The Zionists are whining thread

I don't even...

iAnus_sl said:

He's so much better than Stewart. I wonder what Stewart would do with 1 hour and an HBO contract.

Click to expand...

Isn't Last Week Tonight only 30 minutes? Granted, it's actually 30 minutes with no commercials or required half show interviews but let's not compare apples and oranges.

As to the are we smarter vs dumber debate, you're asking the wrong question. We've gotten smarter at being assholes.

We are getting dumber. Despite the exponential proliferation of worldwide information due to the internet, we continue to argue over the same silly issues. For example, comparing and contrasting Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is an exercise in futility. We have allowed unlimited money to enter into politics. It no longer matters what party is in charge, the billionaires are bankrolling both of them and dictating policy. Thus we continue to allow Israel to kill Palestinians with weapons our defense industry sells to them.

I think it's fair to compare "bad" to "worse".

Arakkis_sl said:

We are getting dumber. Despite the exponential proliferation of worldwide information due to the internet, we continue to argue over the same silly issues. For example, comparing and contrasting Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is an exercise in futility. We have allowed unlimited money to enter into politics. It no longer matters what party is in charge, the billionaires are bankrolling both of them and dictating policy. Thus we continue to allow Israel to kill Palestinians with weapons our defense industry sells to them.

Click to expand...

This isn't evidence of us getting dumber, just of us being dumb. Where is the evidence that previous generations were so much smarter?

Arakkis_sl said:

We are getting dumber. Despite the exponential proliferation of worldwide information due to the internet, we continue to argue over the same silly issues. For example, comparing and contrasting Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is an exercise in futility. We have allowed unlimited money to enter into politics. It no longer matters what party is in charge, the billionaires are bankrolling both of them and dictating policy. Thus we continue to allow Israel to kill Palestinians with weapons our defense industry sells to them.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence we are dumber; in fact, on the surface, there is a lot of evidence we are vastly more intelligence (The Flynn Effect). But mostly that 'effect" is from our more modern perceptions and our increased cognitive breadth due to more access to information. So, all in all, the vast majority of evidence shows that humans probably haven't gotten smarter (Or dumber)--but modern humans are certainly more capable of using their brains to a higher potential. So if you measure intelligence on "ability", then yes, we've gotten much smarter, even just within the last 60 years--even in the U.S.

This need to believe young people are dumb and hopeless is as old as time, and just like every generation before--it's bullshit. The next generation only looks dumber to you because kids are dumb. Think of what a stupid asshole you were at 18; how much you'd love to go a kick your younger self's ass for being dumb. Well, that's what the next generation is going through now--but that doesn't make them any dumber than you innately. It only makes them YOUNGER than you.

why u so smart, lithose

Arakkis_sl said:

We are getting dumber. Despite the exponential proliferation of worldwide information due to the internet, we continue to argue over the same silly issues. For example, comparing and contrasting Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is an exercise in futility. We have allowed unlimited money to enter into politics. It no longer matters what party is in charge, the billionaires are bankrolling both of them and dictating policy. Thus we continue to allow Israel to kill Palestinians with weapons our defense industry sells to them.

Click to expand...

We're not getting dumber, it just looks like we're getting lazier. Specifically "intellectual laziness"-- where true academia and intellectual analysis has been replaced by irresponsible media outlets and supposed "truth" gleaned from Facebook posts and tweets. There's little information retention or vetting because of the simplicity in accessing "knowledge". Twenty years ago, when I wanted to learn about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, I had to read history books, Encyclopedias, request microfilm of old newspapers, and watch video documentaries. There was no cherry picking knowledge, and no option of having my understanding of the conflict painted by a bunch of tweets and blogs. When you picked up a tome titled "The arab/Israeli conflict-- Past and Present", you didn't have the option of just seeing a mangled Palestinian child with the ridiculous label "Israeli Genocide", and get to close the book on the subject, like you do today over scum media like The Guardian or via a Facebook post. If you wanted to learn about it, in the absence of an incredibly good index, you had to learn A LOT more than you do today, whether you liked to or not. It's kind of like when you innocently asked "They are UN schools. They might be the only places these kids will learn anything other than jihad.", only to quickly find out that the UN is actually training children to become Jihadists.

In respect to this conflict, that intellectual laziness translates into using the simple metric of human suffering as the only measurement of justice or righteousness. No need to actually know the historical details or understand the complex global reality at play, lets just look at pictures of dead children, determine which side has the bigger pile, and point our finger accordingly... We're just getting intellectually lazy, not actually any dumber.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

...I had to read history books...There was no cherry picking knowledge...

