Showing posts with label dunning-kruger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dunning-kruger. Show all posts

Thursday, July 11, 2019

How much of an imbecile is AOC?

The hits just keep on coming with "progressive" Democrat imbeciles.  We have Nancy Peloser using the "Keep America White Again" phrase again, this time in reaction to Trump's wanting to put a citizenship question on the census.  We have Rep. Ilhan Omar calling Tucker Carlson a "racist fool" for saying something not race-related.  (The linked piece by Conor Friedersdorf is all quite fine and good fair comment, but note his refraining from calling Tucker's anti-Omar rant racist.)  We have Bozo O'Rourke saying America was "founded on white supremacy."  (Only on white supremacy?  Predominantly?  Primarily?)  (One seemingly kneejerk rightist rebuttal to this that I heard is that America was founded on Christianity.  How odd; so, like, it took Christianity 1700+ years to found a modern liberal republic and it merely just so happens that this founding took place less than a century after Locke.  Am I the crazy one here in thinking that it has more to do with Locke's ideas?  You know, using Mill's Methods or something similar?)

Does one even need to bother explaining how stupid these Dems(' statements) are?  Peloser for sure is beneath refutation.  You either have the common sense to recognize how foolish these people are or you don't, making any explanation on my part either redundant or futile.  These people have cried "racism" umpteen times already and they still don't get why half of America has a visceral revulsion toward them.

But AOC (a.k.a. Another Obnoxious Commie) seemingly never fails to take the cake in the Dem/left/"prog" imbecility department.  In her delusional narrative, she is all "woke," enlightened, a know-it-all, all within 3 decades of lifespan, while poor ol' Victor Davis Hanson, say, just couldn't get woke despite more than twice the life experience.  If you believe that, you may be a fucking imbecile, as AOC is.

The only question to me at this point isn't whether AOC is an imbecile, but how much of an imbecile she is.  Case in point:

Peloser and "The Squad" - the angry radical quartet of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley - have been in a catfight over how angry and radical the Democrat Party should get in its governing.  Peloser is too prudent for them, knowing that if she helps drag the party in the angry, radical direction it will damage the party's power.  (Power for the Democrat Party is Peloser's guiding principle (sic).  When she claims (dishonestly, of course) that Trump wants to make America white again, it's because she has made the calculation that claiming this is better for the Party's power-prospects.)

Counselor to President Trump, Kellyanne Conway, pointed out the fact that Peloser and The Squad were in a catfight.  AOC then lectures Conway (and by implication all the readers) that what "catfight" really means is something sexist, especially if/when used by Republicans.  (How she learned this and how we're all supposed to instantly digest this new information is beyond me.  Twitter's notoriously toxic format almost virtually forbids elaboration and explanation; attention spans and interpretive abilities in that venue are beyond fried.)

Then Conway ally Lisa Boothe shoots back, pointing out (sarcastically) that Conway, a woman, is sexist toward women.  AOC, all hissing and claws out, then proceeds to lecture us all that "patriarchy has no gender."

This is Kellyanne Conway, wife of Trump-basher George Conway, whom AOC boldly declares has succumbed to internalized patriarchy, or something.

As I've said about Scumbag Kamala Harris, AOC is more clever than wise and not very clever at that.  (You might not know this if your brain has been twitterized.)

I'd like to venture a hypothesis about Scumbag Harris and "The Squad": these individuals have gotten away with their shit for as long as they have, in the milieus they have inhabited, because pushing back against "women of color" in said milieus when said women are being idiotic is likely to cause the usual "SJW"-style backlash meant to silence dissent.  (See above for examples.)  In other words, "women of color" enjoy greater latitude and privilege within "progressive" milieus to push idiotic notions.  Now they get on the national political stage and can't handle the inevitable pushback with intellectual maturity and decency, instead falling back on their long-worn-out "SJW" formulas since that's all they know.  [Edit: See what I mean?]  [Edit: This is Peloser getting a taste of the medicine she pushed in Trump's direction: Live by the race card, die by the race card.]

I'll go further in the case of AOC: She is so far gone into the deranged mentality of the hubristic (see also: Dunning-Kruger) anticapitalist left that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that she is easily brainwashable into being, oh, say, hardcore Cultural Revolution material, or a tankie.

I mean, just think about it for a second; it only stands to reason.

