Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7746 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Need to combine some of these choices (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Need to combine some of these choices (Score:5, Insightful)
the evil lies in the context which makes individual people behave for the "lesser good."
of course, this is all semantic, except when trying to pinpoint "blame"... most individuals tend to do what they are told [new-life.net].
Re:Need to combine some of these choices (Score:5, Insightful)
My comment on "obliviously evil" is just an attempt at being goofy (which is an option I would really put most people I know in, including myself).
obliviously (is that a word)
Actually it is the adverb form of oblivious.
I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an example:
None of these options is healthy, nor is the system that has devolved to that point. So, is it antisocial to point this out? No more than kid when he said the emperor had no clothes.Most people ARE oblivious to what's going on around them. Just look at how many are still buying SUVs when, if they took a moment to think, they'd know that gas prices are going to go higher (we're paying $4 a gallon now up here, and Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the U.S. - that's right, more than any middle east country - check the CIA factbook if you don't believe it :-).
Re:I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or did you really mean, "there's nobody that I or any of my friends would want to see in office"? Is it too late for *you* to run?
Some people here would, I think, prefer to see less "the world is yucky, screw it" and more "the world is yucky, time for me to roll up my sleeves and start cleaning". The former is "antisocial", and rather unattractive.
Re:Need to combine some of these choices (Score:5, Insightful)
A suitable proverb: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance."
Re:Need to combine some of these choices (Score:5, Funny)
Funny? That's actually the more correct quote (Score:5, Informative)
Hanlon stole it... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
--Napolean Bonaparte
(*) Except that the original quote is in French.
(**) And he probably didn't consciously "steal" it. He probably just heard it once, forgot that he heard it, then thought it was his own idea.
Re:So let me see... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they do evil, or evil is the consequence of their actions, that is their responsibility.
Just because they do evil doesn't mean they are evil. Even someone with the best intentions can ruin a lot of lives.
But you're right, ignorance is not a defense for immoral behavior, which is why ignorance of the law will not save you in court.
Re:So let me see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ethically speaking, if you do evil, you are an evil person. You can't really put it on a scale and try to balance it with X amount of good to outweight Y amount of evil.
It's a sad thing sometimes, to watch someone who has done good their whole life, take their eye off the ball and lose it all to evil done in a moment of careless inattention.
Evil seems to stick with you in a way that good doesn't.
Re:So let me see... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are filled with remorse and try not to do such a thing again, and possibly try to make up for your actions, then I think most people would find it hard to call you evil.
However, there is no such thing as evil. or good either for that matter. They're conviently emotionaly charged words used to force someone else's morals on you.
I would not even call someone with absolutely no empathy who took great pleasure from causing other people harm in any way he could "evil". I'd call him insane.
Good and Evil are too poorly defined, because somewhere in any definition there is someone's self serving interpretation of "ethical".
Definition of Good and Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
It utterly sucks. By Mill's way of thinking, feeding everyone pot and zoloft is the greatest "good". But this notion is used everywhere!
The reason for this is that people like the idea that they can do "good" at no cost to themselves.
I love watching religious zealots and politicians sitting around talking about the public good. They actually believe that they can in some way control this just by running their mouths, and trying to make a few people happy. "This is Good, that is Evil, yadda yadda yadda," Most of the time they're talking about things that don't even HAVE a moral component. Drugs, sex, "indecency".
Good and Evil are very simple to understand. If you act to benefit others at a cost to yourself, thats Good. If you act to benefit yourself at the cost of others, thats Evil. Simple.
But as soon as it is said, people start trying to make loopholes, and change circumstances, and add clauses to fit every imaginable situation. "What do you mean by benefit? What do you mean by cost? What if I stepped on a slug is that EVIL?" Then the relativists start jumping in, saying "You can't judge me, my good is totally different!"
It's not that Good and Evil are hard to understand. It is simply that most people want to think that all they do is good, and that they never do evil. Assholes and arrogant fools will call the things that they personally don't like Evil. Greedy men will call themselves Good. And they'll argue about it forever.
