Monthly Archives: March 2021

The Death of Satire because People be Dumb

Posted on by
Death of Satire

Is Satire Really Dead or Am I Making a Point

I hereby declare the Death of Satire on this day of March 26, 2021. Satire is great and it’s not really going away, it hasn’t died, but it’s becoming all but impossible to differentiate between satire and something truly idiotic that a group of people, sometimes a large group, believes.

I’ve written a number of blogs on the lack of critical thinking ability but the problem seems to have reached a point where it’s impossible to tell if someone is just really stupid or trying to use satire. If there is no substantive difference between reality and satire, then, to some degree it is the death of satire.

The point came home to me when I saw video produced by The Onion some eleven years ago that was biting and hilarious. One of the people commenting noted the current content isn’t as good. Someone else replied the competition with Fake News was so steep it became impossible to write good satire.

Um, yeah, valid.

How did We Get Here?

Our erstwhile leaders; be they local, state or national in stature, seem to want to lay the blame at the feet of social media and various extremely unreliable news sources. I am not so inclined to blame the death of satire on such organizations. I think the problem lies in the mirror. People be dumb.

The confidence trickster relies on the fact people believe what they want to believe, rather than what the facts tell them, in order to take money from their victims.

My opinion is the underlying problem is our personal identity has become too closely aligned with a variety of issues. If I’m of one particular religion, political party, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, or whatever, I’m unwilling to examine a situation with critical thinking.

It’s not that people haven’t always lacked critical thinking skills, it’s that a certain percentage of our society now lacks them, and I’m convinced that number is reaching a critically dangerous point. If enough people simply refuse to look at facts and come to rational conclusions, decisions are going to be flawed; which leads to enormous difficulties.

We need look no further than the current pandemic to see people on both sides of the issue completely abdicating reason in order to push an agenda.

How do We Fix it?

I love satire and I want a world filled with it. The fact of the death of satire makes me sad and I’d like to get about fixing it. The problem is there is no easy solution. If people refuse to think critically then satire must continue to slowly lose out to its unyielding competition: stupidity.

I say there is no easy solution and that is accurate, but the concept is quite simple. Teach critical thinking skills starting from early childhood. Create a generation of people who look at facts and make decisions not on what they want to be true, but what is true.

Yeah, good luck with that, Tommy Boy. I hear you.

Tom Liberman

Conservation in Children Leads to Brawl Among Adults

Posted on by
Conservation

The Video

I watched a fascinating YouTube video on the psychological phenomenon of Conservation in developmental stages of a child. As I scrolled down the comment section there immediately occurred a clear and virulent divide among those who watched.

This divide intrigues me. I enjoy dissecting the machinations of the human mind and the study itself was interesting but the rancor displayed in the comment section, by the various sides, is what I’d like to talk about today.

What is Conservation?

The theory, proposed by Jean Paiget, suggests when presented with various tests of liquid, numerical information, solids, and weights; children of a certain age are able to answer two questions correctly while younger children are generally only able to appropriately answer the first.

I won’t go into great detail but the experiment basically follows a simple outline that involves two equal things or groups being presented side by side and then again with their form changed in full site of the child. Younger children answer the first group as the same but the second group as different. This seems to indicate a lack of understanding the liquid when poured into a taller but narrower glass is still the same amount of liquid despite appearing taller.

The Comments

The comments broke down into three categories. One group of people saw the experiments and were convinced younger children seem to have trouble with the concept of conservation.

The second group of people thought subtle nuances from the experiment encouraged the child to answer one way or the other. Or that the children simply did not understand the concepts of more, less, and the same.

The third group thought it was cruel of the experimenter to present this as evidence for the stupidity of the child.

All three groups tried to explain why they were right and things degenerated, as comment sections often do, into personal insults and demands for sources. There was various forms of yelling at the stupidity of anyone who did not agree with the commenter.

I don’t think anyone’s opinion changed.

What did I Learn from all of this?

First off, let me say the idea of Conservation makes sense to me. I believe younger children have difficulty understanding flattened playdough has less volume than a ball of playdough. I think Conservation is real and also understand it is not done to judge the child but to understand the development of cognitive thinking in humans.

I’m also of the opinion I’m never going to make people who disagree change their mind with a comment or a simple blog post. Others are going to remain convinced their opinion is correct and there is little I can do about that.

So, should I stop writing novels, this blog? Should I stop commenting on posts? Will I stop trying to convince people my political and ideological philosophy is best for the United States and the world? Should I shrug my shoulders and give up on humanity?

The answer is, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, no. It’s really not up to me to decide how you think, even if you are being stupid. Your stupidity is your own to have and if you think something ludicrous is true; I’m going to explain why you’re wrong but having done so, it’s all on you. My responsibility is over.

In short, prepare yourself for more blogs, more novels, and more smug self-righteousness.

Tom Liberman

Why the Simp Shamer is Worse than the Simp

Posted on by
Simp Shamer

What is a Simp Shamer and a Simp?

A Simp is someone who donates money or other gratuities to an entertainer on streaming services like Twitch. The general term of Simp indicates a male who donates to the stream of an attractive female who then says their username in an affectionate way.

The term has significant negative connotations; so much so that Twitch has banned its use in chat. People who laugh at and otherwise denigrate so-called Simps are to be found on virtually every stream but I find a Simp Shamer to be far viler than those who donate the money.

A Simp Shamer is someone who denigrates the Simps at every opportunity, apparently in order to show the world how much better a person are they.

Why is a Simp Shamer such a Douche?

The problem for me is the so-called Simp is donating money of their own free will. It is certain the often-attractive female streamer is using her sex appeal to illicit such donations but a lot of people donate to streams on Twitch.