Humans aren't so biologically and culturally differentiated that under the "right" circumstances a sizable percentage of them couldn't be brainwashed into believing and doing the most ridiculous and evil stuff.  Well, who in American society today best fits the profile of the charismatic, brainwashable leftist/anticapitalist/socialist/communist?  Heck, given the charisma involved, who would be one of the chief brainwashers under a Stalinist/Maoist scenario?  (Just see Comrade AOC's twitter feed for plenty of brainwashees who willingly sacrifice what intellect they have to defend the twerp.)  Many lesser minds inspired by Marx bought into stuff that's widely discredited today (e.g., labor theory of value; historical materialism; socialism; "Revolution!"), but it surely seemed (to them) so logically and scientifically compelling, enough so to trample over millions of bodies to "achieve" their aims (and, when they fail, to always manage to find more-clever-than-wise ways to blame something or someone else (usually capitalism/capitalists), and to ignore or smear their critics [e.g.]).

So, that's approximately how much of an imbecile she is (and how much evil she is capable of).

(And have you noticed how seemingly no one in the left-leaning MSM is calling AOC out on all her shit?  Also: I'm hearing a lot more "SJW"-style call-outs [i.e., crying racism, sexism, etc.] than talk of the importance of freedom coming from prominent Democrats these days.  It reveals their priorities.)

I should add that pretty much all of the names mentioned above, with the exception of VDH and to a lesser extent Carlson, are not anywhere near the level of smarts or (more importantly) wisdom of the founders of this great nation, every major one of them members of the American Philosophical Society.  By contrast the current figures are intellectual pipsqueaks in need of philosophy boot camp ASAFP.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Do leftists, Dems and "progressives" have a superior moral compass?

I would merely like to break down the logic of this.  It's no secret that leftists, Dems and "progressives" pride[*] themselves on having a moral compass superior to that of their political opponents, i.e., the basket of deplorables.  It's also no secret that leftists, Dems and "progressives" are the majority in big coastal cities (NYC, LA, San Fran, etc.).  Does this mean that, according to leftists, Dems and "progressives," the greater the proximity to a big coastal city, the greater the reliability of one's moral compass?

Something tells me there are some severe Dunning-Kruger issues going on here, among leftists, Dems and "progressives."  (For now, that is.)

More where that came from.

(If they're so intellectually and morally superior, why haven't they discovered and promoted philosophy for children yet?)

[*] - Clearly I'm speaking here of a false pride, not legitimate Aristotelian or Randian pride.

[Addendum: As you listen to how Dems/lefties/progs [DLPs] defend abortion rights - in terms of the right of a woman to control her own life - keep in mind that this is how radical pro-freedom people like Rand defend our rights against government controls in general -- i.e., our lives aren't the government's or the demos's to dispose of.  It would appear that, given their lack of philosophical integration, the DLPs are being rather selective in their invocation of freedom on this topic.  Why (the lack of philosophical integration)?]

Monday, January 28, 2019

AOC and the toxic twitterized destruction of discourse

It's amazing how no one has drawn the cognitively-available stark connection between these two phenomena yet.

The legendary toxicity that twitter brings to (the destruction of rational) discourse is now becoming gobsmackingly clear to more and more people.  Unlike blogs (see the best one around right now, for instance - see just the output from the past week alone; it's legendary [with more recent posts under the influence of cannabis, giving lie to claims that it impairs productivity]), Twitter is a low-effort, low-thought-demanding medium.  It appeals to people's pleasure centers and encourages them to 'like' whatever satisfies their biases or to 'dislike' whatever would disconfirm them.  (The vast information made available by the internet, absent a philosophical mindset properly drilled into its participants, only means more information that can be ignored, distorted, etc.)  Social media in its present form places pleasure over truth, a problem Socrates, Plato and Aristotle noticed plenty early on.  It seems people don't learn (fast enough).

The most important topic that can be discussed right now is philosophy for children.  You won't find that being discussed on Twitter.

Let's set aside the Trump phenomenon for now - I'm not interested in the slightest in leftist-loser and Democrat whataboutism at the moment - and look at perhaps the single most intellectually-destructive and therefore toxic figure on social media right now, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I know that twitterized memories may be short, but let's look back within the past month for the level of idiocy AOC is capable of, and rewarded with "likes" on social media for:

Republican hypocrisy at its finest: saying that Trump admitting to sexual assault on tape is just “locker room talk,” but scandalizing themselves into faux-outrage when my sis says a curse word in a bar.
GOP lost entitlement to policing women’s behavior a long time ago.
Next.