Forget about all that. You can't even call yourself Good or Evil, not with any meaning. It's not for you to decide. Good and Evil only exist in your relations to other people, and their relations to you. Most things we do are neither, not that everyone in the world doesn't try and say otherwise.
Saying that Good and Evil don't exist is like saying that people don't exist. Where you have the one, you always, always, have the other.
Bad example. (Score:4, Interesting)
Drunk driving is indeed malicious, because you've deliberately and with full knowledge of possible circumstances, put yourself behind the wheel of a deadly weapon when you are not in a fit condition to use it. That's why many states have much higher penalties for drunk driving accidents than for identical accidents where both parties were sober.
My point is that the consequence is an evil consequence. And that the action which results in that consequence, must therefore be in some way evil, and so on to the person whose action it was.
If it is purely no one's fault that is one thing, and those things do happen. However, if it is someones fault, no matter that they had no intention, that consequence, and the moral weight of the consequence comes back down on their head. Period.
And it can suck, but good people can do bad things. It is all about responsiblity. All the, "I didn't want that to happens" in the world aren't going to change the fact of it.
Re:Need to combine some of these choices (Score:5, Informative)
Good and Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, just because someone is thoughtless or stupid (or doing what he's told), doesn't mean that he is incapable of doing evil. If the outcome of an action is pure evil, it doesn't matter a bit what the jackass who did it was thinking. The consequences follow from his action, therefore the reponsibility for that action lies with him.
Ethical thought these days is in a sad state. People always start whining about relativism, and how you can't judge other people or other cultures. But ethics is supposed to be ABOUT judgement, and whining that you can't judge is the absolute opposite of ethics.
So my advice, judge away.
The Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's 42.
Re:The Answer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CHRISTIAN (Score:5, Interesting)
Most important of all. WHO'S JUDGEMENT DO WE USE WHEN DETERMINING WHAT'S RIGHT?! Do we believe the fire and brimstone sermons that says god hates us or do we follow the "God is love" sermons? Who is F'ing right? Who gets to say that one part is correct and that other part can be ignored?
Just pisses me off.
The answer is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the priest. Not your bishop. Not the Vatican. Not the Pope. Not the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not the Southern Baptist Convention.
Your conscience.
Several years ago there was a pretty good religious comedy on the air ("Nothing Sacred"? If not "Nothing Sacred", it was on the air at about the same time as "Nothing Sacred"). By "pretty good", I mean the writing team were the products of Jesuit education and the scripts were reviewed by Catholic theologians to make sure Catholic beliefs were represented fairly. It had a few wonderful zingers ("Father, why is the church accountant an atheist?" "Because I don't want to trust our finances to someone who thinks God will provide"), and was on the whole a pretty good show.
Up until they tried to do an abortion episode.
In the abortion episode, a woman thinking about an abortion came to the padre looking for guidance. At one point, she asked him what was right and wrong, what she should do. His answer was a compassionate, "I can't tell you what to do. I can only tell you what the Church teaches."
The show was yanked from the lineup weeks later after a huge outcry from devout Catholics, decrying the episode as un-Catholic and condoning what is, in Catholicism, a heinous sin. I found the outcry darkly hilarious, given that what the priest said was exactly correct according to Catholic doctrine--that the individual's conscience is the ultimate spiritual authority, and that it's up to each Catholic to ask their conscience "is the Church correct in what it's teaching?"
Like I said. I found it darkly hilarious. Imagine it--many lay Catholics are dogmatic about "you must adhere to Catholic doctrine or else!" when one of the core doctrines of Catholicism nowadays is the supremacy of the individual's conscience!
Anyway, the upshot of this all is "whose judgement do we use, anyway?" is a perfectly valid question. It's a question that the overwhelming majority of Christian faiths answer with "your own; listen to your conscience." The people who are screaming the most that you must defer to the judgement of priests tend not to be priests themselves.
