The biggest gun in the liberals’ arsenal is the claim, and the resulting perception, that they are smarter than the rest of us. Heck, it must be so–politicians, college professors, lawyers, TV noozies. They’ve gotta be smarter than ordrinary dum peple.
But now you, too, can be as smart as any liberal! All it takes is just a few little words, judiciously employed so as to be devoid of any meaning. A lot of intellectuals say there is no meaning to anything, anyhow; so you’re always on safe ground if you’re babbling.
Never say “I don’t know.” Instead, say, “Whatever we say or do must be proactive.”
If someone then gives you a blank look and says “Huh?”, tack on this sure-fire clincher: “Think digital, man! Think digital!” People hear that word a hundred times a day and hardly anybody knows what it means.
If, in the unlikely event that this line does not produce wise nods from your hearer, and he tries to question you some more, it’s time for the all-purpose conversation stopper:
“The way you’re talking, dude, anyone would think you were a racist. In fact, you probably are a racist.” You will either stop him in his tracks, and force him to agree with you, or else divert him into a total sidetrack as he tries to deny his racism. Expect a lot of fumfering!
There are, of course, other words that you can use, meaningless words that never commit you to any particular position. But these few are enough to get you started in a satisfying career as a real smart talker.
10 comments on “How to Talk Real Smart”
Sort of like “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, but with words. 🙂
They’ve called so many things “phobias” that I’ve become a phobiaphobe.
Yes, Phoebe, that works for me. As for the “super smart” talking heads on TV, it really helps if you can learn to talk at the speed of an auctioneer. If you can throw enough words out there, at super speed, I guess you can fool anyone. They would not dare disagree because they do not know what it is they are disagreeing with. They all sound like the chipmunks.
I think the worst would have to be Carl Sagan philosophizing–that is, prattling atheism–on his PBS (who else?) series, “Cosmos.” You would swear the guy was profound! Until you realize what he’d just said.
Since then, there seem to be a lot of Sagan wannabes following his example. Neil DeGrasse Tyson presents himself well, but his disdain for anyone that dares to defy him and believe in a Creator is barely concealed.
Hawking seems to have fallen into the trap of ever more frightening press releases. He can put out ten press releases per day for all I care; I’ve heard more than sufficiently from him.
Sagan himself struck me as having pursued fame to the point of absurdity. He had a reputation for attaching himself to causes which would boost his fame and in his later years he seemed to do little more than come up with press releases. His Nuclear Winter tirades could cure the worst insomnia.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has worked very hard to make himself obnoxious, and succeeded.
A few years ago, I watched a series called The Universe. Some of it was interesting, factual information that made sense. As the series wore on, the episodes became more far-fetched and speculative, dealing in alien life forms, etc. all of which is closer to science fiction than it is to real science.
Tyson was a big part of the series, as were several other astronomers and astro physicists. One thing I noticed was that several of the scientists seemed to take on a TV persona as the series progressed. One in particular, no names but it wasn’t Tyson, seemed to flourish in the role of celebrity. To me, is lessened his credibility.
As I’ve continued to study it has occurred to me that a great deal of the information presented on programs such as these was built on theories with little concrete proof. A theory would be proposed and then more theories would be based on that first theory, assuming it to be correct. Eventually, there would be a very complex narrative formed with all sorts of profound conclusions, but it was all based upon unproven theories. The result was as much folklore as anything else; a story which explains much, but proves nothing.
Science fiction and science have an unwholesome relationship: see “Scientific Mythologies” by James Herrick, reviewed somewhere in this blog. Highly recommended, and very provoking.
And here’s that review–
Interesting review, and I believe that there’s a lot to the author’s theory.
I’m going to put forth an idea which I think may be of some value in this discussion. Much SciFi is written in a Godless moral vacuum. It’s rare for the concept of any Higher Power to appear in SciFi works, and on those rare occasions the story doesn’t usually treat the concept of God with respect.
An old friend was an inveterate SciFi reader and he spoke of it as being “escapist”. This triggers a thought, what if at least some SciFi fans are drawn to the genre as an escape from moral consequences? Perhaps more to the point, are some readers seeking an escape from God, by reading literature which is totally atheistic in worldview?
I have long held the view that pornography presents a fantasy free from moral consequence and that is its true appeal. People aren’t excited by seeing nudity or sexual activity, they are excited at the sight of people that seem to have found a way to evade the consequences of their actions. Of course this is an illusion. Diseases are spread and lives are ruined in that industry, but they aren’t about to reveal that to their consumers. It is, at essence, a false promise. The cause of sexual freedom is their moral authority, but as we know, this doesn’t work very well in the real world.
2 Peter 2:18 “For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, 19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.”
So perhaps, SciFi is just another false promise using the god of Science as its moral authority. An engrossed reader can pretend that there is a world free from moral responsibility to a Higher Power while reveling in a struggle between good and evil based upon human concepts of good and evil.
I’ve read some SciFi, but I’m hardly an ardent fan. Thinking back upon the examples I’ve read, I recall that there was little, if any, morality mentioned. One book I read, which dealt with a modern Air Force of suborbital space planes, made a big deal of the notion that random sexual activity between officers was encouraged. It was a preposterous notion, to say the least.
Of recent, I have narrowed my tastes considerably because I am tired of Godless subject matter. The evolutionary overtones of most science books have taken much of the joy out of science reading and most movies contain a degree of immoral behavior, usually treating it as of no consequence. This fallen world and its entertainment becomes less appealing by the day.