CARLSON SHRIEKS: At 8 P.M., the shrieking continued!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2022

Open stupidification: Last evening, promptly at 8 P.M., the stupidification continued.

We refer to the stupidification dumped upon the waiting world by once Tucker Carlson.  In the fourth minute of last evening's opening monologue, the "excitable child" of the Fox News Channel sadly returned to this:

CARLSON (3/22/22): We believe in standards on the show. The Supreme Court is, of course, one of those powerful institutions in the world. 

Joe Biden did not create the Supreme Court, previous generations did, hundreds of years ago. He does not own it. He merely inherited it for a short time and so the rest of us have an interest in who sits on it and who interprets our Constitution. 

Joe Biden, sounding maybe a touch defensive, has described Ketanji Brown Jackson as one of this country's great legal minds and we certainly want to believe that for real, given that she's probably going to be confirmed no matter what we think.  

The question is: Is it true? Is she really one of this country's great legal minds? One way to know, one indication, would be her LSAT scores. 

"We believe in standards on this show," the lost boy wonderfully said.

He continued along from there as shown. You can peruse the full transcript here. You can even watch the videotape as Dick Carlson's troubled son continues his headlong public decline.

For the record, we don't know if Judge Jackson is one of the "top legal minds in the entire country." (That's the specific way Biden described her in his State of the Union address.)

Like you, we don't know how to evaluate such claims. Not being completely stupidified, we do know that you can't settle or evaluate such claims by looking at someone's LSAT scores—or by examining term papers they wrote when they were students in college.

That said, how about it? Should we review this nominee's LSAT scores? The suggestion is primal stupidification, but Richard Carlson's badly lost child just kept pouring it on:

CARLSON (continuing directly): The LSAT is not a knowledge test. It measures logic and reasoning ability, and no one doubts it's an accurate measure of those things, which predict legal skills and that's why top law firms, law schools, have long used that test. 

So how did Ketanji Brown Jackson do on the LSAT? Sorry, you're not allowed to ask because asking is racism. 

The undisguised stupidification is plainly present there. But so is the endless sense of personal grievance concerning matters of race.

At this point, we're going to make an admission. We'll admit that we tend to agree with Carlson on one significant point. 

We think it tends to be counterproductive to accuse Carlson of racism at ridiculous moments like this. We think it makes better sense to focus on the depth of The Stupid in which the wandering child of the Fox News Channel is prepared to wallow.

No nominee for the Supreme Court has ever been evaluated in the way this lost child suggests—by a review of his or her law school admission test scores.  

It's unbelievably stupid to make such that suggestion. As everyone surely understands, it's dimwitted all the way own.

At this point, we tip our cap to Fox News. As we do, we note the way two of our major "cable news" channels are currently behaving like a pair of ships passing in the night.

On the one hand, you'll now be met by the defiantly Stupid no matter which channel you choose. But Fox has begun to offer transcripts of Carlson's opening monologue every night—and MSNBC is slow-walking its transcript production in a blindingly obvious way.

As we type, we can link you to a (fully proofread) transcript of Carlson's monologue from last night's TV show. At the channel we liberals are told we can trust, the most recent available transcripts are those from Tuesday evening, March 15!

It's perfectly obvious that The One True Liberal Channel has an increasing aversion to letting the public evaluate the product which is dispensed by its TV shows. This keeps us from showing you the Spectacular Disingenuity with which Lawrence O'Donnell opened his "cable news" program last night.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our nation's journalistic culture is openly coming undone. 

At Fox, Rihard Carlson's "lonely boy" engages in deep stupidication pretty much every night. But at MSNBC—at the Washington Post; at the New York Times—a countervailing version of The Stupid is more and more visible with each passing day. 

The dumbness is general across the nation. Fox seems eager to showcase this point. MSNBC seems inclined to hide.

At this point, we return to the remarkable biographical capsule we showed you yesterday. It's a two-generation capsule account—a story of father and son:

Carlson was born Tucker McNear Carlson in the Mission District of San Francisco, California, on May 16, 1969. He is the elder son of artist and San Francisco native Lisa McNear (1945–2011) and Dick Carlson (1941–), a former "gonzo reporter" who became the director of Voice of America, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles...

