Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns. Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together. Eighteen percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Nearly 30% believe cloud computing involves actual clouds"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 109
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

14365 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-14 09:19:08 AM  
10 votes:
Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people.
2013-03-14 09:36:33 AM  
6 votes:
So many of these are arbitrary. There are a couple animals thought to have been the source for the unicorn. When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other - the math is just much easier one way. And a huge chunk of internet transmission goes through satellites, meaning your cloud computing data is passing through actual clouds.
2013-03-14 10:55:29 AM  
5 votes:

hardinparamedic: I'm sure they exist SOMEWHERE in the Universe. But to say they've visted a backwater planet which hasn't discovered Arcturian 10D Ultraporn yet? Nah.


The point is that UFOs are not necessarily alien spacecraft, they are unidentified flying objects, i.e. stuff in the sky that has not been identified.

So yes, he's right, you'd be a moron to deny that UFOs exist ... and it has nothing to do with what may or may not exist elsewhere in the universe. Right here, on Earth, UFOs undoubtedly, unquestionably exist because there have been flying objects we cannot identify. They're probably easily explained and Earthly in origin. but that's not the point. Unidentified is.
2013-03-14 10:46:42 AM  
4 votes:
Yuuup, pretty much, half of the population is of below average intelligence.
2013-03-14 01:01:42 PM  
3 votes:
This article does nothing.  It feels like this guy is the liberal/atheist version of Ted Nugent.  First, I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.  Sure there are the loud idiots who think man walked with dinosaurs, but those are preverbial fish in a barrel.  What of Agnostics?  I pose that you can believe in evolution, the big bang theory, and creationism.  What if god made the big bang happen, and evolution took care of the rest?  What if god is a scientist?  I think deeply religious people, not blindly religious people, are capable of asking these questions.

Also, when he interjects obvious subjective opinion as fact, he totally loses me, and becomes the close-minded dumb person, married to a dogma, that rallies against other dumb people married to dogma.  I'm talking about the mumford and sons bit.  Sure they're easy because hipsters like them.  But I think some of their songs are emotionally powerful, and the rest are just cheap knock-offs of the good ones.  But I won't begrudge anyone for thinking they are the bees-knees.  There are a lot of bands that a lot of people like but I don't.  That makes neither of us dumb, but different.

If this guy had any actual desire to shock people into thinking, he should have left some of the snark at the door.  Otherwise, he should have totally committed to his theme and named the article "religious righty's are dumb, and so can you".  Unfortunately, this case of witless try-to-hard has made me consider leaning away from a direction I was already going.
2013-03-14 11:16:22 AM  
3 votes:
f.asset.soup.io
2013-03-14 10:54:51 AM  
3 votes:
Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Americans, the scum of the Earth.

Normally, I'd point out how various other nations are equally farked up in various ways, but we've already had two threads this morning discussing the US's manipulation of the world food market for international political leverage and how we (and China) unintentionally set of regional famines several times during the cold war despite global food supplies being more than sufficient for the global population.

So... too depressed to pile more examples of humanity not even living up to its own basic moral standards on the plate.  Suffice to say that you shouldn't look into Italian or French politics, ever, if you want to complain about the US, and you should also avoid any news from the UK containing "parliament" "house", or "MP" and definitely refuse to learn anything about Israel.

//The rest of first-world Europe is mostly easier, avoid any news related to immigration or muslim rights and you can probably remain smugly superior with only mild ignorance.
2013-03-14 10:48:13 AM  
3 votes:

powhound: Believing in UFO's isn't a stretch. I wish one would come take me from this crazy planet.


I wish authors were smart enough not to use "UFO" interchangeably with "alien spacecraft." You'd be a moron to deny UFOs exist. Alien spacecraft? Notsomuch.
2013-03-14 10:47:11 AM  
3 votes:
How come in areas where there are a lot of churches, the crime rate is higher? One would think more churches=more good law abiding people. Yet, the opposite is true.
2013-03-14 10:37:02 AM  
3 votes:

Molavian: You should see the percentage that believes in gun control.


I wonder how many think more guns = more safety.

Since we have 300 million people, and 200 million privately-owned firearms, shouldn't our murder rate be REALLY low?
2013-03-14 10:36:42 AM  
3 votes:
What percentage of Americans lie or pick random answers on surveys?
2013-03-14 09:53:21 AM  
3 votes:
Holy crap, that adds up to 78%, that's like half of everybody
2013-03-16 12:58:46 PM  
2 votes:

Frederick: Citation? Maybe one scientific paper with the conclusion: "We dont know".


You'd probably have to be living in a cave to be unaware of studies and experiments that result in inconclusive findings. Anyway, absolutely anyone, with any interest in science knows there is a ton we don't know, and has heard scientist after scientist say exactly that on a slew of topics. There have been articles about the problems inconclusive science can cause or about people rushing to embrace inconclusive studies. Science magazines have devoted entire issues to what we don't know. Publications from top universities have done the same. Scientists form groups to help make it clear that we don't have all the answers and can't get them right away. And yes, scientific papers routinely indicate that the results are inconclusive. This is common. It is routine. Such inconclusive results often make the news.

In sort, I don't know what you're talking about.
2013-03-14 01:18:17 PM  
2 votes:

Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false not proven.


