Mining the Rich Vein of Stupid Ideas

[Robin]

When the Journal of Controversial Ideas came out there were some naysayers who said that it turned out to be a half-hearted collection of half-baked contrarian clap trap.

I believe that I see a way in which we can shut those naysayers up forever and demonstrate the value of this journal by implementing one of the recommendations in it in full.

I am talking, of course, about the paper "The Epistemology of No Platforming: Defending the Defense of Stupid Ideas on University Campuses" in which the author convincingly demonstrates the high value and rich returns attained by debating stupid ideas.

There are some of you who think the last idea I presented here was stupid and if it was, I am happy to have provided that service and you are very welcome.

But since the author of this paper is clearly correct then it is strange that there are so very many stupid ideas and such value to be gained from them then why are we leaving this gold mine untapped?

Yes, I know, Mr Yiannopoulos is speaking at Penn State University and this is obviously a good start, but we can do so much more in putting this rich resource to good use. It can't all be lending the reputation of the University to clapped-out alt-righters hating on the LGBTQ+ community, we have to diversify the stupid.

What about a conference at the University of Chicago to settle the matter of whether or not Australia exists? An important problem you will agree. This conference could not be held in a university in Australia for obvious reasons.

Princeton has already made an admirable contribution to stupid ideas by hosting the PEAR project for nearly 30 years. Sadly I can no longer see the PEAR website linked off of the Princeton site. I suppose they think this vein has been fully exploited.

But we could have the Princeton Seminar on why rockets cannot work in a vacuum. Yale, Harvard or perhaps the London School of Economics could invite a speaker to explain that the global financial system is controlled by Jews who are working towards a New World Order.

I am thinking that the University of California or The University of Chicago would be good venues to present the latest research and evidence on subteranean lizard people due to the strong biology deparments there.

Perhaps Dr Veber's own university would be happy to host the 9/11 Truther series of lectures, in particular no-plane and "north of Citgo flyover" theories. (I feel I know enough about the latter to present it myself).

The good news is that, as the Penn State adminstrators point out, the university cannot stop you presenting an idea at their institution no matter how stupid the idea you are presenting.

The bad news is that, of course, it costs money to have an event hosted at a university. But then I have been impressed at the amount of money that can be generated on a plausible looking web site with a "Donate" button. I am thinking that there should be an organisation formed to coordinate this project with a professional looking web site, perhaps the Institute of Anomalous Ideas and an accompanying Journal of Anomalous Ideas (I hope the name isn't taken).I was going to use "Journal of Stupid Ideas" but this would obviously lead to confusion with the journal in which I encountered this idea).

The Institute would need an Executive Director with chiselled good looks and a proven track record of presenting stupid ideas.

With the right strategy I think that we can boost free speech and make the word "University" synonymous with "Stupid Idea"


Well there it is. If you think this is a stupid idea then, again, you are very welcome.

(Posted in Philosophy and Religion since the author of this terrific and not stupid idea is a philosopher and theologian).

 

[Apathia]

Ah, then we shall have the Duns Scotus Chair of Subtle Obfuscation.

 

[8enotto]

Don't forget to give tax breaks to any industry that is willing to use lower/middle management types recently graduated from Flowerchild University to implement these ideas into the workplace.

That always has interesting results to study.

 

[smartcooky]

When the Journal of Controversial Ideas came out there were some naysayers who said that it turned out to be a half-hearted collection of half-baked contrarian clap trap.

I believe that I see a way in which we can shut those naysayers up forever and demonstrate the value of this journal by implementing one of the recommendations in it in full.

I am talking, of course, about the paper "The Epistemology of No Platforming: Defending the Defense of Stupid Ideas on University Campuses" in which the author convincingly demonstrates the high value and rich returns attained by debating stupid ideas.

There are some of you who think the last idea I presented here was stupid and if it was, I am happy to have provided that service and you are very welcome.

But since the author of this paper is clearly correct then it is strange that there are so very many stupid ideas and such value to be gained from them then why are we leaving this gold mine untapped?

Yes, I know, Mr Yiannopoulos is speaking at Penn State University and this is obviously a good start, but we can do so much more in putting this rich resource to good use. It can't all be lending the reputation of the University to clapped-out alt-righters hating on the LGBTQ+ community, we have to diversify the stupid.

