Which is better?

Post Reply New Topic

This I address equally to Political Left, Right, Up and Down;

equally to Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, non-Christian Theist, None of the Above and Not Sure;

equally to Philosopher, Sophist, Sophomore and Thoughtless:

Which is more authoritative and forceful, stronger in argument and more persuasive:

An outspoken academic dissing those he sees as idiots, fools, and vermin


OR

An outspoken comedian dissing those he sees as idiots fools and vermin

-------------------

Of course, some academics have a sense of humor and some comedians actually know more than certain academics - this may blur the boundaries. What price Tom Lehrer?

------------

Thanks to ruveyn for suggesting this topic.

zryfgjhOr half dead.

Last edited by YourMother on 22 May 2011, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IF I could play it I would probably get the majority - exceptions being Current Events and Trends the past 20 years or so.

In Third Grade they foisted Current Events on us and I had not the slightest what it was about. It's the trivia that get me.

The comedian often has an uncanny ability to cut right to the heart of the matter in a way that people find compelling. Academics often obfuscate.

The comedian's use of language is more emotional, figurative, and powerful. Whereas the academic is often dry, emotionless and, well... too god damned academic for most people.

Where on the scale would you put, then, Noam Chomsky - who is me for linguistic reasons an abomination but indubitably not without charisma - or, say, Michio Kaku, versus George Carlin [I never got him even when he was in his prime or Ricky Gervais [at least I can tell when he is supposed to be funny]?


-------------

I will not bother wondering why people would be persuaded more by emotion than by facts. I will NEVER understand that, but I DO know [I am not totally blind] that it happens.

You didn't get Ricky Gervais? man you are soooo an American

I pick comedian because most of the time no-one is actually interested in eachothers reasoning and it is all kind of pointless but at least a comedian makes you laugh.

peace j

Most people would see him as a boring intellectual. He's charismatic to people that appreciate his style. But there is a strain of anti-intellectualism that is very pervasive in our society. A lot of people out there wouldn't listen to him for more than a sentence or two before just tuning him out. American Idol is on, and we wouldn't want to miss a second of it wasting our time listening to this pretentious, elitist, academic person talk down to us...


He engages the imagination better than most. He likes to talk about the fantastic possibilities that result from cutting edge physics discoveries. And I think there is something genuinely exciting about a lot of what he says. If he stuck to discussing background radiation and the history of the discovery of various subatomic particles, most people would find him quite easy to tune out.


A lot of people found him amusing, and his social criticisms reached people that wouldn't have been caught dead reading a book. I didn't always agree with him, but he got his point across. He reached millions of people directly with his opinions and views. That's pretty powerful.


Kind of like Carlin. His popularity is a vehicle for his views. They reach vastly more people, and many more of them are accepting of them, than would be the case if he wasn't entertaining.


Facts are just meaningless without emotion. Emotion provides context for the facts. Without emotion, they would be dry, lifeless things with very little power to compel or persuade. Even as a person guided more directly by facts, I'm sure you rely on an emotion framework to inform your resulting views.

Slow down the scan. Red! I get Ricky Gervais [the American version of The Office is lame] just fine. It is George Carlin I don;t get.

Knew a Canadian was into him, but I think that was because she did not get him.

dionysian -

thanks - your read of Chomsky and Kaku especially sheds some light. In Linguistics, Chomsky was talking mainly to English majors, engineers, mathematicians - none of them really drawing on emotion that much. In fact, now you mention it, early period Chomsky followers I have met were pretty dry sticks - except for the "here's a bandwagon, that's for me" lot. Outside Linguistics, it is likely mainly he is a big shot who keeps spouting what the media like to hear.

Kaku is another kettle of fish. I do not like his style, but even I can see that though he is less ego-tripped he is a lot more emotionally invested than Chomsky.

In actual practice, even my wife [she supplies the emotion around here] would agree I seal of the room , decide emotion free, then invest what emotion I do in the result. I can put quite a bit into Daylight Saving or the effect of Chomsky on Linguistics.

I am naturally low emotion, grew up in an uncommunicative low emotion family, went into what USED to be a minimal emotion business. I run about as emotional as Dilbert.

both of them are boors but at least the comedian is funny

both of them are boors but at least the comedian is funny

My apologies, misread post, brain glitch

peace j

Do you in pronunciation differentiate "bore" and "boor"? It is all right for me to ask, I'm a linguist.

Chomsky and Kaku - I am too reactive to their personalities. They are beyond boor, and I get too seething with counterarguments they can't hear to be in the strict sense bored.

Neither are boorish.

Kaku is just too too sometimes. I thought Sagan was easier to take.

ruveyn

Intriguing. First statement is hard to evaluate since I find a plurality of your contributions boorish [a scientific observation, not a dig, my digs sound different].

From where I sit, Sagan and Kaku are equally hard to take. But they are different. Sagan was always "Oooh, the Cosmows! Wow! We are Star Stuff". Kaku is more "Did you happen to notice how smart I am to know all this?". Wonder at the universe, versus wonder at Kaku. That may change palatability for you.