Carlson's paternal grandparents were Richard Boynton and Dorothy Anderson, teenagers who placed his father at The Home for Little Wanderers orphanage where he was fostered by Carl Moberger, a Malden, near Boston, tannery worker, and his wife Mainer Florence Moberger, and adopted at the age of two-years-old by upper-middle-class New Englanders, the Carlsons, an executive at the Winslow Brothers & Smith Tannery of Norwood (the oldest tannery in America) and his wife. ..

In 1976, Carlson's parents divorced after the nine-year marriage reportedly "turned sour." Carlson's father was granted custody of Tucker and his brother. Carlson's mother left the family when he was six, wanting to pursue a "bohemian" lifestyle.

When Carlson was in first grade, his father moved Tucker and his brother to the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California, and raised them there. Carlson attended La Jolla Country Day School and grew up in a home overlooking the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club. His father owned property in Nevada, Vermont, and islands in Maine and Nova Scotia. In 1984, his father unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Republican Mayor Roger Hedgecock in the San Diego mayoral race.

In 1979, Carlson's father married divorcée Patricia Caroline Swanson, an heiress to Swanson Enterprises...

Richard Carlson was orphaned at birth. He ended up as director of Voice of America and as president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—PBS! 

To appearances, he had become financially successful before his second marriage. His son attended La Jolla Country Day School and grew up in a home overlooking the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club.

Also, though, Richard Carlson had started out as "a gonzo reporter." Therein may lie the secret to some of the values which seem to dominate the world of his badly lost son.

Carlson was pathetic last night. We'd say the same of O'Donnell.

In the next two days, we may return to the willful lunacy Richard Carlson's badly lost boy put on display on March 9. But we will return to several parts of that biographical capsule, and we'll be telling you this:

Given the furor with which our own failing tribe tends to react to this badly lost child, it's surprising how rarely you ever read about his family background.

(How do we tend to react to the son? We'd describe it using this bumper sticker: "No Bait Left Behind.")

Where do lost children like this come from? What gives us a Trump, or a Putin? 

Also, what gives us the nightly stupidification of this unmistakable "lost child?" Where does the failure come from?

Tomorrow: He never saw her again...


54 comments:


  1. Oh dear. So much braindead dembottery, dear Bob; it's off the charts.

    "You can even watch the videotape as Dick Carlson's troubled son continues his headlong public decline."

    Right. This reminds us, dear Bob: any comment on the issues related to the laptop of Cokehead Son of The Rapist, who is also the Most Famous Painter?

    Knowing what we know now about the establishment suppressing critical info at the election time, do you still consider the last election 'free and fair'?

    Do you, dear Bob? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. aaaaa'At Fox, Rihard Carlson's "lonely boy" engages in deep stupidication pretty much every night. But at MSNBC—at the Washington Post; at the New York Times—a countervailing version of The Stupid is more and more visible with each passing day."

    Somerby tells us what Carlson said that he considered stupid. He doesn't bother with O'Donnell. Instead, we are left with the impression that the main flaw over at MSNBC is that they are slow in producing transcripts of their shows. Somerby doesn't mention that Fox had no transcripts at all until very recently.

    He is comparing apples and oranges. For one thing, O'Donnell is surely not responsible for producing any transcripts. For another, what Carlson said was not only stupid but unfair -- it amounts to inventing a new criterion for evaluating the black female applicant, one that has not been applied to men such as Kavanaugh or even to Amy Coney Barrett. And never mind that Trump himself hired others to take his standardized tests for him (yes, that is cheating).

    Somerby recognizes that Carlson's demand is unreasonable but he won't call it racist. And he doesn't explain why not. Just like he claims that O'Donnell is horrible in a variety of ways, without ever telling us what O'Donnell said. We are just supposed to believe Somerby. But what has ever made Somerby an authority on anything? Self-declaration mostly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "you'll now be met by the defiantly Stupid no matter which channel you choose."

      Or which comment you choose to read.

      Delete
    2. Calling something stupid isn't actually a comment.

