Society/Culture Is there a more stupid man in existence than Andrew Bolt?

[medusala]

However, I will say that academic research into migration and demographic patterns (of which I have some experience) can get pretty complex; it can provide insights beyond that which 'common sense' can provide, and hence add plenty to the debate.

Can you enlighten us as to what these insights are? Presumably these are insights Bolt does not touch on in his columns.

 

[rick James]

Can you enlighten us as to what these insights are? Presumably these are insights Bolt does not touch on in his columns.

Well something has to artificially inflate the housing market, doesn't it?

 

[Suspense]

I have studied multiple disciplines to masters level, but it becomes apparent to me that the more I learn, the more I become aware of my own lack of knowledge. And hence, those who haven't studied at all pretend to have all the answers. I know I don't have them.

Hmmmm, keep going with your study and you may just have to reconsider your definition of "idiot"...maybe...

 

[btdg]

Can you enlighten us as to what these insights are? Presumably these are insights Bolt does not touch on in his columns.

No. Research it yourself. Its not hard, and providing you look at a couple of resources outside the opinion pages of the herald sun, I'm sure you'll find plenty of insight that Bolt does not touch on in his columns. You might even find something worth reading (or possibly not - nothing gets the emotions riled more than immigration).

It occurs to me that no matter what the topic on bigfooty, there are certain agendas that people love to beat. Thread about national curriculum? It'll end with the same set of posters either bagging aboriginal people or immigrants. Thread about Andrew Bolt? Lets get off the topic of his own writing, and make it about how terrible immigration is (and several people have tried to do that - I'm not taking the bait). Discussion about whether its appropriate for Russian Ice dancers to use aboriginal symbols in their performances? Nah, lets make it a general free for all attacking aboriginal people instead.

 

[medusala]

No. Research it yourself.

I have posted numerous links/research on this particulary with respect to economics (and got the usual pitiful retort of racist). I thought perhaps you may have had something interesting to add.

Lets get off the topic of his own writing, and make it about how terrible immigration is (and several people have tried to do that - I'm not taking the bait).

Bolt could write far more eloquently than he does and what would it change? The usual suspects would still be up in arms. It does not matter if you provide logic or wonderful prose the frothing at the mouth would still be immense.

The guy is an opinion writer. He writes for a tabloid. I suspect his pitch takes that in to account. Whether he is capable of better I have no idea at all, I have never met the chap nor heard him on radio.

It would seem to me that his critics have quite a bit of trouble showing him up as a fool which seems to irritate them immensely, however the continual Wiley Coyote efforts of Crikey are often rather amusing.

Perhaps he is not the fool Lowitja O'Donoghue thought he was.

 

[ptrg]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/farewell-to-era-of-panic/story-e6frfhqf-1225836266653

O M FREAKIN G!!

Dolt just wrote an article titled "Farewell to era of panic" about how authorities are conning us about tsunami and bushfires threats!?

I dare anyone to read it, even the most naive of supporters, and possibly manage to present a cohesive defence of the utter garbage he has written!?

Comment no.12 says it all! hahaha!!

EDIT: watch how quickly Dolt locks any further comments on this article, and forces all objectors down into the murky depths of his blog, amongst the Dolt-preachers...

 

[ptrg]

oops, turns out it wasd locked as I posted that last edit!
hahaha, luckily comment no.12 stays at the top when viewing the article!

Jan Buchanan-Medina of Sydney Posted at 7:42 AM Today
Andrew - I read you regularly and always enjoy your writing - but, for God's sake lad, the earthquake was in Chile.

Classic!

 

[Daytripper]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...-front-page-news/story-e6frfhqo-1225836267886

Thought this was a very good article by Bolt today.

Any complaints from the latte lefties.
ptrg, Can we drag you away from your studies to comment ?

 

[Daytripper]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/farewell-to-era-of-panic/story-e6frfhqf-1225836266653


EDIT: watch how quickly Dolt locks any further comments on this article, and forces all objectors down into the murky depths of his blog, amongst the Dolt-preachers...

What are you talking about ?
He doesn't back away from criticism. Never has. In fact he revels in it.

You're over the top criticism is starting to move into the realms of unobjective hate now.

And why are you reading his articles anyway ?

 

[ptrg]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...-front-page-news/story-e6frfhqo-1225836267886

Thought this was a very good article by Bolt today.

Any complaints from the latte lefties.
ptrg, Can we drag you away from your studies to comment ?

zero problems with this article.

but point being made here is that there are people (yes, here too) that fully take his word as gospel, ignoring no matter how much supporting evidence there is against Dolt's views, evidence with much higher regard due to the fact that some actually choose to go and get a degree, or become a specialist in what ever field it happens to be.

But for the sheep who buy Dolt's un-educated tripe, (un-educated when compared to someone who has spent 20+ years in the same field) astounds me.
Same goes for greenies on the other side of the fence.