(I'm Anglican, BTW, which basically means I'm a Catholic who doesn't believe in the Pope. I'm not Catholic, but I'm deeply fond of the Catholic faith. A Catholic church has never failed to welcome me with open arms, even though many of my beliefs are at odds with Catholic doctrine.)
Re:CHRISTIAN (Score:5, Insightful)
We all will die unless you take up the gift that Jesus sacrificed his life to give us.
Also. Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
If you're gonna quote the Bible, put the whole story and not just half of it. According to the Bible, yes we are all sinners that deserve death, but if you just finish the sentence you will see that there is a way out of this death through Christ.
Only one thing lept to my mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
-------------------
Re:Only one thing lept to my mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
People are basically selfish at heart. And many are willing to conciously do evil in an act of selfishness.
Re:Only one thing lept to my mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is neither good nor bad, but simply a fact that any thinking individual would agree with. Even Mother Theresa and her ilk are selfish at heart, except they have/had a more enlightened view of self-interest and selfishness, namely, that they 'selfishly' polished their own souls and ethos through helping other people. Basically, anyone who really tries to be 'selfless' will end up going crazy or feeling very guilty with onesself. Much better to practice enlighhtened self interest, conciously, rather than attempt the impossible and end up truly neurotic, namely, by holding selflessness up as an ideal.
And many are willing to conciously do evil in an act of selfishness.
Re:Only one thing lept to my mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there are selfish people out there, but you can't lump all of humanity into that mess. Just look at the 9/11 in New York. Yes, you had what...22 highjackers that did that...yet the entire city of millions banded together to help others...to get people to safety, to help in the aftermath. Yes, there were a few selfish pricks there...but only a few. Not most, not many...a few.
But lets break this down. I'm not selfish at heart nor would I conciously do evil in an act of selfishness.
Are you and would you pebs? What about your friends and family? How about the people you know. I'm not talking about people you hear about in the media nor see on TV. I'm talking people you personally see and interact with on a daily basis. Take that whole gropu and apply what you've written. Are they basically selfish at heart?
Interesting poll by the way. Kinda made me re-look at the people around me.
Take care.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the author of the aforementioned ("cough choke wheeze" - a lot of people near Anne Frank) joke, I might as well explain, because a lot of folks didn't get it.
For those who didn't get it, the point was never to minimize the Holocaust, but to emphasize that there is evil, and that against some types of evil, attitudes like "I still believe that people are basically good at heart" are indistinguishable from suicide.
In a discussion as to whether most people are "Good, Evil, or Something Else", the most dangerous joke is the one with the kernel of truth in it that makes you question your assumptions about your own answer to the poll.
For the record, my poll answer was "Evil". We'll never know how Anne Frank would have answered this poll, because she died of typhus in a concentration camp. Whether Auschwitz, Westerbork, and Bergen-Belsen were run by people who are "basically good at heart" is therefore a matter still open for debate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Need to combine some of these choices (Score:5, Funny)
Name: John Doe
Race: Human
Class: Corporate Ethics staff
Level: 12
Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Save vs litigation: 8
Save vs stupid ideas: 17
Save vs marketroids: 20
Save vs burrito of doom: 12
Equipment:
- Vorpal ethical golf club +2 ( +5 vs unethical people )
- Heavy rubber band of nastiness
- Book of PC rituals ( Charisma +2 )
- Blackberry ( -2 save vs lit, +2 save vs stupid ideas )
- Plaid trousers ( Charisma +2 vs boss, charisma -20 vs women )
- Burrito of doom ( Tasty yet evil )
Languages:- Grunts and gestures
- Marketroidese
- Buzzwords
- Anything including "ethics"
- Anything including "paradigm-shift"
- Bullshit
Proficincies:Alignment? (Score:5, Funny)
to quote the Players guide (version 3.0)
"A lawfull evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard to whom it hurts"
As oppossed to the Chaotic Evil
"A chaotic evil character does whoatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do."
I have long felt that the lawfull evil villian is much more dangerous (and real) because he works within the rules to pervert society to his desires, and since he follows most rules he is harder to touch. And our coporate overlords are generaly "lawful"
Re:Alignment? (Score:4, Funny)
In general, most people are (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In general, most people are (Score:5, Informative)
Immortality! Woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Immortality! Woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)
I predict he will be running all our companies in the very near future.