FTFY

RedTank: Hm. Prepare to be trolled by me then:
-If you're conservative and you don't get this article then the article has proven itself true and you will just never understand some things.
-If you're liberal and you don't get this article then you are unwilling to accept that, some people no matter how hard you try, will never understand what you say.

How did such a gap in misunderstanding one anouther come about? What should we do about it if anything? That's what the article is about.


You got trolled than, because the article is absolutely loaded with logical fallacies, and otherwise is poorly written dreck.
2013-03-14 01:10:49 PM  
2 votes:

m00: "Do unicorns exist?" is also a poorly phrased question. It should be "Has there been any scientific discoveries of fossil records, bones, or physical remnants of the mythological creature known as a 'unicorn'?" Because the actual answer to the question "do unicorns exist" is who knows? Nobody has directly observed a unicorn, but nobody has directly observed pretty much anything in string theory. A lack of observation doesn't prove something doesn't exist. All we can say is that we haven't observed something, we do/don't have evidence for something. We can prove something does exist, but we can't prove the negative.


Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.  The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

The burden of proof is on the person making the hypothesis, otherwise anything imaginary must be real because no evidence exists to prove or deny the claim.
2013-03-14 11:55:00 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: durbnpoisn: 

Yeah they would.  Just recently it was revealed that 80% of NYC high school graduates entering CUNY (City University of New York) needed remedial work on reading, writing, and/or math.

These were *COLLEGE BOUND* kids, and 4 out of 5 couldn't meet the standards expected of them.

I'm betting that their education in science and social studies was similarly lacking.



Have you seen the video of Harvard graduates and their explanations of what causes seasons?  Like, there's one guy who claims winter occurs when Earth is farther away from the Sun, and summer occurs when its closer.

HARVARD GRADUATE.

Let that sink in.
2013-03-14 11:31:27 AM  
2 votes:
"Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns."

From the last presidential election, I would have guessed this to be at least 51 percent.
2013-03-14 11:21:59 AM  
2 votes:

m00: Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.


If you want to be technical (which you're not, despite your best attempts), any gravitationally interacting bodies orbit around the common center of mass.  In a simplified Earth/Sun system, that common center of mass is deep inside the Sun, so deep as to make the "center of mass" distinction essentially irrelevant.  The Earth orbits the Sun.

However, that's not technically correct either. There are other bodies in the solar system that affect both the Earth and Sun, and ALL bodies in the solar system are orbiting the common center of mass as determined by the entire system.

But wait, there's more! Since your desire is to be technical, the entire solar system is also orbiting the galactic core of the Milky Way, and in its collective journey, is also affected by all of the solar systems, stellar nurseries, etc, that are scattered around the galaxy, in addition to the gravitational attraction of the supermassive black hole at the galactic center.

/if you want to be technical, of course
//or you can just go back to agreeing with an obvious troll
2013-03-14 11:20:05 AM  
2 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: Molavian: You should see the percentage that believes in gun control.

I wonder how many think more guns = more safety.

Since we have 300 million people, and 200 million privately-owned firearms, shouldn't our murder rate be REALLY low?


On the flip side, if more guns means more violence we should have a much more violent country than we do since we're positively drowning in guns.

I think a better correlation with violence is wealth/income disparity. And we have a major problem with wealth/income disparity in the US. Guns themselves aren't the problem... a population shaped to have a high number of desperate people struggling on the margins ARE, however.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Americans, the scum of the Earth.



Not scum.... just way too many of us believe in angels and we disdain politicians who don't.
2013-03-14 11:19:22 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.

The Earth and the Sun orbit around a common point.  That point is wholly within the Sun, so for all practical purposes, it's accurate enough to say the Earth orbits the Sun.

Both of them revolve around their respective axes.


revolve != orbit
2013-03-14 11:15:46 AM  
2 votes:

m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.


The Earth and the Sun orbit around a common point.  That point is wholly within the Sun, so for all practical purposes, it's accurate enough to say the Earth orbits the Sun.

Both of them revolve around their respective axes.
2013-03-14 11:12:18 AM  
2 votes:
Anyone who is honestly surprised that a large percentage of humans are idiots has obviously never worked...well, any job dealing with the public.
2013-03-14 11:08:16 AM  
2 votes:
The only fail in this thread is the Fark mods greenlighting this liberal drivel.
2013-03-14 11:03:53 AM  
2 votes:
The writer seems like a douchebag.

I really liked this little gem:

" In sum and all averaged out, it's safe to say about 37 percent of Americans are just are not very bright."

Its safe to say that 100 percent of people insulting others should probably proofread first, especially when calling people dumb.
2013-03-14 10:57:42 AM  
2 votes:

Barfmaker: It is this bizarre, circular, catch-22 kind of question, asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist,

This is gonna be good...


Intellectual conservatives do still exist, they just vote Democrat because there is only one way to vote in the US if you even have a modicum of intelligence (and don't earn more than a million per year and fark everyone who doesn't).
2013-03-14 10:54:18 AM  
2 votes:

m00: "...asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist."

There we go...


This. The article very quickly devolves into "see people are dumb because they don't believe what I believe". The % of people who believe in unicorns thing is just a smokescreen.
2013-03-14 10:49:14 AM  
2 votes:

m00: "...asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist."

There we go...


