I can't handle stupid people anymore

Chris42393

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
804
I work for Fire/Rescue and all I deal with are stupid people. Its one of the reasons why I started hating my job. You can only deal with them so much before you reach your breaking point.

Before starting this job, I never knew there were so many stupid people there were. It just blows my mind.
 

Pete556

Temporary Ban
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
2,195
Location
My manhole
What if all the stupid people are really the clever ones and all along we are the stupid ones?
 

Foreigner

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
6,420
Location
The Cosmos
*face palm*

The only people here trying to be clever are the ones trying to disprove the lived experience of my OP through semantic word games.

Honestly, just stop already. It's not helping.
 

CurtisO

Greenlighter
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
36
Hahaha fuck yes! Yeah man just have a beer, sit back, and watch it burn. But here's the truth though, it's not about them. You should be saying it's about you. Just like i say this is about me. Fuck the outside, the only thing that matters is ourselves. Not some stupid, pointless pissing contest over who gets to control the world. I do what's necessary to stay as safe as possible from them of course. But ultimately I want to make the most of MY LIFE.
 

endlessnameless

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
643
Location
Where the Western Winds Bend the Silhouettes of th
Stupid people are harmless I'd say, unless they are judgemental. I don't like judgmental people who are also stupid. The master knows he is stupid. Therefore, he is not stupid. After all, the greatest intelligence seems stupid, because it assumes nothing and makes no faulty and hasty presumptions. I like playing the dumb card a lot. Go ahead, underestimate me. ;)
Oh me too. Never let them know how intelligent you are. I have the very people I need to believe the very carefully crafted and acted out falsehood that I'm not all there and it works like a charm.

In my experience stupid people can often be some of the most destructive - deliberately or otherwise. It just depends on the degree of stupidity. You have people out there who'll stab you over a €50 debt and immediately regret it, but its too late because you're bleeding to death.
 

Foreigner

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
6,420
Location
The Cosmos
Hahaha fuck yes! Yeah man just have a beer, sit back, and watch it burn. But here's the truth though, it's not about them. You should be saying it's about you. Just like i say this is about me. Fuck the outside, the only thing that matters is ourselves. Not some stupid, pointless pissing contest over who gets to control the world. I do what's necessary to stay as safe as possible from them of course. But ultimately I want to make the most of MY LIFE.
Everyone only caring about themselves is exactly why the planet is burning.

People need to work together and see the collective benefit.

It's not about trying to control anything. It's about stupid people destroying the planet, which affects everything and everyone.
 

mal3volent

Moderator: S&G
Staff member
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,135
Perhaps an IQ test for voting.

Then forced sterilization for the really dumb ones.
 

Chris42393

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
804
Perhaps an IQ test for voting.

Then forced sterilization for the really dumb ones.
I 100% agree with an IQ test to be able to vote (or something similar). You get idiots who go out and vote and have no idea what they're actually voting for (which could be dangerous, depending on what it is).
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,618
I 100% agree with an IQ test to be able to vote (or something similar). You get idiots who go out and vote and have no idea what they're actually voting for (which could be dangerous, depending on what it is).
I hate this idea. For one reason. As soon as you try to do something like this, you create an enormous potential for the entire government to be corrupted by whomever is responsible for the test.

Actually that's not the only reason I don't like it, just the only reason I hate it. I don't like it for democratic reasons either. I think there are far better, less easily corrupted ways to handle the flaws of democracy. The bill of rights for example in preventing tyranny of the majority.

I'm supposedly pretty smart and I think it's a horrible idea. :p
 

Chris42393

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
804
I hate this idea. For one reason. As soon as you try to do something like this, you create an enormous potential for the entire government to be corrupted by whomever is responsible for the test.

Actually that's not the only reason I don't like it, just the only reason I hate it. I don't like it for democratic reasons either. I think there are far better, less easily corrupted ways to handle the flaws of democracy. The bill of rights for example in preventing tyranny of the majority.

