of listening to such monsters.
. . . No, don’t. Really.
In another forum, after I had used “sic” correctly in quoting a text with an error, some lame brain just HAD to chime and tell me what it meant. . . while demonstrating they had not read the linked article from which the text was quoted AND saying incorrectly that the error I noted was a misspelling, when it was a correctly spelled word that was misused.
Well, the commenter learned a lesson, yeah, and hopefully two.
#gagamaggot
1. Never try to instruct someone on words when you don’t know what you are talking about. Instead, ask and learn. Or at least get a dictionary and learn how to use it. *duh*
2. If the quoted material that is from a larger text that’s available to you, READ THE LARGER TEXT before making a fool of yourself. If you then want to go ahead and make a fool of yourself anyway, be prepared to be “schooled.”
But evil or not, mocking them is certainly worthwhile.
How can one lie to stupid people, specifically people made stupid by their own choice of laziness resulting in ignorance and an inability to reason?
Here’s an example of one way, of many. Watched a video which I refuse to link) about erradicating humanity with nuclear war. It began with an estimation of deaths in a major metropolitan area of the US from a posited nuclear strike, as:
Note: “267,000 Casualties” (A “casualty” is injury or death, as properly used in this context.)
This morphed rather quickly (a couple of frames later) into
The dialog stated, along with this strong graphic, “Almost 300,000 deaths.”
*sigh*
Suckers most of the public) will buy that second graphic and never see the differences between “267,000 casualties” and “300,000 deaths.”
And, of course, all the slanted scaremongering that follows will also be convincing to the self-enstupiated.
Saw a silly article, “Science reveals why your shoelaces come untied.” Silly. Tie them correctly and they won’t come untied until you want them to.
But I’m sure the wide-spectrum incompetents who have inflicted Dunning-Kruger Syndrome on themselves (and who then inflict everyone else with their undeservedly confident incompetent behavior) would find the article comforting.
#gagamaggot
Amusing to watch a movie on TV (I’m also reading a book and slipping out to do this during commercial breaks. a close approximation of my typical TV-watching habits for about. . . 6 decades) and watch, during a gunfight scene, one character’s wound move from one side of his body to another. Yeh, continuity shoulda caught that. But then, that was the least of the continuity errors and other flubs and wildly laughable mistakes in the film.
Suspension of disbelief was irrevocably broken in the first five minutes though, so all the errors, laughable mistakes of anatomy, mechanics, procedural “bind-moggling,” etc., were more amusing than distracting, because NOTHING about the film was in any way, shape, fashion, or form believable, even within its own framework, right down to the protagonist’s hair color.
Tip, do not “purchase” a free book with even one error like this in the TITLE:
“The Unmotivated Child: Learn How to Motivate Your Child to Be Succeed [sic]”
“. . .to _be succeed_”?!? If you feel you don’t have a support group that can help, just wait for a book written by someone with basic competence in English, mmmK?
More and more often of late I have seen constructions (in supposedly “professionally written/edited” text) like,
“I would have sung along, if I knew the words.”
“If I would have known the words, I would have sung along.”
Both are horribly wrong, and evidence of serious subliteracy*. Neither should see the light of day in literately edited text.
Correct:
“I would have sung along, if I HAD KNOWN the words.”
If I HAD KNOWN the words, I would have sung along.”
Even worse are those illiterates who add to one or the other of those disgustingly egregious (for a writer who expects to be paid) assaults on the English language an attempt to gag a maggot by writing, “have sang.”
#gagamaggot
That is (nearly) all. . . for now.
*I define “subliteracy” as being the condition of being able to decode/encode those funny lil squiggles that comprise written language, while stubbornly maintaining a very, very poor understanding of what is written/what one writes. This condition is primarily due, I think, to a lazy a-literacy: refusing to take the time to become both fluent and literate by means of reading a great deal of well-written text.
I find that in every single case of subliteracy I have ever run across the person is a self-imposed victim of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome; they think they are literate, they “play” a literate on the Internet (and elsewhere, succeeding only in fooling other subliterates and seriously illiterate folk), and they have no interest whatsoever in improving their literacy. In fact, most are offended at being corrected, instead of taking the opportunity to learn from correction.
Note: in casual daybooks, journals, or emails, etc., not written for pay lapses in orthography are certainly excusable. But people who accept pay for wordsmithing should be corrected, and excoriated in the strongest language if they take offense at correction.
And THAT is all. . . for now. 😉