Yeah, that turned me off the article entirely. I know quite a number of people who consider themselves "conservative" who:

- Aren't delusional enough to believe the US was founded as a "Christian" nation
- Understand how the universe works
- Don't watch FOX

Now, are they in line with the rank and file, or the current batch of Tea Party coonts in office? No. But they are intelligent, well read, and not against intellectualism.
2013-03-14 10:42:31 AM  
2 votes:

GiantRex: That might be the most scathing column I have ever read. I can hardly wait to see the shiatstorm this thread will inevitably become.

/your popcorn, go get it

[frathousesports.net image 350x350]


I wouldn't worry about it, for several reasons:

1. the author is a smarmy dick
2. his "blog" sucks
3. quoting "surveys" is about as intellectually lazy a writing style as one could possibly imagine.
4. STRAW MEN, STRAW MEN EVERYWHERE!

Ask yourself a serious question: have you ever answered a social survey seriously? Of course not:

Do I believe in Unicorns (what a stupid question) hell yeah! Sure I do, idiot farking "survey" taker.

That way grossly lazy "intellectual liberals" can write grossly lazy, pandering blogs for people who enjoy the pandering.

For a writer, he is one hell of a yoga teacher.
2013-03-14 10:40:47 AM  
2 votes:
It couldn't be that there has been an intentional and systematic effort to create a subservient, uncritical, ignorant population which can be easily manipulated to passively serve the 1% and their goals.

Nah, that's just crazy talk. Tinfoil hat, even.
2013-03-14 10:40:37 AM  
2 votes:
Wait, why did the author pick on Kansas? Is this one of those "flyover country" things where we pretend that a large portion of the country doesn't count because some people live there that have opinions that we disagree with? How "progressive".

/Mark Morford sounds like a douchbag
2013-03-14 10:40:26 AM  
2 votes:

some_beer_drinker: seriously? wow, Americans people are pretty retarded.


Similar polls have been done in other countries, with similar results. People are stupid all over. For example, many people in Iceland believe elves actually exist.

This is not unusual, nor is is particularly American. People are stupid all over.
2013-03-14 10:32:36 AM  
2 votes:
Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together. Eighteen percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth.

Jesus farking Christ. There is no hope for us.
2013-03-14 10:25:40 AM  
2 votes:
47% voted for Mitt Romney.
2013-03-14 09:49:28 AM  
2 votes:

some_beer_drinker: seriously? wow, Americans people are pretty retarded unintelligent.

2013-03-14 09:43:36 AM  
2 votes:

Barfmaker: It is this bizarre, circular, catch-22 kind of question, asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist,

This is gonna be good...


With Buckley gone, it's kind of hard to refute that.
2013-03-14 09:39:18 AM  
2 votes:
I think most people realize that cloud computing requires man-made clouds; the natural ones can't hold enough data. I'm sure they use something like the artificial snow machines at ski resorts.
2013-03-14 09:27:56 AM  
2 votes:
i1151.photobucket.com
Fat, stupid & American is no way to go through life, son.
2013-03-14 08:51:10 AM  
2 votes:
seriously? wow, Americans are pretty retarded.
2013-03-16 12:08:12 AM  
1 votes:

Frederick: BuckTurgidson: Frederick: The biggest failure of science is an inability to use the phrase "we dont know".

That is in fact the most frequently-used phrase in science, indeed it's displayed in giant waving banners and broadcast through megaphones from even the most miniscule scientific endeavor, since, of course, it is

the ENTIRE REASON for science.

Citation?  Maybe one scientific paper with the conclusion: "We dont know".

Thank you, Ptolemy for you arrogance.


Just how drunk are you, at this moment?
2013-03-15 11:45:58 PM  
1 votes:

Frederick: The biggest failure of science is an inability to use the phrase "we dont know".


That is in fact the most frequently-used phrase in science, indeed it's displayed in giant waving banners and broadcast through megaphones from even the most miniscule scientific endeavor, since, of course, it is

the ENTIRE REASON for science.
2013-03-14 10:44:18 PM  
1 votes:

xria: If you like those sorts of joke, you should try to see "Brass Eye" if you haven't before (the second episode about drugs is particuarly hilarious).



But the best episode was the paedophilia episode, packed to the gills with media whores trying to attach themselves to a cause. I'm thinking Phil Collins saying he's talking nonsense, Neil Fox's claim that paedophiles are genetically closer to crabs than people ("There's no actual evidence for it, but it is a scientific fact."), and Richard Blackwood's warnings of keyboards that smell of hammers.

It's really unfortunate that so many people failed to see it for the beautiful satire it is. It aired in a time of tabloid panic about paedophilia, when the gutter press was regularly stirring up panic about paedophiles. The now happily defunct News of the World had a paedo name-and-shame thing going on, where, I don't know, they probably published pictures of random people and claimed they were nonces. It aired after a paediatrician's home had been graffitied by the mob claiming her to be a paedophile, FFS.

Chris Morris held his mirror up to the media, and was brutally attacked by the tabloid press, like this:

i.imgur.com

Yes, the Star (it's like the Daily Mail, but less pretentious) actually printed an article criticising the programme opposite an article celebrating a 15 year old's tits.

If you want to see the Daily Mail's opinion on young women's tits, by the way, their code word is "all grown up". Go put it in to the Fail online's search box and... the results will speak for themselves.