I'm supposedly pretty smart and I think it's a horrible idea. :p
You definitely have a good point. Never really thought about that lol Maybe it could just be the same test like the ACT or SAT for entrance into college? But I'm sure there are other good ways too.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,618
You definitely have a good point. Never really thought about that lol Maybe it could just be the same test like the ACT or SAT for entrance into college? But I'm sure there are other good ways too.
I don't think so. Any test you use, as soon as it is given the power to decide who can vote, will immediately come under political attack to try and shift it so that what makes someone deemed intelligent just so happens to align with whatever the beliefs are of the people attempting to manipulate it.

It would hardly be the first time a supposedly neutral system has been hijacked to political ends. Gerrymandering for example. Or the communists deeming people who don't believe in communism crazy and in need of psychiatric treatment.

Whoever controls the test will essentially control the government. Not in the direct sense, but in being able to decide that one political point of view is an expression of intelligence over another.

I still think it's way too dangerous.

Democracy has a lot of flaws, there's a reason I only support our kinds of constitutional, representative democracy in spite of the fact that with today's technology we could make all government directly democratic.

People as a whole can't be trusted to directly make every decision by popular vote. So don't think I disagree with this simply for being undemocratic (it is). I disagree with it because it creates a small target that if corrupted could serve as a single point of failure for the entire system of representative government as a whole.

Besides, intelligent people are still very capable of being blinded by emotive political extremism. Even if we could genuinely ensure only people of a certain vague degree of intelligence could vote, I question how much better off we'd be.

Ultimately I think this concept is one of many examples of ideas that try to solve one problem but are liable to create several new, probably worse ones.
 

Chris42393

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
804
I don't think so. Any test you use, as soon as it is given the power to decide who can vote, will immediately come under political attack to try and shift it so that what makes someone deemed intelligent just so happens to align with whatever the beliefs are of the people attempting to manipulate it.

It would hardly be the first time a supposedly neutral system has been hijacked to political ends. Gerrymandering for example. Or the communists deeming people who don't believe in communism crazy and in need of psychiatric treatment.

Whoever controls the test will essentially control the government. Not in the direct sense, but in being able to decide that one political point of view is an expression of intelligence over another.

I still think it's way too dangerous.

Democracy has a lot of flaws, there's a reason I only support our kinds of constitutional, representative democracy in spite of the fact that with today's technology we could make all government directly democratic.

People as a whole can't be trusted to directly make every decision by popular vote. So don't think I disagree with this simply for being undemocratic (it is). I disagree with it because it creates a small target that if corrupted could serve as a single point of failure for the entire system of representative government as a whole.

Besides, intelligent people are still very capable of being blinded by emotive political extremism. Even if we could genuinely ensure only people of a certain vague degree of intelligence could vote, I question how much better off we'd be.

Ultimately I think this concept is one of many examples of ideas that try to solve one problem but are liable to create several new, probably worse ones.
Now you said, "whoever controls the test will essentially control the government". Wouldnt the people voting control that? Because they're the one's voting? (obviously im not trying to pick a fight, we're just having a discussion haha. An "IQ" test of some sort will NEVER happen, im guessing anyways lolsss)

Im sure you're definitely smarter than me, Im just a person with "average" intelligence lol
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,618
We did those literacy tests for voting here in the US in the 1800s.

It didn't work.
Yes it did, it did exactly what it was designed to do. To keep African Americans from voting. :)

Now you said, "whoever controls the test will essentially control the government". Wouldnt the people voting control that? Because they're the one's voting? (obviously im not trying to pick a fight, we're just having a discussion haha. An "IQ" test of some sort will NEVER happen, im guessing anyways lolsss)

Im sure you're definitely smarter than me, Im just a person with "average" intelligence lol
Well, the question is how we'd implement it. If such a test were intended to be introduced both major sides of politics along with all the more extreme smaller groups will try to shift its design to their own ends. Eventually you'd have to have a vote with the new system.

I would say it's likely that one side would come out ahead, and then attempt to further manipulate the test to solidify power.

Political parties have long tried to do exactly this by trying to ensure their people can vote, and make it harder to vote for demographics less likely to support them.

The difference is this would give them the power to actually stop people voting by outright taking their vote away. That's far more powerful than anything available now.

And the danger is that sooner or later the only people able to vote, and by extension change the test further, are those who pass it now.

Even in a less extreme scenario though it's likely both sides of politics would try to ensure people who support them know how to pass the test, even if only by rote memorization or something.
 
Last edited:
Top