Posted On: Saturday - February 3rd 2018 12:07PM MST
In Topics:   Trump  Pundits  Artificial Stupidity
... with proper attribution and appropriation applied.
The conservative and once-in-a-while (see below) libertarian pundit John Derbyshire writes an end-of-the-month "Diary", as he calls it, usually with about 5 -10 topic relevant to the month just past, I always enjoy the writing there, and his end-of-January one appears here on VDare, and here on unz.com (with easy commenting allowed). Along with the rest of the interesting stuff, I noted Mr. Derbyshire originating the term "Artificial Stupidity" in his segment about AI assistants, that apparently go by the name of Alexa.
Peak Stupidity has hereby appropriated this great term in order to replace the correct, but more cumbersome and less clever topic key name of Computer Tech Stupidity, which can no longer be found by the original name as of, like, now? It is indeed but a very small housekeeping chore, much more of which must be done among the topic keys, but it was no small thing for the Peak Stupidity blog legal department. The following disclaimer had to be "drawn up" and properly served, or held out to the public in the unz.com comment section. By the looks of it, it seems like our crack legal department (seen here, at bottom) has done it's usual bang-up job:
Per the Peak Stupidity legal department, if the party of the IP-theft-perpetrator, hereafter (and forever hold your piece) referred to as the Stupid Party, does not hear* within 1 business day from the party of the IP-theft-victimization, known hereafter as Derb, all rights and privileges associated with the term “Artificial Stupidity” shall be surrendered, abridged and furthermore, the 2nd party shall cease and desist any and all bitching about said IP-theft…. Ipso, facto, squid pro quo, Clarice.(oops, I thought this was to be served to one John Derbyshire ... not sure who this Clarice is, but hey,
* In writing, in triplicate via certified mail, which I never open, cause it’s bad juju.
Since this is mostly just another one of those "hey, this guy said this, and this is what I think about it" posts, getting more infrequent, as promised, I will add in a mention of Mr. Derbyshire's latest post on VDare, where he writes about the State of the Union arrest-less address a coupla' days back.
Interestingly, Mr. Derbyshire has a thing against this State of the Union speech IN GENERAL, which he relates was only done in writing all the way until 1973. (VDare has loads of links, incl. Derb's original writing on this) Mr. Derbyshire objects just on the grounds of it being a "Stalinesque extravaganza" and unseemly for a Constitutional Republic. Well, that's all well and good, and agreed with here, but man, there's a whole lot of Constitutional Republic down-the-draining going on way above and beyond this extravagant speech vs. simple letter-to-congress bit. It's a pico-aggression against the ideas of the founders of Americans against a metric shit-ton of Tera-aggressions over the last 50, some say 100 years.
Back to the big speech on last Tuesday night, it is getting to be like the Superbowl, must-watch TV that I haven't seen in years. I can see what's coming next though, can't you?
SOTO by TWEET.
#SOTO - you've got 140 characters to tell us all how much you can do for us. Pls vote in Nov. USA is except. baby. Winning!
John Derbyshire is always worth reading nonetheless as this is a minor quibble. I wonder thought, sometimes, about people seeing the forest for the trees.
I forgot another point to be made though, about the actual topic of the 2nd Derbyshire article linked to (the State of the Union address). Mr. Derbyshire has a very good theory that Mr. Trump's great instincts led him to threaten a pretty good deal (well bad for America, but that's almost the point) for the D's in order to get them looking out-in-the-open like complete anti-American for refusing even that "reasonable offer". They will not go for the deal and that will help more R's win election this November. The theory says that Trump can not ask for what patriotic Americans really want, as he would then lose too much support from the Congress and Americans that would think he's gone too far. Derbyshire admits that it's a gamble that Trump might lose, if the D's just say "OK, deal".
First of all, First rule of President club: you don't have another amnesty, period! I had always heard the name as Donald Trump, not Charlie freakin' Brown (i.e. re: Lucy and the placekicking ruse). It's just stupid to let another 2,000,000 minimum illegals stay and hope for another deal to actually get implemented. Complete bullshit, that! Next, polls say one thing or another (see the article) about America's semi-soft feelings on immigration, but that depends on how you ask the question. The one poll from November of 2016 is the one that mattered. Americans will support a hard line! The politicians will have to go along or get TFOOO. (TF Out Of Office)!