Re:Immortality! Woohoo! (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of polls; the numbers are in. 6% of US citizens are total and complete nutjobs.
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Funny)
So roughly the same number of people as there are Slashdot readers.... Coincidence? I think not.
Poll Options (Score:5, Funny)
False (Score:5, Funny)
Re:False (Score:5, Insightful)
Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
Oblivious, Dumbass, Ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Collective ego of the
2) The truth
I know that I voted the same way. My life would be much easier and more pleasant if the people around me listened more and talked less. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but I can't stand it if that disagreement arises from ignorance or apathy. If we all took just a bit more time to be informed before starting our day, we'd help out everyone around us. I wish when we were born, the first thing the doctor/midwife says to the parents and the child is... RTFM.
I think that this crowd is probably well informed about many things, or at least, we like to think we are. And that's a step in the right direction.
I think it's quite amazing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad, too.
Tasty with ketchup... (Score:5, Informative)
Mmmmm.... pork.
Re:Tasty with ketchup... (Score:5, Funny)
A slashdot pollster once tried to test me.
I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice ... splotch of ketchup.
Nah, doesn't sound quite right.
Re:Tasty with ketchup... (Score:5, Funny)
>
> I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice
>
> Nah, doesn't sound quite right.
It gives me the Funny on my post, or else it gets the hose again.
IT PUTS THE FUCKING MOD POINTS IN THE BASKET!
In General Most people are (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorant,
Selfish,
Greedy,
or any combination of the above.
I work in Sales of course I see the difference everyday.
+2, Ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
Why, all of a sudden, am I thinking about possible new moderation categories?
Re:+2, Ignorant (Score:4, Interesting)
Stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very different from oblivious in that a lot of people CHOOSE to be stupid to appear cooler or something. I still don't get it.
I agree, since approximately 70% are idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
The theory goes like this:
70% (+ or -) of the world are idiots.
The intelligent people tend to cluster together so the impact of that much stupidity is minimized.
Due to the large number of idiots we have things like:
I could go on but I think I've ranted enough.
Why Nerds Are Impopular (Score:4, Interesting)
Paul graham wrote a very nice essay on that called Why Nerds are Unpopular [paulgraham.com].
driving (Score:4, Insightful)
</rant>
Most people are... (Score:4, Interesting)
Tricksy pollsters... tricksy...
Neutral with Good Tendancies (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider: I sacrafice a virging to Hastur the Unspeakable in order to cure my wife's hangnail. For me and mine that's a good act. For teh girl and her family, well...
Neutral (Score:5, Funny)
"What makes a good man go neutral?" .. "Prepare to continue the epic struggle between good and neutral."
-Zapp BraniganRe:Neutral with Good Tendancies (Score:5, Funny)
While you're at it, you might also want to "sacrafice a virging" to Clippy, the god of typos. Ha! I jest. Clippy is far more evil than Hastur, and should never be invoked for any reason.
In general, most people are (Score:5, Funny)
In general most people are . . . (Score:5, Funny)
But remember, Try all of Soylent's delicious flavors: Soylent red, Soylent yellow, and new, delicious, Soylent green. Made from the finest undersea growth!
Good, Evil, Liberal, and Conservative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good, Evil, Liberal, and Conservative (Score:5, Funny)
But that's just *my* observation. Throw me a frickin' bone, here, mods.
Dr. Evil
And how that relates to terror (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've pointed out why the war on terror is so misguided. Terrorists are the way they are because their social, economic, and religious experience has convinced them to follow this way of life. I am certain that the highjackers who flew into the WTC were not born with an inherent desire to kill. While that may sometimes be the case when it comes to people with mental instability, I would argue that in general we're born neutral or at worst, out for our own good, but by no means evil.
So waging the war on terror as opposed to poverty and human rights abuses is trimming the weeds without pulling on the roots.