      Delete
    3. This is also a highly stupid comment.



      Okay, explanation needed... I get it.

      A comment is anything added below the main post, you don't get to decide what or what not qualifies as a comment based on your emotional reaction to criticism.

      Delete
    4. If there were any criticism involved. Calling something stupid is your emotional reaction. It is not clear what you are reacting to emotionally, because there is no content to your comment. A comment is not "anything" below the main post -- I do get to decide that words that communicate nothing are not a comment.

      Delete
    5. It is now 3:21 pm. Is this a comment?

      The sun is shining outside my window. Is this a comment?

      Next week we will be one week closer to the end of the year. Is this a comment?

      Your mother wears army socks. Is this a comment?

      Delete
    6. Please prove you are not a robot. Is this a comment?

      Delete
    7. Somerby wants you to think he is not Tucker, but he is. This is the point of his post.

      Delete
  4. Meanwhile, this is what real media criticism looks like:

    https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-new-york-times-misses-point-again.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Carlson was pathetic last night. We'd say the same of O'Donnell."

    Somerby quotes what Carlson said but he doesn't tell us what O'Donnell said, even knowing that we cannot find out because there are no transcripts.

    Here we see an examples of bothsidesism. But Somerby apparently doesn't feel he needs to make any case against O'Donnell. How is that fair? Personally, I think Somerby avoid describing O'Donnell's remarks because they weren't anything close to as egregious as what Carlson said about Jackson. And I am finding it difficult to imagine what O'Donnell could have said that would be worse than Carlson's casual racism (a word Somerby will not apply as Carlson implies that Jackson is too stupid for the Supreme Court, on no basis other than her skin color (since her accomplishments are equivalent to previous nominees). And that is certainly racist.

    Is it true that Somerby considers the trivial gotchas and nitpicks he identifies on the left to be morally equivalent to the racism on the right? If so, he is out of step with most liberals. But that wouldn't be surprising since there is no evidence whatsoever that Somerby is liberal, aside from his own self-labeling.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gee Officer Krupke -- Carlson's depraved on account of he's deprived. He's a poor little rich boy who never had a chance, much like Trump. Do you suppose the La Jolla Country Day School taught Carlson to lie and emit racist dog whistles?

    Somerby wants to blame Carlson's father for the son's wrong turn, but is that fair? So far, Somerby has identified nothing that would explain Carlson's idiocies, except a desire to please his audiences and garner huge ratings by telling his ignorant followers what they want to hear, confirming their prejudices as he does by attacking Jackson by implying that she is stupid because she is black (how can it get more racist than that?).

    Somerby works overtime today to excuse Tucker Carlson on the basis of bad parenting, which does not appear at all in the circumstances of his biography. Carlson's father divorced and remarried, as 750,000 couples divorce each year and 80% of them remarry. This is a common circumstance, not the source of deep trauma that would make a racist fool out of someone like Tucker Carlson. But Somerby never wants to hold anybody accountable for their actions. Not even Trump, and apparently not Carlson either.

    And yet Carlson's own father demonstrated that someone can rise above unfavorable circumstances such as being orphaned and fostered and then adopted. In contrast, Tucker Carlson had more advantages than his father and yet decided his main goal in life was financial success and he didn't care how he got it. Somerby calls him a lost child, but there are more fitting names, such as greedy bastard, amoral asshole, and unprincipled opportunist.

    Compare for a second the accomplishments of Ketanji Brown Jackson with those of Tucker Carlson. And then ask yourself why Somerby feels that Carlson deserves the sympathy, the excuses, the empathy. And what is with Somerby's desire to always root for the villain? There is something wrong with this man -- Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Also, what gives us the nightly stupidification of this unmistakable "lost child?" Where does the failure come from?"

    Who cares?

    Calling a grown man such as Carlson a "lost child" is outrageous. Carlson is an adult, he knows what he is doing, and he is responsible for every covid-death and incarcerated 1/6er he helped encourage. He is responsible for the demise of democracy and the deep polarization among people in our country. He is responsible for siding with American enemies such as Russia and undermining the efforts of our government to deal with our nation's problems. And he is neither crazy nor stupid. He has done these things on purpose and he is fully responsible for his actions.