/Fark the gutter press.
//Hypocritical twunts.
2013-03-14 02:23:38 PM  
1 votes:
If one wants to write an article deploring ignorance and magical thinking, it would be better to actually write it well, and to have a point other than "ain't it awful."
2013-03-14 01:49:53 PM  
1 votes:
I mean are the 6% under 9 years old? Because I could excuse that...

I want a study on how practical knowledge and how people do their job relates to people who believe crazy things like vaccines = autism, ghosts, dinosaurs didn't exist, Obama is a muslim, etc.

Because everyone is always shouting around that everyone else is stupid, but SOMEHOW in general these people can do their jobs. I know some 'Obama is not a US citizen' believers who are engineers and as far as I can tell they aren't farking things up left to right. I know a girl who is a CT tech and is all Obama is a Muslim, vaccines are a government plot to kill us, etc. but if you ask her what a certain bone is or need her to position someone for the right scan that is easy.

What I'm saying is that I *don't* think we are stupid (I mean- the bell curve of IQ pretty much tells you where we all are), I think we are easily brainwashed. Which, to me, is way more concerning.
2013-03-14 01:48:34 PM  
1 votes:
occamswrist:  ...like forcing pregnant women who want an abortion to see their ultrasound so that they can make an informed decision. More information leads to better decisions and who is against better decisions?

Wouldn't it be a better option to offer these women more information on having their baby adopted as opposed to trolling them out of having an abortion?  Having all the information directly or indirectly related to a decision is not always the best option.  In this case the forced ultrasound information is of poor quality.  It's only meant to torture and manipulate the recipient into making the "right" decision.

It's the quality, weight, and priority of the information that's truly important.  If one person knew everything there was to know then they would go mad.
2013-03-14 01:41:53 PM  
1 votes:

SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.


I think my wording there was bad.  I'm not suggesting that you can't consider religious people dumb.  I'm saying you can't consider people dumb because they are religious.  There are all kinds of dumb religious people.  I think they are dumb because they are dumb, and the way they practice their religion is just an extension of their dumbness, not the reason for it.
m00
2013-03-14 01:28:51 PM  
1 votes:

stonicus: It's not even that either.  9.81m/s2 is just a good approximation for average gravitational attraction on Earth.  It's based on distance to center of mass and how much mass is between you and that center.  The number is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.  The position of the moon also affects the force of gravity experienced at any given position.

Certain questions come with built in, or assumed, boundaries.  "Do unicorns exist?" is an example.  To me, I process this question to mean "Do real living animals called unicorns currently exist on the planet earth?"  I don't include the abstract concept of a unicorn in my selection.  Otherwise, the question "Does blank exist?" will always be "yes" as blank exists within the question itself.  Nor do I include toys or stuffed animals or artwork in my selection process.  And I frame my selection process within the confines of the world which I reside in, not in some fairy tale or imaginary world.  There's no hard written rules on these assumptions and context that everyone can or will agree on.  I assumed the "real world" in the unicorn question.  But sometimes the question can demand it exist elsewhere.  "Do Jawas exist?"  No.  Jawas are a character from Star Wars.  "Do Jawas ever travel to Coruscant?"  This question makes the statement that Jawas exist by framing it as if they do.  Taking that lead, we can then infer this question is in the context of an imaginary world, not our real world, and therefore can be answered thusly.  Sort of rambling now, so I'll wrap it up...


Well, my point is the answer to "does X exist" is always either "yes" or "unknown." You can't prove something doesn't exist, it's logically impossible unless X is pre-defined as being mutually exclusive or co-existent with some already known thing.

I mean, obviously the answer the question "Do unicorns exist" is looking for is 'no.' That's the right answer. But... then the point of the question isn't to think about it and give an answer, it's to pick the answer that conforms to the publicly held view. You are right, unicorns in the metaphysical sense do exist... just as "wealth" exists or any other intangible or abstract thing. But this isn't the "right answer."

So I wouldn't call someone stupid for failing such a test, just that they aren't aware/don't care about what the test is trying to get you to answer.
2013-03-14 01:27:16 PM  
1 votes:
But Unicorns ARE real!   They have just left the land and evolved back into whales!

upload.wikimedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal
2013-03-14 01:26:35 PM  
1 votes:

shoegaze99: SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.

Some of the most brilliant minds in history were also religious and/or spiritual people , people who both subscribed to a religion and/or spirituality of one kind or another and who also broke new ground and/or changed the world with their intellect

pretended to be religious so they wouldn't be killed.

FTFY
2013-03-14 01:17:09 PM  
1 votes:

m00: Biological Ali: Which is, of course, entirely separate from the point of the question. It's like saying "If we expand the definition of the term to include those Blue Angel planes that do the fancy tricks, then angels really are real!", or "If we expand the definition of 'murder' to include 'killing someone softly with his song', then that man is guilty!"

