over and over and over?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLB8DfhnJD0
Ranaan Gissin. Observe him. He never makes a clear, specific statement. He never answers the question. But he always makes it seem like he is answering the question. And he makes you think that till you stop and think about whether he made a single point.
This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
Does working in the government require you to pretend to know what is going on all the time?
It’s not a matter of pretending to know - it’s a matter of not revealing what you do know (or what you think/believe), if you think that revealing it would cause problems for you. Unfortunately, it’s easier for politicians and bureaucrats to do that when people let them get away with it. People do that when they’re deferential and/or fail to understand the logical implications (if any) behind the tortuous responses.
Here’s a great example of another one:
Did you notice the straight face kept by the CATO man throughout the woman’s answers, as she kept repeating, “Medicare is the most efficient medical care system”? Over and over?
Both are like robots. One is a robot because his face is unaffected by listening to nonsense. The other is a robot, because she came with a programmed response, and currently she is malfunctioning like a stuck tape recorder.
No, that’s the opposite of roboticism. It’s called self-control. If anything is roboitic, it is the reflexive guffaws that many libertarians automatically indulge in when they hear things they strenuously disagree with.
I don’t like to be cruel and guffaw at people. I learnt that lesson back in junior high school when I guffawed at a good friend and saw that he did not like it.
But, it certainly would have made me look concerned, confused, or doubly intent on understanding what she was trying to say.
The problem here was not one of disagreement. That woman did not say a single thing. “Leftists” (I hate this word) are not stupid, by and large. Quite the opposite. The most intelligent journalists in India write for Frontline, for example.
People on TV, however, do have an established record of speaking, literally gibberish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HAM7KCDK4g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTsm7BqpiSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTKx3orfZ8A
That is beyond dispute.
Aren’t there robots that give facial expressions nowadays?
Why pretend to take something seriously if you don’t take it seriously?
Strenuously disagreeing is not the same thing as not taking what they say seriously.
Fair point. However, I’d say that guffawing at something typically implies not taking it seriously. When one refrains from reacting in any way to something, even though he may not take it seriously or strenuously disagree with it, I would think he would give an impression of taking it seriously, if not also agreeing with it (or at least not strenuously disagreeing with it).
First of all, what exactly does it mean to “not take someone seriously?”
Secondly, whatever it means, it doesn’t sound like a very propitious precondition for discourse, so why would you even be talking to someone you don’t take seriously?
My own meaning for it is something like “refusing to evaluate someone’s statements in his desired context”. Typically this either means no longer talking to the other person at all, or taking the discussion as simply a source of amusement.
You’re right, of course - it isn’t a very propitious precondition for discourse. However, panel discussions on news programs aren’t the same as one-on-one discussions. With the former, not only are there multiple direct participants, there’s also an indirect participant - the audience. So one may not (or no longer) be talking to the panel member(s) that he doesn’t take seriously, but he can still talk to the remaining participants.
Do you think guffaws are likely to serve any purpose with regard to the remaining participants?
Aside from signalling that the person guffawing isn’t taking the other person seriously, I can’t think of any purpose.
Can you think of any purposes which guffawing would run counter to in such a situation?
If I understand you correctly, guffawing could run counter to the purpose of the person guffawing wanting to be taken seriously himself.
Just so you know, I haven’t been arguing specifically in favor of guffawing in such situations.
So what are you arguing in favor of, then?
I’m arguing that one shouldn’t pretend to take something seriously that he doesn’t. If he can indicate that he doesn’t take it seriously in a way that doesn’t diminish his own credibility, then all the better.
A. You recognized that there are some purposes which guffawing would run counter to in such a situation.
B. And you said that the only purpose in guffawing would be to signal “that the person guffawing isn’t taking the other person seriously.”
By saying that “one shouldn’t pretend to take something seriously that he doesn’t,” you are assuming that the ends associated with B ought always to rank higher than the ends associated with A on the individual’s value scale. Is that right?
Now, regarding B, what are the purposes one is likely to have for signalling that he doesn’t take the other person seriously?
I’m saying that, in my opinion, they should.
I suppose the purpose would be to have the other members of the discussion (including the audience) not take the other person seriously either.