    Next Somerby will be calling Putin a lost child and suggesting his mother made him invade Ukraine.

    It is too easy to point out that Somerby, at the end of his long lifespan, needs to reexamine his own past and come to terms with his own responsibility for the mistakes and wrong turns of his past. Blaming others is not a way to find peace at the end of one's journey.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In case you are wondering about Jackson's accomplishments, try reading the White House statement about her nomination:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/kbj/

    "Judge Jackson was born in Washington, DC and grew up in Miami, Florida. Her parents attended segregated primary schools, then attended historically black colleges and universities. Both started their careers as public school teachers and became leaders and administrators in the Miami-Dade Public School System. When Judge Jackson was in preschool, her father attended law school. In a 2017 lecture, Judge Jackson traced her love of the law back to sitting next to her father in their apartment as he tackled his law school homework—reading cases and preparing for Socratic questioning—while she undertook her preschool homework—coloring books.

    Judge Jackson stood out as a high achiever throughout her childhood. She was a speech and debate star who was elected “mayor” of Palmetto Junior High and student body president of Miami Palmetto Senior High School. But like many Black women, Judge Jackson still faced naysayers. When Judge Jackson told her high school guidance counselor she wanted to attend Harvard, the guidance counselor warned that Judge Jackson should not set her “sights so high.”

    That did not stop Judge Jackson. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review."

    The statement also describes her work as a Supreme Court Clerk for Justice Breyer, he work on the District and Appeals courts, her work as a public defender and as the Vice Chair of the US Sentencing Commission. All of this makes her highly qualified for her nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, I can feel my IQ dropping after reading these comments. No way to get that time back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your IQ was already down around where losing a few more does not really matter; you are already there!

      Delete
  10. Well if you were agreeing with Bob there is not much left of your IQ anyway....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More stupidity.



      Explanation for the stupid:

      You could disagree with Bob and still find these comments stupid af

      Delete
  11. Bob, or whatever poor soul has the job of looking after his comments section, continues to try and block me out, so far I keep getting around him. I've got a lot of friends online Bob... this does rather put in context his sad bitching about transcripts. Get a frickin tape recorder Bob....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stupid and unhinged, dangerous combination here.

      Delete
  12. A few things to consider: Tucker, who used to market himself as a "sensible Conservative" type, picking up PJ O"Rouke's act, took over the sweet spot developed by Bill O"Reilly. Bill made Fox tons of money, but they had to give a lot of it back in massive office sex abuse scandals. In the end, Bill had a few memorably terse words for God.
    Bob always had a soft spot for Bill. In one instance, where O"Reilly was obviously the major offender in some bullshit that was making the rounds, Bob wrote "O"Reilly Gets a Pass!" as his headline(!). What would Rationalist or Socrates make of that?
    So anyway, Tucker already had a great position when Fox gave him the big bucks to go full mental. It says something that it has taken Bob this long to even address this player. With Chris Hayes, Bob was getting snarky as hell BEFORE he even had a show!
    Bob was almost on O"Reilly once! But he got bumped. This may or may not explain the pass which, obviously, continues in a general sense to this day. -Greg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By whom did O'Reilly get a pass in the post you mention? Bob? Fox News? The NYT? Or is that not relevant?

      Delete
    2. By Somerby.

      Delete
    3. 4:52: Wrong - he described the NYT giving O'Reilly a pass in his post.

      Delete
    4. (But Bob did express a deep hatred for immigrants in the post.) ;D

      Delete
    5. Feb 26, 2015

      "O’Reilly gets a pass: Here at THE HOWLER, we have a bit of a cultural soft spot for Bill O’Reilly."

      Somerby then describes how O'Reilly threatened the NY Times and it seemed to work because his quotes were softened after his threats. Is that being given a pass? I don't think so.

      Delete
    6. Yes, that is without any question in the world the pass to which he was referring. "O'Reilly threatened the NY Times and it seemed to work."

      Yet, another in a series of thousands and thousands of idiotic misreadings you made on this site. You are not cut out for this!