But then... you may call me a libertarian or socialist.
Re:And how that relates to terror (Score:5, Insightful)
I also never stated that if our policy in Israel were to change they'd stop hating us. The people orchestrating the attacks on America are extremists who are taking advantage of the rest of the muslim people who are already rather disenfranchised with our government. If those people saw any sign of goodwill on our part a lot of support for Al-Qaida would dry up.
Too many people think that the terrorist attack was caused because "they hate our freedom", etc. It was caused because of our unwavering support of Israel while they take Palestine from the Muslims the same way we took America from the Native Americans. Israel declared war because they had money and weapons, Palestine resorted to terrorism against Israel because they had no other weapons.
Oh, please! (Score:5, Interesting)
For teh love of Pete, learn something about childhood developement before spouting off tripe like this.
The "Terrible Two's", the age at which children start to say "no!" isn't about children being selfish. Its about children learning to make choices. At the age of two they suddenly discover that they can make a choice. They will say "no" because they can. It is not an act of willful disobedience or selfishness. It is an act of empowerment. Ask ant grandparent if you don't beleive me.
And you are wrong in your assement that without instruction children will indulge in their lusts and desires. Children, more than anything, want to belong. They want to belong to their families. They want to belong to their social groups. The want to be accepted and loved. It is only when children are abandoned, in fact or by virtue of parents spending too much time at work and not enough time with the kids, that children turn to getting in trouble. And they get in trouble in order to get teh attnetion of their parents. They figure that any attention, no matter how bad, is better than none at all.
Children are not inherently evil.
I really hope you never have children.
Re:And how that relates to terror (Score:5, Insightful)
While Afganistan sure was part of a terrorist network, which was widely understood and which is also why in Afganistan the USA was widely supported by almost the whole world, Iraq wasn't. I and most people had no objections whatsoever of invading Afganistan, the Taliban were a dangerous organization that needed to be taken care of.
Saddam Hussein on the other hand was a ruthless dictator, a unscrupulous killer, but he never was a religious fanatic or training terrorists.
However, now after the US marched into Iraq like a bunch of cowboys, things have changed. Now Iraq is part of a terrorist network and now Iraq is a breeding ground for fresh terrorists.
So, no, President Bush' action in Iraq is not evil, it's just plain STUPID because it CREATED a terrorist problem in Iraq which didn't exist before.
missing choice... (Score:5, Funny)
in general, most people are: (Score:5, Insightful)
Missing option (Score:5, Funny)
The Script (Score:5, Funny)
while read STATE; do
if [ "$STATE" = "hungry" ]; then
echo I\'m hungry, let\'s go to McDonalds!
cat
elif [ "$STATE" = "horny" ]; then
echo If you loved me, you\'d do it...
unzip; strip; touch; grep; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; umount; sleep
elif [ "$STATE" = "sleepy" ]; then
echo Wow, isn\'t Leno the most hilarious talk show host ever?
apm -z
elif [ "$STATE" = "at work" ]; then
echo Piss off, I\'m trying to get some work done! Stupid lusers...
mozilla http://slashdot.org/
else
emacs --eval "(psychoanalyze-pinhead)"
fi
done
Oblivious... (Score:5, Funny)
Homer on the Bible on human nature (Score:5, Funny)
Missing option (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig (Score:5, Insightful)
times change (Score:5, Insightful)
between the media, the government, and corporations, no one is setting a good example. granted, none of them should be used as a role model, but they need to face the facts. they are the role model. much like sports figures say "i'm not a role model, don't look to me as an example" but kids do. the media is used to push an image that the corporations want to take advantage of. who knows what the government's goal is right now. cover their asses? make a buck?
it sure feels like the majority of people are no longer mindfull of others.
Re:times change (Score:4, Insightful)
Try thinking about all the people and corporations you _haven't_ heard about - they massively outnumber their "bad" counterparts.
Whoa (Score:5, Funny)
How terribly ironic.
