by Slate Quicksilver
Busy day today with many goings ons, but this needs to be shared:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/win-a-soccer-game-by-more-than-five-points-and-you-lose-ottawa-league-says/
You don't even have to read the article, the URL says it all. If you win a game by more than five points in this league in Canada, you lose. I could spend 5,000 words deriding the wimp-ification of this generation of children just as easily as I could go on about how many thing are wrong with this action being taken by that league.
Here it is boiled down to a simple concise thought: In the real world, there is no rule that says you can't lose by more than five points! Ask these guys. In this league, the oil spill would be suspended for at least 2 games. The world is not sunshine and lollipops and Western Civilization's march toward the middle is perfectly represented by this, tee ball leagues that don't keep score and people who try to ban the use of words. When these kids make it to middle school, bullies will not stop administering wedgies on the grounds of "fairness" or "compassion."
Point is, if you want to know why the center of the world has shifted to the far east in about 15 years, it's because kids in this league figured they'd share with the Chinese for a few years thinking that the Chinese will be happy to give us back control when it's our turn.
Showing posts with label incredible stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label incredible stupidity. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Stupidity in Spades
by Slate Quicksilver
We missed a great in the month we took off. Anything is game in this opening salvo, but of all the things that occurred during our brief hiatus, nothing was more blatantly stupid than the whole uproar about Ben Roethlisberger. Nothing. Not the people who thought Tiger Woods's poor play was due to him not getting enough endorphins to his brain from less sex, not the NCAA basketball people flipping the general public and their mid majors the finger by increasing the field not to 96, but to 68... not even the return of Pacman Jones to the Bengals, who are clearly bored with winning... nothing has been as low grade, low frequency, single digit, abjectly asinine (good word) than what he has done and how the public has responded.
Sports Illustrated just pumped out a story that filled the front page and about 6 pages in the back of their latest issue trying to sum the whole thing up and perform a Sherlock Holmes-ian point by point breakdown to finger the culprit. Other sports outlets ranging from local talk show hosts to world-wide leaders in sports to tmz/sports blogs have exploded with coverage. By the night that Commissioner Goodell brought down the suspension, it wasn't just ESPN bringing you coverage, every news outlet in America was on it and even the BBC was covering the news.
The icing on all of those cakes came in the form of an article with a so many clueless stabs written under the guise of what people who think they are smart go crazy for: SCIENCE. I, for one, love science. Science is awesome. But there are some instances where science cannot explain things. No, I'm not talking about ghosts or aliens or God appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich in Tupelo, Mississippi. Science can explain those things easily. I'm talking about being unable to explain why a successful, young and rich and privileged person would turn into a douchenozzle of epic proportions. Science can't explain that.
A comparison to this can be found in the world of "Natural Cures." This guy, individually, has made a fortune beyond any of our wildest dreams preying not on the stupid, but on the semi-intelligent, by giving you half facts and circular logic to make you think that herpes can be cured with seaweed extract. The placebo effect is his lifeblood. Although I have an axe to grind with this guy (certain grandparents of mine spend half of their fixed income on his books and "cures" but are just as bad off health wise as they would be without him), he is the best comparison to someone trying to use SCIENCE to link a guy's poor behavior decisions.
Using the logic of "Guy gets in accident without helmet" + "Guy turns out to be a bit of a prick" + "Guy gets in trouble" + "Potential frontal lobe injury from accident" + "Frontal lobe injuries can lead to behavior swings", our wonderful author says that Big Ben has gone wild because of his head injuries. Correlation, in his world, does imply causation much to every statistician, scientist, lawyer and economist's chagrin.
What is the worst of all of this is that he brings in a doctor to explain it. A neurosurgeon, to be specific. The good doctor explains that frontal lobe injuries can cause issues because that's the part of the brain where the "decision center" is. "A person with damage might not read the intentions of a woman at a bar very well, for example," Grafman says. "They might succumb to more primitive urges instead of saying, 'I shouldn't do this because it affects my career.'" This attempt to legitimize his claims by having a doctor say something that backs him up makes the almost smart person jump out and think "Hey! I know things too! I know what a frontal lobe is, this is interesting. I will read on because I am getting smarter!" So now we have what is a stab in the dark claim backed up with words that don't mean much: "They might succumb..." Just like the snake oil salesman who makes you think that eating portobello mushrooms reduces your chance of kidney failure, a stab in the dark is made and the reader/viewer is the one who decides "Is that legit?" Having a doctor say something backing it up, that must make it seem legit (0:18 mark).
In the end, the article tries to link the accident to his behaviors. What it doesn't do is what many other articles, posts and tv segments dont do: blame it on him! Brain injuries, entitlement and being young and rich are all things that are blamed. I will add one more thing to that list. The dude needs to grow up. That's all. There is a whole class of gentlemen who are between 20 and 30 who would basically do the same exact thing that the QB for the Pittsburgh Steelers would: go nuts. It's about not wanting to grow up. It's about having the disposable income and lots of time on your hand. It's because you are athletic, have money and fame and having those things will have women throwing themselves at you anytime and anywhere... and knowing it. That's what it's about. The fact that this doesn't happen more is surprising. And the fact that it is a two time Super Bowl winning QB makes it bigger than it probably should be.