People donate to chess streams, game streams, music stream, ASMR streams, and plenty of others. Yet the derogatory term seems to only apply to men donating to the streams of attractive women. Listen, I spend money on role-playing games, my gym membership, chess site memberships, and plenty of other things that others certainly would not spend their money upon. Good for them, spend your money on the things you enjoy.

The Simp Shamer goes onto streams essentially to pat themselves on the back for being better than the Simp. The reality is they are worse, far worse in my opinion. Why do you care how other people spend their money? Why do you think your stupid hobbies are somehow better than mine? What weakness in your own character makes you have to shame others to make yourself feel better?

You’re a douche, Simp Shamer. Let me say that I’ve never donated to the stream of an ASMR artist but who cares? Maybe someday I will. They work hard, I enjoy their efforts. It’s like any other voluntary expenditure and completely my decision to make.

Conclusion

What is it with our willingness to negatively judge other people in this world for the things they enjoy? Why do so many of you derive your sense of personal worth from shaming others?

Shut your yap, Simp Shamer. Mind your business. There’s nothing wrong with the Simp, there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

Tom Liberman

Meghan Markle and Donald Trump Two Peas in a Pod

Posted on by
Meghan Markle and Donald Trump

Narcissistic Personalities

In an attempt to anger the entirety of the human race I thought I’d write about how Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are pretty much the same person. It appears to me they clearly share a few traits; namely a long-term pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive craving for admiration, and struggles with empathy.

It’s called a narcissistic personality and the way both of them endlessly center their woes on the perceived behavior of others and refuse to accept any personal responsibility for the situations they find themselves in does not sit well with me.

Why You Support One and Not the Other

More to the point of this blog are the people who choose to support Meghan Markle and Donald Trump. They tend to be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. This paradox may surprise you but it does not come as any shock to me.

You see, politics don’t matter when it comes to people of this nature. They exist in a simple transactional environment where the only thing you are to them is a means to an end. Nothing political, ideological, moral, or ethical binds them from their goal of using you to get what they want. And, of course, you oblige.

We all have experience with this sort of person. You run into them after a long absence at some place you frequent. They tell you how great you look, laugh at your wonderful jokes; then they get to the point. What can you do for them? The meeting was no accident.

Meghan Markle used Piers Morgan to get into a party where she targeted Prince Harry, then she had no more need of Morgan so she dumped him. Donald Trump flailed around various political ideologies until he found a Republican base willing to listen to his completely disingenuous ramblings on immigration. When he no longer needs them, he dumps them. Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are largely one and the same.

Enlightened Self-Interest

I thought this might be a useful time to speak briefly on the concept of Enlightened Self-Interest because you might mistake the narcissism of Meghan Markle and Donald Trump for it. Nope. They tend to destroy all they touch in their mindless grasping for the glittery trinket in front of their face.

Someone who act to further the interests of others, or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong, ultimately serve their own self-interest. That’s enlightened self-interest.

Narcissists are Sometimes Right

It’s also important to understand that Meghan Markle and Donald Trump sometimes have good points. They aren’t wrong all the time and just because they are selfish, transactional people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to their legitimate grievances.

I live in the real world and I’m quite certain Meghan Markle was subject to racist abuse and that Donald Trump was occasionally harassed not for his policies but simply because of his name. When bad things happen to bad people, we should call it out. That doesn’t make the narcissist less self-centered, it just makes us a better person.

Conclusion

When it comes to Meghan Markle and Donald Trump it is likely you hate one and support the other. If you dislike them both you are in the minority but, if it’s any comfort, you have my support.

Tom Liberman

Kristi Noem and Transgender Girls Government Overreach

Posted on by
Transgender Girls

The Situation

The governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, delightedly announced she eagerly anticipated signing a ban on transgender girls playing sports on female restricted teams. For those of you eagerly anticipating a defense of transgender girls’ right to play sports, you should start looking elsewhere. This isn’t a defense of transgender girls but an attack on government overreach.

The problem is the governor of South Dakota is of the opinion that she can force her will upon her constituents in a matter far outside the purview of her office. Why would the state government think they can tell local school districts who can and cannot play on their sports teams? That’s the problem and it’s pandemic among both Republican and Democratic legislatures.

Why It’s Wrong

Trying to legislate who can play on a sports team from the governor’s mansion tramples on the rights of the people in local districts. You must remember, if you support Governor Noem and this law then you must also support the governor of another state who signs legislation stating transgender girls must be allowed to play on the local sports team. If you cede such power to the governor then you deserve a totalitarian state that dictates virtually everything to you, because they think it’s better for you. That they know better how you should lead your life.

This is clearly the sort of situation that must be handled at a local level. If one district wants to allow transgender girls to play on their sports team, as decided by the school board members who were elected by the people of that district, then that is exactly what they should do. If the school board members in another district argue against allowing transgender girls to play then that is likewise perfectly reasonable.

When another school district decides they would rather forfeit a game than play against a school that either allows or disallows such a player, then that’s their business as well.

If the parent of a student disqualified doesn’t like it, they can attempt to sway the constituents of their district. If the parents of a student playing against such an athlete doesn’t like it, they can attempt to sway the constituents in a similar manner.

That’s the way government should work. It shouldn’t be the party in power at a federal or state level simply issuing decrees to the people of their state about everything they get a hair up their ass about. If you’ll pardon my strong language.

Conclusion

I don’t think my conclusion will surprise anyone. Governor Noem and those who voted for this legislation are engaged in enormous government overreach. It’s clearly not a matter for government to be involved in, it’s something for every school district to decide for themselves.

When you permit government overreach with which you agree, you clearly allow government overreach on topics you oppose and which you will certainly start whining about on social media.

Tom Liberman