New Term For The Willfully Uninformed

6 posts / 0 new

Like many regular Thom Hartmann listeners, I have enjoyed being regaled by Mike Papantonio this week on Thom's radio show. For me it goes back to the Air America days when I was first introduced to both Thom Hartmann's radio show as well as Ring of Fire. In an America where lawyers are seen as persons who use carefully precise language to confuse and obfuscate rather than illuminate, it is refreshing to hear an attorney who speak his mind plainly. Pap speaks plainly and with great conviction against those on the wrong side of the law and/or society.

As Thom likes to say, "here comes the but." I was concerned about the use of the term "dumb" for those in the United States that are not well informed and, as a result, are easily taken in by ideas that already fit a predetermined narrative in their own minds. In the same way that using "idiot" and "moron" describing those of average or above intelligence when they are repeating easily refuted "truths", using specialized terminology that has a pejorative meaning in normal conversation tends to offend and sidetrack the main discussion.

First of all, while ridicule is an effective tool against those that espouse silly or poorly thought out arguments, at the end of the day these people are to be pitied. Either nobody told them or they weren't listening when told "you shouldn't believe everything you read." Everyone should remember the first time they used the defense in discussion that you read it in a book or newspaper and it was pointed out that the fact it was in print did not necessarily make it true.

So, I think, we need to popularize a friendlier term of derision for those too lazy to become informed or so loyal to their respective tribe that they are unwilling to believe anything that goes against the members or creed of that tribe. Unfortunately in some cases, those people lack the critical thinking or reasoning skills to defend against right-wing propaganda.

I would humbly propose that we refer to these people as "GLINCTies" -- Gullible Low Information Non Critical Thinkers. While it may not trip off the tongue as easily as "yuppie" or "dink", I believe it is a more precise term that serves the need to be sufficiently ridiculing without being offensive.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

fleuryb's picture
fleuryb
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I just read today a narrative more clearly defining and explaining the souls you allude to.

The late great Joe Bageant knew rednecks, worked with rednecks, rednecks were friends of his.

They will always, always, always be in the can for the people fuxxing them over. Battered wife syndrome on steroids.He even sort of explains it that way.

Some labels go under the radar, friends of bill, friends of dorothy are two. Friends of Joe would kind of be a tribute and the truth. 'Are you a friend of Joe's?' Could actually be asked with true honesty, and if questioned, answered with Joe's name without bother.

One difference is both the friend of Bill's and friend of Dorothy's take the label proudly. A friend of Joe's might, too. But even if not there would be no derision and no inkling that you thought it derisive.

Read the article and make your own conclusions. I did and regret some of my own derisive referals. I have been pretty acerbic

All I can do now is shake my head, because I am left speechless. I am training to nod now instead of shake side to side. Nodding is positive, it is OK, and it is uh huh, whether with an unexpressed sigh, or question mark. It is also thank you in Japan.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Is it not possible for two rational, well informed people to have different views on the same issue?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

Is it not possible for two rational, well informed people to have different views on the same issue?

WorkerBee, haven't you learned that if you disagree with them you are by definition uninformed. Where have you been!

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote WorkerBee:

Is it not possible for two rational, well informed people to have different views on the same issue?

Some times yes and some times no. Can you be rational and still use faith as an argument? Can you be well informed about the wrong things?

I know you conservative types love to nail yourselves to a giant pity cross every time someone calls you ill informed but you typically are. You use the "poor little conservative being bullied by the big mean liberal" thing while when, in truth, the jack-booted thugs of the world strap on their jack boots conservative style. Who are we kidding with these forums? These discussions are meaningless to those who hold faith in stupid, conflicting conservative fantasies, whether they be the benevolent empire, the evil government or the "free enterprise" myth, no amount of rationality can sway them. Their birthright, as conservatives, is that they can ignore whatever facts are uncomfortable. You can always just agree to disagree without providing any evidence. If that doesn't work, quote scripture. When that fails, it's time to smash heads. Conversation is just a validating step in the head smashing process. It's really very simple.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Mauiman, WB, are you friends of Joe? He wrote that he knows you in the link I posted. Read it and see if you find yourselves.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Carbon Tax is Absolutely Essential

So, what do a major investment from Verizon Wireless and the melting of our polar ice caps have in common? A lot more than you may think. On Monday, America’s largest wireless provider announced that it will be making a $40 million investment in solar power at eight of its facilities across the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system