He doesn't need to be suspended and he doesn't need to go to "rehab" or seek "counseling." He needs someone to whack him upside the head and say "Look Asshat, you have the life billions would kill for. You are pissing it away trying to hit on college girls. Go find one girl who won't care if it's an open relationship and for God's sake if you get drunk, do it at home." That's what he needs and nothing more.
We missed a great in the month we took off. Anything is game in this opening salvo, but of all the things that occurred during our brief hiatus, nothing was more blatantly stupid than the whole uproar about Ben Roethlisberger. Nothing. Not the people who thought Tiger Woods's poor play was due to him not getting enough endorphins to his brain from less sex, not the NCAA basketball people flipping the general public and their mid majors the finger by increasing the field not to 96, but to 68... not even the return of Pacman Jones to the Bengals, who are clearly bored with winning... nothing has been as low grade, low frequency, single digit, abjectly asinine (good word) than what he has done and how the public has responded.
Sports Illustrated just pumped out a story that filled the front page and about 6 pages in the back of their latest issue trying to sum the whole thing up and perform a Sherlock Holmes-ian point by point breakdown to finger the culprit. Other sports outlets ranging from local talk show hosts to world-wide leaders in sports to tmz/sports blogs have exploded with coverage. By the night that Commissioner Goodell brought down the suspension, it wasn't just ESPN bringing you coverage, every news outlet in America was on it and even the BBC was covering the news.
The icing on all of those cakes came in the form of an article with a so many clueless stabs written under the guise of what people who think they are smart go crazy for: SCIENCE. I, for one, love science. Science is awesome. But there are some instances where science cannot explain things. No, I'm not talking about ghosts or aliens or God appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich in Tupelo, Mississippi. Science can explain those things easily. I'm talking about being unable to explain why a successful, young and rich and privileged person would turn into a douchenozzle of epic proportions. Science can't explain that.
A comparison to this can be found in the world of "Natural Cures." This guy, individually, has made a fortune beyond any of our wildest dreams preying not on the stupid, but on the semi-intelligent, by giving you half facts and circular logic to make you think that herpes can be cured with seaweed extract. The placebo effect is his lifeblood. Although I have an axe to grind with this guy (certain grandparents of mine spend half of their fixed income on his books and "cures" but are just as bad off health wise as they would be without him), he is the best comparison to someone trying to use SCIENCE to link a guy's poor behavior decisions.
Using the logic of "Guy gets in accident without helmet" + "Guy turns out to be a bit of a prick" + "Guy gets in trouble" + "Potential frontal lobe injury from accident" + "Frontal lobe injuries can lead to behavior swings", our wonderful author says that Big Ben has gone wild because of his head injuries. Correlation, in his world, does imply causation much to every statistician, scientist, lawyer and economist's chagrin.
What is the worst of all of this is that he brings in a doctor to explain it. A neurosurgeon, to be specific. The good doctor explains that frontal lobe injuries can cause issues because that's the part of the brain where the "decision center" is. "A person with damage might not read the intentions of a woman at a bar very well, for example," Grafman says. "They might succumb to more primitive urges instead of saying, 'I shouldn't do this because it affects my career.'" This attempt to legitimize his claims by having a doctor say something that backs him up makes the almost smart person jump out and think "Hey! I know things too! I know what a frontal lobe is, this is interesting. I will read on because I am getting smarter!" So now we have what is a stab in the dark claim backed up with words that don't mean much: "They might succumb..." Just like the snake oil salesman who makes you think that eating portobello mushrooms reduces your chance of kidney failure, a stab in the dark is made and the reader/viewer is the one who decides "Is that legit?" Having a doctor say something backing it up, that must make it seem legit (0:18 mark).
In the end, the article tries to link the accident to his behaviors. What it doesn't do is what many other articles, posts and tv segments dont do: blame it on him! Brain injuries, entitlement and being young and rich are all things that are blamed. I will add one more thing to that list. The dude needs to grow up. That's all. There is a whole class of gentlemen who are between 20 and 30 who would basically do the same exact thing that the QB for the Pittsburgh Steelers would: go nuts. It's about not wanting to grow up. It's about having the disposable income and lots of time on your hand. It's because you are athletic, have money and fame and having those things will have women throwing themselves at you anytime and anywhere... and knowing it. That's what it's about. The fact that this doesn't happen more is surprising. And the fact that it is a two time Super Bowl winning QB makes it bigger than it probably should be.