What about a conference at the University of Chicago to settle the matter of whether or not Australia exists? An important problem you will agree. This conference could not be held in a university in Australia for obvious reasons.

Princeton has already made an admirable contribution to stupid ideas by hosting the PEAR project for nearly 30 years. Sadly I can no longer see the PEAR website linked off of the Princeton site. I suppose they think this vein has been fully exploited.

But we could have the Princeton Seminar on why rockets cannot work in a vacuum. Yale, Harvard or perhaps the London School of Economics could invite a speaker to explain that the global financial system is controlled by Jews who are working towards a New World Order.

I am thinking that the University of California or The University of Chicago would be good venues to present the latest research and evidence on subteranean lizard people due to the strong biology deparments there.

Perhaps Dr Veber's own university would be happy to host the 9/11 Truther series of lectures, in particular no-plane and "north of Citgo flyover" theories. (I feel I know enough about the latter to present it myself).

The good news is that, as the Penn State adminstrators point out, the university cannot stop you presenting an idea at their institution no matter how stupid the idea you are presenting.

The bad news is that, of course, it costs money to have an event hosted at a university. But then I have been impressed at the amount of money that can be generated on a plausible looking web site with a "Donate" button. I am thinking that there should be an organisation formed to coordinate this project with a professional looking web site, perhaps the Institute of Anomalous Ideas and an accompanying Journal of Anomalous Ideas (I hope the name isn't taken).I was going to use "Journal of Stupid Ideas" but this would obviously lead to confusion with the journal in which I encountered this idea).

The Institute would need an Executive Director with chiselled good looks and a proven track record of presenting stupid ideas.

With the right strategy I think that we can boost free speech and make the word "University" synonymous with "Stupid Idea"


Well there it is. If you think this is a stupid idea then, again, you are very welcome.

(Posted in Philosophy and Religion since the author of this terrific and not stupid idea is a philosopher and theologian).

More gobbledygook, hogwash, and philosobabble.

 

[Robin]

More gobbledygook, hogwash, and philosobabble.

I wasn't expecting an encore request, but if you insist I will see.if I can find some more gobbledegook, hogwash and philosophobabble. Alway happy to accommodate my fans.

 

[Robin]

I have been thinking about how to accomodate smartcookie's request for more obfuscation, gobbledegook and philosophobabble in my Stupid Ideas Lecture Series. I am hopeful of getting Michael Behe and William Dembski for the Intelligent Design portion of it and that ought to supply quite a lot of the gobbledegook and obfuscation.

In addition I am hoping to get Michael Egnor to explain how Materialism is defeated by the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas and that ought to add a heaping helping of philosobabble.

But if you want even more obfuscation, gobbledegook and philosophobabble that then you may be disappointed because, well, I don't think I can get Jordan Peterson.

 

[smartcooky]

I wasn't expecting an encore request...

I wasn't a request, it was a statement!

 

[Horatius]

What about a conference at the University of Chicago to settle the matter of whether or not Australia exists? An important problem you will agree. This conference could not be held in a university in Australia for obvious reasons.

Look, if you're really keen to embrace the debate of stupid ideas, I don't see how arbitrarily limiting the stupidity right out of the gate is going to help.

I think "a university in Australia" is the best possible place to hold this conference, as it will be even stupider when they finally conclude that Australia does not, in fact, exist.

 

[bruto]

I can sort of see the idea here, but I don't think it's up to people who don't believe something to "teach the controversy" and host those whose ideas are stupid, or thought to be. Would such a program also include the obligation of places where stupidity is taught (think of some fundy colleges, for example) to host lectures supporting sexual diversity, abortion, and evolution?

I think the possible nobility of such an experiment is doomed, because, not to put too fine a point on it, too many people are ready to believe in things that really are stupid, and it is not the duty of those trying to educate them to present that to them. Besides if there's a limited time and opportunity for such things, it would be pretty stupid indeed to dedicate it to things you know are stupid. Where does one draw the line?

How much time do you think ought to be taken in a debate over whether Australia exists or not? If anyone who is not incorrigibly stupid and crazy cannot grasp that it does from the enormous corroborative evidence that exists in every discipline and surrounds the entire world and even the view from beyond it, what would a debate accomplish? This should be a one word debate. Does Australia exist? Yes. For extra points to round out the debate you could ask if anyone has been there. Yes. Any questions? The answer is to look it up and get a life.

