People That Don't Know What They're Talking About

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Hiei, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. Hiei

    Hiei The Hierophant

    I was reading SS's thread to Sim and Cons and my mind started wandering while I was reading the thread and I thought about this.

    I really hate it when you can tell when people don't know what they're talking about. I'm not calling anyone out on this forum, cause I'm talking about people that I encounter on a much more frequent basis.

    One of the things that gets on my nerves is when people quote Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert as an actual news source. I know people that if it weren't for Stewart and Colbert, they wouldn't actually know any amount of news at all. Not that I don't think that all the news sources aren't bias anyway, but if you're going to pretend to know something, at least watch the grown ups news.

    I hate when people talk about Glen Beck and it's clear that they've never actually heard or watched his show. I think he has a whole martyr complex about him and he likes to think that he's one of the top peons when it comes to being an American, and I don't like him because of it, but at least I've heard more than just a 30 second clip from one of his shows that was taken out of context and twisted to fit whatever need.

    I hate when people quote Myth Busters like they're the be all and end all to everything. "Well Myth Busters had an episode on how a spy cars spike trap wouldn't really pop any cars behind its tires so it can't be true no matter what!" Well, if they would have tried just a LITTLE bit harder, they could have actually disproved their own bust.

    These are just a few examples of what I'm talking about. Have you guys ever come across a situation when you can just smell the heaping amounts of bull shit that someone is trying to spew at you?
     
    CaptainObvious likes this.

  2. PhoenixOverdrive

    PhoenixOverdrive Registered Member

    Oh THAT's the smell!

    All the time. I find a lot of people have a problem with the idea of getting informed and a pathological urge to spew out whatever information they can reach for in their mind. We're innately good at beliefs, however. It's easy for any of us to completely believe in something regardless of how little we know about it.

    I do realize I'm using distancing and dissociative language here. I'm guilty as anyone of doing this on occasion, but I do listen to and take into account other people's information. I tend to question most everything, and when I slip up and spout random nonsense, a bit of counter-evidence brings me back on the right path.

    And yes, MythBusters is extremely unscientific, and there are huge, gaping flaws in just about every protocol they use for testing their myths. It's also important to know that even 'experts' everywhere disagree on just about everything, each bringing up a mix of partial evidence and total nonsense. A lot of them are relying on pop words to win their arguments and feel important nowadays.

    Being on the constant lookout for BS, especially our own, I think is a very important part of adapting and evolving in today's society.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2010
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Not for anything, but who has been quoting Stewart and Colbert as news sources? I haven't seen it recently and I've spent too much time in MD lately. I mentioned their rally but I never mentioned them as a news source. I'm assuming you're talking outside the forum, right?

    I stretch my knowledge (like the rest of the human race) from time to time but that's because in the middle of a discussion, you rarely have the time to take a several hour break and research something. You end up having to do three minute Google searches and look for relevant news pieces. After being on this forum for some time, I've taken up a lot of peoples' suggestions. I watch Glenn Beck from time to time and my views haven't changed and if anything, now I know why people truly dislike him (along the lines of your martyr complex comment) and I've watched Maddow, Olberman, O'Reilly and others when it comes to political discussion.

    It's usually pretty easy to call someone's bullshit on the internet, it's not so easy outside of it. On here, you can do quick searches that can verify or contradict what people think they know.
     
  4. Hiei

    Hiei The Hierophant


    I'm talking about people that I encounter on a much more frequent basis than the people here on GF. It's got to be some of the saddest shit, too.

    As far as it come with me not knowing something when having a discussion in person, I'll generally admit when I don't know something. I ask a ton of questions and I have a pretty general idea about most things that I'm talking about. So, I find that it's actually pretty easy to call someones bull shit in person, too. Like you said, however, you don't quite have the security net of the internet to back you up with a link, but when I know something and someone's telling me different, I'll bicker like an old many against change.
     
  5. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    I've quoted Mythbusters a few times - more for fun than to prove something as scientific fact.
     
  6. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    I find it amusing and then I think that most of the person's opinions are probably equally misinformed. I was talking with a friend of mine about politics and told him about the percentage of taxes paid by various groups which he would not believe, so I pulled out my phone and did a quick search and proved it to him. Of course he accepted it then immediately dismissed it as invalid to his point anyway. Then he started talking about Limbaugh, who I listen to frequently, but was obviously quoting mainstream demonization talking points. I lol'd and let it go as he had never ever listened to Rush, but could quote verbatim what someone else said that Rush said. Almost everything that you hear about Rush in the media is a distortion of what he said. Frequently it was something he said for the express purpose of tweaking the mainstream.
     
  7. kitchendame

    kitchendame Registered Member

    While I understand an informed person's frustration with conversation that doesn't measure up to their standards, I cannot help but wonder at their impatience. Some people learn by discussing; if they are ignored because of their naivete regarding a certain subject, they won't become informed. Everybody has some knowledge; only a very small segment speak bombastically when they don't know what they're talking about. My biggest concern is that we grow too impatient for selfish or unkind reasons. So person A quotes mythbusters and Wickipedia; so what? They're trying to communicate, and contribute an opinion that is as valid as anyone else's, and who's to say they're wrong? Today's facts are tomorrow's old wives' tales. Most of the time educated or informed opinions are really just knowing the current language of that subject.

    Perhaps I misunderstood the POV. I apologize if I did, and hope some clarification is forthcoming.
     
  8. Babe_Ruth

    Babe_Ruth Sultan of Swat Staff Member V.I.P.

    I encounter a lot of people like that when it comes to sports. A lot of them don't have a clue on what their talking about. The sad thing is that they believe they do.

    Sometimes I'm afraid to let people know that their clueless on a certain subject, or I feel bad correcting them.
     
  9. HalfEatenSurprise

    HalfEatenSurprise Registered Member

    It's a way of communication. People talk garbage, people try to contribute. Whether they are informed about their subject is probably extremely irrelvant unless the topic is of a very serious nature.

    I have known people to spout shit. Some on here I guess, but I consider the entire thing to be an informal setting, so half the time I don't take the seriousness of the chatter on board, and I stay out of the 'serious discussion' crap hole.
    In the real world, there are perhaps two people I know that seriously yarp on about utter shit in the manner you address. They are not only ill-informed, but very stubborn and noisy. They will interrupt and will not hold the 'debate' with any ounce of logic. On finding this out I have since done my best to avoid them, or at least avoid starting or contributing to 'serious' conversations with them.

    As for myself. I guess on this place most of my banter is informal and whether I'm informed or not is again irrelevant. Often I won't even give an opinion on the subject I'm raising unless I have some basis for it.
    A lot of the time I am actually seeking others to provide an answer so that I can take on board the knowledge and amass my own conclusions. Without sharing. --

    As for being blind to the news, I guess it may be annoying to hear those blert on about topical items without a decent basis for it. Yet, I guess they deserve to have some sort of say, no matter how shit their source is, or how lazily researched. I mean, there's always the option to ignore. There's always that. And that's true that is. No bullshit. I saw it on the telly.
     

Share This Page