I’m not going to analyze and overanalyze her comments. And please note, I wasn’t one of those who originally criticized Crow here. I don’t think she’s particularly blameworthy here, except that her humor isn’t easy to parse.
Lots of people in that other thread were a little bewildered over what she meant, even those who weren’t known members of the VRWC.
All I’m saying is, in an environment where the New York Times has articles with titles like “A Year Without Toilet Paper”, and these people were earnest and serious, it can be hard to see the wink sometimes.
I was laughing at that Times article, believe me, but the subjects of the piece would not be laughing along.
Of course it did. Like I said; it’s a stupid idea. I just think it’s possible Crow is that stupid.
Activists are pretty much more likely to have stupider ideas by definition. If we assume that in general what happens currently is of reasonable intelligence, then the subset of “people against current norms” would tend to have stupider ideas.
For activist-based stupidity, I point you toward the Pit. One example… well, how about the current MPSIMS “My sons were traumatised by lesbians” father? I’d also point you to Mr. Jack Thompson, a whackjob of the highest order.
And your remark about activists being stupid makes me weep for our future. How do think any society embarks on change? Or do you just follow along like one of the sheep who thinks the people in charge know it all?
I think this is because most people have only read or heard about the quote in media commentary about the quote rather than reading the whole piece in context. When all you see or hear is Rush Limbaugh or John Stewart saying “Sheryl Crow said this…,” and they present it as if she was serious and they don’t provide the tagline about washing out the square, then yes, it doesn’t seem obvious that she was joking (to be honest, I didn’t know it was a joke at first either. I though, “damn, I never knew she was such an airhead. I thought she was halfway intelligent. [shrug]”). I don’t think the media misrepresentations are her fault, though. That’s just the way the media is now. Context is routinely discarded if it will make a better story or radio talker.
By the way, the reason the comment – as reported – isn’t funny or seems puzzling as a joke is because it kept getting reported without the punchline. “Use one square” is just a set up line. “Wash it out” is the punchline. I’m not saying it’s the funniest joke ever, but it’s structured as a joke in its original context.
I may be wrong, but I believe I said I thought activists were more likely to be stupider - not that they were all stupid. On the contrary. Activists have been on the leading edge of every improvement to society. People who think differently have influenced science, art, religion, anything for the better. Sometimes they’re morons. Sometimes they’re not. People who have no grasp of insulting one not being an insult to all make me weep for our future.
Yes, I do think that’s possible. Disagree? Hey, fine by me. Think i’m stupid for believing it? Then we’re in total agreement that such stupid people can exist. We just disagree on who it is.
But that’s what she is! She has lots of money, a loyal following, friends in high places and a voice that people want to hear.
Well, what you said was:
You may not have included all activists, but you definitely included most. And you made it a point to say that people who go against the grain are stupid. How could I take it any other way?
So she is, but you still didn’t say that. You could’ve said specified “singer”, too. Anyway, Jack Thompson I think fulfils the “influential” criteria. He does seem to get on TV reasonably often.
No, I didn’t. I said activists were more likely to be stupid. If we say 50% of non-activists are stupid, I could say that 51% of activists are and have that remark be perfectly correct*. It’s you who’s reading “He thinks all activists are stupid!/ Damn norm-following fool!” into what I say.
I made it a point that in general people who go against an intelligent norm are more likely to be stupid. You could take it another way by, well, getting a better understanding of what I actually said. I’d say that perhaps I could have put it better, too, but I thought it was pretty clear.
You’re damn right it’s clear. In your opinion, in general, people who go against the grain are stupid. That is your assumption. Which is exactly what I said you said.
Ah well. I suppose i’ll have to live with just not being stupid.
More likely to be. Seriously, you bolded the damn thing. More likely! As in, have a higher probability to? As in, aren’t necessarily? As in, does not speak to the entirety of a population? As in, compared to another population?
I have no idea why you aren’t getting this. That’s not what i’m saying, i’ve gone further and now pointed out that’s not what i’m saying, and i’ve gone even further and pointed out the ways in which activists are smart and make our lives better!
Either you’re completley misunderstanding or I am. Could I get any impartial observers to tell me whether the problem is on my side or Kalhoun’s?
Maybe you can tell me how I would draw a distinction between the terms “more likely” and “in general.” The gist of it is that the majority of activists are stupid.
I suppose some progress is being made in that you’ve moved down to accusing me of saying “most activists” are, rather than just “activists”.
“In general” is something you can use without reference to anything else. I can say “in general, dogs have teeth” without mentioning any other creatures. OTOH, the use of “more likely” requires a comparison - I can say “dogs are more likely to have teeth than cats” but couldn’t say “dogs are more likely to have teeth”.
“In general” alone would tend to imply a majority - a pretty significant majority, at that. “More likely”, on the other hand, could be pedantically defined as there being just one more stupid activist than non-activists. Used together, it implies that a majority of activists are more likely to be stupid than non-activists.
I think the problem you’re having is interpreting “more likely” as “more likely than not”. The latter would mean most activists are stupid, but the former depends on the compared population.
Show me where I accused you of saying all rather than most.
You’re nitpicking your own statement in your attempt to backpedal out of your accusation. There is no difference between “more likely” and “more likely than not”. That’s what “more likely” means. You’re still saying that the majority of people who go against the grain are stupid.
Swing and a miss! (I suppose being from the UK I should use a cricket term rather than baseball, but “googly and a miss” doesn’t really work).
I didn’t say you’d accused me of insulting all activists. All I said was that you had moved from accusing me by saying “activists” to “most activists”. You said just “activists” in post 45;
No, i’m really not. “More likely that not” says this; there are more people who go one way in a population than don’t go that way. If I said “more likely than not, activists are stupid”, I would have been saying it is more likely that a given activist is stupid than they aren’t stupid.
As I pointed out before, the use of “more likely” requires a comparison population. “More likely than not” is a comparison of part of one population with another part; in this example, stupid activists and non-stupid activists. “More likely” alone compares the whole of one population with another. When I used “more likely”, I was referring to activists being more likely to be stupid than non-activists. “More likely” and “more likely than not” are not the same thing at all.
It’s absolutely the same thing when all is said and done. You can try to worm your way out of it, but you are saying that the activist portion of the population is more likely to be stupid than the non-activist portion. And you’re still belching out this statement with nothing to back it up.