I think you're missing the point I'm (maybe poorly) trying to make. It's factually incorrect to say "the Sun does not revolve around the Earth." This is what we teach kids, because it's easier than high school/college level physics and there is the history behind heliocentric/geocentric models. It's like a questionnaire that says "Is the acceleration of gravity  9.81 m/s2?" The answer is, of course, "no." It's the acceleration of gravity on earth, in a vacuum, as described by classical mechanics. Basically, it's a poorly worded question because it's looking for a specific answer but it doesn't phrase the question to make that answer absolutely true. "Does the sun revolve around the earth?" is another example. You might call this nit-picky, but these are supposed to be scientific questions. Don't give me a scientific y/n question where the answer isn't an absolute.


It's not even that either.  9.81m/s2 is just a good approximation for average gravitational attraction on Earth.  It's based on distance to center of mass and how much mass is between you and that center.  The number is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.  The position of the moon also affects the force of gravity experienced at any given position.

Certain questions come with built in, or assumed, boundaries.  "Do unicorns exist?" is an example.  To me, I process this question to mean "Do real living animals called unicorns currently exist on the planet earth?"  I don't include the abstract concept of a unicorn in my selection.  Otherwise, the question "Does blank exist?" will always be "yes" as blank exists within the question itself.  Nor do I include toys or stuffed animals or artwork in my selection process.  And I frame my selection process within the confines of the world which I reside in, not in some fairy tale or imaginary world.  There's no hard written rules on these assumptions and context that everyone can or will agree on.  I assumed the "real world" in the unicorn question.  But sometimes the question can demand it exist elsewhere.  "Do Jawas exist?"  No.  Jawas are a character from Star Wars.  "Do Jawas ever travel to Coruscant?"  This question makes the statement that Jawas exist by framing it as if they do.  Taking that lead, we can then infer this question is in the context of an imaginary world, not our real world, and therefore can be answered thusly.  Sort of rambling now, so I'll wrap it up...
2013-03-14 01:05:31 PM  
1 votes:

crazydave023: I have been saying this for years: the systematic dumbing down of the American populace so that the elite exert more control than they already have.


"Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able..."
2013-03-14 12:57:05 PM  
1 votes:
So, the writer admonishes people for believing in things with no evidence . . . and then proceeds to make all sorts of assumptions while presenting no evidence.

It's almost like the authors lack of belief is the product of socialization and not rational thought. Of course, I have no evidence of that . . .
2013-03-14 12:53:29 PM  
1 votes:

Visionmn2: So let me get this straight. If someone does not think like this guy they are a moron. He is enlightened and all should now down to his superior liberal intellect.

Nothing closed minded there, nope nothing.


Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.  You know what not everyone has?  The facts.  You know what no one has?  A unicorn, because they don't exist.  You know what that makes you if you believe in unicorns?  A moron, worthy of scorn and ridicule.  Or a child, in which case rock on.
2013-03-14 12:46:03 PM  
1 votes:
So let me get this straight. If someone does not think like this guy they are a moron. He is enlightened and all should now down to his superior liberal intellect.

Nothing closed minded there, nope nothing.
2013-03-14 12:40:50 PM  
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: St_Francis_P: I think most people realize that cloud computing requires man-made clouds; the natural ones can't hold enough data. I'm sure they use something like the artificial snow machines at ski resorts.

Now the concept of "real cloud" computing fascinates me.  Could you actually store data in a mist?  What happens when it rains?  Would stratus clouds hold less data than cumulus clouds?



icasl.com.br
2013-03-14 12:37:43 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: neversubmit: dittybopper: m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.

The Earth and the Sun orbit around a common point.  That point is wholly within the Sun, so for all practical purposes, it's accurate enough to say the Earth orbits the Sun.

Both of them revolve around their respective axes.

revolve != orbit

Yeah, that's why I made sure to distinguish the two.


Earth rotates on its own axis and revolves around the sun.
2013-03-14 12:34:21 PM  
1 votes:
Being in IT, a few years ago, there were many people asking me "What is cloud computing?"  I would give them a short description, and within 15 seconds, could see their eyes glaze over.

Most Avg. people don't care to know.  I now just tell when asked "any storage or computation that takes place outside your computer"  and walk away quickly.

Sometimes, I'd get people who would actually argue with me, because "Their friend who is like a computer genius, told me that cloud computing was X, X, X,."  I usually held off on telling them that their friend was an idiot.
2013-03-14 12:32:28 PM  
1 votes:

midigod: heypete: The number of guns in the country and guns-per-capita are at an all-time high while gun-related homicide rates are at their lowest point since 1964 and have been trending downwards for years.

Nope.  Gun ownership has been falling since the 70's, and so has violent crime.  Interesting.


And yet the number of penises has been increasing steadily and incidents of rape has dropped in that EXACT SAME timeline!. You can't explain that!

/correlation does not equal causation.
2013-03-14 12:28:35 PM  
1 votes:

FizixJunkee: Have you seen the video of Harvard graduates and their explanations of what causes seasons? Like, there's one guy who claims winter occurs when Earth is farther away from the Sun, and summer occurs when its closer.

HARVARD GRADUATE.


So what? It's easy to cherry pick and make someone look dumb because they don't know a specific fact that you know (and the one you cite isn't even a very good example, since that misconception is very common and quite widespread). That same guy may also have stunning skills with numbers, remarkably business intuition, and a sweeping knowledge of world politics and history. He might be better than 99% of people in a half-dozen other areas of knowledge. The fact that he doesn't know one thing and instead believes something he probably learned (incorrectly) as a child and has never had cause to think of again doesn't mean squat. All it means is that he doesn't know that one thing.