      Delete
    7. Greg has always made drop dead dumb posts. Unfortunately, he is illiterate.

      Delete
    8. Hi guys! Hey annom at 12:01, you are quite the fool, and I had out read you by the 8th grade.

      Delete
    9. Greg, I just said that you are illiterate because of your claim about the crumbly's letter showing the hatred for immigrants which it did not. So you're a liar or a poor reader or whatever. Same with the post Bob made about o'reilly, I guess you seem to think it was Bob giving O'Reilly the pass which it clearly was not. So these are just really basic reading comprehension mistakes. Makes you look pretty stupid and not really good at comprehending what you read. But maybe you're smart and well read in some ways. You just never show it here. You show the opposite. So work on it man!

      Delete
    10. Well first we learn that the other "Greg" and you are the same person. How witty! You lost the last exchange rather badly, but here we go again..... I've offered Mrs. Crumbly's mash note to Trump for the reader to consider several times. Only an idiot could read it and miss her two obsessions, hatred of government which She sees as the schools where She would later weaponize her Son to kill (Murders you have mentioned you care nothing about) and hatred of immigrants, the OTHERS. She closes by thanking Trump "for making them PAY for their HAND OUTS." Only someone who is indeed a bigoted asshole himself could miss this.
      I will also advise anyone to check the archives on "O"Reilly Gets a Pass" to see that you are once again bullshitting. "O'Reilly is caught lying about his experience as a war reporter. Bob first admits he has a soft spot for him because the great man once spoke to him on the phone, then gleefully claims that the Times had backed down from their charges against him (they hadn't, neither had David Corn who also reported on it.) If the Times was giving him a "pass" why would they bring it up in the first place?

      Delete
    11. To further indulgence your stupidity, By 2015 Bob, supposed critic of the political media, had been giving ALL of FOX a pass for at least a decade.
      At first the excuse was "well, we all know they are beneath contempt," sort of molded into a matter of taste, but as time went by it became clear Bob simply liked Fox, their take on things, their world view. His claims to speak for "our tribe" became comical. Now, a select few, maybe family members, chime in in support of Bob, but they can't really back up the claims that he is, well, not a traditional southern gentleman who has morphed into, pretty much, a total fool.
      Update on The Crumblys, BTW. They had a Court appearance and will be tried next month. They have abandoned the claim that the gun was locked up, and now say it wss "well hidden." Look for more stuff that backs up my rather obviously correct appraisal, you stupid, stupid man.
      You cannot argue or discuss, you can only hector and try attempt to intimidate others from pointing out your foolishness. Like Bob with his "Legitimate political discourse." Other people get to express their views, you should have picked that up in grade school. Are you connected with people being blocked from the comment section?

      Delete
    12. Well we will just have to agree to disagree on those two issues. You see the statement by the Madame Crumbly about being thankful that they pay for their handouts as being hatred and you feel like Bob was referring to something other than the New York Times when he said O'Reilly got a pass. I fully disagree on both. I don't think those are very intelligent takes at all frankly. As for your last question, is that not answered perfectly clearly in the blog post? The pass given was on the fact O'Reilly lied about being in the Falkland islands. But the times did not directly assert that factual claim in their piece. Well, never mind. This is all a little bit over your head. But good luck with all your erudition, literacy and ability to grasp complex political and social issues. Keep those brilliantly written, insightful well-sourced comments coming. ;)

      Delete
    13. No you're not being blocked you just have to empty your cashe and cookies and you'll be fine. Or try a different browser. Try the Brave browser. No one monitors these comments. No one cares. No one even reads this blog. Don't you think it's a little self-centered of you to think that you were being singled out? Thanks for the crumblys, none of what you said there has anything to do with that letter expressing a hatred for immigrants which quite clearly it does not. Not to any objective observer. Maybe to a myopic partisan. But they would be wrong because they're being blinded by their partisanship. But whatever! Have a good day. You're not a great writer. You're not half as good as you seem to think you are. You're an extremely poor thinker and logician. But I'm sure you're good at some things. Like maybe fishing or something.