(This tweet was in the wake of incoming Demon Rat congresscritter Rashida Tlaib saying that they would "impeach the motherfucker!")

I'll reproduce what I said earlier in this blog, and to which there is no reasonable counter that I can remotely fathom:

In the twisted cognitive world of [AOC] & Co., such gender-baiting is now the norm even when it is illogical and gratuitous.  To anyone with common sense - this excludes today's unhinged leftists - the gender of the person using foul language toward Trump is entirely irrelevant. 
But even more damning of [AOC]'s cognitive "skills": anyone who knows how to read and parse language properly knows that Trump was not admitting to sexual assault.  He said that he grabbed women "by the pussy" and that they welcomed it.  ("You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything....Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.") 
Perhaps the demonic Democrats have managed to bastardize the meaning of "sexual assault" as well?
This is not the only time AOC has spread her blatantly toxic (intellectually inferior) garbage on social media.  Let's try this one out:

Ocasio-Cortez Responds to Republicans Criticizing Her Over Latest Mistake: Stop 'Drooling' Over My Every Word

Ryan Saavedra provides video in which AOC says: "If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."  Saavedra adds: "The 3 branches of government: executive, legislative, judicial."

How does AOC respond to Saavedra's correction?  Watch:

Maybe instead of Republicans drooling over every minute of footage of me in slow-mo, waiting to chop up word slips that I correct in real-tomd, they actually step up enough to make the argument they want to make:
that they don’t believe people deserve a right to healthcare.



Let's set aside for the moment the issue of a 'right to healthcare' (an issue AOC would be too ignorant to discuss non-toxically). [ * - see appended note]

Here is what AOC considers to be a real-time correction:

"If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."

It is simply rationally unacceptable for an elected member of Congress to get away with saying that she made a correction here.  Do I need to spell it out?

(See also: Dunning-Kruger effect, observed in those whose overestimate their own cognitive abilities and don't know it.)

In just the past few days, AOC took to more flat-out intellectual laziness/dishonesty, by smearing a source based on its supposed funding source.  (Only when she was called out on her obvious scummery did she back down.)  She doesn't really care about doing her homework before making her claims.  Nothing about AOC's MO is progressive.

[Edit: Does AOC's following have the cognitive characteristics of an apocalyptic cult?  Cult leaders are well-known for their charisma but otherwise generally reviled as toxic.]

[Edit #2: In the "You can't make this shit up" department, AOC said, "I think it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country doesn’t make a living wage."  How can someone possessing such a superior moral compass be so intellectually lazy?]

[Edit #3: The real problem with AOC?  Her enablers.]

If we want to really crack down on social media (and especially twitter) toxicity, we should home on in its biggest offenders ASAFP.

Next up: More on philosophy for children.

[*] - The global GDP right now is roughly $75 Trillion, or about $10K for every inhabitant of the planet.  How much would it cost to fund this so-called right for all people who putatively have this right?  Why are the so-called rights of which AOC and her "progressive" ilk speak so expensive?  This is a separate issue from whether a decent people, through some institutional arrangement or other, statist or private, help to ensure people's needs are met.  This is about what kinds of enforceable claims we can make on the lives, minds, and efforts of others.  [The claim of a right not to be killed is enforceable, but doesn't really make any demands on the lives, minds, and efforts of others, now does it.  Anyway, the point of having a government isn't to generate desirable outcomes but to secure freedom.]  Even Ayn Rand says in her Galt speech that helping others as a spiritual payment for their virtue is a selfish necessity, but not a matter of duty as such.  This is even assuming people would need help in a society where its members live with maximum rationality, able (e.g.) to compose blogs that meet high philosophical standards.  It's easy to make happen.  Plus, healthcare costs can be drastically reduced for just about anyone who does his lifestyle homework.  The Democrats and Republicans are fighting over CRUMBS right now.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

The sage and the progressive

If someone outwardly proclaims to be a sage, that might be a surefire sign that the person is not a sage but rather is too conceited to know better.

Likewise with someone outwardly self-identifying as a progressive.