It seems likely that few people who are stupid enough to believe, say, in a Jewish world order and all that crap will be convinced to give up their belief, given how resistant to any form of common sense and common knowledge they have proven themselves to be, and if even one more person adopts it than drops it, it's a very poor choice of things to do with one's time and educational resources.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The Oatmeal's breakdown of why "Brainstorming" is actually a really bad method in most cases applies well here I think.

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/creativity_brainstorming

This idea that endless fountains of not just stupid, but unrestrained, contexttless stupid is some vital resources we can mine for ideas is ludicrious.

 

[Kid Eager]

I’m still working on my piezoelectric iron, which uses the pressure of ironing to add heat.

 

[bruto]

I’m still working on my piezoelectric iron, which uses the pressure of ironing to add heat.

I designed a traveling version, small and very handy as it does not need a cord. Unfortunately when I dropped the suitcase it burst into flame.

 

[Kid Eager]

I designed a traveling version, small and very handy as it does not need a cord. Unfortunately when I dropped the suitcase it burst into flame.

Ah, there’s your mistake - in a suitcase. I designed a rubber Klein Bottle to keep mine in.

 

[bruto]

Ah, there’s your mistake - in a suitcase. I designed a rubber Klein Bottle to keep mine in.

How did you do that? Every time I put mine inside it turned up outside and vice versa.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I have been impressed at the amount of money that can be generated on a plausible looking web site with a "Donate" button. I am thinking that there should be an organisation formed to coordinate this project

An excellent idea. The only question is, how can we divert that money into our own coffers?

This idea that endless fountains of not just stupid, but unrestrained, contexttless stupid is some vital resources we can mine for ideas is ludicrious.

True, but it might be worth mining for money. Right now it seems like there is an endless fountain of stupid, which would be a shame to waste. What's worse, people are dying from it. This is putting a huge strain on the economy. If only we could get to them first and extract their money before they die, it could solve my the World's economic woes!

 

[poblob14]

I think you’ve been beaten to the idea by several years:

http://bahfest.com/about//

 

[bruto]

I think the University of Stupid Ideas is a grand idea, and it should be implemented on the model of the T**** administration. In order to establish its credentials, the first move should be sell all the fire extinguishers.

 

[smartcooky]

An excellent idea. The only question is, how can we divert that money into our own coffers?

True, but it might be worth mining for money. Right now it seems like there is an endless fountain of stupid, which would be a shame to waste. What's worse, people are dying from it. This is putting a huge strain on the economy. If only we could get to them first and extract their money before they die, it could solve my the World's economic woes!

Indeed. Look at the way The Big Lie has become The Great Grift*, where people like Trump, Mike Pillow, The Kraken, Ghouliani and other members of the Right Wing Grifterati are mining their mindless, stupid, sycophantic followers for cash to support their lifestyles.

* And as a fascinating new report in The Post shows, while sometimes the victims are little old ladies in Lubbock, Tex., sending $50 to a phony PAC, at other times bigger fish get landed. A major GOP donor named Fred Eshelman was eager to help Donald Trump, so he got out his checkbook — but now says he was taken to the cleaners by an organization he thought would help Trump hold the presidency:

Though I can’t vouch for Eshelman’s claims, what he’s alleging is one of the oldest right-wing scams in the book.

You set up an organization that sounds like it must be associated with a prominent figure or cause, such as a president, then you solicit contributions ostensibly to support that figure’s efforts, like getting elected. But the donors don’t realize that their contributions will all disappear down a hole marked “operating costs” or “fundraising,” which means funneling them to other organizations controlled by the very same consultants who set up the first organization. In the end almost no money gets spent on the cause the donors support, but the consultant gets a new lake house."​

 

[Son of Inigo]

The Institute would need an Executive Director with chiselled good looks and a proven track record of presenting stupid ideas.

I am a perfect choice for the job! Pick me! Pick me!

It would be an absolutely stupendously stupid idea to put me in the position.

How better to show the world that the Institute is dedicated to stupid ideas, than to have such a stupid pick as the Executive Director?

The notion is so stupid, it is genius!

I await my offer letter. Truly looking forward to doing Executive directing with you soon!

Best regards,

Son of Inigo