      Delete
    14. It was clear we disagreed on the Crumbly's long ago, so, why was not suggesting people read the piece acceptable to you? On Bob and Bill, I asked a simple question about your interpretation.... big surprise, you didn't answer.

      Delete
    15. I certainly didn't offer into evidence how good or bad a writer I was. This assessment would make me neither correct or incorrect. You are a bad bully, I would look into something else. Those computer games perhaps?
      As for the blocking, It's possible you are correct. But I would offer into evidence the series of blocks on different PCs I have used, other savvy posters complaining of the same thing, and Bob's obsession with comments pages.

      Delete
    16. You're a god-awful writer, channeling some other author that you admire, clearly. But it's true your thoughts and logic are the more important issue. One can have florid prose but if they don't have interesting thoughts supporting it, it doesn't mean anything. What question did you ask that I didn't answer? As far as anyone reading crumbly's letter yes of course they should read it and they will see it's clear that she does not have a hatred towards immigrants. The handouts she mentions are not a general concept, it's a specific situation that she mentions. The whole letter is insightful for people who think that Trump voters are all bigots and all the other cliches. She's a lifelong Democrat basically. Everyone yes please read that letter and try to find the hatred for immigrants and please point it out to me. Please!

      Delete
    17. I should teach you how to punctuate ellipses sometime.

      Hey but so you think Bob was referring to himself giving O'Reilly a pass in that article, in that blog post? Is that true?

      Delete
    18. Well, now you are just wetting your pants.

      Delete
    19. Yet, if I am such a bad writer, and if you are so self evidently correct, why the personal attack? Do you see yourself as a MEAN person? Are you inspired by Bob, sanctimonious one moment, raving about the stupidity of anyone who might agree with Rachel Maddow the next?
      You say that my being a bad writer is not the MORE important issue..(how is your perception of my skill as a writer relevant at all? but whatever)yet you take the time to harp on it. Couldn't it be that your have your head up your ass on the issue at hand? I think your ability for analysis on obvious matters is awful, you seem really stupid, but that does not make you wrong in these instances.
      Here's two things anyone who has engaged in our degraded discourse has picked up: When you start waving your nose in the air about grammar and punctuation in this sort of forum, your argument is slim to nothing.
      TWO move on to Mrs. Crumbly... are you really a sucker enough to believe she's "a lifelong Democrat?" Is this a person you would take at her word in such a matter? Even Bob called bullshit on this one a few times over the years. Even if She WERE a lifelong Democrat, those days were clearly over by the time She wrote to Trump and started preparing the ghastly fate of those innocent young people.
      You demanded I site an example from the piece, I did. An example of her, very much in the MAGA mode, being both irrational (if they are paid for, they are not "hand outs") and as cruel as She could possibly be.
      So after all this, you finally BEG readers to actually look at the letter, which I did at the outset. Pathetic.
      As to Bob and Bill, again I ask, if the NYT's was trying to give O"Rielly a pass, why would they bring up his fraud in the first place? Bob makes no sense here, and neither do you. But Bob admits that he, in his typical oddness, is likely to "give O"Reilly a pass." Again, as he had long ago conceded, was the general policy of "The Daily Howler" on all things Fox News.

      Delete
    20. Glad to see it wasn't Bob preventing you from posting, moron!

      "if the NYT's was trying to give O"Rielly a pass, why would they bring up his fraud in the first place?"

      I don't understand the question. The pass was not copping to the fact he was repeatedly lying about the Falklands. It's easy to understand. One thing is for sure the "pass" wasn't Bob giving Bill a pass ... you're stupid, ridiculous assertion.

      I have contempt for overbearingly ignorant people like yourself. But I'm sure you're a good person and smart about some things. Criticism of this criticism is something you are horrible at.

      You're welcome for the help fixing your cashe issue!

      Delete
    21. I wasn't criticizing your punctuation of ellipses. It's just interesting to know how to punctuate them properly. It just looks better.

      Delete
    22. Boy, you really got me with that ellipse thing, clearly you are right about Mrs. Crumbly. You don't understand the question because you are pretending not to understand it. Because you have no answer that will not reveal your silliness. Yes, must keep the comment section looking good as feed the world to Donald Trump. I'm assuming these two posts are by the same person. But if that's wrong, please let me know.