Where's the Inconsiderate Assholes option? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its almost as if common courtesy is a foreign concept now and people have no realization that the actions they take effect others. Don't get me started on A) trying to find helpful sales people or B) parents who let their kids either run wild or scream their heads off directly next to you without admonishing them. I have several nieces and nephews and none of them are allowed to act the way I see some of these kids behaving these days. I'm not talking about being strict either. When your in line at the supermarket and your child is screaming about some pack of gum they want, tell them No and deal with it instead of ignoring them and hoping their super sonic screams stop on their own. Some of us want to be able to hear in 20 years.
Some people are going to read this and say lighten up or its not that bad etc. I'm telling you though, there has been a distinct change in the way people behave in public over the last 20 years. Americans have always been self absorbed but Christ its gotten bad.
Study at Stanford.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The article mentioned a study done by some Stanford Prof and his students where he assigned a group of students to play the roles of prisoners and a bunch of others as guards. They had the guards lock up the prisoners and left them with no oversight and once it was obvious that no one cared, the guards actually started playing God with their "inmates". This amounted to physical harm, emotional abuse and to the extent that the professor pulled the project way before it were supposed to get over.
What this means is that we all have the capacity to be evil and mean to our neighbours, but the inherent good in our society and the laws in place tells us we cant get away with it. No, I am not siding with the Govt, it is corrupt as long as its run by us as well or anything we create.
Maybe its in our genes, maybe not. But it takes some effort in all of us to be good and most of the times it is because we know we will be rewarded by it. I believe parents, society and religion to a great extent influences or instils the idea of good and evil in our minds.
Re:Study at Stanford.. (Score:5, Informative)
They also appear to be selling a DVD documentary for $100+, which seems a little steep if it is the same video we watched in my Freshman year at Stanford. It was interesting, but not THAT interesting.
Hanlon's Razor (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm better than you (Score:5, Funny)
In General most people are .... (Score:5, Funny)
a more original answer (Score:4, Interesting)
That answer will keep you from putting your foot in your mouth in an interview when they ask this question to find out if you have a superiority complex. And it might make them laugh.
Asian (Score:5, Funny)
Most people are AVERAGE (Score:5, Funny)
Did anybody think of voting 'unknown'? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like ketchup (Score:4, Funny)
pretty when on fire.
It's not "nerd elitism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is elitism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your dad's a medical doctor. That means he had a metric assload of schooling combined with an internship that's deliberately designed to be the most unpleasant experience anyone can go through which doesn't leave them with maimed limbs. Now, I don't know why he's in medicine today, but it's a fair bet that he originally did it because he wanted to help people. Maybe he wanted to provide well for his family and a medical degree was a great profession for that. Maybe because he wanted to see broken people get better. Maybe because he likes kids. All those answers boil down to the same thing in the end--he wanted to help people, and he devoted a huge portion of his life to learning how to do just that.
He had to sacrifice an awful lot of things along the way. I've had to sacrifice a social life for graduate school; I can't imagine how much more he sacrificed for his medical degree. I imagine he's still sacrificing today, whether it's on behalf of his patients or working to put you through college. You cannot sacrifice without prioritizing.
So what, if after twenty years he's functionally computer illiterate? Maybe keeping current with tech toys--and that's what computers are for most people--is something he's had to sacrifice. If that's the case, not only do I approve his obliviousness, I applaud it. I wish there were more people like him.
The average Joe does want to learn. They're just under no obligation to think that the things you want them to learn are worth learning. My mom gets on my case left and right about how culturally ignorant I am--I've only heard Monteverdi's Vespers of the Virgin Mary once, and how is it that I can hate The Marriage of Figaro when I've only heard half of it? But I'm not oblivious because I don't like opera. I've prioritized. I've made sacrifices.
The average person isn't apathetic or stupid.
Instead, the average person is not you and probably doesn't want to be you.
The average person cares a lot about things which affect their lives. Ask a farmer what he/she thinks about the latest pesticides, or if terracing has conserved as much soil as environmental proponents say. You'll get an easy hour of discussion out of a farmer that way. It'll bore you to freaking tears, but you'll get an easy hour of discussion out of a farmer that way.