With the right questions and the right editing, it's easy to make just about anyone look stupid.
2013-03-14 12:14:25 PM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: dittybopper: neversubmit: dittybopper: m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.

The Earth and the Sun orbit around a common point.  That point is wholly within the Sun, so for all practical purposes, it's accurate enough to say the Earth orbits the Sun.

Both of them revolve around their respective axes.

revolve != orbit

Yeah, that's why I made sure to distinguish the two.

No they don't the earth orbits the sun the sun orbits the center of the milkyway galaxy


We're both right, depending on the frame of reference.

Considered as a two body system, the Earth and Sun orbit around a barycenter.  Because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth, that barycenter is below the surface of the Sun.

As a system, they both orbit the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
2013-03-14 12:10:23 PM  
1 votes:
halfof33: derpderpderpityDOOOOoooooo!

Clarified for newbs.
2013-03-14 12:09:25 PM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: Your timeline is bad and you should feel bad. Oh btw where did they get those bio/chem weapons?


The irony of you complaining about the time line and then in the very next sentence going back to 1983-84 is delicious.

Oh btw where did Israel get the weapons to bomb the Iraq nuclear reactor in 1981?
2013-03-14 12:07:01 PM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: Your timeline is bad and you should feel bad. Oh btw where did they get those bio/chem weapons?


The technology Iraq used came mostly from Spain, Germany, Austria, China, and France.  They received some biological samples from the US, but the bulk of the material they used to make mustard and nerve gases seems to have come from Singapore, Egypt, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain.  They received smaller amounts from Brazil.

France was especially egregious:  They pretty much set up Iraq's nuclear program from scratch, and 21% of their chemical weapons manufacturing equipment was French in origin.

You want to blame someone for *THAT*, blame Jacques Chirac, who was much more buddy-buddy with Saddam Hussein than Donald Rumsfeld ever was.

The only involvement the US seems to have had in Iraqi WMD research and production was sending biological samples that the Iraqis claimed were for medical research.
2013-03-14 12:03:21 PM  
1 votes:

12monkeys: But dinosaurs and man DO hang out together:
[files.myopera.com image 450x300]

files.myopera.com
/pedantic cladist

seriousfacts.com
we also eat them
2013-03-14 11:58:51 AM  
1 votes:
and THIS is why intelligent people want a republican form of federal governance, and not a democratic one (no, I'm not talking about parties)

the mob will KILL us
2013-03-14 11:58:38 AM  
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other - the math is just much easier one way.


No, but you can say they are rotating around a shared center of gravity, because they are.  It just so happens that the center of gravity in the earth-sun system closely coincides with the center of the sun.  While you can create imaginative mathematical solutions involving loops and spirals, they do not correspond to the known physics of the universe.
2013-03-14 11:56:29 AM  
1 votes:
But dinosaurs and man DO hang out together:
files.myopera.com
/pedantic cladist
2013-03-14 11:48:44 AM  
1 votes:
Well, let's see. If magic suddenly sprung up (let's do a Shadowrun scenario), this would happen:

1.- Religious frenzy (people would start thinking it's the end of the world).
2.- Government persecution (do you really want someone that can create flames at will/raise the dead/teleport wherever he wants, unhinged? Balderdash! Gitmo would be like Hogwarts, minus the learning, and with rape and torture).
3.- Corporate takeover (see case 2).
4.- Scientific advancement (Possibly a consequence of cases 1 and 2).
2013-03-14 11:35:48 AM  
1 votes:
MrGuilt:

farm9.staticflickr.com
I'm a lone rhinoceros
There ain't one hell of a lots of us left in this world
2013-03-14 11:34:36 AM  
1 votes:

shoegaze99:  For example, many people in Iceland believe elves actually exist.



77% of Americans believe in angels.  To me, there's no difference between believing in angels and believing in elves.
2013-03-14 11:31:58 AM  
1 votes:

The Snow Dog: powhound: Believing in UFO's isn't a stretch. I wish one would come take me from this crazy planet.

I wish authors were smart enough not to use "UFO" interchangeably with "alien spacecraft." You'd be a moron to deny UFOs exist. Alien spacecraft? Notsomuch.


Alien spacecraft almost certainly exist. The unlikely bit is any of them are coming to earth to fart about secretly experimenting about stuff we have been broadcasting out the details of light years in all directions.
2013-03-14 11:31:32 AM  
1 votes:
Our daughter is 5 years old and doesn't believe unicorns are real.  She also knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that night and day are the result of the Earth spinning on its axis, and that humans are animals related to chimpanzees.

She knows nothing about Jesus since she's Jewish, but she does know that dinosaurs went extinct many millions of years ago, long before humans existed.  Oh, and she knows the log(1) = 0.*

In short, our kindergartener is smarter than many American adults.

*she doesn't know what that means, though
2013-03-14 11:30:49 AM  
1 votes:

WaitWhatWhy: saying the sun revolves around the earth is like saying that when you jump off the diving board, the earth falls up towards you.


Doesn't it? I know people are used to assuming that the smaller object moves, while the bigger object remains stationary, but that's just convention.
2013-03-14 11:30:41 AM  
1 votes:

shoegaze99: some_beer_drinker: seriously? wow, Americans people are pretty retarded.