It's just Dolt's is so in your face, that it cries out to be judged.
Rightly or wrongly, I am reading his pieces, just like I do of many other journo's pieces. The difference, in general, is that other journo's seem to apply at least SOME truth to their articles, and while yes, Dolt's article on Bingle is, IMO spot on, his continual push of anti-green, anti-multiculturism anti-what ever you want, speels are disgusting.

If he gave just his opinion, I'm all for it.

But as he continually twists facts, numbers, cherry picks data, and on NUMEROUS occasions, uses incorrect and FALSE data, claiming to know more than the professionals in those fields, then it is down right disgusting that he is paid to do so. And scary that people take his word as truth.

 

[krusden]

oops, turns out it wasd locked as I posted that last edit!
hahaha, luckily comment no.12 stays at the top when viewing the article!



Classic!

- excellent stuff

 

[Daytripper]

zero problems with this article.

Great.
Are you going to give him any credit for it ?

Now Bolt's figures and facts may not always be spot on but on the other hand he also exposes myths out there. If it wasn't for people like him some of these myths would remain as fact in the minds of public perception.

The object of an opinion piece writer is not for everyone to agree with him or her. You do get that, don't you ?

 

[Chief]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...-front-page-news/story-e6frfhqo-1225836267886

Thought this was a very good article by Bolt today.

Any complaints from the latte lefties.
ptrg, Can we drag you away from your studies to comment ?

It looks like he's using a pretty common logical error here, drawing a dodgy conclusion on causality.

The gender of the editors who wouldn't publish are male, the gender of the editor who did publish is female, therefore females are rubbish. Do I have that right?

"Not believing in coincidences is part of a manly pose adopted by many who believe themselves savvy." - Jamie Whyte, Crimes Against Logic.

Bolt is not taking into account any other possible causal factors except gender. And his army of weirdos laps it up without question.

Does the new national curriculum have any units on logic?

 

[Last of the Roys]

I thought it was a very reasonable article for the most part. Although I don't necessarily agree that the gender of the editors is an issue.

I wonder if the the new national curriculum has units in 'anti-Bolt hysterics'?

 

[btdg]

I thought it was a very reasonable article for the most part. Although I don't necessarily agree that the gender of the editors is an issue.

I wonder if the the new national curriculum has units in 'anti-Bolt hysterics'?

If you don't see the issue in making a faulty leap in logic from 'the editor of the magazine that published it was a woman' to 'only a woman would publish it', then perhaps it should be in the national curriculum. We could call the course "Thinking for yourself: How to see through logical fallacies, misuse of statistics, and hyperbole over pinkos, muslims, criminals, and anyone who is a commercial opponent of Andrew Bolt and thus in his sights this week"

Its not the contention that is the problem, its the way he supports it.

 

[medusala]

If you don't see the issue in making a faulty leap in logic from 'the editor of the magazine that published it was a woman' to 'only a woman would publish it', then perhaps it should be in the national curriculum. We could call the course "Thinking for yourself: How to see through logical fallacies, misuse of statistics, and hyperbole over pinkos, muslims, criminals, and anyone who is a commercial opponent of Andrew Bolt and thus in his sights this week"

Its not the contention that is the problem, its the way he supports it.

Feel free to point out his misuse of stats, you must have plenty of examples.

re commercial opponents it is not exactly hard to find fault with Fairfax ex AFR and the ABC.

The ABC tries to hand it back re Media Watch. Why shouldnt he (and they) try to belt the opposition?

 

[Daytripper]

If you don't see the issue in making a faulty leap in logic from 'the editor of the magazine that published it was a woman' to 'only a woman would publish it', then perhaps it should be in the national curriculum. We could call the course "Thinking for yourself: How to see through logical fallacies, misuse of statistics, and hyperbole over pinkos, muslims, criminals, and anyone who is a commercial opponent of Andrew Bolt and thus in his sights this week"

Its not the contention that is the problem, its the way he supports it.

Well I certainly didn't read it that way. But maybe I'm not as simple as others to think that Bolt means that if the AFR or The New Scientist or Gardeners Monthly had a female editor then she would publish the photo in that particular publication.

He was of course referring to the type of magazine. Womans Day is a magazine aimed at women (hence the title ). It is primarily written by women for women.

Surely it wasn't that hard to understand what he meant.

 

[btdg]

Feel free to point out his misuse of stats, you must have plenty of examples.

re commercial opponents it is not exactly hard to find fault with Fairfax ex AFR and the ABC.

The ABC tries to hand it back re Media Watch. Why shouldnt he (and they) try to belt the opposition?

For misuse of stats (off the top of my head):

- consistently posting on his blog a graph of global temperatures that uses a 12-month moving average, then shifting to a 25-month moving average on the same graph after temperatures jumped (thus smoothing out the jump) without explaining why this had been done
- Posting another graph on his blog that used a 5-th order polynomial fit to graph global temperature (all 5th order polynomials end with a very steep decline, just as all 6th order polynomials end with a steep incline, hence why higher order polynomial fits are not very useful in mapping trends).