Ask a teacher what he/she thinks about No Child Left Behind. Ask an automotive engineer what he/she thinks about the disappearance of shade-tree mechanics.
Kid, you are an elitist geek. The world's a much bigger and more interesting place than you give it credit for.
Open your eyes. Open your eyes and enjoy the world as much as you can while you're young. Don't do what I did and spend the first 25 years as a pessimist before realizing how empty and useless pessimism is.
I'm a cynic. A cynic is someone who's seen enough of humanity's beauty to be thoroughly convinced that it exists--and enough of humanity's ugliness to be thoroughly appalled at how rarely humanity's true beauty shows through.
But take my word for it. The beauty exists, if you're willing to open your eyes. And the beauty will take your breath away.
Have a nice life. Really. I mean that.
Simple justification of this Slashdot poll result (Score:5, Informative)
At work, I voted tasty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oblivious--a zen perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
OK--flame at will...
Re:Mmmm People... (Score:5, Informative)
"How To Cook Humans"
"How To Cook For Humans"
"How To Cook Forty Humans"
"How To Cook For Forty Humans"
With all of the blowing off of space dust that goes along with it.
Not quite. Re:No, It's Really... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Most people are... SHEEP (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9/11 hijackers were playing by completely different rules. The passengers were not hostages. They were baggage. The passengers did not know that the planes were going to be flown right into buildings. They had no reason to think that this was any different from any other hijacking so they acted as best they knew how.
Save for the passengers (if reports are true) of the fourth plane. The one that hit a field. The reports in the press imply that the passengers on this flight had heard about what was happening and either took control of the plane and crashed it, or somehow caused the plane to crash by disabling the hijacker flying it. That. my friend, is hardly teh work of "sheep".
As for the "republican Overlords", yeah, those twits are sheep. But many people turn into sheep when they are scared. And they are scared of the evil terrorist bogeyman. They are scared of the idea that their leaders are lieing to them.
Rebellious? Try immature. (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, I was just at the University of Rochester graduation and they had the pretty CEO of Warner Bros speak... and his entire speach was "MY money, MINE! No Touchy My Money- Give me MORE MONEY! Watch my MOVIES! Pay me NOW!" (paraphrased, of course).
Pretty sad, really.
Re:Apathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, 128 kbps MP3s don't sound as good as 320 kbps. But they're a nice middle-ground between 64 kbps (poor quality) and 256 kbps (excessive waste of space, unless you're a real audiophile).
I think a lot of people do want the best. But in at least some cases, people are willing to compromise when it'll save 'em a good deal of money. I use IDE drives in my computer. They're not the best; they're 'watered down' hard drives, to borrow your terminology. I run 32-bit x86 hardware. It's not as fast as a Cray. I drink tap water; it's not as good as Perrier. I've got a cable modem; it's not as good as a Gigabit Ethernet backbone.
I'd actaully have guessed the opposite about America: people are hyperfocused on having the biggest and the best. You'll supersize your already huge lunch because it's a good deal, even though you can't finish it. We drive enormous SUVs to get ourselves to work when we could walk. We throw away old computers to get a new 3.4 GHz P4.
Sometimes, using less than the best is an example of being cost-conscious, and figuring out what's actually worth spending.
I'll readily agree that there's tons of apathy in America, but the examples you gave seem to support that America isn't wholly consumer-obsessed, not that we're apathetic.
Re:Apathetic (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Constantly in my way... (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you own the roads.
The truckers are way more important that you and your piddly car trip. Without them, the food wouldn't be on your supermarket shelf. You'd be dead.
Stop trying to pass on the uphill grades
You try getting paid by the mile, then ending up stuck behind another, heavier truck whose driver is paid by the hour, and see how long you hold out before you pass them... It's his goddamn paycheck on the line.
And if you're going to pass, SPEED THE FUCK UP!
He does. By a few miles per hour. Or would you rather have truckers barreling down the left lanes at 70 miles per hour? Idiot.