Similar polls have been done in other countries, with similar results. People are stupid all over. For example, many people in Iceland believe elves actually exist.

This is not unusual, nor is is particularly American. People are stupid polls are unreliable all over.


Seriously, don't believe survey results unless they are developed and executed by competent, disinterested professionals... and the subject matter rational, non-emotive stuff. Otherwise, the signal/noise ratio is potato.
2013-03-14 11:29:45 AM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: halfof33: neversubmit: Things that make me go hmmm... for 200 Alex

Well there was absolutely no question whatsoever that Iraq Had WMDs, hell they used them on the Kurds.

The question was whether in 1998-3 Iraq still had capable offensive WMD delivery and development programs.

Is your reply meant to be meta? cause if so lol if not LOL


They did have offensive WMD. They used them on the Kurds. I believe we found some of them and their is a belief that they shipped a lot of them to Syria for safe keeping. There is a fear that Syria is using them on their own revolutionaries.

The problem is that a lot of people equate WMD with NUKES and nothing else.
2013-03-14 11:25:31 AM  
1 votes:

m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.


Two bodies in space orbit each other, but when one body is so incredibly massive compared to the other one, the co-orbital point (I'm not sure if that's the right term, it's the point the two bodies orbit around) is so close to the centre of mass of the big one that it's equally as valid to say the small one orbits the big one.

Similarly, the Earth and Moon orbit each other, but the co-orbital point (see above) is within the earth.  The moon makes us wobble a little bit, but we're not epicycling.
2013-03-14 11:24:27 AM  
1 votes:
neversubmit:

revolve != orbit

this.

is exactly what i was about to say. they're two totally different things, and whether or not one thing revolves around another has nothing to do with gravity and relative masses and such.

why people no know revolve != orbit?
2013-03-14 11:19:02 AM  
1 votes:
Personally, I blame the damn muddy the waters tactic certain groups have taken while attacking science education.

Add in a general disdain for intellectualism and intelligence in our country, add a hefty dose of "I reject reality and substitute my own", and you have modern day America.
2013-03-14 11:13:31 AM  
1 votes:

m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.


Which is, of course, entirely separate from the point of the question. It's like saying "If we expand the definition of the term to include those Blue Angel planes that do the fancy tricks, then angels really are real!", or "If we expand the definition of 'murder' to include 'killing someone softly with his song', then that man is guilty!"
2013-03-14 11:13:15 AM  
1 votes:

WaitWhatWhy: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So many of these are arbitrary. There are a couple animals thought to have been the source for the unicorn. When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other - the math is just much easier one way. And a huge chunk of internet transmission goes through satellites, meaning your cloud computing data is passing through actual clouds.

Not really because gravity. Yeah, the math for the relative motion can be set up either way, but once you factor in the forces involved, saying the sun revolves around the earth is like saying that when you jump off the diving board, the earth falls up towards you.


Haha...  That's a funny way to put it.

I think that there are some people that don't realize just how much of this solar system the sun takes up.  It might look like a cute little ball in the sky.  But in fact it contains 99.9% of every thing that makes up the system.  The Earth looks like a little tiny ball bearing next to it.

If you were to imagine that somehow, this little planet of ours is somehow keeping something THAT much bigger in a captive orbit, just defies sanity.
2013-03-14 11:13:08 AM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: Things that make me go hmmm... for 200 Alex


Well there was absolutely no question whatsoever that Iraq Had WMDs, hell they used them on the Kurds.

The question was whether in 1998-3 Iraq still had capable offensive WMD delivery and development programs.
2013-03-14 11:11:45 AM  
1 votes:
If brains were dynamite, most Americans could not blow their noses.
2013-03-14 11:09:46 AM  
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other


The sun being MUCH more massive can't possibly be affected by the earth gravity enough to revolve around the earth (it wobbles a bit, but it doesn't fall down). Your statement is only true for similarly sized bodies. You could also make the argument that the Earth revolves around the Moon, but it would be equally false.
2013-03-14 11:08:04 AM  
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Wait, why did the author pick on Kansas? Is this one of those "flyover country" things where we pretend that a large portion of the country doesn't count because some people live there that have opinions that we disagree with? How "progressive".

/Mark Morford sounds like a douchbag


'Mad Men is a great show' is an opinion I hold that some would disagree with.  If you can't see the difference between that and the items here you may be one of the people we're laughing at.
2013-03-14 11:05:56 AM  
1 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "......Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together....."

Absolutely. Raquel Welch would never lie to me.

/obscure?
//perhaps for the younger farkers.....



img2.timeinc.net

Me and Andy Dufresne got it.
2013-03-14 11:04:08 AM  
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So many of these are arbitrary. There are a couple animals thought to have been the source for the unicorn. When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other - the math is just much easier one way. And a huge chunk of internet transmission goes through satellites, meaning your cloud computing data is passing through actual clouds.


Not really because gravity. Yeah, the math for the relative motion can be set up either way, but once you factor in the forces involved, saying the sun revolves around the earth is like saying that when you jump off the diving board, the earth falls up towards you.
2013-03-14 11:02:52 AM  
1 votes:
I may not have any "training" or "education" or "credentials", but I'm a MOMMY and so I know that vaccinations are a huge scam by doctors to get rich by uploading our children's blood into the clouds.
2013-03-14 11:01:01 AM  
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other - the math is just much easier one way.