As for commercial opponents, I don't see a problem in his criticising Fairfax or other major newspaper outlets providing it is done in the spirit of commentary, and not for his own personal gain. But recently there have been a couple of things he have written that have been blatantly dishonest, and attacked his personal rivals. For example, writing on his blog that David Koch (who appears on a morning show rival to the show Bolt appears on) is a socialist, leading to a 'bolting' of Koch - vitriol in comments, angry emails etc. He is a champion of the smear too - smearing indigenous australians for being too white, throwing around labels like 'communist', 'pinko' etc at will.

As far as I'm concerned, its fair game to criticise the arguments of a commercial opponent in a public media forum. Its fair game to criticise their methodology (as media Watch does). Just throwing labels around is not beneficial to anyone

 

[btdg]

Well I certainly didn't read it that way. But maybe I'm not as simple as others to think that Bolt means that if the AFR or The New Scientist or Gardeners Monthly had a female editor then she would publish the photo in that particular publication.

Surely it wasn't that hard to understand what he meant.

It took a woman to publish the Bingle shot, says Andrew Bolt

But it's not surprising that it took a woman to print a picture that the male editors of the Herald Sun and Sydney's Daily Telegraph sat on for more than six months, not wanting to be so mean

That is exactly what he meant.

 

[Daytripper]

That is exactly what he meant.

try reading the words "Its not surprising".

That is not a wholsesale declaration that a female editor would have published the picture regardless of the type of publication she works at.

He was having a dig at womens magazines and the audience it is aimed at.

 

[Daytripper]

For misuse of stats (off the top of my head):

- consistently posting on his blog a graph of global temperatures that uses a 12-month moving average, then shifting to a 25-month moving average on the same graph after temperatures jumped (thus smoothing out the jump) without explaining why this had been done
- Posting another graph on his blog that used a 5-th order polynomial fit to graph global temperature (all 5th order polynomials end with a very steep decline, just as all 6th order polynomials end with a steep incline, hence why higher order polynomial fits are not very useful in mapping trends).

As for commercial opponents, I don't see a problem in his criticising Fairfax or other major newspaper outlets providing it is done in the spirit of commentary, and not for his own personal gain. But recently there have been a couple of things he have written that have been blatantly dishonest, and attacked his personal rivals. For example, writing on his blog that David Koch (who appears on a morning show rival to the show Bolt appears on) is a socialist, leading to a 'bolting' of Koch - vitriol in comments, angry emails etc. He is a champion of the smear too - smearing indigenous australians for being too white, throwing around labels like 'communist', 'pinko' etc at will.

As far as I'm concerned, its fair game to criticise the arguments of a commercial opponent in a public media forum. Its fair game to criticise their methodology (as media Watch does). Just throwing labels around is not beneficial to anyone

Bolt gets labelled all the time. Thats seemingly okay though.

 

[btdg]

Bolt gets labelled all the time. Thats seemingly okay though.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

More importantly, the difference I see is in the way labels are used. Bolt gets labelled because of his actions; there is basis to most of the labels, albeit with a bit of hyperbole.
He, on the other hand, throws around loaded terms willy-nilly. Kevin Rudd is a 'socialist' or a 'pinko' (when he is anything but, regardless of what you think of his stature as a prime minister). David Koch is a socialist. These labels are deliberately designed to elicit a response from his readers who take his word as gospel.

 

[cancat]

These labels are deliberately designed to elicit a response from his readers who take his word as gospel.

Why do you assume that? Now you are putting your own labels on his readers.

 

[btdg]

Why do you assume that? Now you are putting your own labels on his readers.

I should clarify that - maybe 'followers' is a better word. I'm referring specifically to those people that read his work regularly and post comments on his blog, 99% of which are in support of his writing, almost no matter what the subject.

I suspect that there are very many regular readers of his who are more critical. I'm referring to those who would identify as Readers, if that makes sense. And there are plenty, as he has a bit of a cult following unlike most opinion columnist.

Also, labelling people who read his work as 'readers' (the label I applied) seems an accurate enough label. What is the issue with that? Its not even an emotive or perjorative term. Hardly comparable to calling someone a communist or a pinko

 

[Daytripper]

I should clarify that - maybe 'followers' is a better word. I'm referring specifically to those people that read his work regularly and post comments on his blog, 99% of which are in support of his writing, almost no matter what the subject.

I suspect that there are very many regular readers of his who are more critical. I'm referring to those who would identify as Readers, if that makes sense. And there are plenty, as he has a bit of a cult following unlike most opinion columnist.

Also, labelling people who read his work as 'readers' (the label I applied) seems an accurate enough label. What is the issue with that? Its not even an emotive or perjorative term. Hardly comparable to calling someone a communist or a pinko

Have you ever thought that his 'followers' may already have the same opinion but are unable to articulate it as well or as publicly as Bolt ?

You make it sound like all his readers/followers are blank canvases who magically have their mind made up for them by him. Is your opinion of the human race really that poor ?

Your assertion that 99% of comments on his blog are favourable is blatantly incorrect too.