3 ms·

> The article defines stupidity in a very precise way No, it doesn't. The part that you mention is "law" 3 of 5. I stopped reading mid-way into the first "law"

> The article defines stupidity in a very precise way No, it doesn't. The part that you mention is "law" 3 of 5. I stopped reading mid-way into the first "law" up to which the article already used the term "stupidity" multiple times as if it's obvious what that is and was so unbelievably presumptuous regarding people that are somehow less worth than the author that it became unbearable.

redleggedfrog 4y ago
You have to admit, that's kind of funny you based your criticism off an incomplete reading of the source material. I think complaining about clarity is something that should probably happen after one has contemplated the whole of the thing.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  I disagree. When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece. Nothing could have come after the first "law" that would have made the part up to that point better or more defensible.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    >> When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece. The irony here is that this itself is a very arrogant opinion.
    - wildmanx 4y ago
      Not sure which part. You quoted an implication. Do you find my description in the antecedent arrogant (i.e. my characterization of the beginning of the article), or the implication itself? If the former, I spent quite some time to argue in favor of my opinion in my original comment. You are welcome to argue the opposite. Just calling it "irony" is not much of an argument though. If the latter, then I'd like to understand why. Do you argue that no matter how nonsensical some text, you need to read it fully before expressing any thought about it? Or do you mean something else?
    - theonething 4y ago
      I don't understand why you think so. Having a strong opinion about something is arrogant? If he/she said something like "This is my opinion and if you think different, you're stupid." then that would be arrogant. I don't see an inkling of that here.

redleggedfrog 4y ago

You have to admit, that's kind of funny you based your criticism off an incomplete reading of the source material. I think complaining about clarity is something that should probably happen after one has contemplated the whole of the thing.

wildmanx 4y ago
I disagree. When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece. Nothing could have come after the first "law" that would have made the part up to that point better or more defensible.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  >> When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece. The irony here is that this itself is a very arrogant opinion.
  - wildmanx 4y ago
    Not sure which part. You quoted an implication. Do you find my description in the antecedent arrogant (i.e. my characterization of the beginning of the article), or the implication itself? If the former, I spent quite some time to argue in favor of my opinion in my original comment. You are welcome to argue the opposite. Just calling it "irony" is not much of an argument though. If the latter, then I'd like to understand why. Do you argue that no matter how nonsensical some text, you need to read it fully before expressing any thought about it? Or do you mean something else?
  - theonething 4y ago
    I don't understand why you think so. Having a strong opinion about something is arrogant? If he/she said something like "This is my opinion and if you think different, you're stupid." then that would be arrogant. I don't see an inkling of that here.