He doesn't need to be suspended and he doesn't need to go to "rehab" or seek "counseling." He needs someone to whack him upside the head and say "Look Asshat, you have the life billions would kill for. You are pissing it away trying to hit on college girls. Go find one girl who won't care if it's an open relationship and for God's sake if you get drunk, do it at home." That's what he needs and nothing more.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
D.U.M.B.A.S.S.
by Slate Quicksilver
Sometimes new parents prove to the world why there should be, at minimum, a test before being allowed to have a child. This is not a stamp on the hot button issue of abortion, this is more of a promotion of the idea of "let's remove everyone's baby making components (re: not the WHOLE THING) until you can pass a test proving you won't ruin your/the kid's life due to your own stupidity." Names are a simple thing and should be in the first 5 questions.
***EXAMPLE QUESTION***
If you were to have a child, what would you consider as a name?
The correct answer would be a normal, simple name and a unique name would be accepted as long as a committee, who of course would convene over this pressing matter, approved it. This would eliminate names like: Presley, N'Qua, Billy Jo Bob, Lane and Tonkqwainla (SPOILER ALERT! REAL NAMES/SPELLINGS!). If the committee rejects your letter, a list of recommended and, more importantly, allowed names will be provided for you as long as you don't fail the test by eating the paper or answering "Leave Baby in your 2005 Hyundai Solar Oven while you go buy a carton of Marlboros and a fresh bottle of Seagram's 7." (That one would eliminate baby making in the entire state of South Carolina. My idea sounds better and better doesn't it?)
On that question, there is really only one truly wrong answer.
This is that answer.
Upon giving this as your answer for the name question, your baby making parts will be removed and thrown into a ditch, covered with gasoline and set ablaze while you watch. This would be done not just because we don't want a kid as unfortunately named as such, but because if you are that dumb to name you kid that, we should assume your next kid will have an equally stupid name (Yes, we know you'll reproduce at least once more after that terrible of a name because that's what stupid people do... they reproduce).
Oh, what's that? You were born in 1970? Local supporters of a geographic rival jokingly suggested you were the reason for your team's misfortune for the LAST 40 YEARS of failure? That makes PERFECT sense! And now, 40 years later your son is born and why not use backward logic on already ludicriously stupid logic to try to create a wonderful logic multiball in order to shoot the Ramp of Logic 3 times to get the SUPER MEGA LOGIC JACKPOT by hurting your son's chances at any relevance in life in an attempt to somehow get your team to win a Super Bowl by giving him initials that not only spell your team's name out but also is a cheer for the team. Frankly sir, that is as bulletproof in terms of logic as wishing your mom started dinner 5 minutes earlier because she said dinner would be ready in 5 minutes and wanted dinner now.
One can only hope that tests for baby making is instituted sooner than later or else we will see more names like this: P.A.C.K.E.R.S.: Peter Aaron Charlie Knight Ellen Rogers Simonsen.
Sometimes new parents prove to the world why there should be, at minimum, a test before being allowed to have a child. This is not a stamp on the hot button issue of abortion, this is more of a promotion of the idea of "let's remove everyone's baby making components (re: not the WHOLE THING) until you can pass a test proving you won't ruin your/the kid's life due to your own stupidity." Names are a simple thing and should be in the first 5 questions.
***EXAMPLE QUESTION***
If you were to have a child, what would you consider as a name?
The correct answer would be a normal, simple name and a unique name would be accepted as long as a committee, who of course would convene over this pressing matter, approved it. This would eliminate names like: Presley, N'Qua, Billy Jo Bob, Lane and Tonkqwainla (SPOILER ALERT! REAL NAMES/SPELLINGS!). If the committee rejects your letter, a list of recommended and, more importantly, allowed names will be provided for you as long as you don't fail the test by eating the paper or answering "Leave Baby in your 2005 Hyundai Solar Oven while you go buy a carton of Marlboros and a fresh bottle of Seagram's 7." (That one would eliminate baby making in the entire state of South Carolina. My idea sounds better and better doesn't it?)
On that question, there is really only one truly wrong answer.
This is that answer.
Upon giving this as your answer for the name question, your baby making parts will be removed and thrown into a ditch, covered with gasoline and set ablaze while you watch. This would be done not just because we don't want a kid as unfortunately named as such, but because if you are that dumb to name you kid that, we should assume your next kid will have an equally stupid name (Yes, we know you'll reproduce at least once more after that terrible of a name because that's what stupid people do... they reproduce).
Oh, what's that? You were born in 1970? Local supporters of a geographic rival jokingly suggested you were the reason for your team's misfortune for the LAST 40 YEARS of failure? That makes PERFECT sense! And now, 40 years later your son is born and why not use backward logic on already ludicriously stupid logic to try to create a wonderful logic multiball in order to shoot the Ramp of Logic 3 times to get the SUPER MEGA LOGIC JACKPOT by hurting your son's chances at any relevance in life in an attempt to somehow get your team to win a Super Bowl by giving him initials that not only spell your team's name out but also is a cheer for the team. Frankly sir, that is as bulletproof in terms of logic as wishing your mom started dinner 5 minutes earlier because she said dinner would be ready in 5 minutes and wanted dinner now.
One can only hope that tests for baby making is instituted sooner than later or else we will see more names like this: P.A.C.K.E.R.S.: Peter Aaron Charlie Knight Ellen Rogers Simonsen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)