I came across this site called Despair.com in which there are n number of rationalisations to deny all the virtues one seems to know…Of course it may be intended humorously,also some ideas seem true..like there is one that says that"never underestimate the power of idiots in groups" but the intent of the site seems to be a destruction of the positive values needed to be happy and healthy..
Anybody have any views on this?
“never underestimate the power of idiots in groups”
That pretty much sums up the major flaw of democracy.
the intent of the site seems to be a destruction of the positive values needed to be happy and healthy..
I disagree: I don’t think they are seriously advocating the destruction of any positive values. The problem with satire is that the point can easily be lost.
The poster’s are a parody of the silly motivational posters one sees offered in magazines like skymall. I personally don’t feel that I need a poster to tell me I am doing a good job.
Some of my personal favorites from Despaire.com:
http://www.despair.com/compromise.html
http://www.despair.com/discovery.html
http://www.despair.com/dysfunction.html
http://www.despair.com/effort.html - This is a particularly fanastic one.
http://www.despair.com/idiocy.html
http://www.despair.com/med24x30prin.html
http://www.despair.com/pretension.html - I have this one.
Ha!
“Effort” is fantastic!
That pretty much sums up the major flaw of democracy.
If I take you seriously, that’s a pretty hefty (besides false) statement. I would venture to say that it is more the evidence of the appeal of irrationality to the lazy of mind.
It’s satire, no more.
I think the whole thing is summed up with this one:
People that fight good people may be trying to get them to wisen up. The best way to win an argument is to hurt them by showing them their own idiocy as it is. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these people are doing that for the good of good people… but just keep in mind its a possibility (that seems to go forgotten often).
The best way to win an argument is to hurt them by showing them their own idiocy as it is.
That doesn’t win any argument, ever. I wonder how many arguments you’ve ever won.
That doesn’t win any argument, ever.
While I would agree that that is far from the best way to win an argument, depending on how one defines “win”, I also wouldn’t agree that it absolutely never works. SOME people, usually very hard-headed people, SOMETIMES need to shown the idiocy of their ways before they “get it”.
However, I would tend to think that the way many people (if not most) become willing to concede their position in an argument is to be presented with sufficient reasoning as to why they should and in such a way that they can save face (pretty much the opposite of what Illuminaughty said).
Indeed; if you make them look and feel bad they become even more emotionally invested in opposing your viewpoint.
Those are hilarious!!! My higher headquarters keeps the “real” ones around. I always thought they were dumb… I think I’m going to get some of these and put them up in my office.
Those are hilarious!!! My higher headquarters keeps the “real” ones around. I always thought they were dumb… I think I’m going to get some of these and put them up in my office.
Hillarious? Yes, indeed. But they address something deeper in the modern office environment, I think.
During my working years my envelope calculation was that 80% of the work was done by 20% of the people. Moreover, promotions and attaboys [girls?] mostly went to team players. Individualists did survive, and indeed, some times did prosper. (They did this by the super quality and quantity of their work).
The Despair.com prints addresses the team players in the office. (The best way I have found to spot a team player is that he/she doesn’t know the difference between hubris and ability.)
Cecil