      Delete
    23. No, it's two different people. I agree with you that crumbly expressed not just hatred towards immigrants in her letter to Trump but "deep" hatred. I don't think there's any doubt about that. And also clearly Bob was wanting to give O'Reilly a pass, not the New York times. Why would anyone think the title of his blog post would have anything to do with the subject he wrote about in the post?

      I am surprised that you did not thank the previous poster for helping you fix your cashe problem though. It may be a nice gesture for you to admit to them that you were completely wrong that Bob was monitoring the comments and had specifically singled you out for some kind of censorship. I mean that makes total sense of course but in this case we know now that were 100% wrong about it.

      Delete
    24. Anon at 5:15. I don't consider it solved, I've repeated found ways around being blocked but they are blocked again. I've stated my reasons for being suspicious that someone is monkeying with the blog, and they included that I've seen others complain about it. So I didn't claim that I was being singled out.

      Delete
    25. The text of Ginny Thomas made public yesterday are sobering and throw, once again, a dark shadow on what Bob and what Anon at 7:58 have been trying to pass off.
      Ginny Thomas is the Crumby's if they had found affluence instead of a very challenging mixed up life and weren't flummoxed by a child with bad mental problems, a crisis to which they responded to by doing all the wrong things, egged on by rotten politics.
      Bob's frustration with the left, who often seem passive and strident applied at exactly the wrong times, who often seemed adrift in academic crackpotery, is not difficult to understand. Yet where is the dispassionate patience he will apply to powerful fruitcakes of the right by rote? How could Bob have totally thrown in the towel of fair play to decent people like The Clintons and Al Gore? Religion seems to be the heart of a lot of this madness, and Bob's own piety has ruined his own moral sense.

      Delete
    26. You have to remember that you're very stupid so matters like these will naturally be confusing and hard to understand. You should stick with fishing or bowling, matters that are not so over your head such as these. Have a good weekend.

      Delete
  13. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-people-are-stupid

    Perhaps our most dangerous bias is that we naturally assume that everyone else is more susceptible to thinking errors, a tendency known as the “bias blind spot.” This “meta-bias” is rooted in our ability to spot systematic mistakes in the decisions of others—we excel at noticing the flaws of friends—and inability to spot those same mistakes in ourselves. Although the bias blind spot itself isn’t a new concept, West’s latest paper demonstrates that it applies to every single bias under consideration, from anchoring to so-called “framing effects.” In each instance, we readily forgive our own minds but look harshly upon the minds of other people.

    And here’s the upsetting punch line: intelligence seems to make things worse. The scientists gave the students four measures of “cognitive sophistication.” As they report in the paper, all four of the measures showed positive correlations, “indicating that more cognitively sophisticated participants showed larger bias blind spots.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has nothing to do with being smart or stupid.

      Delete
    2. It is tautological. It says that the more you engage in thinking, the more likely you are to engage in biases, which are part of the same cognitive processes as are measured by those so-called measures of cognitive sophistication.

      Those so-called biases (anchoring, framing effects) show the mind at work adjusting for context, making relative judgments. Those are like visual illusions. They create a context where the normal functioning of the mind generates an error that reveals how the mind works. But that doesn't mean the so-called biases are bad. They are necessary to produce judgments and have survival value. The actual situations in which these biases appear are nothing like the lab situations created to reveal their existence.

      Delete
    3. Right wingers having a smaller frontal cortex does not mean they are necessarily inferior overall, just different.

      Right wingers do not have a theory on how society can progress, get better. Some of this is due to brain size, some due to unresolved childhood trauma - both are likely linked.

      In time, society will reject right wing notions, but in all likelihood it will not be in time, it will be too late. We have been dealing with right wing notions for nearly 10,000 years already, since we moved away from the egalitarian societies we'd had for 100,000 years or more. Technology may save us from the right wing induced environmental disaster that is coming, but the chance is slight.

      Delete
    4. That's probably your wishful wanting of a "final solution".

      Delete