For asteroids floating in deep space perhaps.  But for the Earth and Sun - no, you can't.  It's pretty easy to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun because the center of it's orbit is actually INSIDE the sun.
2013-03-14 10:57:40 AM  
1 votes:
Unicorns are real...they are just big and grey. farm9.staticflickr.com
Sadly, if unicorns really were real, some culture would likely view their horns as some sort of horse-viagra. There would be a trade in them, and the unicorns would be hunted down, horns hacked off, and the animal left for dead.

Humans suck.
2013-03-14 10:55:46 AM  
1 votes:
Wow.. the guy who wrote the article is just as stupid as the people he is complaining about...
2013-03-14 10:54:56 AM  
1 votes:
My first reaction was "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" but then I remembered that the dumbest quartile of kids at my school didn't vanish from the face of the earth when they left school. A lot of people just aren't that bright.
2013-03-14 10:53:43 AM  
1 votes:
100% of the people who commented in this thread believe they are smart.
2013-03-14 10:52:56 AM  
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Wait, why did the author pick on Kansas? Is this one of those "flyover country" things where we pretend that a large portion of the country doesn't count because some people live there that have opinions that we disagree with? How "progressive".

/Mark Morford sounds like a douchbag


You sound offended. Tell your unicorn we're sorry.

cnbcsucks.files.wordpress.com
2013-03-14 10:52:02 AM  
1 votes:
2013-03-14 10:50:12 AM  
1 votes:

durbnpoisn: I'm going to take the approach here that the select group of people interviewed do not really represent the populace of the US in general.  Like, they went directly to the backwoods of Kentucky, or the deep south, or some shiat.  If I were to run a similar survey just in the Northeast, or in California, or even farking Detroit, the numbers would look nothing like that.


lol. You know how I know you haven't traveled the US very much?
2013-03-14 10:49:36 AM  
1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: Since we have 300 million people, and 200 million privately-owned firearms, shouldn't our murder rate be REALLY low?


Outside of areas dominated by drug trafficking, gangs, etc. it is. Cities like Washington DC, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. disproportionately contribute to the violent crime rate in the US.

The number of guns in the country and guns-per-capita are at an all-time high while gun-related homicide rates are at their lowest point since 1964 and have been trending downwards for years.

There are quite a few states with lax gun laws, large amounts of guns and gun owners, and gun-related crime rates lower than that of other developed countries.

Could things be improved? Absolutely, but the average gun owner isn't the one going out and committing crimes.
2013-03-14 10:48:51 AM  
1 votes:

halfof33: GiantRex: That might be the most scathing column I have ever read. I can hardly wait to see the shiatstorm this thread will inevitably become.

/your popcorn, go get it

[frathousesports.net image 350x350]

I wouldn't worry about it, for several reasons:

1. the author is a smarmy dick
2. his "blog" sucks
3. quoting "surveys" is about as intellectually lazy a writing style as one could possibly imagine.
4. STRAW MEN, STRAW MEN EVERYWHERE!

Ask yourself a serious question: have you ever answered a social survey seriously? Of course not:

Do I believe in Unicorns (what a stupid question) hell yeah! Sure I do, idiot farking "survey" taker.

That way grossly lazy "intellectual liberals" can write grossly lazy, pandering blogs for people who enjoy the pandering.

For a writer, he is one hell of a yoga teacher.



img13.imageshack.us
2013-03-14 10:44:06 AM  
1 votes:
Hold on a second, Unicorns aren't real? Didn't North Korea find their lair?
2013-03-14 10:43:46 AM  
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other


If you simplify any observation to the point that it is utterly meaningless, then it is inane, that's for sure.  Knowledge of the planets goes back at least to the Sumerian civilization.
2013-03-14 10:40:02 AM  
1 votes:
Surveys tend to have an established minimum %, due to people screwing with the presenter, misunderstanding the question, being insane, or some linear combination of all three. I'm amazed that the unicorn question made it as low as 4%, actually. I'd always thought the floor was around 9%.
2013-03-14 10:37:32 AM  
1 votes:
I wonder what percent believes that Huffpost is real news?
2013-03-14 10:37:24 AM  
1 votes:
i.chzbgr.com
2013-03-14 10:36:54 AM  
1 votes:
media.tumblr.com
2013-03-14 10:36:20 AM  
1 votes:

Counter_Intelligent: Unicorn thread?


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com
2013-03-14 10:35:01 AM  
1 votes:
"Newtown shooting happened and 20 young children were massacred due to America's fetish for, obsession with and addiction to firearms, violence and fear"

What percentage believe this bullshiat?
2013-03-14 10:34:36 AM  
1 votes:

Counter_Intelligent: Unicorn thread?


If by "unicorn" you mean attractive, single bisexual women.
2013-03-14 10:33:48 AM  
1 votes:
You should see the percentage that believes in gun control.
2013-03-14 10:23:43 AM  
1 votes:
this is why we can't have nice things.
2013-03-14 09:18:15 AM  
1 votes:
Is this the thread where we find out the percentage of things that Farkers think are real?
2013-03-14 08:52:36 AM  
1 votes:
Unicorn thread?
 
Displayed 109 of 109 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report