Click to expand...

I don't know how to tell you this but...

The Ancient_sl said:

I don't know how to tell you this but...

Click to expand...

Haha ok so someone else noticed too. Be right back, I got a book to write...

The Ancient_sl said:

I don't know how to tell you this but...

Click to expand...

What, that the history books were biased as well, or that the writer determines content and "cherry picks"? Of course they are. The point is, that if you wanted to learn about something, you didn't have the option to be lazy. You got off your ass and spent a few hours at the library researching it. If you only read one book on the topic (the bias you're implying I guess), then you've never researched a paper before. At the very least, the writer had credentials and you had to work to find that factoid you were looking for, and be forced to learn a whole bunch of others along the way. Today people are forming entire opinions and narratives based on something like Facebook and their favorite online newspaper, and that's just intellectual laziness. Especially when it is far more sensational to talk about dead bodies than it is the political machinations of 10 years ago and how it is impacting things today. The internet and social media is an amazing tool, but the ease of accessing that information, and the simplicity of forming an opinion based on little TRUE knowledge, is intellectual laziness in my opinion. Everything once learned in a library is accessible online now, but instead of reading 300 pages of background history to get to the part that interests you, providing context, you can just google that factoid and effectively "close the book".

You're comparing writing a thesis to forming an opinion on current events. That's not laziness, that's just two different things. The intellectually lazy people who are misinformed by the bias media presentation you are complaining about were simply completely ignorant in years past. Is that better in some ways? I suppose, but I think you are better off being able to engage in a discussion no matter how misinformed your opinion may be.

I once read over 150 pages about Sam Deathwalkers boxing and criminal adventures. I wouldnt call that intellectual laziness. Im an expert on creepiness now.

The Ancient_sl said:

You're comparing writing a thesis to forming an opinion on current events. That's not laziness, that's just two different things. The intellectually lazy people who are misinformed by the bias media presentation you are complaining about were simply completely ignorant in years past. Is that better in some ways? I suppose, but I think you are better off being able to engage in a discussion no matter how misinformed your opinion may be.

Click to expand...

Well, the fact is that the Arab/Israeli conflict could (and probably has been on many occasions) be worthy of a thesis, while also being a "current event". I've complained about this over and over and over in this thread-- how people look at thisspecificIsrael/Gaza war in a vacuum, ignoring (or being oblivious) to not only the history of the larger conflict, but the history of the middle-east as a whole. Personally, I think being misinformed is far more dangerous than being ignorant. If you are totally ignorant, you should have no opinion. If you are misinformed, your opinion can be potentially dangerous. At least in the former situation, decisions are left to those that know. In the latter, and in a democracy...

There was a good argument on CNN a few weeks back on why the younger you were, the less likely you were to support Israel. It was based on thispoll. They conveniently left out the education metric, because it didn't play into the narrative they were trying to paint, but again they were just trying to capitalize on the intellectual laziness of their viewership. In any case, with the focus purely on age, the argument by the ultra-lefty political commentator was that young people are more educated on the conflict because they have constant access to "social media", while peepaw is more likely to be religious (ergo pro-Israel) and depend purely on his local newspaper. Forget about the fact that older people have seen many wars before, potentially all the way back to WWII, and hence recognize this as war rather than an "atrocity", and in fact, in comparison has actually been tempered in scope. Forget that peepaw was around to watch the Camp David Accords on TV, and every single conflict and intifada since. Let's just forget entirely that peepaw has been around for years and might have some collective wisdom about the conflict and the world that a 20 year old couldn't possibly have. Peepaw's been around long enough to know that the UN is full of shit. Peepaw watched the Israelis on TV pull settlers kicking and screaming from Gaza in exchange for "peace", while the 25 year old punk staring at dead babies, today screaming "outrage", was more focused on his first kiss and Mario bros back when that event actually went down. Peepaw sees this not as a "current event", but just one small microcosm of a larger conflict. Facebook kid, unless he truly feels intellectually curious, forms his opinion in a vacuum, because social media is more about the moment, and less about actual history.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

If you are totally ignorant, you should have no opinion.

Click to expand...

Merlin joke.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

I've complained about this over and over and over in this thread-- how people look at thisspecificIsrael/Gaza war in a vacuum, ignoring (or being oblivious) to not only the history of the larger conflict, but the history of the middle-east as a whole. Personally, I think being misinformed is far more dangerous than being ignorant. If you are totally ignorant, you should have no opinion. If you are misinformed, your opinion can be potentially dangerous.

Click to expand...

Irony, thy name is Frenzied Wombat.

The Internet.